Contemporaries' Doubts
William Hussar
interested in the plays of William Shakespeare (Happy Birthday Will!)
and have started to dabble into the infamous "Authorship Controversy".
To that end, I attended a full day conference sponsored by the
Smithsonian Residents Assistance program in Washington D.C. last
Saturday. It was a time of interesting and some times bombastic
comments and I believe that a good time was had by all no matter what
their opinion.
I did have some thoughts and questions coming out of the day and I
would like bring one of them up now.
Twice an opponent of Shakespeare's authorship said that there is
evidence of a contemporary of Shakespeare doubting his authorship of a
play. I think that the years that they gave were1595 and 1610 and one
of the plays was Titus Andronicus. I am pretty sure that it was the
moderator, Diane Price, who initially talked about this.
Any ideas of what they could have been talking about?
Thank you.
Bill H.
Art Neuendorffer
Clearly no one explicitly questioned Shakespeare authorship. On the other
hand, there is so much phoniness to every Shakspere reference that they all
could placed in the category of implicitly questioning Shakespeare
authorship.
Who did you find the most impressive speaker and what turned out to be
the best (or most heated) argument?
Art Neuendorffer
KQKnave
(William Hussar) writes:
>Twice an opponent of Shakespeare's authorship said that there is
>evidence of a contemporary of Shakespeare doubting his authorship of a
>play. I think that the years that they gave were1595 and 1610 and one
>of the plays was Titus Andronicus. I am pretty sure that it was the
>moderator, Diane Price, who initially talked about this.
>
>Any ideas of what they could have been talking about?
>
No. They made it up.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Diana Price
With respect to the first question, I said the following: "The first remark
raising a question about the authorship of a work by Shakespeare was made by
a contemporary named Thomas Edwards. In 1595, in three stanzas of a longer
poem, Edwards implied that the author of Venus and Adonis was an aristocrat.
And in 1879, several distinguished orthodox scholars, among them Edward
Dowden, Edward Arber, and F.J. Furnivall, attempted to identify that
aristocrat. Among the proposed candidates were Bacon and Oxford."
My citation for that is Thomas Edwards, "Cephalus and Procris. Narcissus."
1595. Ed. W. E. Buckley. London,1882.
With respect to the second, I said the following: "In 1687, came an
intriguing report "that [Titus Andronicus] was not Originally [by
Shakespeare], but brought by a 'private Author to be acted.'' This is one of
many posthumous legends, and it comes way too late to be considered
reliable, but some of us, including the very orthodox E.K. Chambers, have
supposed there might be a grain of truth in it, that is, that there WAS a
private author supplying plays to Shakespeare's acting company."
My citation for that is E. K. Chambers, "William Shakespeare: A Study of
Facts and Problems." 2 vols. 1930, (pp. 1:316-22.) Specifically, Chambers
says that if "one could be sure that the play was really new on 24 January
1594, I should be inclined to accept Ravenscroft's tradition much as it
stands, and to suppose that the author, whether 'private' in the Restoration
sense or not was some one unknown to us." Chambers goes on to review that
possibility and to question the newness of the play, a theory that he finds
has its own set of problems. He ends up apologizing for "being so
inconclusive, but the complicated data are themselves so" (1:320).
Incidentally, I was not the moderator for the event at the Smithsonian. That
role was filled by William Causey. I presented the opening keynote and
closing remarks.
Diana Price
KQKnave
<dpr...@nospam.delete.previous.nls.net> writes:
And you can't give them to us? Just three lines? I wonder why.
>
>With respect to the second, I said the following: "In 1687, came an
>intriguing report "that [Titus Andronicus] was not Originally [by
>Shakespeare], but brought by a 'private Author to be acted.'' This is one of
>many posthumous legends, and it comes way too late to be considered
>reliable, but some of us, including the very orthodox E.K. Chambers, have
>supposed there might be a grain of truth in it, that is, that there WAS a
>private author supplying plays to Shakespeare's acting company."
>
>My citation for that is E. K. Chambers, "William Shakespeare: A Study of
>Facts and Problems." 2 vols. 1930, (pp. 1:316-22.) Specifically, Chambers
>says that if "one could be sure that the play was really new on 24 January
>1594, I should be inclined to accept Ravenscroft's tradition much as it
>stands, and to suppose that the author, whether 'private' in the Restoration
>sense or not was some one unknown to us." Chambers goes on to review that
>possibility and to question the newness of the play, a theory that he finds
>has its own set of problems. He ends up apologizing for "being so
>inconclusive, but the complicated data are themselves so" (1:320).
Ravenscroft didn't like the play, calling it "a heap of rubbish", and rewrote
it.
He made that claim to justify his changes. In 1691, Gerard Langbaine disagreed
with Ravenscroft. In his intro, Ravenscroft claims that the original prologue
to his 1678 production (of which the 1687 version was the first printing) was
lost,
but Langbaine says:
"I will here furnish him with part of his prologue, which he has lost; and if
he
desire it, send him the whole:
To day the Poet does not fear your rage
Shakespeare by him reviv'd now treads the stage:
Under his sacred laurels he sits down
Safe from the blast of any critic's frown.
Like other poets, he'll not proudly scorn
To own, that he but winnowed Shakespeare's corn.
So far he was from robbing him of's Treasure
That he did add his own, to make full measure."
So in 1678, Ravenscroft did not believe the play was not Shakespeare's.
Bob Grumman
>>> evidence of a contemporary of Shakespeare doubting his authorship of a
>>> play. I think that the years that they gave were1595 and 1610 and one
>>> of the plays was Titus Andronicus. I am pretty sure that it was the
>>> moderator, Diane Price, who initially talked about this.
>>>
>>> Any ideas of what they could have been talking about?
>>
>>With respect to the first question, I said the following: "The first remark
>>raising a question about the authorship of a work by Shakespeare was made by
>>a contemporary named Thomas Edwards. In 1595, in three stanzas of a longer
>>poem, Edwards implied that the author of Venus and Adonis was an aristocrat.
>>And in 1879, several distinguished orthodox scholars, among them Edward
>>Dowden, Edward Arber, and F.J. Furnivall, attempted to identify that
>>aristocrat. Among the proposed candidates were Bacon and Oxford."
>>
>>My citation for that is Thomas Edwards, "Cephalus and Procris. Narcissus."
>>1595. Ed. W. E. Buckley. London,1882.
>
>And you can't give them to us? Just three lines? I wonder why.
Slow down, Jim: it was a whole three STANZAS.
The bottom line is that no contemporary or near-contemporary of Shakespeare's
ever questioned who wrote his oevre. Nor is any such person recorded, to our
knowledge, as ever having questioned whether any single play of Shakespeare's
was by him or not. One or two MAY have wondered who wrote such-and-such, or
thought such-and-such that we take to have been by Shakespeare was by someone
else--but not that their proposed author was using the name Shakespeare, or that
Shakespeare was said to be the author and was not. Instead, they simply did not
know, or perhaps remember, who wrote the play and therefore asked or guessed
about it, it.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>> "The first remark
>>>raising a question about the authorship of a work by Shakespeare was made
by
>>>a contemporary named Thomas Edwards. In 1595, in three stanzas of a
longer
>>>poem, Edwards implied that the author of Venus and Adonis was an
aristocrat.
>>>And in 1879, several distinguished orthodox scholars, among them Edward
>>>Dowden, Edward Arber, and F.J. Furnivall, attempted to identify that
>>>aristocrat. Among the proposed candidates were Bacon and Oxford."
>>>
>>>My citation for that is Thomas Edwards, "Cephalus and Procris.
Narcissus."
>>> 1595. Ed. W. E. Buckley. London,1882.
KQKnave wrote:
> >And you can't give them to us? Just three lines? I wonder why.
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote
> Slow down, Jim: it was a whole three STANZAS.
Bottom line to Diana: Jim CAN'T STANZA.
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote
> The bottom line is that no contemporary or near-contemporary
> of Shakespeare's ever questioned who wrote his oevre.
His O-EVRE?
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote
> Nor is any such person recorded, to our
> knowledge, as ever having questioned whether any single play of
Shakespeare's
> was by him or not. One or two MAY have wondered who wrote such-and-such,
or
> thought such-and-such that we take to have been by Shakespeare was by
someone
> else--but not that their proposed author was using the name Shakespeare,
or that
> Shakespeare was said to be the author and was not. Instead, they simply
did not
> know, or perhaps remember, who wrote the play and therefore asked or
guessed
> about it, it.
No one seems to have remembered the man Shakespeare at all.
Yesterday as I was going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish to hell he'd go away!
Art Neuendorffer
Diana Price
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:b88cg...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >And you can't give them to us? Just three lines? I wonder why.
>
> Slow down, Jim: it was a whole three STANZAS.
>
> The bottom line is that no contemporary or near-contemporary of
Shakespeare's
> ever questioned who wrote his oevre. Nor is any such person recorded, to
our
> knowledge, as ever having questioned whether any single play of
Shakespeare's
> was by him or not. One or two MAY have wondered who wrote such-and-such,
or
> thought such-and-such that we take to have been by Shakespeare was by
someone
> else--but not that their proposed author was using the name Shakespeare,
or that
> Shakespeare was said to be the author and was not. Instead, they simply
did not
> know, or perhaps remember, who wrote the play and therefore asked or
guessed
> about it, it.
The following, containing the three stanzas in question, is quoted from my
"Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem"
(pp. 224-25):
An early indication of a question concerning Shakespeare's authorship
appeared in 1595, when Thomas Edwards published "Cephalus and Procris.
Narcissus," two poems each followed by an envoy. In "L'Envoy" to
"Narcissus," Edwards praised several Elizabethan poets, introducing each one
with an allegorical nickname (e.g., Collyn for Spenser) or reference to a
work for which they were known (e.g., Rosamund for Samuel Daniel). "Adon"
signifies Shakespeare:
Adon deafly [deftly] masking through
Stately tropes rich conceited,
Shewed he well deserved to,
Loves delight on him to gaze,
And had not love her self entreated,
Other nymphs had sent him bays.
Eke in purple robes distained,
Amidst the Center of this clime,
I have heard say doth remain,
One whose power floweth far,
That should have been of our rhyme
The only object and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses objects to us,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Friaries,
Yet his golden art might woo us,
To have honored him with bays.
In the second stanza, with the reference to privileged "purple robes,"
Edwards became the first to imply that the poet of "Venus and Adonis" was an
aristocrat. Nineteenth-century scholars were puzzled, but they variously
identified the purple-robed poet as Lord Buckhurst, the Earl of Oxford, the
Earl of Essex, or by virtue of his legal profession, Francis Bacon. They
also had understandable difficulty reconciling the author of "Venus and
Adonis" in the first stanza with a purple-robed aristocrat in the second. In
his 1882 edition of "Cephalus" for the Roxburghe Club, Rev. W. E. Buckley
solved the problem by considering the second two stanzas as separate from
the first, even though the second failed to introduce a new poet. At least
one of Buckley's scholarly correspondents thought all three stanzas
described Shakespeare (333-45). The editor of "The Shakspere Allusion-Book,"
however, followed Buckley and severed the second two stanzas from the first,
expressing similar mystification. [snip]
Buckley cites Dr. B. Nicholson's correspondence with Furnivall. The second
and third stanzas above do not introduce a new poet/nickname, which is one
reason Nicholson proposed that all three stanzas refer to
"Adon"/Shakespeare.
Diana Price
Reticulum
>Adon deafly [deftly] masking through
>Stately tropes rich conceited,
>Shewed he well deserved to,
>Loves delight on him to gaze,
>And had not love her self entreated,
>Other nymphs had sent him bays.
[ Our Gentle Will was so skilled in his contributions
that he proved he deserved all the praise he recieved;
So much so that had not Love herself delighted in him,
Then every pretty maiden would've been after him. ]
>Eke in purple robes distained,
>Amidst the Center of this clime,
>I have heard say doth remain,
>One whose power floweth far,
>That should have been of our rhyme
>The only object and the star.
[ Though we were all arobed " in the purple" of nobility,
In our Center was Gentle Will who was not noble;
Yet he was ever our Center, our Peer, our Greatest Fellow ]
>Well could his bewitching pen,
>Done the Muses objects to us,
>Although he differs much from men,
>Tilting under Friaries,
>Yet his golden art might woo us,
>To have honored him with bays.
[ So good was Will's Arte that he could call
down the beauty of the very Muses themselves.
Though most men must bear up under the
Toils and Institutions of this World,
His Arte was golden beyond other mens;
such that all do search him out and honor him. ]
Though you must see the limits of my poor talent,
still I see little that would contradict that the author
was honoring Gentle Will -- and no other.
Respectfully,
Andrew ( From Fairfax)
PS - I saw the notice of that lecture. It is my sincere regret
I had to work. I hope you enjoyed it.
Reticulum
Remove "your.hat" when replying via e-mail
Terry Ross
> >>> Twice an opponent of Shakespeare's authorship said that there is
> >>> evidence of a contemporary of Shakespeare doubting his authorship of a
> >>> play. I think that the years that they gave were1595 and 1610 and one
> >>> of the plays was Titus Andronicus. I am pretty sure that it was the
> >>> moderator, Diane Price, who initially talked about this.
> >>>
> >>> Any ideas of what they could have been talking about?
> >>
> >>With respect to the first question, I said the following: "The first remark
> >>raising a question about the authorship of a work by Shakespeare was made by
> >>a contemporary named Thomas Edwards. In 1595, in three stanzas of a longer
> >>poem, Edwards implied that the author of Venus and Adonis was an aristocrat.
> >>And in 1879, several distinguished orthodox scholars, among them Edward
> >>Dowden, Edward Arber, and F.J. Furnivall, attempted to identify that
> >>aristocrat. Among the proposed candidates were Bacon and Oxford."
> >>
> >>My citation for that is Thomas Edwards, "Cephalus and Procris. Narcissus."
> >>1595. Ed. W. E. Buckley. London,1882.
> >
> >And you can't give them to us? Just three lines? I wonder why.
>
> Slow down, Jim: it was a whole three STANZAS.
Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
Adon deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserued to,
Loues delight on him to gaze,
And had not loue her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
Here are the next two stanzas:
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
Can somebody tell me why we must identify the "One" who remains in the
"Center of this clime" with "Adon"? The Adon stanza seems complete in
itself; the following stanza seems to be about somebody else entirely.
It's even conceivable that the one who "differes much from men" is not the
same as the "One"; on the other hand, there have been readers who would
include the next stanza as being part of the description of the same
post-Adon character:
He that gan vp to tilt,
Babels fresh remembrance,
Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
And a world of stories made,
In a catalogues semblance
Hath alike the Muses staide.
"Eke" here does not mean "Adon is ALSO someone who remains in the center
of this clime" but rather that the "One" is another item on Edwards's list
of characters (you've heard about "Collyn," "Rosamond," "Amyntas and
Leander," and "Adon"; now let me tell you about somebody else).
Here is the entire Envoy to Thomas Edwards's *Narcissus*.
L'ENVOY.
Scarring beautie all bewitching,
Tell a tale to hurt it selfe,
Tels a tale how men are fleeting,
All of Loue and his power,
Tels how womens shewes are pelfe,
And their constancies as flowers.
Aie me pretie wanton boy,
What a sire did hatch thee forth,
To shew thee of the worlds annoy,
Ere thou kenn'st anie pleasure:
Such a fauour's nothing worth,
To touch not to taste the treasure.
Poets that diuinely dreampt,
Telling wonders visedly,
My slow Muse haue quite benempt,
And my rude skonce haue aslackt,
So I cannot cunningly,
Make an image to awake.
Ne the frostie lims of age,
Vncouth shape (mickle wonder)
To tread with them in equipage,
As quaint light blearing eies,
Come my pen broken vnder,
Magick-spels such deuize.
Collyn was a mighty swaine,
In his power all do flourish,
We are shepheards but in vaine,
There is but one tooke the charge,
By his toile we do nourish,
And by him are inlarg'd.
He vnlockt Albions glorie,
He twas tolde of Sidneys honor,
Onely he of our stories,
Must be sung in greatest pride,
In an Eglogue he hath wonne her,
Fame and honor on his side.
Deale we not with Rosamond,
For the world our sawe will coate,
Amintas and Leander's gone,
Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
Blessed be your nimble throats,
That so amorously could sing.
Adon deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserued to,
Loues delight on him to gaze,
And had not loue her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
He that gan vp to tilt,
Babels fresh remembrance,
Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
And a world of stories made,
In a catalogues semblance
Hath alike the Muses staide.
What remaines peerelesse men,
That in Albions confines are,
But eterniz'd with the pen,
In sacred Poems and sweet laies,
Should be sent to Nations farre,
The greatnes of faire Albions praise.
Let them be audacious proude,
Whose deuises are of currant,
Euerie stampe is not allow'd,
Yet the coine may proue as good,
Yourselues know your lines haue warrant,
I will talke of Robin Hood.
And when all is done and past,
Narcissus in another sort,
And gaier clothes shall be pla'st,
Eke perhaps in good plight,
In meane while I'le make report,
Of your winnings that do write.
Hence a golden tale might grow,
Of due honor and the praise,
That longs to Poets, but the show
were not worth the while to spend,
Sufficeth that they merit baies,
Saie what I can it must haue end,
Then thus faire Albion flourish so,
As Thames may nourish as did Po.
FINIS.
Tho: Edwards.
Purple is a royal color, but also a color of blood (a robe that is
bloodstained is more likely to be described as "in purple ... distained"
than a robe that has been dyed purple for a king to wear). It sounds to
me as if this "One" is somebody of great promise who died a violent death
before 1595, the date of *Narcissus*.
We might want to be careful about identifying Edwards's characters too
closely with their authors. If Amyntas is Watson and Leander is Marlowe,
does that mean both Watson and Marlowe were royal ("deere sonnes of
stately kings")?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
> Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
>
> Adon deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,
> Shew'd he well deserued to,
> Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>
> Here are the next two stanzas:
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power FLOWETH far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and THE STAR.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson's _Timber; or, Disco(VER)i(E)s
as They Have FLOWED Out of His Daily Reading_
<< [Shakespeare] was honest, and of an open & free nature
had an excellent Phantsie ; brave notions & gentle expressions
wherein hee *FLOW'D* with that facility,
that sometime it was necessary he should be *STOP'd* :>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
F T H E S E [I] n s U I N G S O N N E T
S M *r* W h a [L] L h a] P P I [N] E S S E A
N D *t* h a t [E] T [E|r] N I T [I] E P R O M
I S *E* D B Y O U [R|e] V E R [L] I V I N G
P O *E* t W i s h [E|t] H T H [E] W E L L W
I S *h* I N G A [d V e] N T U R E R I N S
E t *T* I N G
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<[SOCRATES to Hermogenes]: *ARETE* signifying in the 1st place
ease of motion, then that the STREAM of the good soul is UNIMPEDED,
and has therefore the attribute of *EVER FLOWING* without
let or hindrance, and is therefore called *ARETE*, or,
more correctly, aeireite (EVER-FLOWING)>> - CRATYLUS by Plato
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<In Greek mythology, TALOS was a man of BRASS,
the work of Hephaestos (Vulcan), who went round
the island of CRETE thrice a day. Whenever he saw
a stranger draw near the island he either threw boulders
at them or he made himself red-hot, and embraced the stranger.
When Jason & the Argonauts escaped to CRETE with the Golden Fleece
Medea was able to remove the plug on TALOS' ankle such that
the ICHOR, his life force, FLOWED out of him.>>
[T]o life againe, to heare thy Buskin tread,
[A]nd shake a stage : Or, when thy sockes were on,
[L]eave thee alone, for the comparison
[O]f all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome
[S]ent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
- Ben JONSON (1623)
---------------------------------------------------------
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
golden art neuendorffer
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
No, the second stanza doesn't introduce a new poet with a nickname, but as
the word 'eke' means 'also', it surely introduces a change in subject.
The new poet appears to be someone Edwards had only heard of.
(And in consequence, would not have known what nickname to give him.)
> At least
> one of Buckley's scholarly correspondents thought all three stanzas
> described Shakespeare (333-45). The editor of "The Shakspere Allusion-Book,"
> however, followed Buckley and severed the second two stanzas from the first,
> expressing similar mystification. [snip]
>
> Buckley cites Dr. B. Nicholson's correspondence with Furnivall. The second
> and third stanzas above do not introduce a new poet/nickname, which is one
> reason Nicholson proposed that all three stanzas refer to
> "Adon"/Shakespeare.
>
> Diana Price
Rob
William Hussar
I found Alan Nelson to be the most knowledgeable speaker about
Shakespeare, Oxford, and their times. Even the Oxfoordian, W. Ron
Hess thanked him for his work. However, Nelson had the habit of
saying that he was "absolute" sure about that and Joseph Sobran had
alot of fun with him about that.
Bill H.
KQKnave
<dpr...@nospam.delete.previous.nls.net> writes:
>Adon deafly [deftly] masking through
>Stately tropes rich conceited,
>Shewed he well deserved to,
>Loves delight on him to gaze,
>And had not love her self entreated,
>Other nymphs had sent him bays.
>
>Eke in purple robes distained,
>Amidst the Center of this clime,
>I have heard say doth remain,
>One whose power floweth far,
>That should have been of our rhyme
>The only object and the star.
>
>Well could his bewitching pen,
>Done the Muses objects to us,
>Although he differs much from men,
>Tilting under Friaries,
>Yet his golden art might woo us,
>To have honored him with bays.
>
Now we see why it wasn't quoted originally. Equating this
with Shakespeare and Titus Andronicus is absurd.
Diana Price
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comcrashed> wrote in message
news:20030424140101...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> In article <r3Rpa.66806$c42....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>, "Diana Price"
> <dpr...@nospam.delete.previous.nls.net> writes:
>
> >Adon deafly [deftly] masking through
> >Stately tropes rich conceited,
> >Shewed he well deserved to,
> >Loves delight on him to gaze,
> >And had not love her self entreated,
> >Other nymphs had sent him bays.
> >
> >Eke in purple robes distained,
> >Amidst the Center of this clime,
> >I have heard say doth remain,
> >One whose power floweth far,
> >That should have been of our rhyme
> >The only object and the star.
> >
> >Well could his bewitching pen,
> >Done the Muses objects to us,
> >Although he differs much from men,
> >Tilting under Friaries,
> >Yet his golden art might woo us,
> >To have honored him with bays.
> >
>
> Now we see why it wasn't quoted originally. Equating this
> with Shakespeare and Titus Andronicus is absurd.
The gentleman asked questions about (1) Thomas Edwards and (2)
Ravenscroft/Titus, and I have responded accordingly. I did not equate the
one with the other.
Diana Price
Diana Price
<Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.44.030424...@pcr8.pcr.com...
>
were puzzled, but they variously
> > identified the purple-robed poet as Lord Buckhurst, the Earl of Oxford,
the
> > Earl of Essex, or by virtue of his legal profession, Francis Bacon. They
> > also had understandable difficulty reconciling the author of "Venus and
> > Adonis" in the first stanza with a purple-robed aristocrat in the
second. In
> > his 1882 edition of "Cephalus" for the Roxburghe Club, Rev. W. E.
Buckley
> > solved the problem by considering the second two stanzas as separate
from
> > the first, even though the second failed to introduce a new poet.
>
> No, the second stanza doesn't introduce a new poet with a nickname, but as
> the word 'eke' means 'also', it surely introduces a change in subject.
> The new poet appears to be someone Edwards had only heard of.
> (And in consequence, would not have known what nickname to give him.)
Buckley and his correspondents struggled with these stanzas and expressed no
certainty concerning their various interpretations and guesses. Nicholson's
reasons for concluding that all three stanzas refer to Shakespeare appear on
pp. 345 of Buckley's edition as follows:
1. No one else wrote any thing of note about Adonis till [Shakespeare] did.
His poem was published in 1593.
2. The poem is distinctly dealing with living English Poets, both before and
after these stanzas.
3. He is living in London, 'the center of this clime.'
4. To me he alludes to his station as a player and dramatic author by (a) by
allusion to his social state thereby lowered, 'Eke in purple roabes
distained,' and same stanza, l.5 'Should have been of our rime The only
object and the star.' (b) 'Although he differs much from men,' i.e., from
men of repute, honourable men like Spenser, &c., (c) For I am inclined to
read 'men' [no comma]; not 'men,' Tilting under Frieries, 'Yet his golden
art might woo us, To have honored him with baies.' I can give no sense to
'Frieries,' unless he mean Black-friars (Theatre), and this interpretation
is supported by 'Yet might have honored.'
Nicholson is in disagreement with Buckley and others, who speculate that the
purple robes "may be the robes of the Knight of the Garter," and that the
poet must have been "of noble birth." Buckley adds that if the purple robes
"may mean a Nobleman's robes, it gives some color to the conjecture of
Professor Dowden, that Vere, Earl of Oxford, may have been intended," while
Arber supposed that "evidently the person intended is such a noblemen [as
Lord Henry Howard], who did not print." Similarly, Furnivall writes: "To me
the verses point to a man of high rank or high birth, who was an orator or
writer." He guesses at Essex and Raleigh.
These stanzas puzzled these scholars, and Buckley left off his discussion
with yet another guess - Fulke Greville. Considering the foregoing, it is
perhaps no surprise that, Nicholson's proposal notwithstanding, the easiest
approach for Buckley and the editor of the Shakspere Allusion Book was to
sever the second two stanzas from the first, overlook the missing nickname,
and leave the identification of the purple-robed poet up in the air.
Diana Price
Art Neuendorffer
> > Who did you find the most impressive speaker and what turned
> > out to be the best (or most heated) argument?
"William Hussar" <wmc...@msn.com> wrote
> I found Alan Nelson to be the most knowledgeable speaker about
> Shakespeare, Oxford, and their times. Even the Oxfordian, W. Ron
> Hess thanked him for his work. However, Nelson had the habit of
> saying that he was "absolute" sure about that and Joseph Sobran
> had alot of fun with him about that.
Many Oxfordians have a rather high opinion of Alan Nelson and feel that if
only they can bring him over to their side they will have achieved the
proverbial "tipping point." Little do they know that Nelson is merely doing
what he has been assigned to do.
Art Neuendorffer
Pat Dooley
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.0304241053540.2637@mail...
<snip>
Vanilla text does not show face. The poets' names and
other proper nouns are italicized in the original. I have
indicated this by placing asterisks around the italicized words.
> *Collyn* was a mighty swaine,
> In his power all do flourish,
> We are shepheards but in vaine,
> There is but one tooke the charge,
> By his toile we do nourish,
> And by him are inlarg'd.
>
> He vnlockt *Albions* glorie,
> He twas tolde of *Sidneys* honor,
> Onely he of our stories,
> Must be sung in greatest pride,
> In an Eglogue he hath wonne her,
> Fame and honor on his side.
>
> *Deale* we not with *Rosamond*,
> For the world our sawe will coate,
> *Amintas* and *Leander's* gone,
> Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> Blessed be your nimble throats,
> That so amorously could sing.
>
> *Adon* deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,
> Shew'd he well deserued to,
> Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
>
> He that gan vp to tilt,
> *Babels* fresh remembrance,
> Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
> And a world of stories made,
> In a catalogues semblance
> Hath alike the Muses staide.
>
> What remaines peerelesse men,
> That in *Albions* confines are,
> But eterniz'd with the pen,
> In sacred Poems and sweet laies,
> Should be sent to Nations farre,
> The greatnes of faire *Albions* praise.
>
> Let them be audacious proude,
> Whose deuises are of currant,
> Euerie stampe is not allow'd,
> Yet the coine may proue as good,
> Yourselues know your lines haue warrant,
> I will talke of *Robin Hood*.
>
> And when all is done and past,
> *Narcissus* in another sort,
> And gaier clothes shall be pla'st,
> Eke perhaps in good plight,
> In meane while I'le make report,
> Of your winnings that do write.
>
> Hence a golden tale might grow,
> Of due honor and the praise,
> That longs to Poets, but the show
> were not worth the while to spend,
> Sufficeth that they merit baies,
> Saie what I can it must haue end,
> Then thus faire *Albion* flourish so,
> As *Thames* may nourish as did *Po*.
>
> FINIS.
>
> Tho: Edwards.
>
> Purple is a royal color, but also a color of blood (a robe that is
> bloodstained is more likely to be described as "in purple ...
distained"
> than a robe that has been dyed purple for a king to wear). It
sounds to
> me as if this "One" is somebody of great promise who died a violent
death
> before 1595, the date of *Narcissus*.
The purple robe stanza talks about the subject as one still living.
There is no sense of "gone" or death in the rest of that stanza.
>
> We might want to be careful about identifying Edwards's characters
too
> closely with their authors. If Amyntas is Watson and Leander is
Marlowe,
> does that mean both Watson and Marlowe were royal ("deere sonnes of
> stately kings")?
Buckley glosses that line as "True and worthy descendants of former
great poets." He notes that "King is often used for one pre-eminent"
and cites TGV, iv.i.37.
Watson was often referred to as *Amyntas* by other writers. Marlowe
was noted for *Hero and Leander*. Both poets were "gone" (dead) by
1595.
The Shakespeare Allusion Book says that "Edwards speaks
of the poets under the names of their best known works at that day".
These names are italicized. Spenser gets two complete stanzas
before Edwards switches to Samuel Daniel ("Rosamond"). Adon
gets three complete stanzas before Edwards switches to Joshua
Sylvester ("Babel"). The notion that "Adon" gets three stanzas is
reinforced by the word "eke" which has the sense of "moreover"
or "in addition", and connects the second stanza to the first
*Adon* stanza.
(OED entry:
eke (___), adv. arch. Forms: 12 éac, (1 ęc, éc), 34 ec, ek, 3 ęac, ok,
46 eek(e, (4 heke, yke), 67 eake, Sc. 6 eik(e, 8 eek, 3 eke.
[Com. Teut.:-OE. éac = OFris. āk, OS. ōk (Du. ook), OHG. ouh (MHG.
ouch,
mod.G. auch), ON. auk 'also' (Da. og. Sw. och 'and'), Goth. auk for,
but.The ultimate origin is uncertain; some connect the word with
the root of eke v., while others consider it f. Aryan *au again
+ *ge particle of emphasis;
cf. Gr. _____. The form ok in 13th c. is app. a. ON.]
Also, too, moreover; in addition.
Beowulf 3131 (Gr.) Dracan ec scufun Wyrm ofer weall clif.
a700 Epinal Gloss. 846 Quinetiam, ęc Žan..ęc don.
c1000 Ags. Gosp. Matt. xi. 9 Ic eow sec_e, eac maran Žonne wite_an.
1154 O.E. Chron. an. 1118 Eac on Žison _eare węs un_emetliche mycel
wind.
c1175 Lamb. Hom. 3 Mid his apostles and ec mid ošere floc manna.
c1175 Cott. Hom. 221 Swa mihte ęac Že ošre.
a1225 Ancr. R. 56 Vor Žęt ec Žęt he dude hire was iše frumše sore hire
unšonckes.
a1300 Havelok 200 že beste, fayreste, the strangest ok.
c1325 E.E. Allit. P. A. 210 Her here heke al hyr vmbe-gon.
1362 Langl. P. Pl. A. i. 88 And eke I-liknet to vr lord.
c1386 Chaucer Prol. 757 Eke therto he was right a mery man.
a1420 Hoccleve De Reg. Princ. 565 The ende is dethe of male and eke
femele.
150020 Dunbar How Dunbar ane Freir 38 In it haif I in pulpet gon and
preichit In Derntoun kirk, and eik in Canterberry.
1580 Sidney Arcadia ii. 219 These forrests eke, made wretched by our
music.
1616 R. C. Times' Whis. v. 1658 But eke doth comprehend That base
vnmanly sinne of drunkennesse.)
Pat Dooley
Bob Grumman
>Shakespeare's
>> ever questioned who wrote his oevre. Nor is any such person recorded, to
>our
>> knowledge, as ever having questioned whether any single play of
>Shakespeare's
>> was by him or not. One or two MAY have wondered who wrote such-and-such,
>or
>> thought such-and-such that we take to have been by Shakespeare was by
>someone
>> else--but not that their proposed author was using the name Shakespeare,
>or that
>> Shakespeare was said to be the author and was not. Instead, they simply
>did not
>> know, or perhaps remember, who wrote the play and therefore asked or
>guessed
All of which has nothing to do with what I said. The above does not question
who wrote Shakespeare's oevre. I won't go into what it most likely does do, for
the others who have responded to our Smithsonian Shakespeare-rejecter's words
have undoubtedly by now taken care of it.
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
[...]
>
> Purple is a royal color, but also a color of blood (a robe that is
> bloodstained is more likely to be described as "in purple ... distained"
> than a robe that has been dyed purple for a king to wear).
Oxford wasn't "born to the purple." Earls were "princes" but
not "royal princes." The Victorian scholars Price cites may
have thought that Edwards used the term colloquially but I doubt
any Elizabethan, with that era's acute sensitivity to rank,
would have used the term "royal" in reference to Oxford. It
might have been dangerously provocative, for that matter.
Price stated:
> In the second stanza, with the reference to privileged
> "purple robes," Edwards became the first to imply that
> the poet of "Venus and Adonis" was an aristocrat.
Price is trying to make a case for Oxford but it won't stick.
Dowden, at least, certainly read the impeccable Spedding's
account of the two occasions upon which Francis Bacon wore
the "royal purple." [Price doesn't state whether Dowden
favored Bacon or Oxford but Dowden did favorably compare
Bacon to Shakespeare on at least once].
The first occasion Bacon wore the royal purple was in a
procession to White Hall when Bacon assumed the role of
Regent in James I's absence when holding Court in Scotland
for something short of a year. The second occasion Bacon
wore purple was at his wedding to "the handsome wench."
[I'll try to post Bacon's letter to his mother-in-law--
it is the mother of all mother-in-law letters].
Apparently wearing the royal purple was a punishable breach
of protocol but James said nothing, possibly because his claim
to the royal purple was in some aspects more tenuous than Bacon's.
> It sounds to
> me as if this "One" is somebody of great promise who died a violent death
> before 1595, the date of *Narcissus*.
Are you turning Marlovian?
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
It says "prodigious [obs. for eke] in purple robes,
distained amidst the Center of this clime." Whoever
is wearing the royal robes is distained amid the
Tudor Court, the center of England.
That might fit Oxford since he was ostracized
after his performance or lack there of during the
Anglo-Spanish War but the word "amid'st" tends to
eliminate Oxford since he was stuck "amidst" Hackney
from 1588 until his death.
So the line only fits Francis Bacon since he was
"amidst" the Court and yet "unpraised."
Edward's "distained" also applies since Bacon was
physically at Court but in "disgrace" because he
had, a year or so earlier, displeased Elizabeth in the
extreme by standing in Parliament to orate against her
ruthless taxation on behalf, as he put it, "the people."
And worse in terms of his fortunes, young Francis Bacon
won the day.
> We might want to be careful about identifying Edwards's characters too
> closely with their authors. If Amyntas is Watson and Leander is Marlowe,
> does that mean both Watson and Marlowe were royal ("deere sonnes of
> stately kings")?
Edwards was just doing in 1595 what Hall and Marston would
do in 1598 and that is to identify Francis Bacon as the author of
the V & A, the Faerie Queene and Tamerlaine. Every World's
Greatest Genius has to go through an apprenticeship, Ross.
Peter Farey
Pat Dooley wrote:
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
> >
<snip>
Thence rise the tears that so distain my cheeks,
(*Tamburlaine the Great, part one* 3.2.64)
> > It sounds to me as if this "One" is somebody of great
> > promise who died a violent death before 1595, the date
> > of *Narcissus*.
Crumbs!
> The purple robe stanza talks about the subject as one still
> living. There is no sense of "gone" or death in the rest of
> that stanza.
That's right.
<snip>
> Watson was often referred to as *Amyntas* by other writers.
> Marlowe was noted for *Hero and Leander*. Both poets were
> "gone" (dead) by 1595.
I don't know. It's a mystery!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > who died a violent death before 1595, the date of *Narcissus*.
>
> Are you turning Marlovian?
No, Terry must have heard that it's my birthday today.
I made it to OAP!
I was aware of the Edwards poem (and even quote it in my essay
*Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End*) but it never occurred to me
what 'purple' and 'distained' might have meant in this context.
I gave the Zenocrate quote (which I should have remembered) in
my earlier post:
Thence rise the tears that so distain my cheeks,
(*Tamburlaine the Great, part one* 3.2.64)
There are also Bajazeth's words illustrating Terry's point:
Staining his altars with your purple blood
(*Tamburlaine the Great, part one* 4.2.4)
Thanks Terry. Made my day!
Art Neuendorffer
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
-----------------------------------------
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> > > It sounds to me as if this "One" is somebody of great promise
> > > who died a violent death before 1595, the date of *Narcissus*.
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > Are you turning Marlovian?
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> No, Terry must have heard that it's my birthday today.
> I made it to OAP!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25 St. Mark's Day. Thought to be the oldest of 4 Gospels.
http://www.ntin.net/McDaniel/0425.htm
http://www.likesbooks.com/victoria.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25, 1214, Louis IX of France (1226-70) born.
April 25, 1284, Edward II of England (1307-27) born.
April 25, 1530, 1st official summary of the Lutheran faith:
read publicly at the Diet of Worms.
April 25, 1599, Oliver Cromwell born.
April 25, 1616, Shakspeare buried.
April 25, 1707, Gulliver observes SUNRISE MERCURY TRANSIT
at Fort St. George, India.
April 25, 1776, Gauss' parents marry.
April 25, 1792, Guillotine was used for the 1st time
- on Nicholas Pelletier, a highwayman.
April 25, 1792, John Keble born. Founder of the Oxford Movement in 1833.
April 25, 1800, William Cowper, English poet, dies.
His dementia made him believed he was damned.
April 25, 1816, Lord Byron left England. He was heavily in debt, & his
personal life was the scandal of the day (his wife had separated from
him and had tried to have him declared insane, and London gossip mills
were working overtime with stories of his incestuous relationship with
Augusta Leigh. A contemporary newspaper cartoon shows Byron in a boat
with his arms around two loose women and his hands holding booze
bottles, bidding good-bye to England.
April 25, 1843, Princess Alice, the 2nd daughter of Queen Victoria,
born. She was married to the heir to the Grand Duchy of Hesse,
Louis, and had five children that grew to adulthood.
The princesses of Hesse, Victoria, Elizabeth & Irene, were renowned
for their beauty & called "the Three Graces". A much younger fourth
sister was the future doomed Empress Alexandra of Russia.
Victoria, the oldest sister, was grandmother to Prince Philip.
A tireless social reformer & follower of Florence Nightingale
Alice was the first of Queen Victoria's children to die.
April 25, 1846, American soldiers skirmish with Mexican troops
north of the Río Grande near Brownsville,
will lead to a declaration of war against Mexico.
April 25, 1856, Charles Luttwedge Dodgson meets Alice Liddell.
April 25, 1859, Suez Canal begun.
April 25, 1874, Guglielmo Marconi born in Bologna, Italy.
April 25, 1885, The Trollope-Plorn Trial
April 25, 1898, Congress declares war on Spain
On same day William SIDNEY PORTER enters a Federal prison for
embezzlement as a bank teller in Austin, Texas. Dr. Gerald Langford
believes PORTER took the rap for his father-in-law, an officer of the
bank. PORTER was arrested and was being transported back to Austin
when he jumped the west-bound train in Columbus, Texas, and caught an
east-bound one. From Houston he fled to Honduras. He later came home
when his wife became ill. In prison he worked in the prison pharmacy
and began writing under the pen-name *O. HENRY*.
April 25, 1938, Peter Farey born
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
golden art neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> > > Who did you find the most impressive speaker and what turned
> > > out to be the best (or most heated) argument?
> "William Hussar" <wmc...@msn.com> wrote
>
> > I found Alan Nelson to be the most knowledgeable speaker about
> > Shakespeare, Oxford, and their times. Even the Oxfordian, W. Ron
> > Hess thanked him for his work. However, Nelson had the habit of
> > saying that he was "absolute" sure about that and Joseph Sobran
> > had alot of fun with him about that.
> Many Oxfordians have a rather high opinion of Alan Nelson
As well they should -- Nelson is actually a scholar.
> and feel that if
> only they can bring him over to their side
If only frogs had wings, they could fly.
> they will have achieved the
> proverbial "tipping point."
Many Oxfordians have long passed the proVERbial tippling point; a few
are apparently even afflicted by full-blown delirium tremens.
> Little do they know that Nelson is merely doing
> what he has been assigned to do.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Assigned by whom, Art?
Have you assumed your "petulant paranoid" trolling persona for the nonce?
Art Neuendorffer
> > Little do they know that Nelson is merely doing
> > what he has been assigned to do.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Assigned by whom, Art?
The same folks who assigned me to you, Dave.
(Do they know that you've been slacking off?)
Art N.
lyra
>
> > Many Oxfordians have a rather high opinion of Alan Nelson
>
> As well they should -- Nelson is actually a scholar.
>
> > and feel that if
> > only they can bring him over to their side
>
> If only frogs had wings, they could fly.
>
> > they will have achieved the
> > proverbial "tipping point."
>
> > what he has been assigned to do.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Assigned by whom, Art?
> Have you assumed your "petulant paranoid" trolling persona for the nonce?
assigned to do (anagram)
to sing sad ode
o dead to signs
o sings to dead...
well, some do...
* * * * * *
"speed bonny boat, like a bird on the wing..."
lyra
Peter Farey
The necessary rites of passage for my coming of age now being over,
I am surprised and delighted to find that nobody has rained on my
parade... yet.
Let us therefore take a closer look at those three stanzas from a
Marlovian viewpoint. As a reminder, here they were:
> *Adon* deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,
> Shew'd he well deserued to,
> Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
Now a line or two at a time.
> *Adon* deafly masking thro,
No reason to quarrel with *Adon* being *Adonis*, the poem *Venus
and Adonis*, and the author apparently being William Shakespeare,
as the dedicatory epistle says.
'Deafly' gives some food for thought perhaps. Is this (as most
would assume, I think) a strange spelling of 'deftly', or does
it mean what it actually says? I would wonder, for example, if
the idea of being 'deaf' to verse, as John W Kennedy and Peter
Groves tend to mention occasionally, was current at that time?
'Masking' is an interesting choice of word, and gives the
impression of things not being what they seem, whichever way
one defines it. The two main meanings would seem to be "taking
part in a mask or masquerade", which would apply to an actor,
and "to be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form or
character under an outward show".
> Stately troupes rich conceited,
'Stately' gives the impression of loftiness, high rank, as might
befit the Earl to whom the poem was dedicated, but 'tropes'
(which I take 'troupes' to be) gives the impression of the words
being inappropriate, too 'richly conceived' perhaps for the
person writing them?
> Shew'd he well deserued to,
He can get away with it, nevertheless
> Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies.
As he is well-loved, and *Venus* herself (whoever that may
really be!) asked him to do it.
Now for the next person.
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
As Terry has pointed out, this most probably refers to robes
stained with blood, and implies that the 'one' being described
died a violent death (or killed someone, like Watson had done, or
Jonson would later?). Terry said before 1595, but I believe that
the poem was registered with the Stationers' Company in October
1593, only five months after Marlowe was apparently stabbed to
death. Interesting to note the ambiguity of Edwards saying, as
he did earlier, that Leander's 'gone', which might not necessar-
ily require death.
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I take 'this clime' to be the one in which the subject of the
last stanza, the meeting of Venus and Adonis, probably took place.
Venus being a Roman goddess and Adonis a Greek youth, somewhere
around the Veneto region of Italy (Venice, Padua, Verona) perhaps?
'Clime' does seem to be used more often to refer to some foreign
area, rather than where one happens to be at the time.
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
Was this a rumour going round at the time, that Marlowe was not
really dead, but gone (perhaps under banishment) to Italy?
> One whose power floweth far,
I take this to be a reference to one of Marlowe's most famous
characters, *Tamburlaine*. Rivers figure quite a lot in the
advance of Tamburlaine and his cronies, he was very powerful,
and boy did he travel far!
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
Again he is referring back to the previous stanza, and saying
that it really is *this* person who should have been identified
not only as Love's 'object', *Adonis*, but also as *Venus*
(the brightest 'star' in the sky).
> Well could his bewitching pen,
A reference to Marlowe's *Doctor Faustus* perhaps?
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Can't be sure what this means. 'Done' is difficult to make gramm-
atical sense of unless it means 'give', with the same root
('donare') as donor, donee etc. Even then, it's pretty obscure.
What are "the Muses' objects"?
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
I find myself reminded of the poem by George Peele, *The Honour of
the Garter* written just before this, in which he referred to
Marlowe's death:
Why hie they not, unhappy in thine end,
Marley, the Muses darling, for thy verse
Fit to write passions for the souls below.
Is Edwards referring to this, and the men 'Tilting under Frieries'
the 'souls below' who are frying in Hell? Marlowe differs from
them by the simple fact of not yet being really dead.
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
I see the first line as a clear reference to Marlowe's translation
of Ovid's *Amores*, poems from the so-called 'Golden Age' (c.70BC-
18AD) and much concerned with 'wooing'. Not yet published, but
written by then of course.
So, with this first stab at interpreting Edwards's words - I fully
expect to change much of this in time - I come to the conclusion
that he *had* heard a rumour that Marlowe was not dead but living
in Italy, and believed him to be the true author of *Venus and
Adonis*. If he was going to let on, however, he obviously thought
it necessary to be very cryptic about it.
What I do wonder, however, is what more orthodox interpretation
there might be for these stanzas?
Bob Grumman
Unless there was another poem around about Adonis now lost to us.
>'Deafly' gives some food for thought perhaps. Is this (as most
>would assume, I think) a strange spelling of 'deftly', or does
>it mean what it actually says? I would wonder, for example, if
>the idea of being 'deaf' to verse, as John W Kennedy and Peter
>Groves tend to mention occasionally, was current at that time?
>
>'Masking' is an interesting choice of word, and gives the
>impression of things not being what they seem, whichever way
>one defines it. The two main meanings would seem to be "taking
>part in a mask or masquerade", which would apply to an actor,
>and "to be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form or
>character under an outward show".
>
>> Stately troupes rich conceited,
>
>'Stately' gives the impression of loftiness, high rank, as might
>befit the Earl to whom the poem was dedicated, but 'tropes'
>(which I take 'troupes' to be) gives the impression of the words
>being inappropriate, too 'richly conceived' perhaps for the
>person writing them?
>> Shew'd he well deserued to,
>
>He can get away with it, nevertheless
It ake the following three as all working together:
>> *Adon* deafly masking thro,
>> Stately troupes rich conceited,
>> Shew'd he well deserued to,
Adon foolishly wandering through stately groups of richly conceited words by
mistake, showed he well deserved to be there. I found "deaf" meaning "stupid"
in the OED, and "masking" meaning "losing one's way." I accept as near-certain
the literal meanings of "masking" as being a player (pretending to be or masking
oneself as someone else) in a troupe (group of players), but like the second
meaning as an intended compliment of a writer who usually writes plays but loses
his way and turns up in the world of High Poetry rather than in his usually
neighborhood of low drama--but shows he deserves to be there.
>> Loues delight on him to gaze,
>> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
>> Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>
>As he is well-loved, and *Venus* herself (whoever that may
>really be!) asked him to do it.
I have trouble with "asked him to do it." I take the three lines to mean
that loves delightedly gazed on him, and--had Venus not begged him to be
hers--other nymphs would have sent him love-gifts. It doesn't make sense for
other numphs to think of sending him bays if Venus had not asked him to mask
through troupes of whatever.
>Now for the next person.
>
>> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
>
>As Terry has pointed out, this most probably refers to robes
>stained with blood, and implies that the 'one' being described
>died a violent death (or killed someone, like Watson had done, or
>Jonson would later?). Terry said before 1595, but I believe that
>the poem was registered with the Stationers' Company in October
>1593, only five months after Marlowe was apparently stabbed to
>death. Interesting to note the ambiguity of Edwards saying, as
>he did earlier, that Leander's 'gone', which might not necessar-
>ily require death.
How about the "death" that Shakespeare/Adonis suffered at the hands of Greene?
But the "eke" makes sense to me (against Terry's argument, if I remember it
rightly) as "also"; hence, we have, "also in bloody robes" (like Adon would have
been) . . .
>> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
>
>I take 'this clime' to be the one in which the subject of the
>last stanza, the meeting of Venus and Adonis, probably took place.
>Venus being a Roman goddess and Adonis a Greek youth, somewhere
>around the Veneto region of Italy (Venice, Padua, Verona) perhaps?
>'Clime' does seem to be used more often to refer to some foreign
>area, rather than where one happens to be at the time.
"Clime" makes best sense for me as where all the poets mentioned in the poem
are, England. Or it could be poetry-in-general. Adon would be somewhere in
poetry, and this new poet in its center (his position indicated although Adon's
had also been, which also suggests he's a second person).
>> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
>
>Was this a rumour going round at the time, that Marlowe was not
>really dead, but gone (perhaps under banishment) to Italy?
None that was recorded.
>> One whose power floweth far,
>
>I take this to be a reference to one of Marlowe's most famous
>characters, *Tamburlaine*. Rivers figure quite a lot in the
>advance of Tamburlaine and his cronies, he was very powerful,
>and boy did he travel far!
It seems literal to me. Could the queen be meant. That might explain Dooley's
one good commen, which is why this poet, if different from Adon, is not
epithetted like all the others Edwards refers to. The queen was too exalted to
attach am epithet to? But other poets epithetted her, yes?
>> That should haue bene of our rime,
>> The onely obiect and the star.
>Again he is referring back to the previous stanza, and saying
>that it really is *this* person who should have been identified
>not only as Love's 'object', *Adonis*, but also as *Venus*
>(the brightest 'star' in the sky).
I have no good take on this stanza or the one following but don't see how it
refers back to the previous stanza rather than to all the stanzas of the poem.
He's just saying, this new poet should have been the only one I wrote about in
this poem.
>> Well could his bewitching pen,
>
>A reference to Marlowe's *Doctor Faustus* perhaps?
But Marlowe was already referred to. I take "bewitching pen" as a compliment
that could have referred to anyone. I suspect that every poet of the time wrote
something having to do with magick, as Marlowe, Jonson and Shakespeare surely
did.
>> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
>
>Can't be sure what this means. 'Done' is difficult to make gramm-
>atical sense of unless it means 'give', with the same root
>('donare') as donor, donee etc. Even then, it's pretty obscure.
>What are "the Muses' objects"?
Poems, which he maked. (Joke intended.)
>> Although he differs much from men,
>> Tilting under Frieries,
>
>I find myself reminded of the poem by George Peele, *The Honour of
>the Garter* written just before this, in which he referred to
>Marlowe's death:
>
> Why hie they not, unhappy in thine end,
> Marley, the Muses darling, for thy verse
> Fit to write passions for the souls below.
>
>Is Edwards referring to this, and the men 'Tilting under Frieries'
>the 'souls below' who are frying in Hell? Marlowe differs from
>them by the simple fact of not yet being really dead.
>
>> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
>> To haue honored him with baies.
>
>I see the first line as a clear reference to Marlowe's translation
>of Ovid's *Amores*, poems from the so-called 'Golden Age' (c.70BC-
>18AD) and much concerned with 'wooing'. Not yet published, but
>written by then of course.
Not for me. For me, it's another stock compliment.
>So, with this first stab at interpreting Edwards's words - I fully
>expect to change much of this in time - I come to the conclusion
>that he *had* heard a rumour that Marlowe was not dead but living
>in Italy, and believed him to be the true author of *Venus and
>Adonis*. If he was going to let on, however, he obviously thought
>it necessary to be very cryptic about it.
>
>What I do wonder, however, is what more orthodox interpretation
>there might be for these stanzas?
>
>Peter F.
Me, too--for the second and third, that is. I like mine for the first--so far.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
Here's the section of the poem dealing with various writers. It's clear
who most of them are:
Collyn was a mighty swaine,
In his power all do flourish,
We are shepheards but in vaine,
There is but one tooke the charge,
By his toile we do nourish,
And by him are inlarg'd.
He vnlockt Albions glorie, [ above to this point, Spenser]
He twas tolde of Sidneys honor, [Spenser's poem, *Astrophel*]
Onely he of our stories,
Must be sung in greatest pride,
In an Eglogue he hath wonne her,
Fame and honor on his side.
[not sure what eclogue of Spenser's he's
talking about. I assume the Shepherd's
calendar, but which part? By "won her",
does he mean Queen Elizabeth in the "April"
section?]
Deale we not with Rosamond,
For the world our sawe will coate, [Daniel]
[This comment is odd. He appears to
be saying that he's not going to talk
about Daniel's Rosamond, because
the world will avoid ("cote") his poem
("saw")]
Amintas and Leander's gone, [Lodge and Marlowe are dead]
Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
Blessed be your nimble throats,
That so amorously could sing.
[I don't he's saying that Lodge and Marlowe
were the sons of stately kings here, it's a
compliment. Children
sang in choirs, so Edwards is saying: O, in
order for even the children of kings to
sing of
love as well as Marlowe and Lodge, they
would need blessed throats.]
Adon deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserued to,
Loues delight on him to gaze,
And had not loue her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
[Shakespeare, and seems to imply
that he's married]
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
["eke" = "also", so this is someone
other than
Shakespeare]
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
[Who is this? Apparently someone who
worked ("tilted") in a monastery
("friary").]
He that gan vp to tilt,
Babels fresh remembrance,
Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
And a world of stories made,
In a catalogues semblance
Hath alike the Muses staide.
[Whoever it was, they seem to have
written
a collection of stories in catalog
form.
The reference to Babel seems to imply
that
the stories are collected from
different
languages. Am I missing something
obvious here?]
Bob Grumman
>Here's the section of the poem dealing with various writers. It's clear
>who most of them are:
>
>Collyn was a mighty swaine,
> In his power all do flourish,
> We are shepheards but in vaine,
> There is but one tooke the charge,
> By his toile we do nourish,
> And by him are inlarg'd.
>
> He vnlockt Albions glorie, [ above to this point, Spenser]
> He twas tolde of Sidneys honor, [Spenser's poem, *Astrophel*]
> Onely he of our stories,
> Must be sung in greatest pride,
> In an Eglogue he hath wonne her,
> Fame and honor on his side.
> [not sure what eclogue of Spenser's he's
> talking about. I assume the Shepherd's
> calendar, but which part? By "won her",
> does he mean Queen Elizabeth in the "April"
> section?]
He won Albion? Is Albion female?
>
> Deale we not with Rosamond,
> For the world our sawe will coate, [Daniel]
> [This comment is odd. He appears to
> be saying that he's not going to talk
> about Daniel's Rosamond, because
> the world will avoid ("cote") his poem
>("saw")]
>
> Amintas and Leander's gone, [Lodge and Marlowe are dead]
> Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> Blessed be your nimble throats,
> That so amorously could sing.
> [I doubt he's saying that Lodge and Marlowe
KQKnave
writes:
>> He vnlockt Albions glorie, [ above to this point, Spenser]
>> He twas tolde of Sidneys honor, [Spenser's poem, *Astrophel*]
>> Onely he of our stories,
>> Must be sung in greatest pride,
>> In an Eglogue he hath wonne her,
>> Fame and honor on his side.
>> [not sure what eclogue of Spenser's he's
>> talking about. I assume the Shepherd's
>> calendar, but which part? By "won her",
>> does he mean Queen Elizabeth in the
>"April"
>> section?]
>
>He won Albion? Is Albion female?
I don't know. Is "her" Albion? I couldn't figure out who "her" was,
I thought it was something separate, but I see now it could be
read that way.
I'm most interested in who the last person was.
Peter Farey
KQKnave (Jim) wrote:
>
> Here's the section of the poem dealing with various writers.
> It's clear who most of them are:
<snip>
>
> Amintas and Leander's gone, [Lodge and Marlowe are dead]
> Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> Blessed be your nimble throats,
> That so amorously could sing.
I doubt whether he is referring to Lodge, who didn't die
until 1625. More likely to be Thomas Watson, who had died
in 1592, and had written *Amintas* (1585) and *Amintae
Gaudia* (1592). For the latter, Marlowe is supposed to have
written the Latin dedication to the Countess of Pembroke.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
Good thinking, Bob. The same thing could be said about Leander too.
I guess. On this one, however, I think I'll stick with what Academe
seems to think about it. You wanna take them on for once? That's
fine by me!
> > 'Deafly' gives some food for thought perhaps. Is this (as most
> > would assume, I think) a strange spelling of 'deftly', or does
> > it mean what it actually says? I would wonder, for example, if
> > the idea of being 'deaf' to verse, as John W Kennedy and Peter
> > Groves tend to mention occasionally, was current at that time?
> >
> > 'Masking' is an interesting choice of word, and gives the
> > impression of things not being what they seem, whichever way
> > one defines it. The two main meanings would seem to be "taking
> > part in a mask or masquerade", which would apply to an actor,
> > and "to be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form or
> > character under an outward show".
> >
> > > Stately troupes rich conceited,
> >
> > 'Stately' gives the impression of loftiness, high rank, as might
> > befit the Earl to whom the poem was dedicated, but 'tropes'
> > (which I take 'troupes' to be) gives the impression of the words
> > being inappropriate, too 'richly conceived' perhaps for the
> > person writing them?
> >
> > > Shew'd he well deserued to,
> >
> > He can get away with it, nevertheless
>
> I take the following three as all working together:
> > > *Adon* deafly masking thro,
> > > Stately troupes rich conceited,
> > > Shew'd he well deserued to,
> Adon foolishly wandering through stately groups of richly conceited
> words by mistake, showed he well deserved to be there. I found
> "deaf" meaning "stupid" in the OED, and "masking" meaning "losing
> one's way."
That's interesting. Do the dates fit?
> I accept as near-certain the literal meanings of "masking" as being
> a player (pretending to be or masking oneself as someone else) in a
> troupe (group of players),
If so (and assuming this to be written in 1593), then I think this is
the first time Shakespeare is apparently linked to the theatre. The
actual name isn't connected with it until 1594.
> but like the second meaning as an
> intended compliment of a writer who usually writes plays but loses
> his way and turns up in the world of High Poetry rather than in his
> usually neighborhood of low drama--but shows he deserves to be there.
Yes. Or has the right to be there because he was asked to be.
> > > Loues delight on him to gaze,
> > > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> > > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
> >
> > As he is well-loved, and *Venus* herself (whoever that may
> > really be!) asked him to do it.
>
> I have trouble with "asked him to do it."
Intreated him (to send her bays)?
> I take the three lines to mean that loves delightedly gazed on him,
> and--had Venus not begged him to be hers--other nymphs would have
> sent him love-gifts.
Yes. But what do you take as the secondary meaning, which there must
have been, It is a poet he is actually writing about, not Adonis.
Any thoughts?
> It doesn't make sense for other numphs
Well you know how awkward these damned numphs can be.
> to think of sending him bays if Venus had not asked him to mask
> through troupes of whatever.
Fair enough, so what does that mean?
> > Now for the next person.
> >
> > > Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> >
> > As Terry has pointed out, this most probably refers to robes
> > stained with blood, and implies that the 'one' being described
> > died a violent death (or killed someone, like Watson had done, or
> > Jonson would later?). Terry said before 1595, but I believe that
> > the poem was registered with the Stationers' Company in October
> > 1593, only five months after Marlowe was apparently stabbed to
> > death. Interesting to note the ambiguity of Edwards saying, as
> > he did earlier, that Leander's 'gone', which might not necessar-
> > ily require death.
>
> How about the "death" that Shakespeare/Adonis suffered at the hands
> of Greene?
'Death'? Where? Thought it was the other way round in fact. No, I
don't buy that one at all.
> But the "eke" makes sense to me (against Terry's argument, if I
> remember it rightly) as "also"; hence, we have, "also in bloody
> robes" (like Adon would have been) . . .
I like that. We are still left with whether it means someone who
died violently (or was executed?) or who was otherwise involved in
a violent death in some way. I am exploring the possibility that,
for whatever reason, he had Marlowe in mind.
> > > Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> >
> > I take 'this clime' to be the one in which the subject of the
> > last stanza, the meeting of Venus and Adonis, probably took place.
> > Venus being a Roman goddess and Adonis a Greek youth, somewhere
> > around the Veneto region of Italy (Venice, Padua, Verona) perhaps?
> > 'Clime' does seem to be used more often to refer to some foreign
> > area, rather than where one happens to be at the time.
>
> "Clime" makes best sense for me as where all the poets mentioned in
> the poem are, England.
It certainly could mean that. I am considering what *else* it
might mean. That he seems reluctant to be too clear about who
he has in mind could mean that he is being deliberately mis-
leading. My thought is that there is no point in mentioning
the location unless it is somewhere *other* than where you
would expect it to be, and your suggestion of what 'Eke' might
mean increases the connection with the previous stanza that I
am proposing here.
> Or it could be poetry-in-general. Adon would be somewhere in
> poetry, and this new poet in its center (his position indicated
> although Adon's had also been, which also suggests he's a second
> person).
Ye-e-es. I see what you're getting at. But who?
> > > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> >
> > Was this a rumour going round at the time, that Marlowe was not
> > really dead, but gone (perhaps under banishment) to Italy?
>
> None that was recorded.
Which was why I gave it that question mark. But it would certainly
fit in with what Edwards seems to be saying. Forget whether it is
true or not, I think it is *well* within the bounds of probability
that such rumours were around. A bit like Elvis sightings today.
And such things would not necesssarily have got into print (other
than here!) or have survived if they did.
> > > One whose power floweth far,
> >
> > I take this to be a reference to one of Marlowe's most famous
> > characters, *Tamburlaine*. Rivers figure quite a lot in the
> > advance of Tamburlaine and his cronies, he was very powerful,
> > and boy did he travel far!
>
> It seems literal to me. Could the queen be meant. That might
> explain Dooley's one good commen, which is why this poet, if
> different from Adon, is not epithetted like all the others Edwards
> refers to. The queen was too exalted to attach am epithet to?
> But other poets epithetted her, yes?
Certainly worth considering, although I see nothing else to support
this idea, whereas *everything* else seems to support Marlowe.
Those blood-stained robes, for example? How do you think Her
Majesty would have liked that bit?
> > > That should haue bene of our rime,
> > > The onely obiect and the star.
>
> > Again he is referring back to the previous stanza, and saying
> > that it really is *this* person who should have been identified
> > not only as Love's 'object', *Adonis*, but also as *Venus*
> > (the brightest 'star' in the sky).
>
> I have no good take on this stanza or the one following
I do.
> but don't see how it refers back to the previous stanza rather
> than to all the stanzas of the poem.
Because of that word 'star'.
Bright star of Venus, fall'n down on the earth,
(1H6 1.3.123)
It certainly provides an excellent reason for that particular
word being there, don't you think?
> He's just saying, this new poet should have been the only one I
> wrote about in this poem.
Possibly.
> > > Well could his bewitching pen,
> >
> > A reference to Marlowe's *Doctor Faustus* perhaps?
>
> But Marlowe was already referred to.
I know, but IF he is referring to a rumour that Marlowe is alive,
then that "Leander's gone" line is just the sort of equivocation
that one would expect.
> I take "bewitching pen" as a compliment that could have
> referred to anyone.
And a very nice one too. Examples?
> I suspect that every poet of the time wrote something having
> to do with magick, as Marlowe, Jonson and Shakespeare surely
> did.
By 1593? La Pucelle perhaps, but are you going back to saying
that this must therefore refer to Shakespeare? I'm getting lost.
> > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> >
> > Can't be sure what this means. 'Done' is difficult to make gramm-
> > atical sense of unless it means 'give', with the same root
> > ('donare') as donor, donee etc. Even then, it's pretty obscure.
> > What are "the Muses' objects"?
>
> Poems, which he maked. (Joke intended.)
Joke chortled at.
> > > Although he differs much from men,
> > > Tilting under Frieries,
> >
> > I find myself reminded of the poem by George Peele, *The Honour of
> > the Garter* written just before this, in which he referred to
> > Marlowe's death:
> >
> > Why hie they not, unhappy in thine end,
> > Marley, the Muses darling, for thy verse
> > Fit to write passions for the souls below.
> >
> > Is Edwards referring to this, and the men 'Tilting under Frieries'
> > the 'souls below' who are frying in Hell? Marlowe differs from
> > them by the simple fact of not yet being really dead.
Any thoughts?
> > > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> > > To haue honored him with baies.
> >
> > I see the first line as a clear reference to Marlowe's translation
> > of Ovid's *Amores*, poems from the so-called 'Golden Age' (c.70BC-
> > 18AD) and much concerned with 'wooing'. Not yet published, but
> > written by then of course.
>
> Not for me. For me, it's another stock compliment.
If so, it shouldn't be too hard to find examples. Can you? I have
provided a reason for saying that this can be specifically related
to Marlowe in a way that is *not* appropriate for most others.
> > So, with this first stab at interpreting Edwards's words - I fully
> > expect to change much of this in time - I come to the conclusion
> > that he *had* heard a rumour that Marlowe was not dead but living
> > in Italy, and believed him to be the true author of *Venus and
> > Adonis*. If he was going to let on, however, he obviously thought
> > it necessary to be very cryptic about it.
> >
> > What I do wonder, however, is what more orthodox interpretation
> > there might be for these stanzas?
> >
> > Peter F.
>
> Me, too--for the second and third, that is. I like mine for the
> first--so far.
Thanks for this, some good ideas here.
The problem with the stanzas about this other poet, however, is that
there is a crux on virtually every line, and in order to identify
him some attempt must be made to offer an answer to each of them.
I would say that mine is the best solution to be offered so far.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.presteo.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
KQKnave (Jim) wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> ["eke" = "also", so this is someone
> other than Shakespeare]
Yes. I do like Bob's suggestion that he, like *Adonis*, is
"in purple roabes distaind". As Adonis certainly died a
violent death at an early age, this certainly lends support
to Terry's interpretation.
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
> [Who is this? Apparently someone who
> worked ("tilted") in a monastery
> ("friary").]
It says he is not like such men. Sorry to appear biased, but
Marlowe's views on religion might make this particularly apt?
Having gone through all of the poets I can think of who this
part *might* refer to, the only ones who seem to fit the
'violent death' scenario are Sidney and Marlowe. Anyone care
to argue for the former?
> He that gan vp to tilt,
> Babels fresh remembrance,
> Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
> And a world of stories made,
> In a catalogues semblance
> Hath alike the Muses staide.
>
> [Whoever it was, they seem to have written
> a collection of stories in catalog form.
> The reference to Babel seems to imply that
> the stories are collected from different
> languages. Am I missing something obvious
> here?]
The only suggestion I have seen for this bit is Joshua Sylvester,
who translated *La Semaine* by Du Bartas into English. This was
a series of poems about the creation and the 'childhood' of the
world, and known to have influenced both Spenser and Sidney.
Peter Farey
Peter Farey wrote:
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > > > Loues delight on him to gaze,
> > > > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> > > > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
> > >
> > > As he is well-loved, and *Venus* herself (whoever that may
> > > really be!) asked him to do it.
> >
> > I have trouble with "asked him to do it."
>
> Intreated him (to send her bays)?
Ignore all of this. It's a sign of my crumbling mind!
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> But the "eke" makes sense to me (against Terry's argument,
> if I remember it rightly)
No, I'm sure Terry would agree with this.
> as "also"; hence, we have, "also
> in bloody robes" (like Adon would have been) . . .
As I said, I do like this, and have just remembered something:
By this, the boy that by her side lay killed
Was melted like a vapour from her sight,
And in his blood that on the ground lay spilled
A *purple* flower sprung up, chequered with white,
Resembling well his pale cheeks, and the blood
Which in round drops upon their whiteness stood.
(*V&A* lines 1165-1170)
You *must* be right. So, reading the stanza with this
in mind:
> > Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> > Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> > One whose power floweth far,
It seems very clearly to be saying that the poet (having
appeared, like Adonis, to have suffered a violent death)
is now rumoured to be in the far-away 'clime' where all of
this took place.
Bob Grumman
>>> He twas tolde of Sidneys honor, [Spenser's poem, *Astrophel*]
>>> Onely he of our stories,
>>> Must be sung in greatest pride,
>>> In an Eglogue he hath wonne her,
>>> Fame and honor on his side.
>>> [not sure what eclogue of Spenser's he's
>>> talking about. I assume the Shepherd's
>>> calendar, but which part? By "won her",
>>> does he mean Queen Elizabeth in the
>>"April"
>>> section?]
>>
>>He won Albion? Is Albion female?
>
>I don't know. Is "her" Albion? I couldn't figure out who "her" was,
>I thought it was something separate, but I see now it could be
>read that way.
>
>I'm most interested in who the last person was.
Yes. I just reread the section and the thought crossed my mind that it was
Jesus. Just a passing thought, and I see several objections to it. Still, I
may think about it more. I think that the last poet is not a mortal one a fair
possibility.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>> > > Stately troupes rich conceited,
>> > > Shew'd he well deserued to,
>> > > Loues delight on him to gaze,
>> > > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
>> > > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>> > >
>> > > Eke in purple roabes distaind,
>> > > Amid'st the Center of this clime,
>> > > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
>> > > One whose power floweth far,
>> > > That should haue bene of our rime,
>> > > The onely obiect and the star.
>> > >
>> > > Well could his bewitching pen,
>> > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
>> > > Although he differs much from men,
>> > > Tilting under Frieries,
>> > > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
>> > > To haue honored him with baies.
>> Unless there was another poem around about Adonis now lost to us.
>
>Good thinking, Bob. The same thing could be said about Leander too.
>I guess. On this one, however, I think I'll stick with what Academe
Me, too. I just like to try to keep in the habit of recognizing all reasonable
possibilities.
snip
>> I take the following three as all working together:
>
>> > > *Adon* deafly masking thro,
>> > > Stately troupes rich conceited,
>> > > Shew'd he well deserued to,
>
>> Adon foolishly wandering through stately groups of richly conceited
>> words by mistake, showed he well deserved to be there. I found
>> "deaf" meaning "stupid" in the OED, and "masking" meaning "losing
>> one's way."
>
>That's interesting. Do the dates fit?
Thanks for asking. I didn't check, but now see for "mask" this from J. Bell
(1581) "masking through the maze." A 15505 quotation speaks of one "masked in a
mist." There are earlier and later citations. The last of three citations for
"deaf" as stupid, absurd and something else is dated 1541.
>> I accept as near-certain the literal meanings of "masking" as being
>> a player (pretending to be or masking oneself as someone else) in a
>> troupe (group of players),
>
>If so (and assuming this to be written in 1593), then I think this is
>the first time Shakespeare is apparently linked to the theatre. The
>actual name isn't connected with it until 1594.
Which certainly makes sense.
>> but like the second meaning as an
>> intended compliment of a writer who usually writes plays but loses
>> his way and turns up in the world of High Poetry rather than in his
>> usual neighborhood of low drama--but shows he deserves to be there.
>
>Yes. Or has the right to be there because he was asked to be.
Well, is asked to be he probably wouldn't be confusedly wandering.
>> > > Loues delight on him to gaze,
>> > > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
>> > > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>> >
>> > As he is well-loved, and *Venus* herself (whoever that may
>> > really be!) asked him to do it.
>>
>> I have trouble with "asked him to do it."
>
>Intreated him (to send her bays)?
>
>> I take the three lines to mean that loves delightedly gazed on him,
>> and--had Venus not begged him to be hers--other nymphs would have
>> sent him love-gifts.
>
>Yes. But what do you take as the secondary meaning, which there must
>have been, It is a poet he is actually writing about, not Adonis.
>Any thoughts?
>
>> It doesn't make sense for other numphs
>
>Well you know how awkward these damned numphs can be.
>
>> to think of sending him bays if Venus had not asked him to mask
>> through troupes of whatever.
>
>Fair enough, so what does that mean?
I took Venus as just Venus, goddess of love--he's writing for her, not lesser
"women." But it could be an actual woman, too. I'd have no way of guessing who
she might have been.
>> > Now for the next person.
>> >
>> > > Eke in purple roabes distaind,
>> >
>> > As Terry has pointed out, this most probably refers to robes
>> > stained with blood, and implies that the 'one' being described
>> > died a violent death (or killed someone, like Watson had done, or
>> > Jonson would later?). Terry said before 1595, but I believe that
>> > the poem was registered with the Stationers' Company in October
>> > 1593, only five months after Marlowe was apparently stabbed to
>> > death. Interesting to note the ambiguity of Edwards saying, as
>> > he did earlier, that Leander's 'gone', which might not necessar-
>> > ily require death.
>>
>> How about the "death" that Shakespeare/Adonis suffered at the hands
>> of Greene?
>
>'Death'? Where? Thought it was the other way round in fact. No, I
>don't buy that one at all.
Shakespeare's reputation got clobbered by Greene, so he may have thought that a
death. But this assumes Mr. Purple Robes was Adon, which I don't assume.
>> But the "eke" makes sense to me (against Terry's argument, if I
>> remember it rightly) as "also"; hence, we have, "also in bloody
>> robes" (like Adon would have been) . . .
>
>I like that. We are still left with whether it means someone who
>died violently (or was executed?) or who was otherwise involved in
>a violent death in some way. I am exploring the possibility that,
>for whatever reason, he had Marlowe in mind.
Okay. But literal death is not necessarily involved.
>> > > Amid'st the Center of this clime,
>> >
>> > I take 'this clime' to be the one in which the subject of the
>> > last stanza, the meeting of Venus and Adonis, probably took place.
>> > Venus being a Roman goddess and Adonis a Greek youth, somewhere
>> > around the Veneto region of Italy (Venice, Padua, Verona) perhaps?
>> > 'Clime' does seem to be used more often to refer to some foreign
>> > area, rather than where one happens to be at the time.
>>
>> "Clime" makes best sense for me as where all the poets mentioned in
>> the poem are, England.
>
>It certainly could mean that. I am considering what *else* it
>might mean. That he seems reluctant to be too clear about who
>he has in mind could mean that he is being deliberately mis-
>leading. My thought is that there is no point in mentioning
>the location unless it is somewhere *other* than where you
>would expect it to be, and your suggestion of what 'Eke' might
>mean increases the connection with the previous stanza that I
>am proposing here.
But he mentions the location only because he wants us to know his poet is
central to it.
>> Or it could be poetry-in-general. Adon would be somewhere in
>> poetry, and this new poet in its center (his position indicated
>> although Adon's had also been, which also suggests he's a second
>> person).
>Ye-e-es. I see what you're getting at. But who?
I don't know.
>> > > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
>> >
>> > Was this a rumour going round at the time, that Marlowe was not
>> > really dead, but gone (perhaps under banishment) to Italy?
>>
>> None that was recorded.
>
>Which was why I gave it that question mark. But it would certainly
>fit in with what Edwards seems to be saying. Forget whether it is
>true or not, I think it is *well* within the bounds of probability
>that such rumours were around. A bit like Elvis sightings today.
>And such things would not necesssarily have got into print (other
>than here!) or have survived if they did.
Maybe it's a reference to the bit about Marlowe's ghost still being about that
WAS published--although after this, I believe. Which makes me think of Greene,
a better possibility, because not already mentioned and apparently dispensed
with as a subject.
>> > > One whose power floweth far,
>> >
>> > I take this to be a reference to one of Marlowe's most famous
>> > characters, *Tamburlaine*. Rivers figure quite a lot in the
>> > advance of Tamburlaine and his cronies, he was very powerful,
>> > and boy did he travel far!
>>
>> It seems literal to me. Could the queen be meant? That might
>> explain Dooley's one good commen, which is why this poet, if
>> different from Adon, is not epithetted like all the others Edwards
>> refers to. The queen was too exalted to attach an epithet to?
>> But other poets epithetted her, yes?
>
>Certainly worth considering, although I see nothing else to support
>this idea, whereas *everything* else seems to support Marlowe.
And it's a he.
>Those blood-stained robes, for example? How do you think Her
>Majesty would have liked that bit?
The OED cites "autumn leaves distained with gold," but 300 years after Edwards.
Still, it's possible that "distain" could mean "dyed," or close enough that a
poet needing a rhyme would use it that way.
>> > > That should haue bene of our rime,
>> > > The onely obiect and the star.
>>
>> > Again he is referring back to the previous stanza, and saying
>> > that it really is *this* person who should have been identified
>> > not only as Love's 'object', *Adonis*, but also as *Venus*
>> > (the brightest 'star' in the sky).
But it's of OUR RHYME. Even Marlowe would not likely have been thought the only
worthwhile poet of his time by Edwards, I don't think. So it has to be someone
very special. In an earlier post this morning to Jim, I suggested Jesus,
wildly. But maybe some other deity would make sense.
>> I have no good take on this stanza or the one following
>
>I do.
Well, I think my take is as good as yours.
>> but don't see how it refers back to the previous stanza rather
>> than to all the stanzas of the poem.
>
>Because of that word 'star'.
>
> Bright star of Venus, fall'n down on the earth,
> (1H6 1.3.123)
>
>It certainly provides an excellent reason for that particular
>word being there, don't you think?
I think he may want to suggest Venus with "star" but that he has to mean that
star holds sway over the entire poem. Notice that Edwards is making Mr. Purple
the star whereas Adon is the object of Venus's love. The star image is
confused, so while its use suggests that Edwards is saying the new poet should
be his poem's only star--although he has said that Adon well deserved to be
where he was, and was beloved of Venus--I take the star to only be taking on
connotations from the previous stanza, not directly referring to it. I agree
that it certainly says that Mr. Purple is superior to Adon.
>> He's just saying, this new poet should have been the only one I
>> wrote about in this poem.
>
>Possibly.
No, Peter, that's what he says. He may have meant something else, but that's
what he says.
>> > > Well could his bewitching pen,
>> >
>> > A reference to Marlowe's *Doctor Faustus* perhaps?
>>
>> But Marlowe was already referred to.
>
>I know, but IF he is referring to a rumour that Marlowe is alive,
>then that "Leander's gone" line is just the sort of equivocation
>that one would expect.
>
>> I take "bewitching pen" as a compliment that could have
>> referred to anyone.
>
>And a very nice one too. Examples?
Examples of what? Poets such a line could refer to?
>> I suspect that every poet of the time wrote something having
>> to do with magick, as Marlowe, Jonson and Shakespeare surely
>> did.
>
>By 1593? La Pucelle perhaps, but are you going back to saying
>that this must therefore refer to Shakespeare? I'm getting lost.
Oh, I thought Edwards was 1595. Anyway, I certainly didn't say it MUST refer to
Shakespeare, but mentioned Shakespeare as one of many who wrote about magic.
>> > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
>> >
>> > Can't be sure what this means. 'Done' is difficult to make gramm-
>> > atical sense of unless it means 'give', with the same root
>> > ('donare') as donor, donee etc. Even then, it's pretty obscure.
>> > What are "the Muses' objects"?
>>
>> Poems, which he maked. (Joke intended.)
>
>Joke chortled at.
>
>> > > Although he differs much from men,
>> > > Tilting under Frieries,
>> >
>> > I find myself reminded of the poem by George Peele, *The Honour of
>> > the Garter* written just before this, in which he referred to
>> > Marlowe's death:
>> >
>> > Why hie they not, unhappy in thine end,
>> > Marley, the Muses darling, for thy verse
>> > Fit to write passions for the souls below.
>> >
>> > Is Edwards referring to this, and the men 'Tilting under Frieries'
>> > the 'souls below' who are frying in Hell? Marlowe differs from
>> > them by the simple fact of not yet being really dead.
>
>Any thoughts?
Jesus. (all meanings intended.) No serious thoughts yet.
>> > > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
>> > > To haue honored him with baies.
>> >
>> > I see the first line as a clear reference to Marlowe's translation
>> > of Ovid's *Amores*, poems from the so-called 'Golden Age' (c.70BC-
>> > 18AD) and much concerned with 'wooing'. Not yet published, but
>> > written by then of course.
>>
>> Not for me. For me, it's another stock compliment.
>
>If so, it shouldn't be too hard to find examples. Can you? I have
>provided a reason for saying that this can be specifically related
>to Marlowe in a way that is *not* appropriate for most others.
Poets talked of golden ages. I'm not going to hunt for examples. I'm not good
at that. I just can't believe that in six thousand years of poetry, no previous
poet ever used the phrase "golden art."
>> > So, with this first stab at interpreting Edwards's words - I fully
>> > expect to change much of this in time - I come to the conclusion
>> > that he *had* heard a rumour that Marlowe was not dead but living
>> > in Italy, and believed him to be the true author of *Venus and
>> > Adonis*. If he was going to let on, however, he obviously thought
>> > it necessary to be very cryptic about it.
>> >
>> > What I do wonder, however, is what more orthodox interpretation
>> > there might be for these stanzas?
>> >
>> > Peter F.
>>
>> Me, too--for the second and third, that is. I like mine for the
>> first--so far.
>
>Thanks for this, some good ideas here.
>
>The problem with the stanzas about this other poet, however, is that
>there is a crux on virtually every line, and in order to identify
>him some attempt must be made to offer an answer to each of them.
>I would say that mine is the best solution to be offered so far.
>
I would say that the communal process of analysis has not yet begun to yield a
plausible interpretation. Elizabeth should soon solve it, though.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> Amintas and Leander's gone, [Lodge and Marlowe are dead]
>> Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
>> Blessed be your nimble throats,
>> That so amorously could sing.
>
>I doubt whether he is referring to Lodge, who didn't die
>until 1625. More likely to be Thomas Watson, who had died
>in 1592, and had written *Amintas* (1585) and *Amintae
>Gaudia* (1592). For the latter, Marlowe is supposed to have
>written the Latin dedication to the Countess of Pembroke.
>
>
That's right. I confused Thomas Watson for Thomas Lodge when
I typed it in.
KQKnave
writes:
>>>> He vnlockt Albions glorie, [ above to this point, Spenser]
I thought that if you separated the very last stanza from the previous two,
it could be talking about the Bible and God. I think the previous two
stanzas are about someone else though.
John W. Kennedy
> Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
>
> Adon deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,
> Shew'd he well deserued to,
> Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies.
...and a great deal more...
Where in England (I almost said "on Earth") did Thomas Edwards hail
from? I cannot make these verses scan accentual-syllabically,
accentually, syllabically, or even quantitatively, unless I make the
sort of assumptions normally made only for ME texts of provenance far
from London, and not for EMnE ever. (Granted, I am very ignorant, but I
am not accustomed to being so thoroughly baffled as this.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- "She-Spies"
Peter Farey
The three stanzas we are talking about:
*Adon* deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserued to,
Loues delight on him to gaze,
And had not loue her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >
> > > I take the following three as all working together:
> > >
> > > *Adon* deafly masking thro,
> > > Stately troupes rich conceited,
> > > Shew'd he well deserued to,
> >
> > > Adon foolishly wandering through stately groups of richly
> > > conceited words by mistake, showed he well deserved to be
> > > there. I found "deaf" meaning "stupid" in the OED, and
> > > "masking" meaning "losing one's way."
> >
> > That's interesting. Do the dates fit?
>
> Thanks for asking. I didn't check, but now see for "mask" this
> from J. Bell (1581) "masking through the maze." A 15505 (?)
> quotation speaks of one "masked in a mist."
Doesn't that one mean 'hidden'?
> There are earlier and later citations.
OK
> The last of three
> citations for "deaf" as stupid, absurd and something else is
> dated 1541.
Sounds alright. I'll check it out when I can. My access to the
OED is severely curtailed at weekends. I keep telling my family
what excellent value the CD would be as, for example, a birthday
present for me, but no takers so far, I'm afraid.
<snip>
> Maybe it's a reference to the bit about Marlowe's ghost still
> being about that WAS published--although after this, I believe.
'Fraid so. Thorpe's dedication of Marlowe's Lucan translation
was dated 1600.
> Which makes me think of Greene, a better possibility, because
> not already mentioned and apparently dispensed with as a subject.
Sorry, I don't get it. Greene was certainly dead, but there was
no evidence of his single (borrowed) shirt being purple, as far
as I know.
<snip>
> The OED cites "autumn leaves distained with gold," but 300 years
> after Edwards. Still, it's possible that "distain" could mean
> "dyed," or close enough that a poet needing a rhyme would use it
> that way.
I doubt it. Here's how Shakespeare uses the word:
That which is now a horse even with a thought
The rack distains, and makes it indistinct
As water is in water.
(A&C 4.15.9-11)
`Were Tarquin night, as he is but night's child,
The silver-shining queen he would distain;
Her twinkling handmaids too, by him defiled,
Through night's black bosom should not peep again.
(RoL 785-8)
And round about her tear-distained eye
Blue circles streamed, like rainbows in the sky.
(RoL 1586-7)
She did distain my child, and stood between
Her and her fortunes. None would look on her,
(Per 4.3.31-2 - although 'disdaine' in Q)
You having lands and blessed with beauteous wives,
They would distrain the one, distain the other.
(R3 5.6.51-2)
The worthiness of praise distains his worth,
If that the praised himself bring the praise forth.
(T&C 1.3.239-40)
No suggestion of anything being dyed, I think you'll agree.
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
> > >
> > > > Again he is referring back to the previous stanza, and saying
> > > > that it really is *this* person who should have been identified
> > > > not only as Love's 'object', *Adonis*, but also as *Venus*
> > > > (the brightest 'star' in the sky).
>
> But it's of OUR RHYME.
i.e. A piece of his verse, which could be a couplet, a stanza,
or the complete poem. Not poetry in general, I think, unless
you have an example of it used in this sense? The context
seems to favour the stanza just written.
> Even Marlowe would not likely have been thought the only
> worthwhile poet of his time by Edwards, I don't think.
Nor do I. Which is another reason why I say that in this
case it is just the stanza that is meant.
> So it has to be someone very special. In an earlier post this
> morning to Jim, I suggested Jesus, wildly. But maybe some
> other deity would make sense.
It's certainly worth thinking about. Don't forget that
'bewitching pen' though. Perhaps the Egyptian god Thoth -
equivalent to the 'magical' Hermes Trismegistus and said
to have invented writing?
> > > I have no good take on this stanza or the one following
> >
> > I do.
>
> Well, I think my take is as good as yours.
Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind.
> > > but don't see how it refers back to the previous stanza
> > > rather than to all the stanzas of the poem.
> >
> > Because of that word 'star'.
> >
> > Bright star of Venus, fall'n down on the earth,
> > (1H6 1.3.123)
> >
> > It certainly provides an excellent reason for that particular
> > word being there, don't you think?
>
> I think he may want to suggest Venus with "star" but that he
> has to mean that star holds sway over the entire poem.
Why? Everything Terry, you and I have discovered about this
stanza makes it less and less related to anything other than
the previous one.
> Notice that Edwards is making Mr. Purple the star whereas Adon
> is the object of Venus's love.
Oh absolutely. Adon was the object of Venus's love, but Edwards
is saying that this other poet "should haue bene" not only the
object but the subject (Venus) too. "The onely obiect *and* the
star".
> The star image is confused, so while its use suggests that
> Edwards is saying the new poet should be his poem's only star
> --although he has said that Adon well deserved to be where he
> was, and was beloved of Venus--I take the star to only be
> taking on connotations from the previous stanza, not directly
> referring to it.
But you yourself have shown how clearly it *does* directly refer
back to the previous stanza with the reference to the purple
blood. Why stop there? OK, silly question!
> I agree that it certainly says that Mr. Purple is superior to
> Adon.
>
> > > He's just saying, this new poet should have been the only
> > > one I rote about in this poem.
> >
> > Possibly.
>
> No, Peter, that's what he says. He may have meant something
> else, but that's what he says.
No, Bob, it is *not* what he says. What he says is:
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
which could mean *either* what you are saying it does, *or* what
I am, or something else which neither of us has considered.
<snip>
> > > I take "bewitching pen" as a compliment that could have
> > > referred to anyone.
> >
> > And a very nice one too. Examples?
>
> Examples of what? Poets such a line could refer to?
Yes. I have given a clear and precise reason why anyone reading
this might associate the words "bewitching pen" with Marlowe
rather than any other possible candidate. This beats some vague
idea that someone else sometime may well have written something
or other on the subject which could, with a bit of luck, be
relevant.
> > > I suspect that every poet of the time wrote something having
> > > to do with magick, as Marlowe, Jonson and Shakespeare surely
> > > did.
> >
> > By 1593? La Pucelle perhaps, but are you going back to saying
> > that this must therefore refer to Shakespeare? I'm getting lost.
>
> Oh, I thought Edwards was 1595.
As I said, it was registered with the Stationers' Company in
October 1593. Nicholl says that it was circulating in manuscript
around then.
> Anyway, I certainly didn't say it MUST refer to Shakespeare,
> but mentioned Shakespeare as one of many who wrote about magic.
Sure. The point is, of course, whether there is anyone else
to whom that 'purple robes' line might apply and who might
*also* be described as having a 'bewitching pen'.
<snip>
> > > > Is Edwards referring to this, and the men 'Tilting under
> > > > Frieries' the 'souls below' who are frying in Hell?
> > > > Marlowe differs from them by the simple fact of not yet
> > > > being really dead.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Jesus. (all meanings intended.) No serious thoughts yet.
OK. Just explain that pesky pen! I'm beginning to favour the
idea of his being different to those "Tilting under Frieries"
because he was an atheist. You know how the song (nearly) goes:
Friars could get no higher re-
ception in a Friary
But not Marlowe!
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
> > > >
> > > > I see the first line as a clear reference to Marlowe's
> > > > translation of Ovid's *Amores*, poems from the so-called
> > > > 'Golden Age' (c.70BC-18AD) and much concerned with
> > > > 'wooing'. Not yet published, but written by then of course.
> > >
> > > Not for me. For me, it's another stock compliment.
> >
> > If so, it shouldn't be too hard to find examples. Can you? I have
> > provided a reason for saying that this can be specifically related
> > to Marlowe in a way that is *not* appropriate for most others.
>
> Poets talked of golden ages. I'm not going to hunt for examples.
> I'm not good at that. I just can't believe that in six thousand
> years of poetry, no previous poet ever used the phrase "golden art."
Of course they did. At this stage, however, we are looking for
someone to whom the rest of the two stanzas seem to apply,
*and* for whom - if possible - those words might be *specially*
relevant. Sorry, Bob, but that's my boy.
Peter Farey
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
> >
> > Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
> >
> > Adon deafly masking thro,
> > Stately troupes rich conceited,
> > Shew'd he well deserued to,
> > Loues delight on him to gaze,
> > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
>
> ...and a great deal more...
>
> Where in England (I almost said "on Earth") did Thomas Edwards
> hail from?
Shropshire, apparently.
This is what Charles Nicholl has to say about him
(*The Reckoning*, pp 52-3, revised pp 61-2).
<quote>
Another early epitaph [to Marlowe], seldom mentioned by the
biographers, appears in the poem *Narcissus* by Thomas Edwards.
This was not published until 1595, but was circulating in
manuscript by the autumn of 1593, when the publisher John Wolfe
secured the copyright on it. It was entered to Wolfe on the
Stationers' Register on 22 October. Wolfe had a few weeks
earlier purchased the copyright on Marlowe's *Hero and Leander*,
though this too was not published till later.
Like Peele, Edwards links the death of Marlowe with that of his
friend Thomas Watson. He refers to them both by the names of
their most popular poetic creations:
Amyntas and Leander's gone,
Oh dear sons of stately kings,
Blessed be your nimble throats
That so amorously could sing.
I first came across Thomas Edwards in the *Penguin Book of
Elizabethan Verse*, where his biographical note consists of a
single sentence: 'About Edwards nothing is known except his
name.' This is quite untrue. He was born in Shropshire in 1567;
he was (like Nicholas Skeres) a resident of Furnival's Inn in
the mid-1580s; he later shared a chamber at Lincoln's Inn with
John Donne's friend Christopher Brooke; and he was at the time
of Marlowe's death a 'servant' of Sir John Wolley, the Queen's
Latin secretary. He need not reside in total oblivion, but his
epitaph on Marlowe tells us nothing except that he admired him
as a poet, and that he knew *Hero and Leander* in manuscript.
These we would guess anyway from his frequent filching of
phrases from that poem.
<end quote>
The references he gives are John Bakeless's *The Tragicall
History of Christopher Marlowe* (1942, Vol.2 pp122-3), Mark
Eccles "Chapman's Early Years" (*Studies in Philology*, 43,
1946) and an article by Charlotte Stopes, 'Thomas Edwards'
(*Modern Language Review* 16, 1921).
I am, of course, now strongly of the belief that Edwards knew
far more about Marlowe's death than Nicholl, or any other
biographer, had the slightest inkling of!
> I cannot make these verses scan accentual-syllabically,
> accentually, syllabically, or even quantitatively, unless I
> make the sort of assumptions normally made only for ME texts
> of provenance far from London, and not for EMnE ever.
> (Granted, I am very ignorant, but I am not accustomed to
> being so thoroughly baffled as this.)
I agree, it's not at all easy! I am beginning to find with
repeated reading, however, that the trochees are starting
to make themselves a bit clearer to me.
Peter Farey
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserued to,
Loues delight on him to gaze,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
This mutiny each part doth so surprise
That from their dark beds once more leap her eyes,
And, being opened, threw unwilling light
Upon the wide wound that the boar had trenched
In his soft flank, whose wonted lily-white
With *purple* tears that his wound wept was drenched.
No flower was nigh, no grass, herb, leaf, or weed,
But stole his blood, and seemed with him to bleed.
(V&A lines 1049-1056)
By this, the boy that by her side lay killed
Was melted like a vapour from her sight,
And in his blood that on the ground lay spilled
A *purple* flower sprung up, chequered with white,
Resembling well his pale cheeks, and the blood
Which in round drops upon their whiteness stood.
(V&A lines 1165-1170)
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
"Also with blood-stained clothing - in other words, like
Adonis, having apparently died a violent death while still
young - I have heard of another poet, now living in the
Mediterranean region, who still has influence, if from
afar, and who properly should have been given that nick-
name 'Adonis'. Not only *his* name, in fact, but that of
'Venus' too".
Diana? Pat? How's that fence feeling?
Bob Grumman
1550
>> quotation speaks of one "masked in a mist."
>
>Doesn't that one mean 'hidden'?
It was illustrating the mask as being lost definition in the OED, so probably
not. The masking through the maze exactly describes the way I think masking was
used in the Edwards poem.
>> There are earlier and later citations.
>
>OK
>
>> The last of three
>> citations for "deaf" as stupid, absurd and something else is
>> dated 1541.
>
>Sounds alright. I'll check it out when I can. My access to the
>OED is severely curtailed at weekends. I keep telling my family
>what excellent value the CD would be as, for example, a birthday
>present for me, but no takers so far, I'm afraid.
>
><snip>
>
>> Maybe it's a reference to the bit about Marlowe's ghost still
>> being about that WAS published--although after this, I believe.
>
>'Fraid so. Thorpe's dedication of Marlowe's Lucan translation
>was dated 1600.
But the idea could have been in circulation much earlier.
>> Which makes me think of Greene, a better possibility, because
>> not already mentioned and apparently dispensed with as a subject.
>
>Sorry, I don't get it. Greene was certainly dead, but there was
>no evidence of his single (borrowed) shirt being purple, as far
>as I know.
Edwards was clearly not a meticulous poet. See John Kennedy's comment on his
meter. He could have merely been referring to Greene's sudden death. And, hey,
he was the author of FRIAR Bungay! I don't think he fits, really, but I don't
know of anyone else who fits very well, either, including Marlowe.
There are lots of uses it as implicitly or explicitly dyed, but always dyed or
stained for the worse. Stain and dye are just about synonyms. Again,
considering how poor a craftsman Edwards was, I can see him misusing the word to
get his meter (not rhyme, as I said before, since he could have used "stained").
>> That should haue bene of our rime,
>> The onely obiect and the star.
>> > >
>> > > > Again he is referring back to the previous stanza, and saying
>> > > > that it really is *this* person who should have been identified
>> > > > not only as Love's 'object', *Adonis*, but also as *Venus*
>> > > > (the brightest 'star' in the sky).
>>
>> But it's of OUR RHYME.
>
>i.e. A piece of his verse, which could be a couplet, a stanza,
>or the complete poem.
Sorry, I can only read it as the complete poem. And, if he were referring to
the previous stanze, why use "only?" Why not, "He would have been the object?"
I can't make sense of it the way you have it for that and other reasons.
>Not poetry in general, I think, unless
>you have an example of it used in this sense? The context
>seems to favour the stanza just written.
"Clime" may refer to poetry in general, not "our rhyme," which is our rhyme.
I simply don't agree. He just uses the transition, "eke," to go from the
previous stanza to this one--and possibly the distained robes. Nothing else
connects the two stanzas, for me.
>> Notice that Edwards is making Mr. Purple the star whereas Adon
>> is the object of Venus's love.
>
>Oh absolutely. Adon was the object of Venus's love, but Edwards
>is saying that this other poet "should haue bene" not only the
>object but the subject (Venus) too. "The onely obiect *and* the
>star".
Why not, "not the object only but the star?" I think you're being just too
clever, Peter--and making Edwards more clever than he seems elsewhere.
>> The star image is confused, so while its use suggests that
>> Edwards is saying the new poet should be his poem's only star
>> --although he has said that Adon well deserved to be where he
>> was, and was beloved of Venus--I take the star to only be
>> taking on connotations
whether intended or not, who knows
>> from the previous stanza, not directly
>> referring to it.
>
>But you yourself have shown how clearly it *does* directly refer
>back to the previous stanza with the reference to the purple
>blood. Why stop there? OK, silly question!
Why not accept the reference as a simple transition? Okay, silly question.
>> I agree that it certainly says that Mr. Purple is superior to
>> Adon.
And the rest of the poets mentioned in the poem.
>> > > He's just saying, this new poet should have been the only
>> > > one I wrote about in this poem.
I'd be surprised if Greene never wrote about magick.
By the way, how does this occurence of "bewitching" in the poem relate to its
first use in stanza one?
>
><snip>
>
>> > > > Is Edwards referring to this, and the men 'Tilting under
>> > > > Frieries' the 'souls below' who are frying in Hell?
>> > > > Marlowe differs from them by the simple fact of not yet
>> > > > being really dead.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>>
>> Jesus. (all meanings intended.) No serious thoughts yet.
>
>OK. Just explain that pesky pen! I'm beginning to favour the
>idea of his being different to those "Tilting under Frieries"
>because he was an atheist.
That's a good thought. I hadn't thought of the participial phrase as referring
to "men" rather than to Mr. Purple.
>You know how the song (nearly) goes:
>
> Friars could get no higher re-
> ception in a Friary
>
>But not Marlowe!
>
>> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
>> To haue honored him with baies.
>> > > >
>> > > > I see the first line as a clear reference to Marlowe's
>> > > > translation of Ovid's *Amores*, poems from the so-called
>> > > > 'Golden Age' (c.70BC-18AD) and much concerned with
>> > > > 'wooing'. Not yet published, but written by then of course.
>> > >
>> > > Not for me. For me, it's another stock compliment.
>> >
>> > If so, it shouldn't be too hard to find examples. Can you? I have
>> > provided a reason for saying that this can be specifically related
>> > to Marlowe in a way that is *not* appropriate for most others.
>>
>> Poets talked of golden ages. I'm not going to hunt for examples.
>> I'm not good at that. I just can't believe that in six thousand
>> years of poetry, no previous poet ever used the phrase "golden art."
>
>Of course they did. At this stage, however, we are looking for
>someone to whom the rest of the two stanzas seem to apply,
>*and* for whom - if possible - those words might be *specially*
>relevant. Sorry, Bob, but that's my boy.
Is Collyn "mighty" because Edwards wants to compliment him or because "mighty"
is an important word in Collyn's poetry? How about "greatest pride?" Did
Amintas and Leander make special use of the phrase "nimble throats?" I can't
help but think you're once again straining after connections to Marlowe, Peter.
Maybe if you took some unattributed text and showed it was by someone other than
Marlowe, or pinned down some unnamed person in a poem who was known to have been
real, I'd be more accepting of your methods.
Nonetheless, this, I feel, has been one of our better discussions. I've enjoyed
it.
--Bob G.
Diana Price
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> "Also with blood-stained clothing - in other words, like
> Adonis, having apparently died a violent death while still
> young - I have heard of another poet, now living in the
> Mediterranean region, who still has influence, if from
> afar, and who properly should have been given that nick-
> name 'Adonis'. Not only *his* name, in fact, but that of
> 'Venus' too".
>
> Diana? Pat? How's that fence feeling?
I had not thought I was sitting on the fence. I remain uncommitted to a
candidate -- not the same thing as wavering between two or more candidates.
The "purple" connection between V&A and L'Envoi is striking, but some of the
speculations by Buckley & co. seem just as likely.
Roger Parisious has studied the relationships between the texts of the Envoi
and the main part of the poem far more than I (as well as V&A), and I think
I am correct in saying that the he reads L'envoi as the culmination of the
"Adon" material in the main text of the poem. I'd be interested to know what
he says about all this.
Diana Price
Peter Farey
>
> Is Collyn "mighty" because Edwards wants to compliment him
> or because "mighty" is an important word in Collyn's poetry?
> How about "greatest pride?" Did Amintas and Leander make
> special use of the phrase "nimble throats?" I can't help
> but think you're once again straining after connections to
> Marlowe, Peter. Maybe if you took some unattributed text and
> showed it was by someone other than Marlowe, or pinned down
> some unnamed person in a poem who was known to have been
> real, I'd be more accepting of your methods.
To be a Stratfordian, it is not *essential* to be illogical,
but it does certainly help.
Allow me to take you, in as patronising a way as I can muster,
through the steps.
1) Terry (very nicely I thought) showed us that we have all
been barking up the wrong tree. 'Distained' is a perfectly
legitimate word in its own right, and has a meaning very
different to that of 'disdained', which just about everybody
else, including me, seems to have assumed it really meant,
even though 'disdained' makes no sense at all, and
'distained' makes perfect sense.
2) He also reminded us that in those days blood was frequently
described as being purple, as well as the red and crimson
with which we are perhaps more familiar today.
3) He therefore explained that the first line of the ninth
stanza: "Eke in purple roabes distaind" probably refers
to a poet (not the one just mentioned) who was "somebody of
great promise who died a violent death before 1595".
4) You and I both know (and Elizabeth picked this up as well)
that this is of course a very good description of Marlowe.
5) Pat, however, correctly observed that the rest of the
stanza gives no indication that this person is dead
- quite the reverse, in fact.
6) Now you and I also both know that (for many reasons
unconnected with this poem) I think it probable that his
death was faked. So, in such circumstances this apparent
anomaly would also make sense.
7) What I have to do, therefore, is see whether the *other*
things said about this poet tend either to confirm or to
rule out Marlowe as the poet Edwards had in mind. What I
do *not* have to do is to show that each part of the
description applies to Marlowe alone, and to nobody else,
nor that they unambiguously and irrefutably refer to
Marlowe.
8) Everything about it (whether you regard my looking for the
connections as 'straining' or not), *does* tend to confirm
it, in my opinion, rather than rule it out, and I have
shown in each case why I believe this to be so.
So, if you think that it rules him out, please tell me how.
If you think it fits someone *else* better, please tell me
who and why. But please stop muddying the water with this
"Maybe if you took some unattributed text" stuff. That is
totally irrelevant.
Peter Farey
Diana Price wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > "Also with blood-stained clothing - in other words, like
> > Adonis, having apparently died a violent death while still
> > young - I have heard of another poet, now living in the
> > Mediterranean region, who still has influence, if from
> > afar, and who properly should have been given that nick-
> > name 'Adonis'. Not only *his* name, in fact, but that of
> > 'Venus' too".
> >
> > Diana? Pat? How's that fence feeling?
>
> I had not thought I was sitting on the fence. I remain
> uncommitted to a candidate -- not the same thing as wavering
> between two or more candidates.
My apologies. Just a rather unfunny attempt at humour on my
part.
> The "purple" connection between V&A and L'Envoi is striking,
> but some of the speculations by Buckley & co. seem just as
> likely.
You surprise me. It was my impression that Terry Ross, by
homing in on that word 'distained', had virtually demolished
any idea of the robes having been 'dyed' purple or of it
having the meaning 'disdained'. What surprises me even more
though, going on the short look at the scholars' arguments
you gave us, is that Terry's interpretation seems not to have
been even considered by any of them. Is that so?
I wasn't too impressed by Nicholson's reasons for concluding
that all three stanzas refer to Shakespeare, by the way.
> > 1. No one else wrote any thing of note about Adonis till
> > [Shakespeare] did. His poem was published in 1593.
So far so good, but that supports only the one verse.
> > 2. The poem is distinctly dealing with living English
> > Poets, both before and after these stanzas.
Then how would he explain the line "Amyntas and Leander's
gone"?
> > 3. He is living in London, 'the center of this clime.'
This clime could also be, as I pointed out, the clime where
*V & A* took place.
> > 4. To me he alludes to his station as a player and dramatic
> > author by (a) by allusion to his social state thereby
> > lowered, 'Eke in purple roabes distained,'
That's 'distained', *not* 'disdained'.
> > and same stanza, l.5 'Should have been of our rime The
> > only object and the star.'
Is he suggesting that top actors (even if that did apply to
Shakespeare) were called 'stars' in those days?
> > (b) 'Although he differs much from men,' i.e., from
> > men of repute, honourable men like Spenser, &c.,
Then he would have had to say 'such men'. Men (and boys
of course) *did* 'tilt under Frieries' in the sense he
wants to give the phrase.
> > (c) For I am inclined to read 'men' [no comma]; not 'men,'
> > Tilting under Frieries, 'Yet his golden art might woo us,
> > To have honored him with baies.' I can give no sense to
> > 'Frieries,' unless he mean Black-friars (Theatre), and
> > this interpretation is supported by 'Yet might have honored.'
> Roger Parisious has studied the relationships between the
> texts of the Envoi and the main part of the poem far more
> than I (as well as V&A), and I think I am correct in saying
> that the he reads L'envoi as the culmination of the "Adon"
> material in the main text of the poem. I'd be interested to
> know what he says about all this.
So would I. That would suit me just fine.
Bob Grumman
>
>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>> Is Collyn "mighty" because Edwards wants to compliment him
>> or because "mighty" is an important word in Collyn's poetry?
>> How about "greatest pride?" Did Amintas and Leander make
>> special use of the phrase "nimble throats?" I can't help
>> but think you're once again straining after connections to
>> Marlowe, Peter. Maybe if you took some unattributed text and
>> showed it was by someone other than Marlowe, or pinned down
>> some unnamed person in a poem who was known to have been
>> real, I'd be more accepting of your methods.
>
>To be a Stratfordian, it is not *essential* to be illogical,
>but it does certainly help.
I'm showing that your ability to find links to Marlowe everywhere is suspect.
If you could find plausible links to others in other works, your linking ability
would be less suspect. Poets, even Elizabethan poets, use words for reasons
other than to describe unnamed contemporaries in their poems.
>1) Terry (very nicely I thought) showed us that we have all
> been barking up the wrong tree. 'Distained' is a perfectly
> legitimate word in its own right, and has a meaning very
> different to that of 'disdained', which just about everybody
> else, including me, seems to have assumed it really meant,
> even though 'disdained' makes no sense at all, and
> 'distained' makes perfect sense.
I took "distained" to mean "distained"--or runined by staining.
>2) He also reminded us that in those days blood was frequently
> described as being purple, as well as the red and crimson
> with which we are perhaps more familiar today.
Terry does good work, but I knew this.
>3) He therefore explained that the first line of the ninth
> stanza: "Eke in purple roabes distaind" probably refers
> to a poet (not the one just mentioned) who was "somebody of
> great promise who died a violent death before 1595".
>4) You and I both know (and Elizabeth picked this up as well)
> that this is of course a very good description of Marlowe.
Right.
>5) Pat, however, correctly observed that the rest of the
> stanza gives no indication that this person is dead
> - quite the reverse, in fact.
Which is the largest reason it isn't about Marlowe--except that Marlowe has
already appeared in the poem.
>6) Now you and I also both know that (for many reasons
> unconnected with this poem) I think it probable that his
> death was faked. So, in such circumstances this apparent
> anomaly would also make sense.
>
>7) What I have to do, therefore, is see whether the *other*
> things said about this poet tend either to confirm or to
> rule out Marlowe as the poet Edwards had in mind. What I
> do *not* have to do is to show that each part of the
> description applies to Marlowe alone, and to nobody else,
> nor that they unambiguously and irrefutably refer to
> Marlowe.
I didn't say you did. What you did, and do, is take words that only in the most
strained way point to Marlowe and assume they do, like "power." This you
connect to Marlowe because one of his characters had power and, I suppose,
because he may have once been referred to as that character.
>8) Everything about it (whether you regard my looking for the
> connections as 'straining' or not), *does* tend to confirm
> it, in my opinion, rather than rule it out, and I have
> shown in each case why I believe this to be so.
>So, if you think that it rules him out, please tell me how.
>If you think it fits someone *else* better, please tell me
>who and why. But please stop muddying the water with this
>"Maybe if you took some unattributed text" stuff. That is
>totally irrelevant.
I don't think any words that Edwards used or could have used would rule him out
other than "he was not Marlowe. My best guess now is Sidney. It would be very
strange that he would not be mentioned in this poem. What does Edwards say
about Sidney, or any poets, elsewhere? Anything?
I note that you ignore the stanza after the two you think you can link to
Marlowe. But it speaks of "he that gan up to tilt" right after Mr. Purple may
have been described as "tilting under Frieries." What does Babel have to do
with Marlowe, Sidney or any know contemporary poet of Edwards's? Who is known
to have written about Babel?
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
> > Diana? Pat? How's that fence feeling?
>
> I had not thought I was sitting on the fence. I remain uncommitted to a
> candidate -- not the same thing as wavering between two or more candidates.
You've carved out quite a position for yourself, Diana.
You've got your hands free to attack Stratfordianism while at the
same time you don't have to cover your backside because you've
found a way to neutralize counterattacks from the Strat faction
simply by refusing to identify your "anonymous aristocrat."
Scholarship is transparent, not opaque, or it isn't scholarship.
KQKnave
writes:
>I don't think any words that Edwards used or could have used would rule him
>out
>other than "he was not Marlowe. My best guess now is Sidney. It would be
>very
>strange that he would not be mentioned in this poem. What does Edwards say
>about Sidney, or any poets, elsewhere? Anything?
>
He does mention Sidney when he talks about Spenser:
He 'twas told of Sidney's honor
IOW "He [Spenser] it was that told of Sidney's honor" (in Spenser's
poem *Astrophel*).
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> > > Little do they know that Nelson is merely doing
> > > what he has been assigned to do.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Assigned by whom, Art?
> The same folks who assigned me to you, Dave.
> (Do they know that you've been slacking off?)
The Grand Master is quite satisfied that you have made such a
complete moron of yourself (with scarcely any help) that eVERyone
reading the newsgroup will conclude that
aneuendor...@comicass.nut is either a troll or exactly what the
name suggests -- in particular, the Grand Master has notified the Trust
that I need no longer respond to your posts. Indeed, I have been
reappointed to follow the activities of others perceived as more ominous
threats (e.g., Mr. Streitz and Brame/Popova). In fact, the Nautonnier
himself was gloating the other day that the handful of people who were
still occasionally reading your posts would surely have killfiled you
immediately after your idiotic and tasteless Peter Gay posts, an
inference resoundingly borne out by the e-mails I received thereafter.
Since nearly all you did for seVERal months was post monstrously long
effusions of the VERy same idiotic crap oVER and oVER, that impression
has been emphatically reinforced, and those at the top echelons of the
conspiracy feel that you're not worth spending any resources on any
more, Art -- the consensus is that there is just no point in wasting
time on a moron. So, I'm not slacking off; I'm just following new
orders. Does that answer your question?
Of course, an alternative explanation would be that you've grown so
repetitive that I simply don't find it amusing to respond to your idiocy
any longer, particularly during the spring migration when my free time
is best spent birding. Of the two possilibities, it is pretty clear
which one a sane person would regard as most plausible; of course, it's
also pretty clear which one you will select, regardless of what I say.
lyra
Hallo, Bob...
searching at Google I found this...
(quote)
Sonnets by Spenser from Various Sources
A Note on the Renascence Editions text:
This HTML etext is based upon The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of
Edmund Spenser [Grosart, London, 1882] by Richard Bear at the
University of Oregon. The text is in the public domain. Markup is
copyright Š 1995 University of Oregon; this version is distributed for
nonprofit use only. Comments and emendations to:
rb...@oregon.uoregon.edu.
SONNETS BY SPENSER
FROM
VARIOUS SOURCES.
IV. From "The Commonwealth and Gouernment of Venice. Written by the
Cardinall Gasper Contareno, and translated out of Italian into English
by Lewis Lewkenor, Esquire. London: Imprinted by Iohn Windet for
Edmund Mattes, etc., 1599 (quarto)."
THe antique Babel, Empresse of the East,
Vpreard her buildinges to the threatned skie:
And Second Babell, tyrant of the West,
Her ayry Towers vpraised much more high.
But, with the weight of their own surquedry,
They both are fallen, that all the earth did feare,
And buried now in their own ashes ly;
Yet shewing by their heapes, how great they were.
But in their place doth now a third appeare,
Fayre Venice, flower of the last worlds delight;
And next to them in beauty draweth neare,
But farre exceedes in policie of right.
Yet not so fayre her buildinges to behold
As Lewkenors stile that hath her beautie told.
Edm. Spencer.
http://www.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/resour/mirrors/rbear/sonnets.html
* * * * * *
lyra
Bob Grumman
>>out
>>other than "he was not Marlowe. My best guess now is Sidney. It would be
>>very
>>strange that he would not be mentioned in this poem. What does Edwards say
>>about Sidney, or any poets, elsewhere? Anything?
>>
>
>He does mention Sidney when he talks about Spenser:
>
>He 'twas told of Sidney's honor
That's right.
>IOW "He [Spenser] it was that told of Sidney's honor" (in Spenser's
>poem *Astrophel*).
Yes. I think the mention of Sidney makes it unlikely that Mr. Purple is he.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > Little do they know that Nelson is merely
> > > > doing what he has been assigned to do.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Assigned by whom, Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > The same folks who assigned me to you, Dave.
> > (Do they know that you've been slacking off?)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> The Grand Master is quite satisfied that you have made such
> a complete moron of yourself (with scarcely any help) that
> eVERyone reading the newsgroup will conclude that
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut is either a troll or exactly what the
> name suggests -- in particular, the Grand Master has notified the Trust
> that I need no longer respond to your posts. Indeed, I have been
> reappointed to follow the activities of others perceived as more
> ominous threats (e.g., Mr. Streitz and Brame/Popova).
Omnibus, n. [L., for all, dat. pl. from omnis all.]
1. A long four-wheeled carriage used in conveying
PASSENGERS SHORT distances.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,
READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST"
---------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> In fact, the Nautonnier himself was gloating the other day
Gloating or Floating?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> that the handful of people who were still
> occasionally reading your posts would surely have killfiled you
> immediately after your idiotic and tasteless Peter Gay posts, an
> inference resoundingly borne out by the e-mails I received thereafter.
You're the one with all the idiotic & tasteless Peter Gay posts, Dave.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Since nearly all you did for seVERal months was post monstrously
> long effusions of the VERy same idiotic crap oVER and oVER,
Effusion, n. [L. effusio] 1. The act of POURing out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ICH [G I E ß E]: (German): "I POUR"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTH [E] O [N] LIEB [E] GETTEROFTHESEIN
SVIN [G] S [O] NNET [ß] MRWHALLHAPPINES
SEAN [D] T [H] ATET [E] RNITIEPROMISEDB
YOVR [E] V [E] RLIV [I] NGPOETWISHETHTH
EWEL [L] W [I] SHIN [G] ADVENTVRERINSET
TING [F] O [R] TH <= 27 =>
"Leaving *NO HEIR* begotten of his body" -- Henry VI Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
The [EWER] Bottle has the Royal Arms of the Tudor Dynasty,
a Boar's Head Cap.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/ewer.html
<<The Office of Ewery had been in the Vere family for generations,
with the special privilege of bearing water to the King or Queen on
Coronation day. It is not known conclusively if Oxford performed this
function at King James' Coronation in 1603, but he did petition
to be paid for such service, as was the custom. Edward de Vere
was only 8 years old at Elizabeth's coronation in 1558.
His father John de Vere, 16th EO, probably enjoyed that function.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
EWER, n. [OF. ewer, euwier, prop. a water carrier,
F. ['e]vier a washing place, sink, aigui[`e]re ewer,
L. aquarius, adj., water carrying, n., a water carrier,
fr. aqua water; G. au, aue
akin to Goth.: *A H W A* water, river
OHG : *A H A*
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
[A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row plucks the letter G.
[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with G,
It follows in his thought that I am he.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
<<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
<<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
And say wilt please your Lordship coole your hands.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
<<I the lady Elizabeth Vere Countesse Dowager of Oxenford late wife
of Edward de Vere late Earle of Oxenford doe make and ordayne
this my last will. . . Item I give vnto my worthie good friend
S{i}r Edward Mooreknight my longe SILVER BASON wth the EWER to it.>>
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/DOCS/elizwill.html
Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, wrote her last will & testiment
on the 50th birthday of the great Spanish playwright Lope de Vega
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BUTCHER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
WILL of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November, 1612
BUTCHER son-in-law Dr. John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> that impression has been emphatically reinforced,
> and those at the top echelons of the conspiracy
> feel that you're not worth spending any resources on any
> more, Art -- the consensus is that there is just no point in wasting
> time on a moron. So, I'm not slacking off; I'm just following
> new orders. Does that answer your question?
I suppose.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Of course, an alternative explanation would be that you've grown so
> repetitive that I simply don't find it amusing to respond to your idiocy
> any longer, particularly during the spring migration when my free time
> is best spent birding.
Well, then, let me be the first this season to give you the bird.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Of the two possilibities, it is pretty clear which one a sane
> person would regard as most plausible; of course, it's also pretty
> clear which one you will select, regardless of what I say.
Nevertheless, it's always nice to be given a choice.
Art N.
Greg Reynolds
of the works got a bit of a workout this week. She identified
A-1, the first known antiStrat. It was a multi-media blitz
including sorties on HLAS and a landing on National Public
Radio.
Her character assassination went on as scheduled but
there was a noticeable reclassification of the MAN WHO
DEBUNKED SHAKESPEARE, to wit:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Diana Price wrote:
> With respect to the first question, I said the following: "The first remark
> raising a question about the authorship of a work by Shakespeare was made by
> a contemporary named Thomas Edwards. In 1595, in three stanzas of a longer
> poem, Edwards implied that the author of Venus and Adonis was an aristocrat.
This almost calls Edwards a poet, but it carefully does not. He
is a contemporary who implied in a poem.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Diana Price wrote:
> An early indication of a question concerning Shakespeare's authorship
> appeared in 1595, when Thomas Edwards published "Cephalus and Procris.
> Narcissus," two poems each followed by an envoy. In "L'Envoy" to
> "Narcissus," Edwards praised several Elizabethan poets, introducing each one
> with an allegorical nickname (e.g., Collyn for Spenser) or reference to a
> work for which they were known (e.g., Rosamund for Samuel Daniel). "Adon"
> signifies Shakespeare:
Again, this almost calls Edwards a poet, but it carefully does not. He
published poems and in an envoy praised Elizabethan poets.
On NPR aired Sunday April 27, '03 (recorded earlier) I believe that
Diana referred to Edwards as an "obscure poet" but I won't count that here.
So who is Thomas Edwards? Who is this MAN WHO DEBUNKED SHAKESPEARE?
Is he a poet, a publisher, or what?
Edwards, Thomas (1567?-1612<). Poet. [Eccles, Authors, 46 (1982)]
--Listing from http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bd/bio-e.htm
Eccles, Authors = Mark Eccles, "Brief Lives: Tudor and Stuart
Authors", Studies in Philology, LXXIX, no.4, Fall 1982. p. 46
"Virtually nothing is known about Thomas Edwards. Sidney Lee
reports in the D.N.B. that there is some reason to suppose that
he was an Oxford man. But Thomas Edwards is a common
name, and the author of these lines might be any of several
persons who were at Oxford during the appropriate era, or
even perhaps another man of the same name."
--Michael R. Thompson, Bookseller
http://www.polybiblio.com/mrtbksla/11940.html
Let's put Thomas Edwards to the scrutiny Diana Price applies
to Shakespeare to see if he might be a writer...
1. Evidence of education
2. Record of correspondence concerning literary matters
3. Evidence of having been paid to write
4. Evidence of a direct relationship with a patron
5. Original manuscript extant
6. Handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters, etc. touching
on literary matters
7. Commendatory verses, epistles, or epigrams contributed
or received
8. Personally referred to as a writer; misc. records
9. Evidence of books owned, borrowed, or given
10. Notice at death as a writer
.... well, it seems that Edwards is nothing of the kind!
SO -- Diana, using her own unbiased test of authorship, is now
using the writings of a nonwriter in order to discredit Shakespeare
AS A WRITER!
Is not Diana contradicting herself?
Is not the MAN WHO DEBUNKED SHAKESPEARE actually
debunking Diana by becoming the nonwriter she makes him be?
Will Diana Price now have to make Thomas Edwards another broker?
Is this the best she can do to discredit Shakespeare?
Three EYEWITNESSES claim that Shakespeare wrote the
plays but Price thinks we'll believe a nonwriter's writings instead!
She's must be kidding.
Greg Reynolds
Robert Stonehouse
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>1) Terry (very nicely I thought) showed us that we have all
> been barking up the wrong tree. 'Distained' is a perfectly
> legitimate word in its own right, and has a meaning very
> different to that of 'disdained', which just about everybody
> else, including me, seems to have assumed it really meant,
> even though 'disdained' makes no sense at all, and
> 'distained' makes perfect sense.
>
>2) He also reminded us that in those days blood was frequently
> described as being purple, as well as the red and crimson
> with which we are perhaps more familiar today.
This doesn't mean it was a different colour - the meaning of the word
has changed. From the Shorter Oxford:
B sb. 1. The name of a colour.
a. Anciently, that of the dye obtained from species of molluscs
(Purpura and Murex), commonly called Tyrian p., which was a crimson;
b. in the Middle Ages applied vaguely to many shades of red;
c. now applied to mixtures of red and blue in various proportions,
usu. containing also some black or white, or both 1440.
So the imperial purple of the Romans was what we would call crimson.
Peter Farey
Greg Reynolds wrote:
<snip>
> So who is Thomas Edwards? Who is this MAN WHO DEBUNKED SHAKESPEARE?
> Is he a poet, a publisher, or what?
>
> Edwards, Thomas (1567?-1612<). Poet. [Eccles, Authors, 46 (1982)]
> --Listing from http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bd/bio-e.htm
> Eccles, Authors = Mark Eccles, "Brief Lives: Tudor and Stuart
> Authors", Studies in Philology, LXXIX, no.4, Fall 1982. p. 46
>
> "Virtually nothing is known about Thomas Edwards. Sidney Lee
> reports in the D.N.B. that there is some reason to suppose that
> he was an Oxford man. But Thomas Edwards is a common
> name, and the author of these lines might be any of several
> persons who were at Oxford during the appropriate era, or
> even perhaps another man of the same name."
> --Michael R. Thompson, Bookseller
> http://www.polybiblio.com/mrtbksla/11940.html
>
> Let's put Thomas Edwards to the scrutiny Diana Price applies
> to Shakespeare to see if he might be a writer...
No let's not.
<snip>
Repeating part of my answer to one John W Kennedy's posts:
This is what Charles Nicholl has to say about him
(*The Reckoning*, pp 52-3, revised pp 61-2).
<quote>
I first came across Thomas Edwards in the *Penguin Book of
Elizabethan Verse*, where his biographical note consists of a
single sentence: 'About Edwards nothing is known except his
name.' This is quite untrue. He was born in Shropshire in 1567;
he was (like Nicholas Skeres) a resident of Furnival's Inn in
the mid-1580s; he later shared a chamber at Lincoln's Inn with
John Donne's friend Christopher Brooke; and he was at the time
of Marlowe's death a 'servant' of Sir John Wolley, the Queen's
Latin secretary.
<end quote>
Given what I claim he is probably saying in his *Envoi*, I find
the fact that he is quite likely to have been an acquaintance
of Nicholas Skeres to be of considerable interest.
Bob Grumman
>> to Shakespeare to see if he might be a writer...
>
>No let's not.
What?! After Diana Price discovered how to tell beyond reasonable doubt whether
or not a person alleged to be a writer truly was one, jumping to the forefront
of the world's attribution scholars, you oppose using her method to determine
whether this Edwards was a writer or not? What's the matter with you, Peter?
><snip>
>
>Repeating part of my answer to one John W Kennedy's posts:
>
>This is what Charles Nicholl has to say about him
>(*The Reckoning*, pp 52-3, revised pp 61-2).
>
><quote>
>
>I first came across Thomas Edwards in the *Penguin Book of
>Elizabethan Verse*, where his biographical note consists of a
>single sentence: 'About Edwards nothing is known except his
>name.' This is quite untrue. He was born in Shropshire in 1567;
>he was (like Nicholas Skeres) a resident of Furnival's Inn in
>the mid-1580s; he later shared a chamber at Lincoln's Inn with
>John Donne's friend Christopher Brooke; and he was at the time
>of Marlowe's death a 'servant' of Sir John Wolley, the Queen's
>Latin secretary.
>
><end quote>
>
>Given what I claim he is probably saying in his *Envoi*, I find
>the fact that he is quite likely to have been an acquaintance
>of Nicholas Skeres to be of considerable interest.
So what? He obviously did not write the poems attributed to him. Thanks to
Greg, we know that as surely as we know that William Shakespeare, gent., of
Stratford-upon-Avon any of the works attributed to him.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Diana Price wrote:
> > SNIP
Peter,you sound absolutely ominous and,alack, all of my raw
materials(most importantly my copy of the complete original text)are
unavailable to me at the present time.Still my four page commentary at
the end of my l998 monograph for the Elizabethan Review(and the
supplement in the following issue)lists for the first time all the
very slight amount of material that has ever been published on the
subject of Adon. To make things worse,there is not a single one of the
commentators,after the l882 group who seems displays a full knowledge
of what the other later commentators preceeding him said.
And,with the exception of Mrs.Stopes in the 20's(Life of
Southampton with cross-reference to a previous article) and Alden
Brooks,following her,in the early l940's,no critic ever made the
slightest effort to read the Envoi in relation to the main text of the
poem.It couldn't be plainer.
The second title of the poem is Narcissus.This is likewise the
title of a previous(very bad) poem published prior to "Venus and
Adonis" in which Southampton is portrayed as the self infatuated male
beauty who spurns the offers of the Burleigh Vere faction.It is
written by a hanger-on of Burleigh and ,to a lesser
extent,of Oxford.The fall l593 poem has combined the successive themes
of the two earlier works and thereby pairs Author Adon(he of the boar)
with his dedicatee Henry Southampton,the same Southamptonwho just
previously has been both subject matter and the dedicatee of an
earlier poem,likewise dealing with the projected Oxford-Southampton
merger.
As the poem begins with Southampton, it ends with Adon,the most
important poet,in terms of the text, toward whom TE has been leading
us from the very beginning.It is not all surprising Adon gets the
final three stanzas. It would have been very bad construction if some
non-entity had been slipped in for the peroration.
Unfortunately Mrs.Stopes decided she was seeing double and
,ignoring the content of the Envoi, proceed to identify Southampton as
both the creator and his creation.And this despite the clear
statement that they (Adon and Southampton) had been boys together.
As there is nothing in the poem which seems to indicate that
Southampton and Adon are in the same age group,I would read the phrase
as meaning that the poet,supposed ,like the author who had preceeded
him, to urge the claims of a Burleigh alliance took off on a
roistering extended pub crawl(or the equivalent thereof) with the
youth he was supposed to be morally admonishing..Consider "Willobie
His Avisa".
In this overall context(which context Dowden failed to see)Dowden's
identification of Adon in the Envoi as Edward Oxford is the only
completely consistent structural interpretation of the poem yet
advanced.
(I am not going to argue it here ,as,having waited most of forty
years in order to present it correctly,I must wait a few months longer
till the Yeats materials are published and I can speak at first hand
from the original Elizabeth and nineteenth century material.)
Dowden did not name Oxford as Shakespeare ,merely Adon; the critic
who followed him in the text of l882 named Bacon, and the next after
that,Shakespeare,except that Will was not supposed to be masquing, nor
in a position to have power flowing far,nor playing as a boy with
Southampton.Taking these references as a unity, one might further
conclude that the purple in the second stanza may be staining rather
than disdaining but it is nonetheless a very royal shade of purple
that emanates from Adon.
Edwards is in many respects the perfect witness.He wrote before
anyone else and therefore before there was any party line to hew. He
cannot know that he is being controversial and simply takes it for
granted that Shakespeare was a man of some influence(on the most
watered down reading) and one easily identifiable among those
knowlegable with the Southampton set.
The facts that (a) the publication was held up for two years after
registration(b)only one complete copy survives (c)there is no known
contemporary
comment in either print or manuscript and that (d)the author instantly
became a literary non-person, strongly suggest that the work,however
accidentally ,proved very offensive indeed.
The objection to what sounds like extremely plain evidence is
likewise quite simple.While we know far too much to take Heminge and
Condell at face value,we know far too little to casually take it
Edwards at face value.But that is secondary.The important thing is
that on the evidence of Greene l587(recognized by Richard Simpson no
later than l873.See my earlier threads here) and the evidence of
Edwards(l593) recognized by Dowden l879 and Stopes l923) and the
evidence of George Buc(l595 and l599),and one could name many more,
there was already a very serious Elizabethan Shakespeare authorship
problem.
I feel Edwards is against you,Peter;but that doesn't mean you
aren't right.Jonson(l623) is against us both but(contra Rob who is
growling around here recently) Jonson on many other occasions could
not be more favorable to positions we both hold.
Let the controversy continue.There is never one more firmly
grounded in contemporary evidence.
Posted without any revision-RNP
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > >> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > > > Little do they know that Nelson is merely
> > > > > doing what he has been assigned to do.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Assigned by whom, Art?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > The same folks who assigned me to you, Dave.
> > > (Do they know that you've been slacking off?)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > The Grand Master is quite satisfied that you have made such
> > a complete moron of yourself (with scarcely any help) that
> > eVERyone reading the newsgroup will conclude that
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut is either a troll or exactly what the
> > name suggests -- in particular, the Grand Master has notified the Trust
> > that I need no longer respond to your posts. Indeed, I have been
> > reappointed to follow the activities of others perceived as more
> > ominous threats (e.g., Mr. Streitz and Brame/Popova).
> Omnibus, n. [L., for all, dat. pl. from omnis all.]
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
No, Art, "ominous."
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > In fact, the Nautonnier himself was gloating the other day
> Gloating or Floating?
Excellent, Art -- but in this instance he was gloating gleefully.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > that the handful of people who were still
> > occasionally reading your posts would surely have killfiled you
> > immediately after your idiotic and tasteless Peter Gay posts, an
> > inference resoundingly borne out by the e-mails I received thereafter.
[...]
> > Since nearly all you did for seVERal months was post monstrously
> > long effusions of the VERy same idiotic crap oVER and oVER,
> Effusion, n. [L. effusio] 1. The act of POURing out.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ICH [G I E ß E]: (German): "I POUR"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> TOTH [E] O [N] LIEB [E] GETTEROFTHESEIN
> SVIN [G] S [O] NNET [ß]
The letter "ß" does not appear in the Sonnets' Dedication, Art -- but
you're probably working with the Sonnets' Defecation instead.
[More lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
"ShREW"?! Surely you're joking, Art.
> <<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
> BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
>
> <<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
But Art -- "with a silver bason" is a perfect anagram of
"Ver is an SOB withal."
That appears to describe the Earl to a "T" -- or if you prefer, to a
"T.T."
> Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
> Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
A diaper?! Surely the Aubrey flatulence anecdote doesn't lead you to
believe that Oxford was actually incontinent, Art!
[More lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > that impression has been emphatically reinforced,
> > and those at the top echelons of the conspiracy
> > feel that you're not worth spending any resources on any
> > more, Art -- the consensus is that there is just no point in wasting
> > time on a moron. So, I'm not slacking off; I'm just following
> > new orders. Does that answer your question?
> I suppose.
You don't sound persuaded.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Of course, an alternative explanation would be that you've grown so
> > repetitive that I simply don't find it amusing to respond to your idiocy
> > any longer, particularly during the spring migration when my free time
> > is best spent birding.
> Well, then, let me be the first this season to give you the bird.
Thank you, Art.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Of the two possilibities, it is pretty clear which one a sane
> > person would regard as most plausible; of course, it's also pretty
> > clear which one you will select, regardless of what I say.
> Nevertheless, it's always nice to be given a choice.
Surely you mean "neVERtheless," don't you, Art?
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > The Grand Master is quite satisfied that you have made such
> > > a complete moron of yourself (with scarcely any help) that
> > > eVERyone reading the newsgroup will conclude that
> > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut is either a troll or exactly what the
> > > name suggests -- in particular, the Grand Master has notified the
Trust
> > > that I need no longer respond to your posts. Indeed, I have been
> > > reappointed to follow the activities of others perceived as more
> > > ominous threats (e.g., Mr. Streitz and Brame/Popova).
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > Omnibus, n. [L., for all, dat. pl. from omnis all.]
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No, Art, "ominous."
Perhaps you mean alcINOUS, Dave?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did her dignity come from?
By a latent vein from ALCINOUS' line, her father
hailing from Phaeacia's isle?--or from Fitzalan & DE VERE,
her maternal grandfather having had a cousin in the peerage?
- _Return of the Native_ by Thomas Hardy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey - Homer (tr. Samuel Butler) ** BOOK VII
<<"First find the QUEEN her name is ARETE. . ."
Ulysses went straight through the court,
still hidden by the cloak of darkness in which Minerva
had enveloped him, till he reached ARETE & King ALCINOUS;
then he laid his hands upon the KNEES of [ARETE] and at
that moment the miraculous darkness fell away from him.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
F T H E S E [I] n s U I N G S O N N E T
S M *r* W h a [L] L h a] P P I [N] E S S E A
N D *t* h a t [E] T [E|r] N I T [I] E P R O M
I S *E* D B Y O U [R|e] V E R [L] I V I N G
P O *E* t W I S H [E|t] H T H [E] W E L L W
I S *h* I N G A [d V e] N T U R E R I N S
E t *T* I N G
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.nbci.com/book_archive/00/gk/homer/07.html
<<Athene shed a deep MIST about Odysseus for the favour that she bare
him, lest any of the Phaeacians, high of heart, should meet him and mock
him in sharp speech, and ask him who he was. But when he was now about
to enter the pleasant city, then the goddess, GREY-eyed Athene, met him,
in the fashion of a young maiden carrying a pitcher, and she stood over
against him, and goodly Odysseus inquired of her: Now the steadfast
goodly Odysseus went through the hall, clad in a thick MIST, which
Athene shed around him, till he came to ARETE and the king ALCINOUS.
And Odysseus cast his hands about the KNEES of ARETE, and then
it was that the wondrous MIST melted from off him, and a silence
fell on them that were within the house at the sight of him,
and they marvelled as they beheld him.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[M]yth [O]f [E]r: http://www.3-stooges.com/images/picmoe.jpg
{Myth Of Er} _The Republic_ by Plato (360 B.C.)
<<SOCRATES: Well, I said, I will tell you a tale; not one of the tales
which Odysseus tells to the hero ALCINOUS, yet this too is a tale of
a hero, Er the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth. He was slain in
battle, and ten days afterwards, when the bodies of the dead were taken
up already in a state of corruption, his body was found unaffected by
decay, and carried away home to be buried. And on the twelfth day,
as he was lying on the funeral pile, he returned to life
and told them what he had seen in the other world. . .>>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/9313/plato/18.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<That model schoolboy, Stephen said, would find HAMLET's musings about
the afterlife of his princely soul, the improbable, insignificant and
undramatic monologue, as SHALLOW as PLATO's.>>- _Ulysses_ James Joyce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CRATYLUS by Plato
<<[SOCRATES to Hermogenes]: ARETE signifying in the 1st place
ease of motion, then that the STREAM of the good soul is unimpeded,
and has therefore the attribute of EVER FLOWING without let
or hindrance, and is therefore called ARETE,
or, more correctly, aeireite (EVER-FLOWING)>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
F T H E S E [I] n s U I N G S O N N E T
S M *r* W h a [L] L h a] P P I [N] E S S E A
N D *t* h a t [E] T [E|r] N I T [I] E P R O M
I S *E* D B Y O U [R|e] V E R [L] I V I N G
P O *E* t W I S H [E|t] H T H [E] W E L L W
I S *h* I N G A [d V e] N T U R E R I N S
E t *T* I N G
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lgboyd/chapter5.htm
<<The de VERES were an ancient dynastic family seated at their ancestral
village of VER (from which they took their name), near Bayeaux and
the River VIRE, in MANCHE on the Normandy coast of present-day northern
France. The name of the town itself came from the "VER," a Norse
word meaning "FISHDAM" that the Vikings had introduced into Normandy.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a random selection of letters surrounding the deVERE/ARETE
pattern given: 13 N's, 14 I's, 6 L's, & 19 E's
and ~2,900 possible placements for a bracketing NILE pair.
Chance of a NILE pair bracketing the deVERE/ARETE pattern ~ 1/100,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Hee [Shakespeare] was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature
: had an excellent Phantsie ; brave notions, and gentle expressions
wherein hee FLOW'D with that facility, that sometime it was necessary he
should be stop'd : Sufflaminandus erat ; as Augustus said of Haterius.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLUE, n. [OF. FLUE a flowing, fr. FLUEr to flow, fr. L. FLUEre.]
<= 28 =>
TOTHEO /N/ LIEB/E/G E. TTER *oF* THES /E/ IN [S]
UINGS /O/ NNET/ß/MRW \H\ ALLH *A* PPI /N/ ESS [E]
[A] NDT /H/ ATET/E/RNITI \E\ PRO *M* IS /E/ DBYO [U]
[R] EV /E/ RLIV/I/NGPOETW \I\ SH *E* T /H/ THEWE [L]
[L] W /I/ SHIN/G/ADVENTURE \R\ IN /S/ ETTING [F]
[O] /R/ TH
Flow, v. i. [AS. fl[=o]wan; akin to D. vloeijen, OHG. flawen to wash,
Icel. fl[=o]a to deluge, Gr. plw`ein to float, sail.] 1. To move with
a continual change of place among the particles or parts, as a fluid;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ICH [G I E ß E]: (German): "I POUR"
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/ewer.html
Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
<<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
<<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
And say wilt please your Lordship coole your hands.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Leaving *NO HEIR* begotten of his body" -- Henry VI Part 1
<<I the lady Elizabeth Vere Countesse Dowager of Oxenford late wife
of Edward de Vere late Earle of Oxenford doe make and ordayne
this my last will. . . Item I give vnto my worthie good friend
S{i}r Edward Mooreknight my longe SILVER BASON wth the EWER to it.>>
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/DOCS/elizwill.html
Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, wrote her last will & testiment
on the 50th birthday of the great Spanish playwright Lope de Vega
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BUTCHER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
WILL of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November, 1612
MILES Sandys created a baronet Wed. 25 November, 1612
BUTCHER son-in-law Dr. John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > In fact, the Nautonnier himself was gloating the other day
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > Gloating or Floating?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Excellent, Art -- but in this instance he was gloating gleefully.
or Floating Fleefully.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>> Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "ShREW"?! Surely you're joking, Art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<There was an evaluation committee that had to try to help us
decide which way we were going to separate the uranium. In these
discussions, one man would make a point. Then Compton, for example,
would explain a different point of view. He would say it should be this
way, and he was perfectly right. Another guy would say, well, maybe,
but there is this other possibility that we have to consider against it.
So everybody is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and
disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally,
at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard
all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the
best of all, and now we have to go ahead." It was such a shock to me to
see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one
thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said,
so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the
best -- summing it all up -- without having to say it three times.>>
-- Richard P. Feynman ["Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!"]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > <<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
> > BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
> >
> > <<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But Art -- "with a silver bason" is a perfect anagram of
>
> "Ver is an SOB withal."
No: Art Neuendorffer is an SOB withal (right now!)
Withal, prep. With; -- put after its object.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> That appears to describe the Earl to a "T" -
> - or if you prefer, to a "T.T."
I prefer a "T.T.T." , Dave.
----------------------------------------------------------
banner folding
(v i\V\ I T U R
I N G \E\ N I O
C Æ [T] E \R\ A M
O R [T] I S \E\ R
U N [T]
Henry Peacham's Minerva Britanna
http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/title.jpg
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm
http://mesl.itd.umich.edu/w/wantz/images/vesdi02.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
> > Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> A diaper?! Surely the Aubrey flatulence anecdote doesn't
> lead you to believe that Oxford was actually incontinent, Art!
DIAPER, n. [It. diaspro JASPER, diaspo figured cloth,
from L. jaspis a GREEN-colored precious stone.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev 21:17: And he measured the *wall* thereof, an hundred and forty
and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is,
of the angel. And the building of the *WALL* of it was of *JASPER*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_Mystery of Edwin Drood_ by Charles Dickens
'By whom, for instance?' asks Edwin Drood, coming to a *HALT*,
and surveying the other with a look of disdain.
But, here a startling right hand is laid on Edwin's shoulder,
and *JASPER* stands between them. For, it would seem that he,
too, has strolled round by the Nuns' House, and has come up
behind them on the shadowy side of the road.'*NED, NED, NED*!'
he says; 'we must have no more of this. I don't like this.
I have overheard high words between you two. Remember, my
dear boy, you are almost in the position of host to-night.
You belong, as it were, to the place, and in a *MANNER*
represent it towards a *STRANGER* . Mr. Neville is a *STRANGER*,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > that impression has been emphatically reinforced,
> > > and those at the top echelons of the conspiracy
> > > feel that you're not worth spending any resources on any
> > > more, Art -- the consensus is that there is just no point in wasting
> > > time on a moron. So, I'm not slacking off; I'm just following
> > > new orders. Does that answer your question?
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > I suppose.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You don't sound persuaded.
So how come you're not following new orders NOW?
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Of course, an alternative explanation would be that you've grown so
> > > repetitive that I simply don't find it amusing to respond to your
idiocy
> > > any longer, particularly during the spring migration when my free time
> > > is best spent birding.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > Well, then, let me be the first this season to give you the bird.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Thank you, Art.
The pleasure is all mine, Dave.
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
> Here's the section of the poem dealing with various writers. It's clear
> who most of them are:
>
> Collyn was a mighty swaine,
> In his power all do flourish,
> We are shepheards but in vaine,
> There is but one tooke the charge,
> By his toile we do nourish,
> And by him are inlarg'd.
>
<snip>
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
> worked ("tilted") in a monastery
> ("friary").]
>
> He that gan vp to tilt,
> Babels fresh remembrance,
> Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
> And a world of stories made,
> In a catalogues semblance
> Hath alike the Muses staide.
> [Whoever it was, they seem to have
> written
> a collection of stories in catalog
> form.
> The reference to Babel seems to imply
> that
> the stories are collected from
> different
> languages. Am I missing something
> obvious here?]
>
As to Babel, here's a poem by Spenser
that I have put on this thread somewhere else...
Edm. Spencer.
(quote)
<http://www.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/resour/mirrors/rbear/sonnets.html>
lyra
>
lyra
> Terry Ross wrote:
> > Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
<snip>
> >
> > ...and a great deal more...
>
> Where in England (I almost said "on Earth") did Thomas Edwards hail
> from? I cannot make these verses scan accentual-syllabically,
> accentually, syllabically, or even quantitatively, unless I make the
> sort of assumptions normally made only for ME texts of provenance far
> from London, and not for EMnE ever. (Granted, I am very ignorant, but I
> am not accustomed to being so thoroughly baffled as this.)
I suspect that, like many another Edwards, (a typical Welsh name,)
he was of Welsh origins. This of course could alter his poetry...
lyra
Art Neuendorffer
> > Edwards, Thomas (1567?-1612<). Poet. [Eccles, Authors, 46 (1982)]
> > --Listing from http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bd/bio-e.htm
> > Eccles, Authors = Mark Eccles, "Brief Lives: Tudor and Stuart
> > Authors", Studies in Philology, LXXIX, no.4, Fall 1982. p. 46
> >
> > "Virtually nothing is known about Thomas Edwards. Sidney Lee
> > reports in the D.N.B. that there is some reason to suppose that
> > he was an Oxford man. But Thomas Edwards is a common
> > name, and the author of these lines might be any of several
> > persons who were at Oxford during the appropriate era, or
> > even perhaps another man of the same name."
> > --Michael R. Thompson, Bookseller
> > http://www.polybiblio.com/mrtbksla/11940.html
> >
> > Let's put Thomas Edwards to the scrutiny Diana Price applies
> > to Shakespeare to see if he might be a writer...
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> This is what Charles Nicholl has to say about him
> (*The Reckoning*, pp 52-3, revised pp 61-2).
>
> I first came across Thomas Edwards in the *Penguin Book of
> Elizabethan Verse*, where his biographical note consists of a
> single sentence: 'About Edwards nothing is known except his
> name.' This is quite untrue. He was born in Shropshire in 1567;
> he was (like Nicholas Skeres) a resident of Furnival's Inn in
> the mid-1580s; he later shared a chamber at Lincoln's Inn with
> John Donne's friend Christopher Brooke; and he was at the time
> of Marlowe's death a 'servant' of Sir John Wolley,
> the Queen's Latin secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://campus.belmont.edu/honors/wilseng2.html
"Sequestration Papers of Sir Thomas Edwardes, Baronet."
Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society
3rd ser. 1 (1901) 321-372.
[Wills, 4 of family printed. Shropshire, 1634 (2), 1639 (2). Gentry.]
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 8 lesser Inns of Chancery:
-- Thavies', FURNIVAL's, Barnard's, Staple,
Clifford's, Clement's, New, Lyon's
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Having inherited a considerable fortune, young "Jack Donne"
spent his money on womanizing, on books, at the theatre, and on travels.
He had also befriended CHRISTOPHER BROOKE, a poet and his chamber-fellow
at Lincoln's Inn, and Ben Jonson who was part of Brooke's circle of
literary associates. In 1596, Donne joined the naval expedition that
Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, led against Cádiz, Spain, and the
following year joined an expedition to the Azores, where he wrote "The
Calm". Upon his return to England in 1598, Donne was appointed private
secretary to Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal,
afterward Lord Ellesmere.
Donne was beginning a promising career. He sat in Queen Elizabeth's
last Parliament, for Brackley. But in 1601, he secretly married Lady
Egerton's niece, seventeen-year-old Anne More, daughter of Sir George
More, Lieutenant of the Tower, and thereby ruined his own worldly hopes.
Sir George More had Donne thrown to Fleet Prison for some weeks,
along with his friends Samuel & CHRISTOPHER BROOKE who had aided the
couple's clandestine affair. Egerton dismissed Donne from his post, and
for the next dozen years the poet had to struggle to support his growing
family. Donne later summed up the experience:
"John Donne, Anne Donne, Undone.">>
------------------------------------------------------------------
[ http://gen.culpepper.com/historical/vacharter2.htm ]
The Second Virginia Charter 23 May 1609
Robert, Earle of Salisburie [Salisbury]
Thomas, Earle of Suffolke [Suffolk]
Henrie, Earle of Southampton
William. Earle of Pembroke [Henrie]
. . . . . . . .
Sir John Smith, Knight
Sir Francis WOLLEY, Knight
. . . . . . . .
Edward Webb
Rice Webb [Piichard]
George Webb, gentleman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'servant' of Sir John Wolley, the Queen's Latin secretary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Marvell (b. March 31, 1621)
<<In September, 1657, Marvell was appointed assistant
to John Milton, Latin Secretary for the Commonwealth.
Marvell was paid a salary of £200, the same as Milton.
He seems to have been helpful after the Restoration (1660) in
saving Milton from an extended jail term & possible execution.
Marvell died on 16 August, 1678 of tertian ague, & the malpractice
of the attending physician. He was buried in the church of St.Giles.
Miscellaneous Poems printed posthumously in 1681.>>
"MARVEL not, my brethren, if the world hate you." --1 john iii. 13.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir THOMAS EDWARDS, ambassador to France?
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transl10.htm
<<The birth-place of Daniel Fairclough, or Featley, to call him by the name
whereby he is chiefly known, was Charlton, in Oxfordshire, where he was born
about the year 1578. He was admitted to Corpus Christi College in 1594; and
was elected Fellow in 1602. He stood in such high estimation, that Sir
THOMAS EDWARDS, ambassador to France, took him to Paris as his chaplain,
where he spent two or three years in the ambassador's house. Here he held
many "tough disputes" with the doctors of the Sorbonne, and other papists.
His opponents termed him "the keen and cutting Featley," and found him a
match in their boasted logic; "For he a rope of sand could twist, as tough
as learned Sorbonnist.">>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Is Collyn "mighty" because Edwards wants to compliment him
> > > or because "mighty" is an important word in Collyn's poetry?
> > > How about "greatest pride?" Did Amintas and Leander make
> > > special use of the phrase "nimble throats?" I can't help
> > > but think you're once again straining after connections to
> > > Marlowe, Peter. Maybe if you took some unattributed text and
> > > showed it was by someone other than Marlowe, or pinned down
> > > some unnamed person in a poem who was known to have been
> > > real, I'd be more accepting of your methods.
> >
> > To be a Stratfordian, it is not *essential* to be illogical,
> > but it does certainly help.
>
> I'm showing that your ability to find links to Marlowe everywhere
> is suspect.
And that is what is so illogical! Marlowe is clearly suggested
by the first line of that stanza, which seems to be about (in
Terry's words, not mine) "somebody of great promise who died a
violent death before 1595". Who else can you think of? I have
offered Sidney (although he actually died not from the wound
itself, but from gangrene a month or so after receiving it).
Beyond that, however, IF this is about another poet, there is
*nobody* else that I can find (a) to whom this would apply,
and (b) who might deserve a place within the group Edwardes
covered.
I have in fact searched through the potted biographies of
some fifty poets of the time, trying to find such a person,
without any of them coming within miles of fitting.
I am not therefore finding links to him 'everywhere'. I am
quite reasonably seeing whether the rest of the stanza, which
we must assume is about the same person, seems possibly to be
about Marlowe too. It is precisely what any *scholar* would do,
and the only reason they have not in this case is because they
all believe him to be dead - and accept Edwardes's reference
to Leander as being 'gone' as saying that - whereas I do not.
What you seem to be suggesting is that, having identified
Marlowe as the only possible poet to fit that description,
I should simply admit that I may not be not good enough at
finding possible connections in the following bit to make it
worth trying, and must therefore either demonstrate how good
I am at it in some *other* way or accept that it can't have
been Marlowe after all! A possible connection is a possible
connection, Bob, regardless of how ignorant or biased the
finder may be. What matters is whether Edwardes's intended
readers might pick it up, and this is something we simply
cannot know. What we *do* know, however, is that Edwardes
meant *something* to be understood by these words, and all
we can do is make reasonable stabs at what that might be.
> If you could find plausible links to others in other works,
> your linking ability would be less suspect. Poets, even
> Elizabethan poets, use words for reasons other than to
> describe unnamed contemporaries in their poems.
We are not talking about Elizabethan poets in general, though.
We are talking about a specific poem by a specific person,
who is writing about contemporary poets, and who is using
cryptic ways of describing them. In the other cases, he does
this by using a nick-name. For this one - and one may wonder
why that is - he does not use a nick-name, however, but other
cryptic methods. What the hell do you think he is doing if he
is *not* identifying him in some way and telling us something
he has heard about him?
<snip>
> > 5) Pat, however, correctly observed that the rest of the
> > stanza gives no indication that this person is dead
> > - quite the reverse, in fact.
>
> Which is the largest reason it isn't about Marlowe-
Not really, Bob. Marley could be as dead as the door-knob and
there *still* being rumours of his death having been faked.
This is what Edwardes has 'heard' - he is not necessarily
saying that it is true. (Mind you, the fact that he may have
known Nicholas Skeres quite well increases the chance of his
being ahead of the game on this!).
> -except that Marlowe has already appeared in the poem.
Leander is 'gone' (not necessarily dead). Now Edwardes is
telling us where he has heard him to have gone *to*, but
obviously has to make it debatable whether it really *is*
Marlowe he is talking about.
<snip>
> >7) What I have to do, therefore, is see whether the *other*
> > things said about this poet tend either to confirm or to
> > rule out Marlowe as the poet Edwards had in mind. What I
> > do *not* have to do is to show that each part of the
> > description applies to Marlowe alone, and to nobody else,
> > nor that they unambiguously and irrefutably refer to
> > Marlowe.
>
> I didn't say you did.
I didn't say you said I did. It was nevertheless implied in
your ludicrous "Poets talked of golden ages. I'm not going to
hunt for examples. I'm not good at that. I just can't believe
that in six thousand years of poetry, no previous poet ever
used the phrase "golden art."
> What you did, and do, is take words that only in the most
> strained way point to Marlowe and assume they do, like "power."
No I don't. I try to adopt what would be a scholar's approach,
and establish a connection between the words written and the
*only* person to whom the line at the beginning of the stanza
seems to apply. Nothing, at least as far as I can see, rules
him out.
> This you connect to Marlowe because one of his characters
> had power and, I suppose, because he may have once been
> referred to as that character.
That was one of the possibilities I explored, but which you
may have noticed (from my exchange with Diana Price) that I
have now dropped. This is mainly about poetry, not plays.
Similarly with Doctor Faustus: I suspect Marlowe was known
for an interest in the esoteric (including the 'golden art'
of course) of which that play was only one manifestation.
> >8) Everything about it (whether you regard my looking for the
> > connections as 'straining' or not), *does* tend to confirm
> > it, in my opinion, rather than rule it out, and I have
> > shown in each case why I believe this to be so.
>
> > So, if you think that it rules him out, please tell me how.
> > If you think it fits someone *else* better, please tell me
> > who and why. But please stop muddying the water with this
> > "Maybe if you took some unattributed text" stuff. That is
> > totally irrelevant.
>
> I don't think any words that Edwards used or could have used
> would rule him out other than "he was not Marlowe".
A clear reference to a poem known to be by someone else would
do it. It is difficult, I agree, so your best bet is probably
to go the 'find someone else' route.
> My best guess now is Sidney. It would be very strange that he
> would not be mentioned in this poem. What does Edwards say
> about Sidney, or any poets, elsewhere? Anything?
You now seem to have covered this with Greg, and removed Sidney
from the list(s)?
> I note that you ignore the stanza after the two you think you
> can link to Marlowe. But it speaks of "he that gan up to tilt"
> right after Mr. Purple may have been described as "tilting
> under Frieries." What does Babel have to do with Marlowe,
> Sidney or any know contemporary poet of Edwards's? Who is
> known to have written about Babel?
What I said in an earlier post (to Jim) was:
"The only suggestion I have seen for this bit is Joshua Sylvester,
who translated *La Semaine* by Du Bartas into English. This was
a series of poems about the creation and the 'childhood' of the
world, and known to have influenced both Spenser and Sidney".
I certainly have no better alternative to offer at the moment.
Peter Farey
Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
>
> Peter,you sound absolutely ominous and,alack, all of my raw
> materials(most importantly my copy of the complete original text)are
> unavailable to me at the present time.Still my four page commentary at
> the end of my l998 monograph for the Elizabethan Review(and the
> supplement in the following issue)lists for the first time all the
> very slight amount of material that has ever been published on the
> subject of Adon. To make things worse,there is not a single one of the
> commentators,after the l882 group who seems displays a full knowledge
> of what the other later commentators preceeding him said.
> And,with the exception of Mrs.Stopes in the 20's(Life of
> Southampton with cross-reference to a previous article) and Alden
> Brooks,following her,in the early l940's,no critic ever made the
> slightest effort to read the Envoi in relation to the main text of the
> poem.It couldn't be plainer.
I'll certainly have to have a look at it myself. I'll let you
know whether I agree with you as to how plain it is!
> The second title of the poem is Narcissus.This is likewise the
> title of a previous(very bad) poem published prior to "Venus and
> Adonis" in which Southampton is portrayed as the self infatuated male
> beauty who spurns the offers of the Burleigh Vere faction.It is
> written by a hanger-on of Burleigh and,to a lesser
> extent,of Oxford.
That's John Clapham's 1591 version, presumably?
> The fall l593 poem has combined the successive themes
> of the two earlier works and thereby pairs Author Adon(he of the boar)
> with his dedicatee Henry Southampton,the same Southampton who just
> previously has been both subject matter and the dedicatee of an
> earlier poem,likewise dealing with the projected Oxford-Southampton
> merger.
> As the poem begins with Southampton, it ends with Adon,the most
> important poet,in terms of the text, toward whom TE has been leading
> us from the very beginning.It is not all surprising Adon gets the
> final three stanzas. It would have been very bad construction if some
> non-entity had been slipped in for the peroration.
I don't understand this. There *is* a stanza after those three
which concerns someone he seems to nickname *Babel*.
> Unfortunately Mrs.Stopes decided she was seeing double and,
> ignoring the content of the Envoi, proceed to identify Southampton as
> both the creator and his creation.And this despite the clear
> statement that they (Adon and Southampton) had been boys together.
Where? In the main *Narcissus* part? And how?
> As there is nothing in the poem which seems to indicate that
> Southampton and Adon are in the same age group,I would read the phrase
> as meaning that the poet,supposed ,like the author who had preceeded
> him,
And, I would suggest, the author of the first seventeen 'Shake-
speare' Sonnets the year before that, in 1590.
> to urge the claims of a Burleigh alliance took off on a
> roistering extended pub crawl(or the equivalent thereof) with the
> youth he was supposed to be morally admonishing. Consider "Willobie
> His Avisa".
> In this overall context(which context Dowden failed to see)Dowden's
> identification of Adon in the Envoi as Edward Oxford is the only
> completely consistent structural interpretation of the poem yet
> advanced.
Well, I shall have to do something about that! :o)
> (I am not going to argue it here ,as,having waited most of forty
> years in order to present it correctly,I must wait a few months longer
> till the Yeats materials are published and I can speak at first hand
> from the original Elizabeth and nineteenth century material.)
> Dowden did not name Oxford as Shakespeare ,merely Adon; the critic
> who followed him in the text of l882 named Bacon, and the next after
> that,Shakespeare,except that Will was not supposed to be masquing,
Not as an actor?
> nor
> in a position to have power flowing far,nor playing as a boy with
> Southampton.Taking these references as a unity, one might further
> conclude that the purple in the second stanza may be staining rather
> than disdaining but it is nonetheless a very royal shade of purple
> that emanates from Adon.
There we part company, I think.
He tends not to growl at me, only argue very convincingly!
> Jonson on many other occasions could
> not be more favorable to positions we both hold.
> Let the controversy continue.There is never one more firmly
> grounded in contemporary evidence.
> Posted without any revision-RNP
You don't say! I am still puzzling over who "the other later
commentators preceeding him" might be!
Thanks for this, Roger. A lot to think about here. It certainly
looks as though an early trip to the British Library is called for.
Bob Grumman
>
>
>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>> >
>> > Bob Grumman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Is Collyn "mighty" because Edwards wants to compliment him
>> > > or because "mighty" is an important word in Collyn's poetry?
>> > > How about "greatest pride?" Did Amintas and Leander make
>> > > special use of the phrase "nimble throats?" I can't help
>> > > but think you're once again straining after connections to
>> > > Marlowe, Peter. Maybe if you took some unattributed text and
>> > > showed it was by someone other than Marlowe, or pinned down
>> > > some unnamed person in a poem who was known to have been
>> > > real, I'd be more accepting of your methods.
>> >
>> > To be a Stratfordian, it is not *essential* to be illogical,
>> > but it does certainly help.
>>
>> I'm showing that your ability to find links to Marlowe everywhere
>> is suspect.
>
>And that is what is so illogical! Marlowe is clearly suggested
>by the first line of that stanza, which seems to be about (in
>Terry's words, not mine) "somebody of great promise who died a
>violent death before 1595".
Okay, I would quibble with "showed great promise." According to the text, Mr.
Purple should have been the only poet written of in "our rhyme." Why isn't he,
I now wonder. Edwards does not say why he excludes him.
I'm also not sure that having robes stained with blood necessarily means "died a
vilent death." He could merely have died. Less likely, but possible, Edwards
could be using the robe image in some way lost to us.
As for my point, it is that it is not illogical to believe that one phrase
describing X that seems to describe Y, does not make everything else said about
X pertain to Y. Nor is it illogical to believe that your attempts to do that in
this case are strained. I say that the only phrase here that suggests Marlowe
is the one about the robe. Since Marlowe has been mentioned earlier in the
poem, it does not seem likely that Edwards did mean Marlowe, however.
>Who else can you think of? I have
>offered Sidney (although he actually died not from the wound
>itself, but from gangrene a month or so after receiving it).
>Beyond that, however, IF this is about another poet, there is
>*nobody* else that I can find (a) to whom this would apply,
>and (b) who might deserve a place within the group Edwardes
>covered.
There were a lot of poets writing then, some we'll never now know of. As for
whom of them would deserve mention, that would have been up to Edwards, and we
can't have any idea what poets he thought considerable, what not.
>I have in fact searched through the potted biographies of
>some fifty poets of the time, trying to find such a person,
>without any of them coming within miles of fitting.
>I am not therefore finding links to him 'everywhere'.
A slight exaggeration. You have found links to him in a great number of places
few or no others find him, such as in the inscription to Shakespeare on his
monument.
>I am quite reasonably seeing whether the rest of the stanza, which
>we must assume is about the same person, seems possibly to be
>about Marlowe too. It is precisely what any *scholar* would do,
>and the only reason they have not in this case is because they
>all believe him to be dead -
No, another reason is that Marlowe has already been mentioned. Though the fact
that Marlowe WAS dead is a good reason not to take one who doth remain as he.
>and accept Edwardes's reference
>to Leander as being 'gone' as saying that - whereas I do not.
>
>What you seem to be suggesting is that, having identified
>Marlowe as the only possible poet to fit that description,
>I should simply admit that I may not be not good enough at
>finding possible connections in the following bit to make it
>worth trying, and must therefore either demonstrate how good
>I am at it in some *other* way
Yes, so far.
>or accept that it can't have
>been Marlowe after all!
No. If you can't show that you are good at making connections outside your
desire to make Marlowe Shakespeare, you need only accept that many of the
connections to Marlowe that you find are insufficient to make your case
plausible.
>A possible connection is a possible
>connection, Bob, regardless of how ignorant or biased the
>finder may be.
It's not possible/impossible but significant/insignificant. None of your
connections seem to me significant enough to increase the possibility here that
Edwards was referring to Marlowe but the robes image.
>What matters is whether Edwardes's intended
>readers might pick it up, and this is something we simply
>cannot know. What we *do* know, however, is that Edwardes
>meant *something* to be understood by these words, and all
>we can do is make reasonable stabs at what that might be.
>
>> If you could find plausible links to others in other works,
>> your linking ability would be less suspect. Poets, even
>> Elizabethan poets, use words for reasons other than to
>> describe unnamed contemporaries in their poems.
>
>We are not talking about Elizabethan poets in general, though.
>We are talking about a specific poem by a specific person,
>who is writing about contemporary poets, and who is using
>cryptic ways of describing them. In the other cases, he does
>this by using a nick-name. For this one - and one may wonder
>why that is - he does not use a nick-name, however, but other
>cryptic methods. What the hell do you think he is doing if he
>is *not* identifying him in some way and telling us something
>he has heard about him?
I'm saying he identified him as Mr. Purple and as tilting under frieries, if he
was--or differing from other men, and that Edwards's other adjectives are just
compliments applicable to anyone. If I refer to you without naming you as a
lover of Marlowe with a golden tongue, for instance, we need not examine the
tongues of all lovers of Marlowe, or even just the eloquent ones, to find out
which one I meant.
><snip>
>
>> > 5) Pat, however, correctly observed that the rest of the
>> > stanza gives no indication that this person is dead
>> > - quite the reverse, in fact.
>>
>> Which is the largest reason it isn't about Marlowe-
>
>Not really, Bob. Marley could be as dead as the door-knob and
>there *still* being rumours of his death having been faked.
>This is what Edwardes has 'heard' - he is not necessarily
>saying that it is true. (Mind you, the fact that he may have
>known Nicholas Skeres quite well increases the chance of his
>being ahead of the game on this!).
Rumours of his faked death, none of which were recorded, would not make him
alive. So, if the stanza says he was alive and he was not, the stanza would
have to be about someone else.
>> -except that Marlowe has already appeared in the poem.
>
>Leander is 'gone' (not necessarily dead). Now Edwardes is
>telling us where he has heard him to have gone *to*, but
>obviously has to make it debatable whether it really *is*
>Marlowe he is talking about.
Why didn't Edwards tell us where he has heard him to have gone while discussing
him? Why hasn't he told us where Amintas went?
><snip>
>
>> >7) What I have to do, therefore, is see whether the *other*
>> > things said about this poet tend either to confirm or to
>> > rule out Marlowe as the poet Edwards had in mind. What I
>> > do *not* have to do is to show that each part of the
>> > description applies to Marlowe alone, and to nobody else,
>> > nor that they unambiguously and irrefutably refer to
>> > Marlowe.
>>
>> I didn't say you did.
>
>I didn't say you said I did. It was nevertheless implied in
>your ludicrous "Poets talked of golden ages. I'm not going to
>hunt for examples. I'm not good at that. I just can't believe
>that in six thousand years of poetry, no previous poet ever
>used the phrase "golden art."
My ludicrouse point was that "golden" does not just not "unambiguously and
irrefutably refer to Marlowe" but in no significant identifying way applies to
him.
Sure. Same thing, really.
>It is difficult, I agree, so your best bet is probably
>to go the 'find someone else' route.
I think I've done all I need to--shown that Marlowe was dead so not meant, and
shown that Marlowe has been dispensed with previously in the poem and thus not
meant.
>> My best guess now is Sidney. It would be very strange that he
>> would not be mentioned in this poem. What does Edwards say
>> about Sidney, or any poets, elsewhere? Anything?
>
>You now seem to have covered this with Greg, and removed Sidney
>from the list(s)?
Pretty much. Almost everyone still has SOME chance of being Mr. Purple.
>> I note that you ignore the stanza after the two you think you
>> can link to Marlowe. But it speaks of "he that gan up to tilt"
>> right after Mr. Purple may have been described as "tilting
>> under Frieries." What does Babel have to do with Marlowe,
>> Sidney or any know contemporary poet of Edwards's? Who is
>> known to have written about Babel?
>
>What I said in an earlier post (to Jim) was:
>
> "The only suggestion I have seen for this bit is Joshua Sylvester,
> who translated *La Semaine* by Du Bartas into English. This was
> a series of poems about the creation and the 'childhood' of the
> world, and known to have influenced both Spenser and Sidney".
I missed that. Sounds good. Here's another, by the way, without a nickname.
The next stanza speaks of sending these poets' works to other nations, so they'd
recognize Albion;'s greatness, which makes me now pretty sure "clime" is Albion.
>I certainly have no better alternative to offer at the moment.
>
>Peter F.
If Joshua Sulvester could make the cut, I'm sure there's someone like him who
would fit a lot better than Marlowe, but I certainly haven't found him yet.
--Bob G.
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
"Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
If we take the "Muses objects" to be poetry,
then he hasn't written any or alternatively,
he's written some, but not made it public.
Is there another way to take that? If not,
then he's not very likely to be de Vere, Sidney,
Marlowe, Shakespeare, or any number of other
poets who had had(by the early 1590s) their
"Muses objects" made public.
<snip>
Rob
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
> >
> > Peter,you sound absolutely ominous and,alack, all of my raw
> > materials(most importantly my copy of the complete original text)are
> > unavailable to me at the present time.Still my four page commentary at
> > the end of my l998 monograph for the Elizabethan Review(and the
> > supplement in the following issue)lists for the first time all the
> > very slight amount of material that has ever been published on the
> > subject of Adon. To make things worse,there is not a single one of the
> > commentators,after the l882 group who seems displays a full knowledge
> > of what the other later commentators preceeding him said.
> > And,with the exception of Mrs.Stopes in the 20's(Life of
> > Southampton with cross-reference to a previous article) and Alden
> > Brooks,following her,in the early l940's,no critic ever made the
> > slightest effort to read the Envoi in relation to the main text of the
> > poem.It couldn't be plainer.
>
> I'll certainly have to have a look at it myself. I'll let you
> know whether I agree with you as to how plain it is!
>
> > The second title of the poem is Narcissus.This is likewise the
> > title of a previous(very bad) poem published prior to "Venus and
> > Adonis" in which Southampton is portrayed as the self infatuated male
> > beauty who spurns the offers of the Burleigh Vere faction.It is
> > written by a hanger-on of Burleigh and,to a lesser
> > extent,of Oxford.
>
> That's John Clapham's 1591 version, presumably?
Yes.Couldn't remember if it were l591 or l592 without my notes.Can
anyone give me the month.I believe some of Clapham's observations may
be recycled by the other writers later on.However Southampton would
certainly have been equally insulted ,as a peer ,a young man who
didn't suffer his inferiors intervention gladly,and (perhaps most of
all) as a poetry lover ,by Clapham's intrusion into his life.
>
> > The fall l593 poem has combined the successive themes
> > of the two earlier works and thereby pairs Author Adon(he of the boar)
> > with his dedicatee Henry Southampton,the same Southampton who just
> > previously has been both subject matter and the dedicatee of an
> > earlier poem,likewise dealing with the projected Oxford-Southampton
> > merger.
> > As the poem begins with Southampton, it ends with Adon,the most
> > important poet,in terms of the text, toward whom TE has been leading
> > us from the very beginning.It is not all surprising Adon gets the
> > final three stanzas. It would have been very bad construction if some
> > non-entity had been slipped in for the peroration.
> I don't understand this. There *is* a stanza after those three
> which concerns someone he seems to nickname *Babel*.
Peroration,not conclusion.
>
> > Unfortunately Mrs.Stopes decided she was seeing double and,
> > ignoring the content of the Envoi, proceed to identify Southampton as
> > both the creator and his creation.And this despite the clear
> > statement that they (Adon and Southampton) had been boys together.
> Where? In the main *Narcissus* part? And how?
Yes,in the main part.
I think I answered "how" with the "Willobie His Avisa"comparison.On
an Oxfordian reading which works wonderfully well here,theatrical
enthusiast Oxford was urged to go over and plead his daughter's case
with theatrical enthusiast Southampton.(Does anybody have the dates
Southampton and Rutland actually took digs next door to one of the
theatres?)Both were far more interested in the pleasures of art and
the bottle than they were in the joys of domestic bliss and by the
time they had run through seventeen procreation sonnets,Oxford would
figure that should be enough to get the Cecils off his back and moved
in to a temporarally happier situation with his young pal.Both
marriages and boars get quite a few send ups in "Venus and Adonis".
Thomas Nashe in "Strange Newes"
>(lst edition,January,l593),who lodged with Oxford, gives what seems
to be a very plain describtion of DeVere keeping "three maids" and
having exhausted his finances on drink.(I believe the identification
of Oxford herein as Gentle Master William Apis Lapis is bedrock
solid, apart from any authorship controversy.)This was altered in the
spring edition to 'three scholars".Now,as John Rollett has
shown,"maids" actually can be used to mean "scholars" in Elizabethan
parlance.However, the very fact that Nashe rewrote the entire passage
second time around goes to show that the literal construct was taken
up by the readership. And understandably so in context. With three
maids(may we include the original of Avisa?) and a batch of
impecunious college wits in his residence,Oxford may (as much as
Rutland)have been described as having been boys together with
Southampton.It is to be further noted that Oxford's son Henry was born
just about the time Edwardes was registering the adventures of Adon
and Narcissus.No other Vere had ever carried that name.
> > As there is nothing in the poem which seems to indicate that
> > Southampton and Adon are in the same age group,I would read the phrase
> > as meaning that the poet,supposed ,like the author who had preceeded
> > him,
> And, I would suggest, the author of the first seventeen 'Shake-
> speare' Sonnets the year before that, in 1590.
I would love to fix a l590 date."Forty winters" is just literally
perfect for DeVere.But we know "forty" was not infrequently used as a
metaphor.And I am not sure the internal evidence of the Sonnets
requires that early a date, considering the number of close hits to
the two narrative poems.However,I will be delighted if you convince
everyone,including me, on this point.
> > to urge the claims of a Burleigh alliance took off on a
> > roistering extended pub crawl(or the equivalent thereof) with the
> > youth he was supposed to be morally admonishing. Consider "Willobie
> > His Avisa".
> > In this overall context(which context Dowden failed to see)Dowden's
> > identification of Adon in the Envoi as Edward Oxford is the only
> > completely consistent structural interpretation of the poem yet
> > advanced.
> PF
> Well, I shall have to do something about that! :o)
> RNP
Happy hunting!
> > (I am not going to argue it here ,as,having waited most of forty
> > years in order to present it correctly,I must wait a few months longer
> > till the Yeats materials are published and I can speak at first hand
> > from the original Elizabeth and nineteenth century material.)
> > Dowden did not name Oxford as Shakespeare ,merely Adon; the critic
> > who followed him in the text of l882 named Bacon, and the next after
> > that,Shakespeare,except that Will was not supposed to be masquing,
> PF
> Not as an actor?
> RNP
The description is "stately".Doesn't sound the Rose or even Gray's
Inn.
> PF
> He tends not to growl at me, only argue very convincingly!
>
> > Jonson on many other occasions could
> > not be more favorable to positions we both hold.
> > Let the controversy continue.There is never one more firmly
> > grounded in contemporary evidence.
> > Posted without any revision-RNP
>
> You don't say! I am still puzzling over who "the other later
> commentators preceeding him" might be!
RNP:
In order ,after Buckley and Co. and the Shakespeare Allusion Book
,we wait twenty years for the Rev. Walter Begley's "Bacon's Nova
Resuscitatio", may be a couple of incomplete references in
Baconiana,Mrs.Stopes in an article and the Life of
Southampton,Brooks,l943,(possibly l937, if so it is in my
monograph),Barrell(l948),and Peter More in the Shakespeare Fellowship
News Letter(American) around l989,under the excellent editorship of
Warren Hope.
Mr.Hope is the intellectual heir of the late Dr.Abraham Bronson
Feldman and certainly realized the importance of the Edwardes
evidence.But I do not believe anyone from the Philadelphia school has
publlished anything on this.
Stratfordian commentary since the "Shakespeare Allusion Book" seems
non-existent.
> PF
> Thanks for this, Roger. A lot to think about here. It certainly
> looks as though an early trip to the British Library is called for.
> RNP
As it may still be months before I can get my Shakespeare library
functioning,you may have it all to your self.You will be doing the
first completely new anti-Stratfordian reading since that of
Stratfordian Charlotte Stopes.
Once again I can't do revision with the limited access I have to
the machine right now.Sorry about that.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
> >
> > Adon deafly masking thro,
> > Stately troupes rich conceited,
> > Shew'd he well deserued to,
> > Loues delight on him to gaze,
> > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
> >
> > Here are the next two stanzas:
> >
> > Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> > Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> > One whose power FLOWETH far,
> > That should haue bene of our rime,
> > The onely obiect and THE STAR.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > Well could his bewitching pen,
> > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> > Although he differs much from men,
> > Tilting under Frieries,
> > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> > To haue honored him with baies.
>
> golden art neuendorffer
See Dietrich B. C., "The Golden Art of Apuleius" G & R 13 (1966)
189-206. I neVER realized that Apuleius's great work was written about
YOU, Art -- of course, I should have known from the title. Are you
planning to change to aneuendor...@goldenass.nut, Art?
Bob Grumman
>>Purple should have been the only poet written of in "our rhyme." Why isn't he,
>> I now wonder. Edwards does not say why he excludes him.
>
> "Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
>
>If we take the "Muses objects" to be poetry,
>then he hasn't written any or alternatively,
>he's written some, but not made it public.
Interesting take. Sounds plausible to me. I wonder if Mr. Purple became a
priest who forswore poetry? Are purple robes priestly?
>Is there another way to take that? If not,
>then he's not very likely to be de Vere, Sidney,
>Marlowe, Shakespeare, or any number of other
>poets who had had(by the early 1590s) their
>"Muses objects" made public.
Not sure where "being made public" would come in. Seems to me, from Rob's
interpretation, that he wrote fine prose--maybe sermons--and could have written
poetry that would outdo all others' poetry.
--Bob G.
lyra
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the stanza that refers to "Adon":
> > >
> > > Adon deafly masking thro,
> > > Stately troupes rich conceited,
> > > Shew'd he well deserued to,
> > > Loues delight on him to gaze,
> > > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> > > Other nymphs had sent him baies.
> >
> >
> > Where in England (I almost said "on Earth") did Thomas Edwards
> > hail from?
>
Shropshire is, I think, next to Wales...
since the ill-fated Prince Arthur, as Prince of Wales,
was sent to the Welsh Marches, to a castle
in Ludlow, Shropshire, with Catherine of Aragon.
This increases my belief that he is of Welsh origins
(the name *Edwards*)...and this may have some influence
on his poetry maybe.
lyra
>
> This is what Charles Nicholl has to say about him
> (*The Reckoning*, pp 52-3, revised pp 61-2).
>
> <quote>
>
> Another early epitaph [to Marlowe], seldom mentioned by the
> biographers, appears in the poem *Narcissus* by Thomas Edwards.
<with snips>
> I first came across Thomas Edwards in the *Penguin Book of
> Elizabethan Verse*, where his biographical note consists of a
> single sentence: 'About Edwards nothing is known except his
> name.' This is quite untrue. He was born in Shropshire in 1567;
> he was (like Nicholas Skeres) a resident of Furnival's Inn in
> the mid-1580s; he later shared a chamber at Lincoln's Inn with
> John Donne's friend Christopher Brooke; and he was at the time
> of Marlowe's death a 'servant' of Sir John Wolley, the Queen's
> Latin secretary.
> <end quote>
>
> > I cannot make these verses scan accentual-syllabically,
> > accentually, syllabically, or even quantitatively, unless I
> > make the sort of assumptions normally made only for ME texts
> > of provenance far from London, and not for EMnE ever.
> > (Granted, I am very ignorant, but I am not accustomed to
> > being so thoroughly baffled as this.)
>
> I agree, it's not at all easy! I am beginning to find with
> repeated reading, however, that the trochees are starting
> to make themselves a bit clearer to me.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Well could his bewitching pen,
> > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> > > Although he differs much from men,
> > > Tilting under Frieries,
> > > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> > > To haue honored him with baies.
> >
> > golden art neuendorffer
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> See Dietrich B. C., "The Golden Art of Apuleius" G & R 13 (1966)
> 189-206. I neVER realized that Apuleius's great work was written about
> YOU, Art -- of course, I should have known from the title. Are you
> planning to change to aneuendor...@goldenass.nut, Art?
I never met a morphosis I didn't like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Early Oxford translations
William Adlington's (1566) Lucius Apuleius' Metamorphosis
(/The Golden Asse)
Arthur Golding's (1567) Ovid's Metamorphosis
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Noel/angl/grotte.htm
<<The apocryphal Gospels, which postdate the Gospels by a century, have
enriched the telling of the Nativity by introducing the notion of the
marvellous: The Proto Evangelium of James is one of the apocryphal
Gospels and in it a cave is mentioned: And he [Joseph] saddled his ass
and sat her [Mary] on it... And they came half the way... And he found a
cave there and he brought Mary into it... In the Gospel of
Pseudo-Matthew, the presence of the the ox and the ass was explained as
follows: On the third day after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, Holy
Mary went out from the cave and went into the stable where she put her
child in a manger and an ox and ass worshipped him. Then was fulfilled
that which was said by the prophet Isaiah : "The ox knows its owner and
the ass his Master's crib". Then was fulfilled that which was said
through the prophet Habakuk: "Between two beasts are you 'known'".>>
Troilus and Cressida Act 5, Scene 1
THERSITES To an ass, were nothing; he is both ass and ox:
to an ox, were nothing; he is both ox and ass.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Red Cross Knight represents St. George [April 23] the patron saint
of England. His adventures, which occupy bk. i. of Spenser's Faërie
Queene, symbolize the struggles and ultimate victory of holiness over
sin (or protestantism over popery). Una comes on a white ass to the
court of Gloriana, and craves that one of the knights would undertake
to slay the dragon which kept her father and mother prisoners. The
Red Cross Knight, arrayed in all the armour of God (Eph. vi. 11-17),
undertakes the adventure>>
http://www.bibliomania.com/Reference/Readers/data/0902.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANCIENT ROMAN RELIGION BY FRANK PONTIFEX
http://members.aol.com/hlabadjr/Gelli.htm
THE SECRET OF THE NAME
<<Amongst the mysteries - the secret rites - of the Roman
religion, to which the High Pontiff was privy, one of the
most fascinating is that of the secret name of Rome. We know
that Rome did have such special name apart from its common
name, because of a tantalisingly brief reference by Piny the
Elder:
cuius alterum nomen discere nisi arcanis
caeromoniarum nefas habetur
"the other name of Rome which is sinful to reveal, except
during the celebration of the mysteries".
Pliny also goes on to tell of a certain Valerius Soranus,
who was put to death because he had committed the
unforgivable crime of disclosing the secret of the name.
What was the name then? Straight answer: we do not know.
The secret was well kept. The ancient mysteries on the whole
have remained mysterious. (We often know only the vaguest
descriptions , eg the mysteries of Isis ellyptically
referred to by Apuleius in the Golden Asse.)>>
------------------------------------------------------
http://inside.bard.edu/~wilson/romano-te.htm
<<The classicist influence of the Renaissance is evident in the subjects the
artist represents, mainly images of ancient mythology, many based on Ovid
and Apuleius.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Sir Thomas Browne (1646; 6th ed., 1672)
Pseudodoxia Epidemica I:vi (pp. 20-25)
Of Adherence unto Antiquity.
<<Not a few transcriptively, subscribing their Names unto other
men's endeavours, and meerly transcribing almost all they have written.
The Latines transcribing the Greeks, the Greeks and Latines, each
other.Thus hath Justine borrowed all from Trogus Pompeius, and Julius
Solinus, in a manner transcribed Plinie. Thus have Lucian and Apuleius
served Lucius Pratensis ; men both living in the same time, and both
transcribing the same Author, in those famous Books, Entituled Lucius by
the one, and Aureus Asinus by the other.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey
about time I had a second stab at the Thomas Edwards poem,
but on this occasion I'll include the stanzas before and
after the three I covered last time.
*Deale* we not with *Rosamond*,
For the world our sawe will coate,
*Amintas* and *Leander's* gone,
Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
Blessed be your nimble throats,
That so amorously could sing.
*Adon* deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,
Shew'd he well deserued to,
Loues delight on him to gaze,
And had not loue her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies.
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
He that gan vp to tilt,
*Babels* fresh remembrance,
Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
And a world of stories made,
In a catalogues semblance
Hath alike the Muses staide.
Now, taking it a bit at a time.
"*Deale* we not with *Rosamond*,"
Clearly referring to Samuel Daniel, by way of his *To Delia*
and *The Complaint of Rosamond*.
"For the world our sawe will coate,"
To 'cote' is to pass or outstrip. So, events will, he says,
outstrip his words - whatever that means - and will make any
comments on his part unnecessary.
"*Amintas* and *Leander's* gone,"
Thomas Watson, author of *Amintas* and *Amintae Gaudia*, and
Christopher Marlowe, of *Hero and Leander*. 'Gone' because
Watson died in 1592 and Marlowe in May 1593, whereas this
poem was written around October 1593. People would certainly
have read this as referring to Marlowe's death but, as we
shall see, Edwards may in Marlowe's case have deliberately
chosen that word not only for its (rather weak) rhyme, but
also for its ambiguity.
"Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
Blessed be your nimble throats,
That so amorously could sing."
Neither of the two poets were "sonnes of stately kings" -
unless we count Marlowe's having attended the King's School,
Canterbury - so this more probably refers to some other
people who are better described thus and who *would*, he
implies, be blessed if they were to sing as "amorously" as
these two. I think these people can only be possible suitors
for the Queen's hand in marriage. The grammar is awkward,
but it does make far more sense
"*Adon* deafly masking thro,
Stately troupes rich conceited,"
This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
"deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
(OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
the "rich conceited".
If we take those meanings together, however, we find Edwards
appearing to say that the author of *Venus and Adonis* has
hidden his "real form or character" behind the "mask" of a
Lord Chamberlain's player, even though he lacks the charac-
teristics of an actor himself. Obviously, such an astonishing
interpretation can be acceptable only if everything else
seems to support it (or at least not rule it out). As we
shall see, this is in fact the case.
"Shew'd he well deserued to,"
To what? To hide his identity in this way? Perhaps Edwards is
claiming that he thinks the need for such strange behaviour
is fully justified. Another possibility is that he is refer-
ring back to the phrase "Leander's gone", and is claiming
that this 'going' was deserved. In either case, it certainly
does not seem to be the player, William Shakespeare, that he
is writing about.
"Loues delight on him to gaze,
And had not loue her selfe intreated,
Other nymphs had sent him baies."
"Love herself" is of course Venus, which *might* be referring
to the Queen, although the goddess she was more often assoc-
iated with was Diana. Maybe he is saying that the Queen is in
some way behind what has happened but, although the overt
sense of these lines is clear enough, any other allegorical
meaning does really escape me at the moment.
"Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
This is perhaps the most important line of all. At the end
of *Venus and Adonis*, the subject of the previous stanza,
Adonis, has been killed by a wild boar. He has been bleeding
profusely, and the blood is (twice) described as "purple", a
word used for the colour of blood at that time. This line
therefore seems to be saying that the subject of *this*
stanza is symbolically wearing clothing 'distained' (i.e.
stained) with blood, and therefore, like Adonis, has also
('eke') died a violent death. The only poet from around that
time to whom this clearly applies is Christopher Marlowe.
But Edwards has dealt with Marlowe already, and the following
lines seem to show this poet as still alive, so what's this
all about?
"Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,"
"This clime" could either mean England, which would be
somewhat redundant information, given that the whole thing is
about English ('Albion's') poets, *or* (and I think this
makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
In this case, Edwards would be saying he has heard that
someone who is *thought* to have met a violent end (which
would most probably be Christopher Marlowe) is in fact living
somewhere in the Mediterranean area, but that his influence
nevertheless still "floweth far", i.e. at least as far as
England.
"That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star."
So now we know whose identity (in the absence of any other
blood-soaked candidate) has been hidden behind the name of
the Lord Chamberlain's servant, William Shakespeare. Christ-
opher Marlowe is not dead after all, but is living in
(perhaps) Italy. He, and not Shakespeare, wrote *Venus and
Adonis*, since according to Edwards he should have been not
only *Adon* the object of the goddess's love as mentioned in
the previous stanza ("our rhyme"), but also *Venus* herself
- the planet Venus being, of course, the brightest 'star' in
the sky.
"Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
This is very obscure. "Done" has to have a meaning similar
to ("alike") that of the word "staide" at the end of the
last of our stanzas, so the best sense I can make of it is
to take the word "done" as being an unusual spelling of
"down", (which is given as one in the OED, if for a different
sense) and the meaning to be (OED 1.a.) "To bring, put, throw
or knock down". If so, Edwards seems to accusing him of
writing material which could in some way endanger the
continued ability of people to enjoy the arts. As you may
know, in my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" I showed
that Marlowe had almost certainly written a book on atheism.
Can this be what Edwards had in mind?
"Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,"
These two lines seem to be saying so, if they mean what I
think they do. Friaries, as such, were no longer in existence
in England, but it has been suggested that the "Frieries" in
question may refer to the Blackfriars Theatre. This is out
of the question, however, since the children's companies had
stopped performing at Blackfriars some nine years earlier,
and the new theatre wouldn't be built until 1596.
There is a clue to what this might mean, on the other hand,
in one of the Martin Marprelate tracts, *The Just Censure and
Reproof of Martin Junior*. In this, 'John Canterbury' (i.e.
Archbishop Whitgift) gives instructions to his pursuivants:
"Let three or four more of you or your substitutes be
every day at the Black Friars, Lincoln's Inn, Whitechapel,
Paul's Chain, as often as Clarke, Gardiner, Egerton or
Cooper do preach".
Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
"differ much" from them.
"Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies."
I think there may be two meanings of this intended here, if
it is in fact Marlowe that Edwards is writing about. One of
them might refer to the "golden art" of alchemy, for which
Marlowe may well have had a special enthusiasm, given the
interest in all things esoteric apparently shared by those
with whom he was said to be associated. More specifically,
it could refer to his translation of Ovid's *Amores*, much
to do with 'wooing', and by a poet who flourished right in
the middle of what was called 'the golden age'. I prefer
this explanation, although both could have been intended, as
I said.
"He that gan vp to tilt,
*Babels* fresh remembrance,
Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
And a world of stories made,
In a catalogues semblance
Hath alike the Muses staide."
I won't go into much detail about this, other than to point
out that, if this is indeed referring to Joshua Sylvester's
translation of *La Semaine* by du Bartas, as has been
suggested, then it explains why he too "gan vp to tilt" and
"hath alike (i.e. like the previous poet was in danger of
doing) the Muses staied". This was a deeply Protestant work,
and has been described (by Douglas Bush, *English Literature
in the Earlier Seventeenth Century*, 1966, apparently - I
didn't find this myself) as "a kind of Albert Memorial of
encyclopaedic fundamentalism".
To conclude. Whether Thomas Edwards is right in what he is
saying, or whether it is just a false rumour he has heard,
there is no doubt in my mind that in this part of the poem
he is claiming:
1) That Marlowe survived his alleged death in 1593.
2) That he is, later that same year, living somewhere in the
Mediterranean 'clime'.
3) That he and he alone is the true author of *Venus and
Adonis*.
4) That he is using the player William Shakespeare, as a
'mask' behind which his true identity as the author can
be hidden.
A reasonable example of a contemporary's doubts, I would
have thought, at least until someone comes up with a better
overall interpretation of these stanzas!
Peter F.
peter,f...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> "*Adon* deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,"
>
>This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
>published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
>"deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
>
>Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
>character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
>(OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
>or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
>which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
>worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
>of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
>the "rich conceited".
>
"Deftly" not "deafly".
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
> "Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies."
>
>"Love herself" is of course Venus, which *might* be referring
>to the Queen, although the goddess she was more often assoc-
>iated with was Diana. Maybe he is saying that the Queen is in
>some way behind what has happened but, although the overt
>sense of these lines is clear enough, any other allegorical
>meaning does really escape me at the moment.
>
> "Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
>
>This is perhaps the most important line of all. At the end
>of *Venus and Adonis*, the subject of the previous stanza,
>Adonis, has been killed by a wild boar. He has been bleeding
>profusely, and the blood is (twice) described as "purple", a
>word used for the colour of blood at that time. This line
>therefore seems to be saying that the subject of *this*
>stanza is symbolically wearing clothing 'distained' (i.e.
>stained) with blood, and therefore, like Adonis, has also
>('eke') died a violent death.
No, it isn't saying that at all. Edwards doesn't mention
anyone bleeding in the previous stanza, so the the "also"
cannot refer to someone bleeding in this stanza. The previous
stanza is not about the content of V&A, it's about the
*writer* of V&A.
>The only poet from around that
>time to whom this clearly applies is Christopher Marlowe.
>
>But Edwards has dealt with Marlowe already, and the following
>lines seem to show this poet as still alive, so what's this
>all about?
>
> "Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,"
>
>"This clime" could either mean England, which would be
>somewhat redundant information, given that the whole thing is
>about English ('Albion's') poets, *or* (and I think this
>makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
>and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
No, actually it makes much more sense that "clime" refers
to England, since Edward's is saying "this clime", after
saying "Also, in purple robes distained," thus:
Also, (another person, not the writer of V&A) in purple robes distained,
in the middle of this clime, (England),
I have heard it said there is still
another whose power floweth far.
Another way to paraphrase, making it still more clear:
In addition, I have heard say [there] doth remain,
amidst the center of this clime,
in purple robes distained,
one whose power floweth far.
Bob Grumman
I read "coate" as "cut"--because of "saw."
>
> "*Amintas* and *Leander's* gone,"
>
>Thomas Watson, author of *Amintas* and *Amintae Gaudia*, and
>Christopher Marlowe, of *Hero and Leander*. 'Gone' because
>Watson died in 1592 and Marlowe in May 1593, whereas this
>poem was written around October 1593. People would certainly
>have read this as referring to Marlowe's death but, as we
>shall see, Edwards may in Marlowe's case have deliberately
>chosen that word not only for its (rather weak) rhyme, but
>also for its ambiguity.
>
> "Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> Blessed be your nimble throats,
> That so amorously could sing."
"could" is in the past. But all the poets in the poem are referred to in the
past, which is one of many things in the poem that seem peculiar to me, and make
me wary of thinking Edwards had too exact an idea of what he was doing, or
saying.
>Neither of the two poets were "sonnes of stately kings" -
>unless we count Marlowe's having attended the King's School,
>Canterbury - so this more probably refers to some other
>people who are better described thus and who *would*, he
>implies, be blessed if they were to sing as "amorously" as
>these two.
Well, I don't think Edwards was THAT incompetent. "Sonnes of ... kings" has to
be a metaphor. If Edwards wanted to leave Amyntas and Leander, he could have
written something to indicate he had done so--like "That as well as these could
sing." Note that all his stanzas seem to be about one poet, or two paired
poets, and that this one, like all the others, has only one period--at its very
end. Furthermore, there weren't ANY sonnes of kings writing poetry at the time.
>I think these people can only be possible suitors
>for the Queen's hand in marriage. The grammar is awkward,
>but it does make far more sense
> "*Adon* deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,"
>
>This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
>published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
>"deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
>
>Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
>character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
>(OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
>or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
>which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
>worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
>of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
>the "rich conceited".
>
>If we take those meanings together, however, we find Edwards
>appearing to say that the author of *Venus and Adonis* has
>hidden his "real form or character" behind the "mask" of a
>Lord Chamberlain's player, even though he lacks the charac-
>teristics of an actor himself. Obviously, such an astonishing
>interpretation can be acceptable only if everything else
>seems to support it (or at least not rule it out). As we
>shall see, this is in fact the case.
You've dumped my much better interpretation that use "masking" as losing one's
way. IN CONTEXT, this is what it most plausibly means, for the stanza goes on
to say that he deserved to be where he was, which would be an answer to the
claim that he was lost, or in the wrong place. This connects nicely with
Greene's assertion that he was too lowly to be writing blank verse, a connection
possible to Shakespeare only. As for concealing his True Identity, how could he
deserve to do that? As I see, Peter strains to work out:
> "Shew'd he well deserued to,"
>
>To what? To hide his identity in this way? Perhaps Edwards is
>claiming that he thinks the need for such strange behaviour
>is fully justified. Another possibility is that he is refer-
>ring back to the phrase "Leander's gone", and is claiming
>that this 'going' was deserved.
No chance, and how does he show he served to be gone? If Edwards meant what you
want him to have, why didn't he write something like: "showed that he was right
to?"
>In either case, it certainly
>does not seem to be the player, William Shakespeare, that he
>is writing about.
To repeat my question from a slightly different slant: what was Adon doing to
show he deserved to disguise himself? I will say that this passage isn't quite
quite as clearly about Will Shakespeare, player/poet, as Greene's but it's
close. A reference to a troupe about someone who wear masks, as actor do,
literally at times and implicitly almost all the time, combined with a reference
to something with the known actor's name on it as author--yet not about
Shakespeare! Plus a reference to his not being fit to call himself a poet but,
on the contrary, deserving to do so, a reference that would only fit
Shakespeare, so far as the records I know about are concerned. Dream on, Peter.
> "Loues delight on him to gaze,
> And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> Other nymphs had sent him baies."
>
>"Love herself" is of course Venus, which *might* be referring
>to the Queen, although the goddess she was more often assoc-
>iated with was Diana. Maybe he is saying that the Queen is in
>some way behind what has happened but, although the overt
>sense of these lines is clear enough, any other allegorical
>meaning does really escape me at the moment.
Always keep in mind that poets can sometimes use a metaphor non-allegorically.
I would say Edwards is saying that Venus got Adon to write about her; otherwise
he might have written about any number of other nymphs.
> "Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
>
>This is perhaps the most important line of all.
For us authorship wacks, perhaps. (Note the "us"; I mean that for mere readers
of the poem as a poem, it's just another line.)
>At the end
>of *Venus and Adonis*, the subject of the previous stanza,
>Adonis, has been killed by a wild boar. He has been bleeding
>profusely, and the blood is (twice) described as "purple", a
>word used for the colour of blood at that time. This line
>therefore seems to be saying that the subject of *this*
>stanza is symbolically wearing clothing 'distained' (i.e.
>stained) with blood, and therefore, like Adonis, has also
>('eke') died a violent death.
Not necessarily. It means he also got blood on his robes.
>The only poet from around that
>time to whom this clearly applies is Christopher Marlowe.
>
>But Edwards has dealt with Marlowe already, and the following
>lines seem to show this poet as still alive, so what's this
>all about?
>
> "Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,"
>
>"This clime" could either mean England, which would be
>somewhat redundant information, given that the whole thing is
>about English ('Albion's') poets,
Edwards is often redundant, and needs the rhyme. But it's not redundant,
because it is intended to show a part of England, not England. How better could
he say Mr. Purple was at the center of contemporary poets in England?
*or* (and I think this
>makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
>and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
No dice. THIS clime has to be a clime already mentioned.
>In this case, Edwards would be saying he has heard that
>someone who is *thought* to have met a violent end (which
>would most probably be Christopher Marlowe) is in fact living
>somewhere in the Mediterranean area, but that his influence
>nevertheless still "floweth far", i.e. at least as far as
>England.
Why does he remaine at the center of this clime if he's left?
No. He's saying the man's pen could have done poetry.
> "Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,"
>
>These two lines seem to be saying so, if they mean what I
>think they do. Friaries, as such, were no longer in existence
>in England, but it has been suggested that the "Frieries" in
>question may refer to the Blackfriars Theatre. This is out
>of the question, however, since the children's companies had
>stopped performing at Blackfriars some nine years earlier,
>and the new theatre wouldn't be built until 1596.
>
>There is a clue to what this might mean, on the other hand,
>in one of the Martin Marprelate tracts, *The Just Censure and
>Reproof of Martin Junior*. In this, 'John Canterbury' (i.e.
>Archbishop Whitgift) gives instructions to his pursuivants:
>
> "Let three or four more of you or your substitutes be
> every day at the Black Friars, Lincoln's Inn, Whitechapel,
> Paul's Chain, as often as Clarke, Gardiner, Egerton or
> Cooper do preach".
>
>Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
>favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
>'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
>The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
>chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
>the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
>"differ much" from them.
Interesting thoughts that don't lead anywhere very productive, for me.
> "Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies."
>
>I think there may be two meanings of this intended here, if
>it is in fact Marlowe that Edwards is writing about. One of
>them might refer to the "golden art" of alchemy, for which
>Marlowe may well have had a special enthusiasm, given the
>interest in all things esoteric apparently shared by those
>with whom he was said to be associated. More specifically,
>it could refer to his translation of Ovid's *Amores*, much
>to do with 'wooing', and by a poet who flourished right in
>the middle of what was called 'the golden age'. I prefer
>this explanation, although both could have been intended, as
>I said.
But it couldn't have meant his art was pretty good?
No, Peter, a reasonable example of a contemporary's doubts would be a text in
which the doubter says, "I don't believe Will Shakespeare is a writer." You've
done a nice parody of Price, but little more.
--Bob G.
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > "Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
> >
> > This is perhaps the most important line of all. At the end
> > of *Venus and Adonis*, the subject of the previous stanza,
> > Adonis, has been killed by a wild boar. He has been bleeding
> > profusely, and the blood is (twice) described as "purple", a
> > word used for the colour of blood at that time. This line
> > therefore seems to be saying that the subject of *this*
> > stanza is symbolically wearing clothing 'distained' (i.e.
> > stained) with blood, and therefore, like Adonis, has also
> > ('eke') died a violent death.
>
> No, it isn't saying that at all. Edwards doesn't mention
> anyone bleeding in the previous stanza, so the the "also"
> cannot refer to someone bleeding in this stanza. The previous
> stanza is not about the content of V&A, it's about the
> *writer* of V&A.
It is about both Adonis *and* the writer of V&A, the one
symbolizing the other. As Adonis died in a welter of purple
blood, it is perfectly acceptable for that image to be
carried into the next stanza.
<snip>
> > "Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> > One whose power floweth far,"
> >
> > "This clime" could either mean England, which would be
> > somewhat redundant information, given that the whole thing is
> > about English ('Albion's') poets, *or* (and I think this
> > makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
> > and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
>
> No, actually it makes much more sense that "clime" refers
> to England, since Edward's is saying "this clime", after
> saying "Also, in purple robes distained," thus:
>
> Also, (another person, not the writer of V&A) in purple
> robes distained,
> in the middle of this clime, (England),
> I have heard it said there is still
> another whose power floweth far.
>
> Another way to paraphrase, making it still more clear:
>
> In addition, I have heard say [there] doth remain,
> amidst the center of this clime,
> in purple robes distained,
> one whose power floweth far.
You may interpret it that way if you wish; it makes no
difference really. I merely point out that in the context
of what I say the rest is about, mine would be by far
the more likely of the two possible meanings.
May I take it that you accept Terry's interpretation of
"in purple roabes distained", by the way? If so, I would
be interested in who you think it might have been.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co,uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
KQKnave (Jim) wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > "*Adon* deafly masking thro,
> > Stately troupes rich conceited,"
> >
> > This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
> > published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
> > "deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
> >
> > Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
> > character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
> > (OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
> > or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
> > which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
> > worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
> > of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
> > the "rich conceited".
> >
>
> "Deftly" not "deafly".
Really? I haven't seen the original, but until I do I am quite
happy to accept Terry's transcript of "deafly".
It would not be an acceptable alternative spelling, of course,
so must I assume that you are falling back on the good old
'misprint' ploy? Whenever you don't like what it actually says,
simply call it a misprint and replace it with a word that
better fits what you want it to say. Where would you guys be
without it?
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
> > To 'cote' is to pass or outstrip. So, events will, he says,
> > outstrip his words - whatever that means - and will make any
> > comments on his part unnecessary.
>
> I read "coate" as "cut"--because of "saw."
Bob, you are priceless!
<snip>
> > "Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> > Blessed be your nimble throats,
> > That so amorously could sing."
>
> "could" is in the past.
Or, as I am suggesting, conditional.
> But all the poets in the poem are referred to in the
> past,
All except 'Mr. Purple', who seems to have died a bloody death,
but is spoken of in the present tense. Interesting, eh?
> which is one of many things in the poem that seem peculiar to
> me, and make me wary of thinking Edwards had too exact an idea
> of what he was doing, or saying.
Fascinating. Me, I would take it that it is *you* who have not
too exact an idea of what Edwards was doing or saying!
> > Neither of the two poets were "sonnes of stately kings" -
> > unless we count Marlowe's having attended the King's School,
> > Canterbury - so this more probably refers to some other
> > people who are better described thus and who *would*, he
> > implies, be blessed if they were to sing as "amorously" as
> > these two.
>
> Well, I don't think Edwards was THAT incompetent. "Sonnes of
> ... kings" has to be a metaphor.
Where on earth does that bit of poetic folk-lore come from?
> If Edwards wanted to leave Amyntas and Leander,
He doesn't. He is going on to compliment them both upon their
ability to write "amorously". He does this by saying that any
suitor for the Queen's hand who had such a silver tongue would
have been 'blessed' and, presumably, have had no trouble being
accepted. It's over-the-top flattery.
> he could have written something to indicate he had done so--
> like "That as well as these could sing." Note that all his
> stanzas seem to be about one poet, or two paired poets, and
> that this one, like all the others, has only one period--at
> its very end. Furthermore, there weren't ANY sonnes of
> kings writing poetry at the time.
<sigh> No, Bob, what the sons of stately kings were doing was
proposing marriage. Edwards says that they would have a much
better chance of success if they could talk all romantic,
like Watson and Marlowe did in their poetry.
> > I think these people can only be possible suitors
Sure have. I'm just mean, I guess.
> IN CONTEXT, this is what it most plausibly means, for the
> stanza goes on to say that he deserved to be where he was,
Where? In my copy, it just says he "Shew'd he well deserued to,".
A verb is implied by that word 'to', but it is not at all clear
what that verb is. The preceding verbs, in reverse order, are
'to conceit', 'to mask', and 'to go'. 'To be where he was' does
not appear at all.
> which would be an answer to the claim that he was lost, or in
> the wrong place.
It would indeed, had it said any such thing.
I think you are going to have to take me through this again.
At the moment your meanings for 'deafly' and 'masking' result
in it saying:
Adon, stupidly losing his way through
companies of players richly conceived,
showed he well deserved to lose his way.
> This connects nicely with Greene's assertion that he was
> too lowly to be writing blank verse, a connection possible to
> Shakespeare only.
Stop making things up, Bob. Greene never said any such thing.
Even if he was talking about Shakespeare, he makes no logical
connection between the crow being an upstart and his supposing
that he can write blank verse.
> As for concealing his True Identity, how could he deserve
> to do that?
He could deserve to have to do that.
> As I see, Peter strains to work out:
>
> > "Shew'd he well deserued to,"
> >
> > To what? To hide his identity in this way? Perhaps Edwards is
> > claiming that he thinks the need for such strange behaviour
> > is fully justified. Another possibility is that he is refer-
> > ring back to the phrase "Leander's gone", and is claiming
> > that this 'going' was deserved.
>
> No chance, and how does he show he deserved to be gone? If
> Edwards meant what you want him to have, why didn't he write
> something like: "showed that he was right to?"
Because that is not what he meant. I don't *want* him to mean
anything, by the way, I want to know what he *did* mean.
> > In either case, it certainly does not seem to be the player,
> > William Shakespeare, that he is writing about.
>
> To repeat my question from a slightly different slant: what was
> Adon doing to show he deserved to disguise himself?
My interpretation would be that Edwards is indirectly saying that
Marlowe's writings (on atheism in particular) made his being
forced to 'disappear' fully justified.
> I will say that this passage isn't quite quite as clearly about
> Will Shakespeare, player/poet, as Greene's but it's close.
I refuse to bite.
> A reference to a troupe about someone who wear masks, as actor do,
> literally at times and implicitly almost all the time, combined
> with a reference to something with the known actor's name on it
> as author--yet not about Shakespeare! Plus a reference to his
> not being fit to call himself a poet but, on the contrary,
> deserving to do so, a reference that would only fit Shakespeare,
> so far as the records I know about are concerned. Dream on, Peter.
Unfortunately, 'references' to not create meaning. Words and
grammar do, and they do not say what you fondly imagine they
do. I'll tell you again. Your definitions for those words
gives us:
Adon, stupidly losing his way through
companies of players richly conceived,
showed he well deserved to lose his way.
> > "Loues delight on him to gaze,
> > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
> > Other nymphs had sent him baies."
> >
> > "Love herself" is of course Venus, which *might* be referring
> > to the Queen, although the goddess she was more often assoc-
> > iated with was Diana. Maybe he is saying that the Queen is in
> > some way behind what has happened but, although the overt
> > sense of these lines is clear enough, any other allegorical
> > meaning does really escape me at the moment.
>
> Always keep in mind that poets can sometimes use a metaphor
> non-allegorically. I would say Edwards is saying that Venus
> got Adon to write about her; otherwise he might have written
> about any number of other nymphs.
In *Venus and Adonis*, Venus didn't manage to get Adonis to
do *anything*, and certainly not write to her! In which case,
who is Venus being used to represent in Edwards's poem?
Southampton?
> > "Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
> >
> > This is perhaps the most important line of all.
>
> For us authorship wacks, perhaps. (Note the "us"; I mean that
> for mere readers of the poem as a poem, it's just another line.)
Possibly. I meant for those of us who want to find an accurate
interpretation of those five stanzas.
> > At the end
> > of *Venus and Adonis*, the subject of the previous stanza,
> > Adonis, has been killed by a wild boar. He has been bleeding
> > profusely, and the blood is (twice) described as "purple", a
> > word used for the colour of blood at that time. This line
> > therefore seems to be saying that the subject of *this*
> > stanza is symbolically wearing clothing 'distained' (i.e.
> > stained) with blood, and therefore, like Adonis, has also
> > ('eke') died a violent death.
>
> Not necessarily. It means he also got blood on his robes.
Oh yes. I have heard of this other poet who cut his finger
really badly!
> > The only poet from around that
> > time to whom this clearly applies is Christopher Marlowe.
> >
> > But Edwards has dealt with Marlowe already, and the following
> > lines seem to show this poet as still alive, so what's this
> > all about?
> >
> > "Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> > I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> > One whose power floweth far,"
> >
> > "This clime" could either mean England, which would be
> > somewhat redundant information, given that the whole thing is
> > about English ('Albion's') poets,
>
> Edwards is often redundant,
Examples?
> and needs the rhyme. But it's not redundant,
> because it is intended to show a part of England, not England.
> How better could he say Mr. Purple was at the center of
> contemporary poets in England?
That he has 'heard' he is just doesn't ring true, does it?
> *or* (and I think this
> >makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
> >and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
>
> No dice. THIS clime has to be a clime already mentioned.
See the difference? I offer the two options. You *know* what
he meant. I am happy to think that he wanted people to think
that this was what he meant, of course. As I said, this is
cryptic.
> > In this case, Edwards would be saying he has heard that
> > someone who is *thought* to have met a violent end (which
> > would most probably be Christopher Marlowe) is in fact living
> > somewhere in the Mediterranean area, but that his influence
> > nevertheless still "floweth far", i.e. at least as far as
> > England.
>
> Why does he remaine at the center of this clime if he's left?
What *are* you talking about? He's 'gone' from England, arrived
in Padua (say) and plans to 'remain' there for the time being.
<snip>
> > "Well could his bewitching pen,
> > Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
> >
> >This is very obscure. "Done" has to have a meaning similar
> >to ("alike") that of the word "staide" at the end of the
> >last of our stanzas, so the best sense I can make of it is
> >to take the word "done" as being an unusual spelling of
> >"down", (which is given as one in the OED, if for a different
> >sense) and the meaning to be (OED 1.a.) "To bring, put, throw
> >or knock down". If so, Edwards seems to accusing him of
> >writing material which could in some way endanger the
> >continued ability of people to enjoy the arts. As you may
> >know, in my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" I showed
> >that Marlowe had almost certainly written a book on atheism.
> >Can this be what Edwards had in mind?
>
> No. He's saying the man's pen could have done poetry.
Absolutely not. Whatever Edwards means, it *has* to be a
criticism of this guy, and is along the lines of 'staying'
the Muses in some way.
> > "Although he differs much from men,
> > Tilting under Frieries,"
<snip>
> >Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
> >favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
> >'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
> >The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
> >chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
> >the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
> >"differ much" from them.
>
> Interesting thoughts that don't lead anywhere very productive,
> for me.
I guess not. They support my version.
> > "Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> > To haue honored him with baies."
> >
> > I think there may be two meanings of this intended here, if
> > it is in fact Marlowe that Edwards is writing about. One of
> > them might refer to the "golden art" of alchemy, for which
> > Marlowe may well have had a special enthusiasm, given the
> > interest in all things esoteric apparently shared by those
> > with whom he was said to be associated. More specifically,
> > it could refer to his translation of Ovid's *Amores*, much
> > to do with 'wooing', and by a poet who flourished right in
> > the middle of what was called 'the golden age'. I prefer
> > this explanation, although both could have been intended, as
> > I said.
>
> But it couldn't have meant his art was pretty good?
Yes it could. It is more likely, however, to be particularly
relevant to the person he has in mind. Your handicap is, of
course, that while you are determined to deny that this can
possibly be Marlowe, you have not the slightest clue as to
who *else* it might be.
<snip>
> > A reasonable example of a contemporary's doubts, I would
> > have thought, at least until someone comes up with a better
> > overall interpretation of these stanzas!
>
> No, Peter, a reasonable example of a contemporary's doubts
> would be a text in which the doubter says, "I don't believe
> Will Shakespeare is a writer." You've done a nice parody of
> Price, but little more.
What I have done, Bob, is to consider the possibilities and
then provide a coherent and (almost) complete interpretation
of what every one of those stanzas is about. You have not, and
will *never* be able to as long as you allow dogma to get in
the way of rational thought.
Bob Grumman
>> > outstrip his words - whatever that means - and will make any
>> > comments on his part unnecessary.
>>
>> I read "coate" as "cut"--because of "saw."
>
>Bob, you are priceless!
>
thought "We will not deal with Rosamond as part of the world we will construct
using our saw." I think your poor guess as good but certainly not better.
>> > "Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
>> > Blessed be your nimble throats,
>> > That so amorously could sing."
>>
>> "could" is in the past.
>
>Or, as I am suggesting, conditional.
Conditional? Why? What word indicates conditional?
>> But all the poets in the poem are referred to in the
>> past,
>
>All except 'Mr. Purple', who seems to have died a bloody death,
>but is spoken of in the present tense. Interesting, eh?
Ah, but that reminds me of Rob's astute contribution to this thread which you (I
think) ignored and made me forget: all the past verbas are to poems the others
wrote; Mr. Purple has no poems in the past to speak of so it is the poems he
could make that Edwards discusses. How could Edwards say how well his pen COULD
(have) done poetry if he had already done poetry? Possible answer: he did do
poetry but it wasn't of the kind that Edwards is here speaking of. But that
would disqualify Marlowe, who did write poetry like the others spoken of.
>> which is one of many things in the poem that seem peculiar to
>> me, and make me wary of thinking Edwards had too exact an idea
>> of what he was doing, or saying.
>
>Fascinating. Me, I would take it that it is *you* who have not
>too exact an idea of what Edwards was doing or saying!
Ah, but I can point to solecisms like "Well could he done," horrible meter,
worse rhymes, and the lack of critical respect Edwards seems to have gotten, to
support my observation--not to mention the many poets others feel I seem to have
gotten right.
>> > Neither of the two poets were "sonnes of stately kings" -
>> > unless we count Marlowe's having attended the King's School,
>> > Canterbury - so this more probably refers to some other
>> > people who are better described thus and who *would*, he
>> > implies, be blessed if they were to sing as "amorously" as
>> > these two.
>>
>> Well, I don't think Edwards was THAT incompetent. "Sonnes of
>> ... kings" has to be a metaphor.
>
>Where on earth does that bit of poetic folk-lore come from?
Hmm, now that you mention it, Peter, I have to admit that I've never heard a
poet metaphorically describe someone he admires as a god, demigod, king, prince,
emperor, lord, titan, or son of any of the preceding. However, since neither
man is a literal son of a king, what else can it be but a metaphor?
>> If Edwards wanted to leave Amyntas and Leander,
>
>He doesn't. He is going on to compliment them both upon their
>ability to write "amorously". He does this by saying that any
>suitor for the Queen's hand who had such a silver tongue would
>have been 'blessed' and, presumably, have had no trouble being
>accepted. It's over-the-top flattery.
>
>> he could have written something to indicate he had done so--
>> like "That as well as these could sing." Note that all his
>> stanzas seem to be about one poet, or two paired poets, and
>> that this one, like all the others, has only one period--at
>> its very end. Furthermore, there weren't ANY sonnes of
>> kings writing poetry at the time.
>
><sigh> No, Bob, what the sons of stately kings were doing was
>proposing marriage. Edwards says that they would have a much
>better chance of success if they could talk all romantic,
>like Watson and Marlowe did in their poetry.
<double sigh> I can't stretch like you, Peter. I never thought of Edwards
jumping into the courtship of Liz in the middle of a sentence (and poem) like
this. I see nothing at all indicating courtship, just sons of kings with
throats.
>> > I think these people can only be possible suitors
>> > the Queen's hand in marriage. The grammar is awkward,
>> > but it does make far more sense
The queen is not there, Peter. Read the first two stanzas of this poem.
Edwards tells us he's going to list the poets whose excellent poems have "quite
benempt" his. The queen isn't anywhere there.
>> > "*Adon* deafly masking thro,
>> > Stately troupes rich conceited,"
>> >
>> > This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
>> > published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
>> > "deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
>> >
>> > Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
>> > character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
>> > (OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
>> > or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
>> > which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
>> > worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
>> > of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
>> > the "rich conceited".
>> >
>> > If we take those meanings together, however, we find Edwards
>> > appearing to say that the author of *Venus and Adonis* has
>> > hidden his "real form or character" behind the "mask" of a
>> > Lord Chamberlain's player, even though he lacks the charac-
>> > teristics of an actor himself. Obviously, such an astonishing
>> > interpretation can be acceptable only if everything else
>> > seems to support it (or at least not rule it out). As we
>> > shall see, this is in fact the case.
>>
>> You've dumped my much better interpretation that useS "masking"
>> as losing one's way.
>
>Sure have. I'm just mean, I guess.
>> IN CONTEXT, this is what it most plausibly means, for the
>> stanza goes on to say that he deserved to be where he was,
>
>Where? In my copy, it just says he "Shew'd he well deserued to,".
>A verb is implied by that word 'to', but it is not at all clear
>what that verb is. The preceding verbs, in reverse order, are
>'to conceit', 'to mask', and 'to go'. 'To be where he was' does
>not appear at all.
"masking thro" (stately rich-conceited troupes)--that's what he well-deserved to
be doing.
>
>> which would be an answer to the claim that he was lost, or in
>> the wrong place.
>
>It would indeed, had it said any such thing.
>I think you are going to have to take me through this again.
>At the moment your meanings for 'deafly' and 'masking' result
>in it saying:
>
> Adon, stupidly losing his way through
> companies of players richly conceived,
> showed he well deserved to lose his way.
Adon, mistakenly losing his way through high poetry showed he well-desefrved to
be there among such texts = primary meaning
Adon, performing as a player in acting troupes = passing undermeaning
Greene had recently said he didn't deserve to write blank verse = background
>> This connects nicely with Greene's assertion that he was
>> too lowly to be writing blank verse, a connection possible to
>> Shakespeare only.
>
>Stop making things up, Bob. Greene never said any such thing.
>Even if he was talking about Shakespeare, he makes no logical
>connection between the crow being an upstart and his supposing
>that he can write blank verse.
He derisively calls him an actor, and an upstart (as a writer, for there is no
other plausible way in the context* he could be an upstart), then sneers at his
conceit in thinking he could write good blank verse--and there's no logical
connection between the three?
*How could Greene, who considers actors as low as anyone can be, call
Shakespeare an upstart for becoming one?
>> As for concealing his True Identity, how could he deserve
>> to do that?
>
>He could deserve to have to do that.
Very weak. Particularly since "showed he well deserved to" is immediately
followed by what would seem to an objective reader examples of why he deserved
to: the fact that loves delight in him, etc. Which has nothing to do with his
disguising himself.
>> As I see, Peter strains to work out:
>>
>> > "Shew'd he well deserued to,"
>> >
>> > To what? To hide his identity in this way? Perhaps Edwards is
>> > claiming that he thinks the need for such strange behaviour
>> > is fully justified. Another possibility is that he is refer-
>> > ring back to the phrase "Leander's gone", and is claiming
>> > that this 'going' was deserved.
>>
>> No chance, and how does he show he deserved to be gone? If
>> Edwards meant what you want him to have, why didn't he write
>> something like: "showed that he was right to?"
>
>Because that is not what he meant. I don't *want* him to mean
>anything, by the way, I want to know what he *did* mean.
Find me a single text from the time that does not discuss the True Identity of
Shakespeare, and I might believe you, Peter.
>> > In either case, it certainly does not seem to be the player,
>> > William Shakespeare, that he is writing about.
>>
>> To repeat my question from a slightly different slant: what was
>> Adon doing to show he deserved to disguise himself?
>
>My interpretation would be that Edwards is indirectly saying that
>Marlowe's writings (on atheism in particular) made his being
>forced to 'disappear' fully justified.
>
>> I will say that this passage isn't quite quite as clearly about
>> Will Shakespeare, player/poet, as Greene's but it's close.
>
>I refuse to bite.
>
>> A reference to a troupe about someone who wearS masks, as actorS do,
>> literally at times and implicitly almost all the time, combined
>> with a reference to something with the known actor's name on it
>> as author--yet not about Shakespeare! Plus a reference to his
>> not being fit to call himself a poet but, on the contrary,
>> deserving to do so, a reference that would only fit Shakespeare,
>> so far as the records I know about are concerned. Dream on, Peter.
>
>Unfortunately, 'references' to not create meaning. Words and
>grammar do, and they do not say what you fondly imagine they
>do. I'll tell you again. Your definitions for those words
>gives us:
>
> Adon, stupidly losing his way through
> companies of players richly conceived,
> showed he well deserved to lose his way.
See above.
>> > "Loues delight on him to gaze,
>> > And had not loue her selfe intreated,
>> > Other nymphs had sent him baies."
>> >
>> > "Love herself" is of course Venus, which *might* be referring
>> > to the Queen, although the goddess she was more often assoc-
>> > iated with was Diana. Maybe he is saying that the Queen is in
>> > some way behind what has happened but, although the overt
>> > sense of these lines is clear enough, any other allegorical
>> > meaning does really escape me at the moment.
>>
>> Always keep in mind that poets can sometimes use a metaphor
>> non-allegorically. I would say Edwards is saying that Venus
>> got Adon to write about her; otherwise he might have written
>> about any number of other nymphs.
>
>In *Venus and Adonis*, Venus didn't manage to get Adonis to
>do *anything*, and certainly not write to her! In which case,
>who is Venus being used to represent in Edwards's poem?
>Southampton?
Venus is Venus. She got Shakespeare, here nicknamed Adon, to write about her.
>> > "Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
>> >
>> > This is perhaps the most important line of all.
>>
>> For us authorship wacks, perhaps. (Note the "us"; I mean that
>> for mere readers of the poem as a poem, it's just another line.)
>
>Possibly. I meant for those of us who want to find an accurate
>interpretation of those five stanzas.
I think the lines with nicknames all more important.
I'm sure I could find some but it's a minor point.
>> and needs the rhyme. But it's not redundant,
>> because it is intended to show a part of England, not England.
>> How better could he say Mr. Purple was at the center of
>> contemporary poets in England?
>
>That he has 'heard' he is just doesn't ring true, does it?
It rings as true as anything else in the poem, for me. He's heard about some
non-poet who could no doubt write better poems than anyone mentioned if he
tried. Who knows whom he could have meant.
>> *or* (and I think this
>> >makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
>> >and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
>>
>> No dice. THIS clime has to be a clime already mentioned.
>
>See the difference? I offer the two options. You *know* what
>he meant. I am happy to think that he wanted people to think
>that this was what he meant, of course. As I said, this is
>cryptic.
There is only one option, Peter, because of the word "this." Throughout the
poem, Edwards is discussing Albion. Yes, there are other options, but for
practical purposes there is only one.
>> > In this case, Edwards would be saying he has heard that
>> > someone who is *thought* to have met a violent end (which
>> > would most probably be Christopher Marlowe) is in fact living
>> > somewhere in the Mediterranean area, but that his influence
>> > nevertheless still "floweth far", i.e. at least as far as
>> > England.
>>
>> Why does he remaine at the center of this clime if he's left?
>
>What *are* you talking about? He's 'gone' from England, arrived
>in Padua (say) and plans to 'remain' there for the time being.
But the poem doesn't say any of this. I think a writer would say Mr. Purple
lived in X, and then would say he remained there. He wouldn't described him as
remaining in X if he'd never told us before that that that was where he lived.
(Whaddya think of those three "that's"?!) You certainly have nothing at all to
bring in the Mediterranean area.
><snip>
>
>> > "Well could his bewitching pen,
>> > Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
>> >
>> >This is very obscure. "Done" has to have a meaning similar
>> >to ("alike") that of the word "staide" at the end of the
>> >last of our stanzas, so the best sense I can make of it is
>> >to take the word "done" as being an unusual spelling of
>> >"down", (which is given as one in the OED, if for a different
>> >sense) and the meaning to be (OED 1.a.) "To bring, put, throw
>> >or knock down". If so, Edwards seems to accusing him of
>> >writing material which could in some way endanger the
>> >continued ability of people to enjoy the arts. As you may
>> >know, in my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" I showed
>> >that Marlowe had almost certainly written a book on atheism.
You didn't come close to convincing me.
>> >Can this be what Edwards had in mind?
>>
>> No. He's saying the man's pen could have done poetry.
>
>Absolutely not. Whatever Edwards means, it *has* to be a
>criticism of this guy, and is along the lines of 'staying'
>the Muses in some way.
You're most ingenious, but almost always by dropping the context. Here Edwards
is talking about someone who is praiseworthy--who could have been the onely
object, etc. Everything is laudatory--except, for you, "done the muses
objects." But it makes good sense taken literally if slightly ungrammatically
to mean what I say. If he's making the oblique point that Marlowe could
desecrate poetry, he certainly does so mater-of-factly.
>> > "Although he differs much from men,
>> > Tilting under Frieries,"
>
><snip>
>
>> >Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
>> >favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
>> >'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
>> >The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
>> >chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
>> >the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
>> >"differ much" from them.
>>
>> Interesting thoughts that don't lead anywhere very productive,
>> for me.
>
>I guess not. They support my version.
It's too strained. And would it be logical for Edwards to say "well he could
have desecrated poetry ALTHOUGH he was different from men?" If he was like men,
it would have been a snap. Also, you're overlooking the fact that Marlowe had
already written wonderful poems that were free of atheism, etc.
>> > "Yet his golden art might woo vs,
>> > To haue honored him with baies."
>> >
>> > I think there may be two meanings of this intended here, if
>> > it is in fact Marlowe that Edwards is writing about. One of
>> > them might refer to the "golden art" of alchemy, for which
>> > Marlowe may well have had a special enthusiasm, given the
>> > interest in all things esoteric apparently shared by those
>> > with whom he was said to be associated. More specifically,
>> > it could refer to his translation of Ovid's *Amores*, much
>> > to do with 'wooing', and by a poet who flourished right in
>> > the middle of what was called 'the golden age'. I prefer
>> > this explanation, although both could have been intended, as
>> > I said.
>>
>> But it couldn't have meant his art was pretty good?
>
>Yes it could. It is more likely, however, to be particularly
>relevant to the person he has in mind. Your handicap is, of
>course, that while you are determined to deny that this can
>possibly be Marlowe, you have not the slightest clue as to
>who *else* it might be.
So what? We only have 6 to 12 lines of poetry to go from, Peter. None of them
direct. And I also have some good clues about who it could not have been about:
the previous mention of Marlowe in this poem, and the fact that Marlowe was dead
at the time of this poem.
><snip>
>
>> > A reasonable example of a contemporary's doubts, I would
>> > have thought, at least until someone comes up with a better
>> > overall interpretation of these stanzas!
>>
>> No, Peter, a reasonable example of a contemporary's doubts
>> would be a text in which the doubter says, "I don't believe
>> Will Shakespeare is a writer." You've done a nice parody of
>> Price, but little more.
>
>What I have done, Bob, is to consider the possibilities and
>then provide a coherent and (almost) complete interpretation
>of what every one of those stanzas is about. You have not, and
>will *never* be able to as long as you allow dogma to get in
>the way of rational thought.
>
>Peter F.
I notice you didn't defend Price's way of interpretting texts. Do you agree
with her interpretations? If not, how are yours different?
--Bob G.
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>KQKnave (Jim) wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>
>> >
>> > "*Adon* deafly masking thro,
>> > Stately troupes rich conceited,"
>> >
>> > This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
>> > published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
>> > "deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
>> >
>> > Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
>> > character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
>> > (OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
>> > or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
>> > which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
>> > worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
>> > of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
>> > the "rich conceited".
>> >
>>
>> "Deftly" not "deafly".
>
>Really? I haven't seen the original, but until I do I am quite
>happy to accept Terry's transcript of "deafly".
"Deafly" makes no sense, and "deftly" makes perfect sense.
>
>It would not be an acceptable alternative spelling, of course,
You have no idea whether it's an "acceptable" alternative spelling or not,
but in any case, it doesn't have to be "acceptable", just different.
It could be a misprint, an alternative spelling, or it could be simply
how Edwards pronounced it.
>so must I assume that you are falling back on the good old
>'misprint' ploy? Whenever you don't like what it actually says,
>simply call it a misprint and replace it with a word that
>better fits what you want it to say. Where would you guys be
>without it?
Nonsense. Misprints and strange spellings occur all the time in
texts published in the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare's sonnets
are full of them. You change "deafly" to "deftly" because that's
plainly what is meant.
KQKnave
<Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>KQKnave (Jim) wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>> >
><snip>
>> >
>> > "Eke in purple roabes distaind,"
>> >
>> > This is perhaps the most important line of all. At the end
>> > of *Venus and Adonis*, the subject of the previous stanza,
>> > Adonis, has been killed by a wild boar. He has been bleeding
>> > profusely, and the blood is (twice) described as "purple", a
>> > word used for the colour of blood at that time. This line
>> > therefore seems to be saying that the subject of *this*
>> > stanza is symbolically wearing clothing 'distained' (i.e.
>> > stained) with blood, and therefore, like Adonis, has also
>> > ('eke') died a violent death.
>>
>> No, it isn't saying that at all. Edwards doesn't mention
>> anyone bleeding in the previous stanza, so the the "also"
>> cannot refer to someone bleeding in this stanza. The previous
>> stanza is not about the content of V&A, it's about the
>> *writer* of V&A.
>
>It is about both Adonis *and* the writer of V&A, the one
>symbolizing the other. As Adonis died in a welter of purple
>blood, it is perfectly acceptable for that image to be
>carried into the next stanza.
>
No, it's not, and I'm not going to go on and on with your
hilariously nutty interpretations of this poem. Edwards is
writing about writers, not about characters.
DaveMore
i think your interpretation works for the most part, a couple of suggestions
below:
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> writes:
>"*Adon* deafly masking thro,
> Stately troupes rich conceited,"
>
>This clearly refers to the author of *Venus and Adonis*,
>published earlier that year, but how on earth is the poet
>"deafly masking thro,/ Stately troupes"?
>
>Well, "Deaf" can mean (OED 6.a.) "lacking its essential
>character or quality", and the intransitive verb "mask"
>(OED 5.) "To be or go in disguise; to hide one's real form
>or character under an outward show". The "troupes" for
>which the named author, William Shakespeare had probably
>worked were those of the "stately" Lord Admiral, the Earl
>of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain. I am not sure about
>the "rich conceited".
troupes also suggests "tropes" and "conceit" is metaphor or imagination, as in
*rape of lucrece*:
For much imaginary work was there;
Conceit deceitful, so compact, so kind,
That for Achilles' image stood his spear,
Griped in an armed hand; himself, behind,
Was left unseen, save to the eye of mind:
A hand, a foot, a face, a leg, a head,
Stood for the whole to be imagined.
>If we take those meanings together, however, we find Edwards
>appearing to say that the author of *Venus and Adonis* has
>hidden his "real form or character" behind the "mask" of a
>Lord Chamberlain's player, even though he lacks the charac-
>teristics of an actor himself. Obviously, such an astonishing
>interpretation can be acceptable only if everything else
>seems to support it (or at least not rule it out). As we
>shall see, this is in fact the case.
It could mean the author of V&A hid behind both his "tropes" and his "troupes"
>
> "Shew'd he well deserued to,"
>
>To what? To hide his identity in this way? Perhaps Edwards is
>claiming that he thinks the need for such strange behaviour
>is fully justified.
Also, to "amorously sing" which immediately precedes that phrase, and is
followed by "Love's delight"...
can't offer (possibly) better alternative interpretations for the rest of it.
Great job.
dm
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > > > To 'cote' is to pass or outstrip. So, events will, he says,
> > > > outstrip his words - whatever that means - and will make any
> > > > comments on his part unnecessary.
> > >
> > > I read "coate" as "cut"--because of "saw."
> >
> > Bob, you are priceless!
> >
> I said my thoughts were "quick." I didn't think of the poetic
> inversion, so thought "We will not deal with Rosamond as part
> of the world we will construct using our saw." I think your
> poor guess as good but certainly not better.
I am still trying to blot out my mental image of what you
presumably think that line in the 'Icicles' song - "And
coughing drowns the parson's saw" - must mean!
> > > > "Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> > > > Blessed be your nimble throats,
> > > > That so amorously could sing."
> > >
> > > "could" is in the past.
> >
> > Or, as I am suggesting, conditional.
>
> Conditional? Why? What word indicates conditional?
'If' understood. "Could your nimble throats sing so
amorously, they would be blessed". I probably should have
called it 'subjunctive in a conditional clause', but I did say
that the grammar is awkward. I simply think this is the best
of a pretty poor bunch of explanations, and is of course not
in any way related to the authorship issue .
> > > But all the poets in the poem are referred to in the
> > > past,
> >
> > All except 'Mr. Purple', who seems to have died a bloody death,
> > but is spoken of in the present tense. Interesting, eh?
>
> Ah, but that reminds me of Rob's astute contribution
> to this thread which you (I think) ignored and made me
> forget: all the past verbas are to poems the others
> wrote; Mr. Purple has no poems in the past to speak of
> so it is the poems he could make that Edwards discusses.
> How could Edwards say how well his pen COULD (have) done
> poetry if he had already done poetry? Possible answer:
> he did do poetry but it wasn't of the kind that Edwards
> is here speaking of. But that would disqualify Marlowe,
> who did write poetry like the others spoken of.
I thanked Rob, and thought I had indirectly answered his
point. You are both assuming (a) that 'done' must mean
what it would today, and (b) that there is a word ('have')
missing. But you are not taking the rest of the poem into
account, which eliminates that possibility. In particular,
look at the last line of the next stanza:
"Hath alike the Muses staide".
The "alike" refers back to the last mention of the Muses,
which was in the stanza we are discussing:
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
So the line "Done the Muses obiects to vs" has to have
something in common with the Muses being "staide". (And
whatever it meant it cannot be that Sylvester has not
'done poetry like the others spoken of', because he has).
In particular, Edwards includes that word "Yet" in the fifth
line. By that word, he is saying that *despite* (whatever
the first two lines mean) his 'golden art' is nevertheless
praiseworthy.
It also appears that the "men tilting under friaries" are
likely to do something similar, given the word "although".
He may well cause the same thing they would "although" he
differs much from them. So, if I am right about their
being Puritan preachers, it is something to do with what
negative views such people might have about the Muses'
'objects'.
My guess therefore is that Edwards is suggesting that,
were Marlowe's brand of atheism to start catching on, it
could bring about a strong Puritan backlash, to the
considerable jeopardy of the arts.
<snip>
> > > Well, I don't think Edwards was THAT incompetent.
> > > "Sonnes of ... kings" has to be a metaphor.
> >
> > Where on earth does that bit of poetic folk-lore come from?
>
> Hmm, now that you mention it, Peter, I have to admit that
> I've never heard a poet metaphorically describe someone he
> admires as a god, demigod, king, prince, emperor, lord,
> titan, or son of any of the preceding.
You said that it 'has to be', not just that it could be.
> However, since
> neither man is a literal son of a king, what else can it
> be but a metaphor?
It can *be* 'a literal son of a king', or several of them, and
not TW and CM.
> > > If Edwards wanted to leave Amyntas and Leander,
> >
> > He doesn't. He is going on to compliment them both upon their
> > ability to write "amorously". He does this by saying that any
> > suitor for the Queen's hand who had such a silver tongue would
> > have been 'blessed' and, presumably, have had no trouble being
> > accepted. It's over-the-top flattery.
> >
> > > he could have written something to indicate he had done so--
> > > like "That as well as these could sing." Note that all his
> > > stanzas seem to be about one poet, or two paired poets, and
> > > that this one, like all the others, has only one period--at
> > > its very end. Furthermore, there weren't ANY sonnes of
> > > kings writing poetry at the time.
> >
> > <sigh> No, Bob, what the sons of stately kings were doing was
> > proposing marriage. Edwards says that they would have a much
> > better chance of success if they could talk all romantic,
> > like Watson and Marlowe did in their poetry.
>
> <double sigh> I can't stretch like you, Peter. I never thought
> of Edwards jumping into the courtship of Liz in the middle of a
> sentence (and poem) like this. I see nothing at all indicating
> courtship, just sons of kings with throats.
Then you were unlikely to see the most probable meaning. But
having now had it pointed out to you, you must tell us why it
is less acceptable than the interpretation *you* have in mind.
> > > > I think these people can only be possible suitors
> > > > the Queen's hand in marriage. The grammar is awkward,
> > > > but it does make far more sense
>
> The queen is not there, Peter. Read the first two stanzas of
> this poem. Edwards tells us he's going to list the poets whose
> excellent poems have "quite benempt" his. The queen isn't
> anywhere there.
She is present throughout the whole Envoi, in fact, as the
personification of the greater part of Albion. Not that it
matters in the slightest, the reference to "sonnes of stately
kings" is quite enough to bring her to mind. OK the suitors are
long gone, but it was a poetic convention (nay, an absolute
necessity!) to omit any suggestion that, at 60, Her Majesty
wasn't still the most desirable woman in the world.
<snip>
> > > You've dumped my much better interpretation that useS "masking"
> > > as losing one's way.
> >
> > Sure have. I'm just mean, I guess.
>
> > > IN CONTEXT, this is what it most plausibly means, for the
> > > stanza goes on to say that he deserved to be where he was,
> >
> > Where? In my copy, it just says he "Shew'd he well deserued to,".
> > A verb is implied by that word 'to', but it is not at all clear
> > what that verb is. The preceding verbs, in reverse order, are
> > 'to conceit', 'to mask', and 'to go'. 'To be where he was' does
> > not appear at all.
>
> "masking thro" (stately rich-conceited troupes)--that's what
> he well-deserved to be doing.
So not "to be where he was" after all?
> > > which would be an answer to the claim that he was lost, or in
> > > the wrong place.
> >
> > It would indeed, had it said any such thing.
>
> > I think you are going to have to take me through this again.
> > At the moment your meanings for 'deafly' and 'masking' result
> > in it saying:
> >
> > Adon, stupidly losing his way through
> > companies of players richly conceived,
> > showed he well deserved to lose his way.
>
> Adon, mistakenly losing his way through high poetry showed he
> well-desefrved to be there among such texts = primary meaning
No, sorry. It doesn't say that. Substituting your definitions:
Adon, mistakenly losing his way through
stately rich-conceited troupes,
showed he well deserved to lose his way through them.
It's garbage.
> Adon, performing as a player in acting troupes = passing
> undermeaning
>
> Greene had recently said he didn't deserve to write blank
> verse = background
>
> > > This connects nicely with Greene's assertion that he was
> > > too lowly to be writing blank verse, a connection possible to
> > > Shakespeare only.
> >
> > Stop making things up, Bob. Greene never said any such thing.
> > Even if he was talking about Shakespeare, he makes no logical
> > connection between the crow being an upstart and his supposing
> > that he can write blank verse.
>
> He derisively calls him an actor, and an upstart (as a writer,
> for there is no other plausible way in the context* he could be
> an upstart), then sneers at his conceit in thinking he could
> write good blank verse--and there's no logical connection
> between the three?
No, Bob. There isn't. *Post hoc, ergo propter hoc* (after
this, therefore because of this) is a logical fallacy.
> *How could Greene, who considers actors as low as anyone can be,
> call Shakespeare an upstart for becoming one?
Being an upstart was to do with the rapidity with which one
had risen from humble origins. Wealth and power were the main
ingredients, not skill. Actors grew rich and had power over
their writers, who might even starve to death as a result.
> > > As for concealing his True Identity, how could he deserve
> > > to do that?
> >
> > He could deserve to have to do that.
>
> Very weak. Particularly since "showed he well deserved to" is
> immediately followed by what would seem to an objective reader
> examples of why he deserved to: the fact that loves delight in
> him, etc. Which has nothing to do with his disguising himself.
They might have been, if it had said what you want it to, but
it doesn't.
<snip>
> > In *Venus and Adonis*, Venus didn't manage to get Adonis to
> > do *anything*, and certainly not write to her! In which case,
> > who is Venus being used to represent in Edwards's poem?
> > Southampton?
>
> Venus is Venus. She got Shakespeare, here nicknamed Adon, to
> write about her.
Ah, I get it now. Thanks. Does it affect our argument?
<snip>
> > > But it's not redundant,
> > > because it is intended to show a part of England, not England.
> > > How better could he say Mr. Purple was at the center of
> > > contemporary poets in England?
> >
> > That he has 'heard' he is just doesn't ring true, does it?
>
> It rings as true as anything else in the poem, for me. He's
> heard about some non-poet
Is that the one who apparently died a bloody death, or the one
with chronic nose-bleeds and the washing machine on the blink?
> who could no doubt write better poems than anyone mentioned if
> he tried.
Better in his opinion than Spenser? I think not.
> > > *or* (and I think this
> > > >makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
> > > >and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
> > >
> > > No dice. THIS clime has to be a clime already mentioned.
> >
> > See the difference? I offer the two options. You *know* what
> > he meant. I am happy to think that he wanted people to think
> > that this was what he meant, of course. As I said, this is
> > cryptic.
>
> There is only one option, Peter, because of the word "this."
There you go again. There ought to be a word for someone like
this.
> Throughout the poem, Edwards is discussing Albion. Yes, there
> are other options, but for practical
Read 'dogmatic'
> purposes there is only one.
>
> > > > In this case, Edwards would be saying he has heard that
> > > > someone who is *thought* to have met a violent end (which
> > > > would most probably be Christopher Marlowe) is in fact living
> > > > somewhere in the Mediterranean area, but that his influence
> > > > nevertheless still "floweth far", i.e. at least as far as
> > > > England.
> > >
> > > Why does he remaine at the center of this clime if he's left?
> >
> > What *are* you talking about? He's 'gone' from England, arrived
> > in Padua (say) and plans to 'remain' there for the time being.
>
> But the poem doesn't say any of this. I think a writer would
> say Mr. Purple lived in X, and then would say he remained there.
No, that would be saying the same thing twice. See below.
> He wouldn't described him as remaining in X if he'd never
> told us before that that that was where he lived.
To 'remain' *can* simply mean to 'dwell', as in Rosalind's
"What said he? How looked he? Wherein went he? What makes
he here? Did he ask for me? Where remains he?" etc.
or Pisanio's words about Imogen: "I nothing know where she
remains, why gone,/ Nor when she purposes return."
> (Whaddya think of those three "that's"?!)
Not bad at all. Reminds me of that old favorite which you have
to punctuate:
"Smith where Jones had had had had had had had had had had had
the examiners approval"
> You certainly have
> nothing at all to bring in the Mediterranean area.
I say we do. 'This clime', where Venus and Adonis remained.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > "Well could his bewitching pen,
> > > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
> > > >
> > > > This is very obscure. "Done" has to have a meaning similar
> > > > to ("alike") that of the word "staide" at the end of the
> > > > last of our stanzas, so the best sense I can make of it is
> > > > to take the word "done" as being an unusual spelling of
> > > > "down", (which is given as one in the OED, if for a different
> > > > sense) and the meaning to be (OED 1.a.) "To bring, put, throw
> > > > or knock down". If so, Edwards seems to accusing him of
> > > > writing material which could in some way endanger the
> > > > continued ability of people to enjoy the arts. As you may
> > > > know, in my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" I showed
> > > > that Marlowe had almost certainly written a book on atheism.
>
> You didn't come close to convincing me.
Then I would ask you some time to explain why not. Do you actually
follow the argument? It's quite complex, but I think irrefutable.
> > > > Can this be what Edwards had in mind?
> > >
> > > No. He's saying the man's pen could have done poetry.
> >
> > Absolutely not. Whatever Edwards means, it *has* to be a
> > criticism of this guy, and is along the lines of 'staying'
> > the Muses in some way.
>
> You're most ingenious, but almost always by dropping the context.
> Here Edwards is talking about someone who is praiseworthy--who
> could have been the onely object, etc. Everything is laudatory--
> except, for you, "done the muses objects." But it makes good
> sense taken literally if slightly ungrammatically.
And if you ignore the line in the *Babel* stanza, and those
words "although" and "yet". It is also extremely, not
slightly, ungrammatical.
> to mean what I say. If he's making the oblique point that
> Marlowe could desecrate poetry, he certainly does so
> mater-of-factly.
Where did she come from? As I said, how I see it is that
his atheism could bring about a Puritan backlash if it
caught on to any great extent.
> > > > "Although he differs much from men,
> > > > Tilting under Frieries,"
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
> > > > favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
> > > > 'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
> > > > The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
> > > > chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
> > > > the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
> > > > "differ much" from them.
> > >
> > > Interesting thoughts that don't lead anywhere very productive,
> > > for me.
> >
> > I guess not. They support my version.
>
> It's too strained.
A favourite, and always highly subjective, word of yours,
Bob. So would you care to offer a meaning for "men tilting
under friaries" which is less strained?
> And would it be logical for Edwards to say "well he could
> have desecrated poetry ALTHOUGH he was different from men?"
> If he was like men, it would have been a snap.
His atheism, if it became widespread could bring about the
imposition of rigidly Puritan values, although he is far
from being a Puritan himself. That's logical, whether
he was right or not (although I happen to think he was).
> Also, you're overlooking the fact that Marlowe had
> already written wonderful poems that were free of atheism,
> etc.
Presumably you think that they are relevant to the issue.
I don't.
<snip>
> > > But it couldn't have meant his art was pretty good?
> >
> > Yes it could. It is more likely, however, to be particularly
> > relevant to the person he has in mind. Your handicap is, of
> > course, that while you are determined to deny that this can
> > possibly be Marlowe, you have not the slightest clue as to
> > who *else* it might be.
>
> So what? We only have 6 to 12 lines of poetry to go from, Peter.
And yet it was a doddle to identify all of the others, with the
possible exception of Joshua Sylvester (who, incidentally, is
*far* better known for his *La Semaine* translation than you
seem to think). Whoever this is, he is presumably of a calibre
thought at that time to be roughly equal to all of the others,
and should therefore be equally easy to identify.
> None of them direct. And I also have some good clues about
> who it could not have been about: the previous mention of
> Marlowe in this poem, and the fact that Marlowe was dead
> at the time of this poem.
So you said.
<snip>
> > > You've done a nice parody of Price, but little more.
> >
> > What I have done, Bob, is to consider the possibilities and
> > then provide a coherent and (almost) complete interpretation
> > of what every one of those stanzas is about. You have not, and
> > will *never* be able to as long as you allow dogma to get in
> > the way of rational thought.
>
> I notice you didn't defend Price's way of interpretting texts.
> Do you agree with her interpretations? If not, how are yours
> different?
I've no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
Bob Grumman
>> >
>> > Bob, you are priceless!
>> >
>> I said my thoughts were "quick." I didn't think of the poetic
>> inversion, so thought "We will not deal with Rosamond as part
>> of the world we will construct using our saw." I think your
>> poor guess as good but certainly not better.
>I am still trying to blot out my mental image of what you
>presumably think that line in the 'Icicles' song - "And
>coughing drowns the parson's saw" - must mean!
I realize that "saw" can mean "text," Peter. "Coate" means, according to its
spelling, which you conveniently ignore, "cover."
>> > > > "Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
>> > > > Blessed be your nimble throats,
>> > > > That so amorously could sing."
>> > >
>> > > "could" is in the past.
>> >
>> > Or, as I am suggesting, conditional.
>>
>> Conditional? Why? What word indicates conditional?
>
>'If' understood. "Could your nimble throats sing so
>amorously, they would be blessed". I probably should have
>called it 'subjunctive in a conditional clause', but I did say
>that the grammar is awkward. I simply think this is the best
>of a pretty poor bunch of explanations, and is of course not
>in any way related to the authorship issue .
But the line is not grammatically awkward if read literally as blessed by your
throats that in the past were able to so smorously sing.
>> > > But all the poets in the poem are referred to in the
>> > > past,
>> >
>> > All except 'Mr. Purple', who seems to have died a bloody death,
>> > but is spoken of in the present tense. Interesting, eh?
>>
>> Ah, but that reminds me of Rob's astute contribution
>> to this thread which you (I think) ignored and made me
>> forget: all the past verbs are to poems the others
>> wrote; Mr. Purple has no poems in the past to speak of
>> so it is the poems he could make that Edwards discusses.
>> How could Edwards say how well his pen COULD (have) done
>> poetry if he had already done poetry? Possible answer:
>> he did do poetry but it wasn't of the kind that Edwards
>> is here speaking of. But that would disqualify Marlowe,
>> who did write poetry like the others spoken of.
>
>I thanked Rob, and thought I had indirectly answered his
>point. You are both assuming (a) that 'done' must mean
>what it would today, and (b) that there is a word ('have')
>missing. But you are not taking the rest of the poem into
>account, which eliminates that possibility. In particular,
>look at the last line of the next stanza:
Now I forget what you think "done" means.
> "Hath alike the Muses staide".
Or what you think "staide" means. For me, Babel has stayed, or not done poetry,
like the previous person.
>The "alike" refers back to the last mention of the Muses,
>which was in the stanza we are discussing:
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
>
>So the line "Done the Muses obiects to vs" has to have
>something in common with the Muses being "staide". (And
>whatever it meant it cannot be that Sylvester has not
>'done poetry like the others spoken of', because he has).
But he's not doing it now.
>In particular, Edwards includes that word "Yet" in the fifth
>line. By that word, he is saying that *despite* (whatever
>the first two lines mean) his 'golden art' is nevertheless
>praiseworthy.
>
>It also appears that the "men tilting under friaries" are
>likely to do something similar, given the word "although".
>He may well cause the same thing they would "although" he
>differs much from them. So, if I am right about their
>being Puritan preachers, it is something to do with what
>negative views such people might have about the Muses'
>'objects'.
>
>My guess therefore is that Edwards is suggesting that,
>were Marlowe's brand of atheism to start catching on, it
>could bring about a strong Puritan backlash, to the
>considerable jeopardy of the arts.
>
><snip>
>
>> > > Well, I don't think Edwards was THAT incompetent.
>> > > "Sonnes of ... kings" has to be a metaphor.
>> >
>> > Where on earth does that bit of poetic folk-lore come from?
>>
>> Hmm, now that you mention it, Peter, I have to admit that
>> I've never heard a poet metaphorically describe someone he
>> admires as a god, demigod, king, prince, emperor, lord,
>> titan, or son of any of the preceding.
>
>You said that it 'has to be', not just that it could be.
It has to be to make sense, yes. I assumed you would not be making the obvious
point that "sons of kings" does not, according to folklore HAVE to be a
metaphor.
I already have. A poet (of that time) won't bring some entirely new subject
into a poem without some kind of transition. The phrase is an acceptable
metaphor in my interpretation, in yours a wild vague reference to something
outside the poem. Don't you see that, Peter, oh dear Oxfordian?
If Edwards wanted to say what you think he said, why not "if they could so
amorously sing"? He would loose his meter, but he does that all the time.
>> > > > I think these people can only be possible suitors
>> > > > the Queen's hand in marriage. The grammar is awkward,
>> > > > but it does make far more sense
>>
>> The queen is not there, Peter. Read the first two stanzas of
>> this poem. Edwards tells us he's going to list the poets whose
>> excellent poems have "quite benempt" his. The queen isn't
>> anywhere there.
>
>She is present throughout the whole Envoi, in fact, as the
>personification of the greater part of Albion.
Not if never mentioned as such.
>Not that it
>matters in the slightest, the reference to "sonnes of stately
>kings" is quite enough to bring her to mind.
Paul Crowley would agree; I can't.
> OK the suitors are
>long gone, but it was a poetic convention (nay, an absolute
>necessity!) to omit any suggestion that, at 60, Her Majesty
>wasn't still the most desirable woman in the world.
><snip>
>
>> > > You've dumped my much better interpretation that useS "masking"
>> > > as losing one's way.
>> >
>> > Sure have. I'm just mean, I guess.
>>
>> > > IN CONTEXT, this is what it most plausibly means, for the
>> > > stanza goes on to say that he deserved to be where he was,
>> >
>> > Where? In my copy, it just says he "Shew'd he well deserued to,".
>> > A verb is implied by that word 'to', but it is not at all clear
>> > what that verb is. The preceding verbs, in reverse order, are
>> > 'to conceit', 'to mask', and 'to go'. 'To be where he was' does
>> > not appear at all.
>>
>> "masking thro" (stately rich-conceited troupes)--that's what
>> he well-deserved to be doing.
>
>So not "to be where he was" after all?
>
If he's masking through a place, he is being where he was. But I'm about to go
with Jim on this one, and assume "deafly" as a form of "deftly." Then the whole
stanza reads smoothly.
>> > > which would be an answer to the claim that he was lost, or in
>> > > the wrong place.
>> >
>> > It would indeed, had it said any such thing.
>>
>> > I think you are going to have to take me through this again.
>> > At the moment your meanings for 'deafly' and 'masking' result
>> > in it saying:
>> >
>> > Adon, stupidly losing his way through
>> > companies of players richly conceived,
>> > showed he well deserved to lose his way.
>>
>> Adon, mistakenly losing his way through high poetry showed he
>> well-deserved to be there among such texts = primary meaning
>
>No, sorry. It doesn't say that. Substituting your definitions:
>
> Adon, mistakenly losing his way through
> stately rich-conceited troupes,
> showed he well deserved to lose his way through them.
You're right, which is why I'll drop this interpretation--at least for now. I
DO consider Edwards capable of meaning "deserving to be through them," and
forgetting the precise meaning of what he was saying, because he seems to do
that kind of thing fairly often. And all Elizabethan writers did it more than
modern writers do, it seems to me.
>It's garbage.
>
>> Adon, performing as a player in acting troupes = passing
>> undermeaning
>>
>> Greene had recently said he didn't deserve to write blank
>> verse = background
>>
>> > > This connects nicely with Greene's assertion that he was
>> > > too lowly to be writing blank verse, a connection possible to
>> > > Shakespeare only.
>> >
>> > Stop making things up, Bob. Greene never said any such thing.
>> > Even if he was talking about Shakespeare, he makes no logical
>> > connection between the crow being an upstart and his supposing
>> > that he can write blank verse.
>>
>> He derisively calls him an actor, and an upstart (as a writer,
>> for there is no other plausible way in the context* he could be
>> an upstart), then sneers at his conceit in thinking he could
>> write good blank verse--and there's no logical connection
>> between the three?
>
>No, Bob. There isn't. *Post hoc, ergo propter hoc* (after
>this, therefore because of this) is a logical fallacy.
Not at all. But I've argued the point sufficiently in my online essay.
>> *How could Greene, who considers actors as low as anyone can be,
>> call Shakespeare an upstart for becoming one?
>
>Being an upstart was to do with the rapidity with which one
>had risen from humble origins. Wealth and power were the main
>ingredients, not skill. Actors grew rich and had power over
>their writers, who might even starve to death as a result.
Good reply--but not connecting to the rest of what Greene says, which--see
above--I don't feel like re-arguing.
>> > > As for concealing his True Identity, how could he deserve
>> > > to do that?
>> >
>> > He could deserve to have to do that.
>>
>> Very weak. Particularly since "showed he well deserved to" is
>> immediately followed by what would seem to an objective reader
>> examples of why he deserved to: the fact that loves delight in
>> him, etc. Which has nothing to do with his disguising himself.
>
>They might have been, if it had said what you want it to, but
>it doesn't.
>
><snip>
>
>> > In *Venus and Adonis*, Venus didn't manage to get Adonis to
>> > do *anything*, and certainly not write to her! In which case,
>> > who is Venus being used to represent in Edwards's poem?
>> > Southampton?
>>
>> Venus is Venus. She got Shakespeare, here nicknamed Adon, to
>> write about her.
>
>Ah, I get it now. Thanks. Does it affect our argument?
I think it means Venus does not have to represent anyone but herself, which
weakens your contention that she was Liz--or Marlowe--or whatever you said she
was.
><snip>
>
>> > > But it's not redundant,
>> > > because it is intended to show a part of England, not England.
>> > > How better could he say Mr. Purple was at the center of
>> > > contemporary poets in England?
>> >
>> > That he has 'heard' he is just doesn't ring true, does it?
>>
>> It rings as true as anything else in the poem, for me. He's
>> heard about some non-poet
>
>Is that the one who apparently died a bloody death, or the one
>with chronic nose-bleeds and the washing machine on the blink?
How about one who was really a prince, like Oxford? Your connection of the
purple robes to Marlowe does make sense, but that's all you have, in my view.
If we want to really get into it, why is Shakespeare Adon because he wrote of
him, and Marlowe purple robes because he "died" like Adonis? How can Mr. Purple
wear purple robes like Adon and be Adon? Did any other poet of the times even
mention Adonis in a poem? If so, that poet would be a better candidate for Mr.
P than Marlowe. How about someone who wrote of Julius Caesar? That would work
well, for such a writer could be a prose writer who did not write poetry but
could have.
>> who could no doubt write better poems than anyone mentioned if
>> he tried.
>
>Better in his opinion than Spenser? I think not.
He previously treated Watson and Marlowe as equals. Why not this guy as better
than Spenser, allowing him hyperbole?
>> > > *or* (and I think this
>> > > >makes far more sense) the 'clime' where the story of *Venus
>> > > >and Adonis*, apparently occurred, in the Mediterranean area.
>> > >
>> > > No dice. THIS clime has to be a clime already mentioned.
>> >
>> > See the difference? I offer the two options. You *know* what
>> > he meant. I am happy to think that he wanted people to think
>> > that this was what he meant, of course. As I said, this is
>> > cryptic.
>>
>> There is only one option, Peter, because of the word "this."
>
>There you go again. There ought to be a word for someone like
>this.
Right: a Peter Farey. Why can't "this clime" mean the cliffs of Dover because I
suspect that's where Edwards was writing this poem. Of course, what he was
writing was a tribute to St. George, "this" not having anything to do with what
is being discussed in the text it is used in.
>> Throughout the poem, Edwards is discussing Albion. Yes, there
>> are other options, but for practical
>
>Read 'dogmatic'
Right. I am certain of some things that you disagree with, so I'm "dogmatic,"
and calling me so is so much nicer than saying I'm an idiot.
>> purposes there is only one.
How about the planet Venus?
>> > > > In this case, Edwards would be saying he has heard that
>> > > > someone who is *thought* to have met a violent end (which
>> > > > would most probably be Christopher Marlowe) is in fact living
>> > > > somewhere in the Mediterranean area, but that his influence
>> > > > nevertheless still "floweth far", i.e. at least as far as
>> > > > England.
>> > >
>> > > Why does he remaine at the center of this clime if he's left?
>> >
>> > What *are* you talking about? He's 'gone' from England, arrived
>> > in Padua (say)
of the planet Venus
>> > and plans to 'remain' there for the time being.
>>
>> But the poem doesn't say any of this. I think a writer would
>> say Mr. Purple lived in X, and then would say he remained there.
>
>No, that would be saying the same thing twice. See below.
>
>> He wouldn't describe him as remaining in X if he'd never
>> told us before that that that was where he lived.
>
>To 'remain' *can* simply mean to 'dwell', as in Rosalind's
>"What said he? How looked he? Wherein went he? What makes
>he here? Did he ask for me? Where remains he?" etc.
>
>or Pisanio's words about Imogen: "I nothing know where she
>remains, why gone,/ Nor when she purposes return."
Okay. I did miss this. My main point is unscathed.
>> (Whaddya think of those three "that's"?!)
>
>Not bad at all. Reminds me of that old favorite which you have
>to punctuate:
>
>"Smith where Jones had had had had had had had had had had had
>the examiners approval"
>
>> You certainly have
>> nothing at all to bring in the Mediterranean area.
>
>I say we do. 'This clime', where Venus and Adonis remained.
Okay, one very tiny connection. Edwards never mentions a place, but mentions
two persons. So you assume a place. He mentions one place, Albion, so I assume
a place.
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > > "Well could his bewitching pen,
>> > > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,"
>> > > >
>> > > > This is very obscure. "Done" has to have a meaning similar
>> > > > to ("alike") that of the word "staide" at the end of the
>> > > > last of our stanzas,
HAS TO HAVE???!!!
so the best sense I can make of it is
>> > > > to take the word "done" as being an unusual spelling of
>> > > > "down",
as a verb?
(which is given as one in the OED, if for a different
>> > > > sense) and the meaning to be (OED 1.a.) "To bring, put, throw
>> > > > or knock down". If so, Edwards seems to accusing him of
>> > > > writing material which could in some way endanger the
>> > > > continued ability of people to enjoy the arts. As you may
>> > > > know, in my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" I showed
>> > > > that Marlowe had almost certainly written a book on atheism.
>>
>> You didn't come close to convincing me.
>
>Then I would ask you some time to explain why not. Do you actually
>follow the argument? It's quite complex, but I think irrefutable.
I thought I followed it, but don't want to get into it now. You have no hard
evidence, is all I'll say.
>> > > > Can this be what Edwards had in mind?
>> > >
>> > > No. He's saying the man's pen could have done poetry.
>> >
>> > Absolutely not. Whatever Edwards means, it *has* to be a
>> > criticism of this guy, and is along the lines of 'staying'
>> > the Muses in some way.
>>
>> You're most ingenious, but almost always by dropping the context.
>> Here Edwards is talking about someone who is praiseworthy--who
>> could have been the onely object, etc. Everything is laudatory--
>> except, for you, "done the muses objects." But it makes good
>> sense taken literally if slightly ungrammatically.
>
>And if you ignore the line in the *Babel* stanza, and those
>words "although" and "yet". It is also extremely, not
>slightly, ungrammatical.
>
>> to mean what I say. If he's making the oblique point that
>> Marlowe could desecrate poetry, he certainly does so
>> matTer-of-factly.
>
>Where did she come from? As I said, how I see it is that
>his atheism could bring about a Puritan backlash if it
>caught on to any great extent.
Byt Edwards doesn't seem upset about the possibility. His tone is that of a man
saying that if Joe were here, we'd have a fourth for bridge, not that of a man
saying that if Chris wrote, his atheism would bring about the downfall of
poetry.
>> > > > "Although he differs much from men,
>> > > > Tilting under Frieries,"
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > > Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
>> > > > favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
>> > > > 'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
>> > > > The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
>> > > > chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
>> > > > the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
>> > > > "differ much" from them.
>> > >
>> > > Interesting thoughts that don't lead anywhere very productive,
>> > > for me.
>> >
>> > I guess not. They support my version.
>>
>> It's too strained.
>
>A favourite, and always highly subjective, word of yours,
>Bob. So would you care to offer a meaning for "men tilting
>under friaries" which is less strained?
Sure. Men buried under friaries who are tilting (turning in their graves) out
of dismay at your strained interpretations.
>> And would it be logical for Edwards to say "well he could
>> have desecrated poetry ALTHOUGH he was different from men?"
>> If he was like men, it would have been a snap.
>
>His atheism, if it became widespread could bring about the
>imposition of rigidly Puritan values, although he is far
>from being a Puritan himself. That's logical, whether
>he was right or not (although I happen to think he was).
>
>> Also, you're overlooking the fact that Marlowe had
>> already written wonderful poems that were free of atheism,
>> etc.
>
>Presumably you think that they are relevant to the issue.
>I don't.
Edwards is saying his golden art COULD woo us, I that his golden art already
has.
><snip>
>
>> > > But it couldn't have meant his art was pretty good?
>> >
>> > Yes it could. It is more likely, however, to be particularly
>> > relevant to the person he has in mind. Your handicap is, of
>> > course, that while you are determined to deny that this can
>> > possibly be Marlowe, you have not the slightest clue as to
>> > who *else* it might be.
>>
>> So what? We only have 6 to 12 lines of poetry to go from, Peter.
>
>And yet it was a doddle to identify all of the others, with the
>possible exception of Joshua Sylvester (who, incidentally, is
>*far* better known for his *La Semaine* translation than you
>seem to think). Whoever this is, he is presumably of a calibre
>thought at that time to be roughly equal to all of the others,
>and should therefore be equally easy to identify.
but not necessarily as a poet
>> None of them direct. And I also have some good clues about
>> who it could not have been about: the previous mention of
>> Marlowe in this poem, and the fact that Marlowe was dead
>> at the time of this poem.
>
>So you said.
>
><snip>
>
>> > > You've done a nice parody of Price, but little more.
>> >
>> > What I have done, Bob, is to consider the possibilities and
>> > then provide a coherent and (almost) complete interpretation
>> > of what every one of those stanzas is about. You have not, and
>> > will *never* be able to as long as you allow dogma to get in
>> > the way of rational thought.
>>
>> I notice you didn't defend Price's way of interpretting texts.
>> Do you agree with her interpretations? If not, how are yours
>> different?
>
>I've no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
>Peter F.
Strange thing to hear from so masterful an interpretter of obscure texts.
I've spent too much time on this, so may drop out, at least for a while.
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > > To 'cote' is to pass or outstrip. So, events will, he says,
> > > > > outstrip his words - whatever that means - and will make any
> > > > > comments on his part unnecessary.
> > > >
> > > > I read "coate" as "cut"--because of "saw."
> > >
> > > Bob, you are priceless!
Thomas Edwards uses "coate" in his earlier long
narrative poem Cephalus and Procris:
But naked trueth, that garded coates doth lacke.
Edwards has even more to say about authorship
in Cephalus and Procris than he did in L'Envoy to
Narcissus [I read Cephalus and Procris, couldn't
find Narcissus] so the meaning of the line
above could go something like "that truth of
authorship which is clothed is not the naked
truth."
[...]
>
> > > > > "Oh deere sonnes of stately kings,
> > > > > Blessed be your nimble throats,
> > > > > That so amorously could sing."
If Marlowe started out in a boy's choir at
Canterbury perhaps he continued to sing and
Edwards was struggling for some wordplay
to identify him. Is there any connection
between singing and "stately kings?"
Westminster? Canterbury? I guess the
Abbey wouldn't have amorous singing.
Is it a classical, not English, allusion?
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
Indeed.
> >> > > But all the poets in the poem are referred to in the
> >> > > past,
> >> >
> >> > All except 'Mr. Purple', who seems to have died a bloody death,
> >> > but is spoken of in the present tense. Interesting, eh?
> >>
> >> Ah, but that reminds me of Rob's astute contribution
> >> to this thread which you (I think) ignored and made me
> >> forget: all the past verbs are to poems the others
> >> wrote; Mr. Purple has no poems in the past to speak of
> >> so it is the poems he could make that Edwards discusses.
> >> How could Edwards say how well his pen COULD (have) done
> >> poetry if he had already done poetry? Possible answer:
> >> he did do poetry but it wasn't of the kind that Edwards
> >> is here speaking of. But that would disqualify Marlowe,
> >> who did write poetry like the others spoken of.
> >
> >I thanked Rob, and thought I had indirectly answered his
> >point. You are both assuming (a) that 'done' must mean
> >what it would today, and (b) that there is a word ('have')
> >missing. But you are not taking the rest of the poem into
> >account, which eliminates that possibility. In particular,
> >look at the last line of the next stanza:
>
> Now I forget what you think "done" means.
"Done"="knock down" (Peter's idea is that Edwards
thought Marlowe had written something that put
the Muse's Objects in danger.)
> > "Hath alike the Muses staide".
>
> Or what you think "staide" means. For me, Babel has stayed, or not done poetry,
> like the previous person.
>
> >The "alike" refers back to the last mention of the Muses,
> >which was in the stanza we are discussing:
> >
> > Well could his bewitching pen,
> > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> > Although he differs much from men,
> > Tilting under Frieries,
> > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> > To haue honored him with baies.
> >
> >So the line "Done the Muses obiects to vs" has to have
> >something in common with the Muses being "staide". (And
> >whatever it meant it cannot be that Sylvester has not
> >'done poetry like the others spoken of', because he has).
"He that gan vp to tilt,
*Babels* fresh remembrance,
Of the worlds-wracke how twas spilt,
And a world of stories made,
In a catalogues semblance
Hath alike the Muses staide."
Here's how I've been reading it:
He that began to bring up
into a semblance of a catalog
Babel's memory of how
the world was destroyed
and a world of stories made,
the Muses have also supported.
<snip>
As Peter and Pat have already mentioned,
the *Babel* reference is frequently thought
to be a reference to Joshua Sylvester's
translation of the French Huguenot G. du
Bartas's _La Divine Sepmaine_(first printed,
it looks like in 1605.) Having found a few
free moments, I decided to spend them finding
out some du Bartas web-facts. Curiously,
it looks like a pretty good argument can be
made for the man also-in-purple-robes-distained
being du Bartas.
Du Bartas died in 1590 of wounds received
during the battle of Ivry which would explain
how he might have been seen as having robes
stained in blood.
It is said that in protest against the
secular pagan nature of contemporary poetry,
du Bartas deliberately chose to use sacred
themes in his poems. Obviously, "Tilting
under Frieries" is a phrase whose meaning
is still pretty dark. Even so, if I take
it to have some sort of religious meaning,
du Bartas seems to be a better fit here
than anyone I've yet seen mentioned.
Du Bartas's work was first printed in 1579 and
thirty editions followed in the next six
years. From what I've read on the web, it
looks like it was translated into Italian,
Spanish, German, Latin, English, and a bit
later on, Danish and Swedish. In any event,
his reputation in Elizabethan England appears
to have been extremely high. (Harvey called
him "the Treasury of Humanity and the Jewell
of Divinity. Nashe also had good things to
say about him.) I think someone who'd become
so popular throughout the Protestant world,
could quite reasonably be referred to as
"One whose power floweth far". And if "this
clime" was meant as Elysian(ie. where the
Muses live; which is how I took it when
I first read the poem), it does not seem
unreasonable for Edwards have written that
he'd heard du Bartas remained there in
the center. This last seems to me to be
a bit of a stretch, but I think not nearly
so far a stretch as to rule him out.
(There may be some way to fit du Bartas
neatly into the center of "*Albion*", but
if that is so, I haven't yet hit upon it.)
There is also a connection from Philip Sidney
to du Bartas that is perhaps not worth taking
a look at, but what the hell, someone might
see something I've missed, so here it is anyway...
It is said(on what evidence, I do not know,
but I've seen it reported in many places) that
Sidney translated part of du Bartas's _La Sepmaine_
in 1585, but the translation is apparently lost.
That being so, it seems *almost* possible that
the reference is to Sidney. (If it's Sidney,
where's _Astrophil_!?!)
Rob
KQKnave
Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com writes:
>That being so, it seems *almost* possible that
>the reference is to Sidney. (If it's Sidney,
>where's _Astrophil_!?!)
>
He mentions Sidney's *Astrophel* a few stanzas earlier:
Collyn was a mighty swaine,
In his power all do flourish,
We are shepheards but in vaine,
There is but one tooke the charge,
By his toile we do nourish,
And by him are inlarg'd.
He vnlockt Albions glorie, [ above to this point, Spenser]
He twas tolde of Sidneys honor, [Spenser's poem, *Astrophel*]
IOW: He (Spenser) it was who told of Sidney's honor.
Peter Farey
DaveMore wrote:
>
> peter
> i think your interpretation works for the most part, a couple of
suggestions
> below:
<snip>
> troupes also suggests "tropes"
Thanks, Dave. This was the meaning that I went for first on
this thread, but decided that it makes much more sense left
as 'troupes'.
> and "conceit" is metaphor for imagination, as in
> *rape of lucrece*:
No, I think it is a verb in this case. The OED even gives
this line as an example of the word 'rich' used as an
adverb related to it.
<snip>
> It could mean the author of V&A hid behind both his "tropes"
> and his "troupes"
Possibly. 'Troupes' is sufficient in my view, however.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well could his bewitching pen,
> > > > Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> > > > Although he differs much from men,
> > > > Tilting under Frieries,
> > > > Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> > > > To haue honored him with baies.
> > >
> > > golden art neuendorffer
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > See Dietrich B. C., "The Golden Art of Apuleius" G & R 13 (1966)
> > 189-206. I neVER realized that Apuleius's great work was written about
> > YOU, Art -- of course, I should have known from the title. Are you
> > planning to change to aneuendor...@goldenass.nut, Art?
> I never met a morphosis I didn't like.
Excellent, Art -- I might add that you neVER met a psychosis you
didn't like either.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Early Oxford translations
>
> William Adlington's (1566) Lucius Apuleius' Metamorphosis
> (/The Golden Asse)
>
> Arthur Golding's (1567) Ovid's Metamorphosis
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Noel/angl/grotte.htm
>
> <<The apocryphal Gospels, which postdate the Gospels by a century, have
> enriched the telling of the Nativity by introducing the notion of the
> marvellous: The Proto Evangelium of James is one of the apocryphal
> Gospels and in it a cave is mentioned: And he [Joseph] saddled his ass
> and sat her [Mary] on it... And they came half the way... And he found a
> cave there and he brought Mary into it... In the Gospel of
> Pseudo-Matthew, the presence of the the ox and the ass was explained as
> follows: On the third day after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, Holy
> Mary went out from the cave and went into the stable where she put her
> child in a manger and an ox and ass worshipped him. Then was fulfilled
> that which was said by the prophet Isaiah : "The ox knows its owner and
> the ass
The less said about the asses Oxford knew, the better.
[...]
> <<The Red Cross Knight represents St. George [April 23] the patron saint
> of England. His adventures, which occupy bk. i. of Spenser's Faërie
> Queene, symbolize the struggles and ultimate victory of holiness over
> sin (or protestantism over popery). Una comes on a white ass
We all know about Oxford's supposed pederasty, Art; you can spare us
the prurient details.
[...]
> ANCIENT ROMAN RELIGION BY FRANK PONTIFEX
> http://members.aol.com/hlabadjr/Gelli.htm
But Art -- "Pontifex" is an anagram of "Inept Oxf."!
[...]
> Pliny also goes on to tell of a certain Valerius Soranus,
"Soranus" must have been a familiar COGNOmen of Orazio Cogno.
[...]
> Sir Thomas Browne (1646; 6th ed., 1672)
> Pseudodoxia Epidemica I:vi (pp. 20-25)
"PseudEdOxia" is a good name for your cult, Art.
> Of Adherence unto Antiquity.
>
> <<Not a few transcriptively, subscribing their Names unto other
> men's endeavours, and meerly transcribing almost all they have written.
> The Latines transcribing the Greeks, the Greeks and Latines, each
> other.Thus hath Justine borrowed all from Trogus Pompeius, and Julius
> Solinus, in a manner transcribed Plinie. Thus have Lucian and Apuleius
> served Lucius Pratensis ;
But Art -- "Lucius Pratensis" anagrams to "S.-Sper lunatic is us."
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > See Dietrich B. C., "The Golden Art of Apuleius" G & R 13 (1966)
> > > 189-206. I neVER realized that Apuleius's great work was written
about
> > > YOU, Art -- of course, I should have known from the title. Are you
> > > planning to change to aneuendor...@goldenass.nut, Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I never met a morphosis I didn't like.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Early Oxford translations
> >
> > William Adlington's (1566) Lucius Apuleius' Metamorphosis
> > (/The Golden Asse)
> >
> > Arthur Golding's (1567) Ovid's Metamorphosis
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Excellent, Art -- I might add that you neVER
> met a psychosis you didn't like either.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metempsychosis
"Funny little bugger. Wonder where he lives.
Belfry up there. VERy likely."
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/Star/ch05.html
<<Lord ST. JOHN had written the [3rd] Earl of Rutland,
Edward Manners, who was in Paris:
"The Earl of Oxford hath gotten him a wife -- or at least a wife hath
caught him; this is Mistress Anne Cecil; whereunto the Queen hath given
her consent, and the which hath caused great WEEPING, wailing, and
sorrowful cheere of those who had hoped to have that GOLDEN DAY.
Thus you may see that whilst some triumph with olive branches,
others follow the chariot with WILLOW GARLANDS.">>
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Joyce's _Ulysses_ p.377
"Metempsychosis. They believed you could be changed into a tree
from grief. WEEPING WILLOW. Ba. There he goes. Funny little beggar.
Wonder where he lives. Belfry up there. VERy likely."
"Ba. Again."
"Ba. Who knows what they're always flying for. Insects[/MOTHs?]?"
------------------------------------------------------------
BA n : the soul represented by a bird with a human head
(on the de Vere Coat-of-Arms)
-----------------------------------------------------
LOVE'S LABOURS LOST Act 5, Scene 1
MOTH . . . What is a,
b, spelt backward, with the horn on his head?
HOLOFERNES
Ba, pueritia, with a horn added.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bulfinch.org/fables/bull34.html
Bulfinch's Mythology
Shakespeare, in the "Merchant of Venice," makes Gratiano allude to
the metempsychosis, where [Act IV, scene I] he says to Shylock:
"[T]hou almost mak'st me waver in my faith,
[T]o hold opinion with Pythagoras,
[T]hat souls of animals infuse themselves
Into the trunks of men; thy currish spirit
Governed a wolf, who, hanged for human slaughter,
Infused his soul in thee; for thy desires
Are WOLFISH, bloody, starved and ravenous."
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<only one of the "WOLFISH earls" so plenteous in the plays
themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to
be the TRUE author of those amazing works >> --WALT WHITMAN
--------------------------------------------------------------
I never MET A LUNA(tic) i didn't like.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. police could have used this last year:
Metaluna Tractor Beam
http://www.starships.com/SF_Image9.HTML
. -----------------------------------------------
http://ourworld.cs.com/carnivore15/thisislandearth.html
<<EXETER-(Jeff Morrow) Big foreheaded alien sent to earth to find
radioactive materials.
DR. CAL MEACHAM-(Rex Reason) All American nuclear scientist. Also a pilot
and all around swell guy.
DR. RUTH ADAMS-(Faith Domergue) Another nuclear scientist, about as sexy as
you could get in '54.
STEVE CARLSON-(Russell Johnson) Yet another nuclear scientist. (Mike
Comments "What's this and the rest crap?")
JOE WILSON-(Robert Nichols) Cal's assitant, kinda dorky. (Crow dubs him
"Weenie Man")
BRACK-(Lance Fuller) Exeter's assitant, also an alien. Not very fond of
humans.
MST3K CHARACTERS
MIKE NELSON-(Michael J Nelson) Human lab rat. Fully instrament rated for
Microsoft Flight Simulaor.
DR. CLAYTON FORRESTER-(Trace Beaulieu) Mad scientist trying to rule the
world. Not very bright though.
CROW T. ROBOT-(Trace Beaulieu) Sharp witted gold robot. Nearly kills the
crew in an escape attempt.
TOM SERVO-(Kevin Murphy) Gumball machine with arms. Smarter than Crow and
pretty quick with his jokes as well.
GYPSY-(Jim Mallon) Pilot, Cook, and basically the Mommy of the group. Just a
head and neck with one eye.
THE UNCUT VERSION
Dr. Cal Meacham is a brilliant Scientist with plans of converting lead into
uranium so the world can have unlimited affordable atomic power. He flies
back to L.A. from a conference in DC, and his jet has a "flame out" and is
in danger of crashing. The plane suddenly begins to glow green and make some
strange noises and lands safely. Shortly after returning Cal gets a catalog
describing a device called an In-Te.ROSS-iter. Out of his desire to make the
world a better place he orders all the parts to make an In-Te.ROSS-iter, and
lucky for him they're free. Once all the parts arrive he assembles the parts
to what is a multipurpose communication device, autopilot and weapon (with
lots of other neat features if you get the expansion packs). Once Cal and
Joe, his assistant, figure out how to turn it on they are faced with the
image of Exeter on the screen. Exeter explains that he wants Cal to join his
team of scientists, and out of his interest for the good of mankind Cal
goes.
Once in Georgia Cal is greeted by an old flame of his named Dr. Ruth Adams,
but she doesn't seem to remember him. Once Cal meets Exeter he learns that
the group is working with the purpose of ending war on the earth, and coming
from a guy with a 8 inch forehead this is big news. After dinner Cal meets
with Ruth and Steve Carlson (The Professor, from Giligans Island) to compare
notes on the unearthly things going on with Exeter and his assistants. Cal
also finds out that Ruth did remember him and was just making sure his mind
hadn't been warped by the aliens (cut from the MST3K version). Cal, Ruth and
Steve decide to try and escape and take to the road in a big car. While on
the road Steve tells Cal & Ruth to bail out of the car since they are being
attacked by death rays that are wonderfully animated by streaks on the film
negative. Cal and Ruth jump in a lake to protect themselves as Steve get's
blown back to Gilligan's Island by the death ray.
Cal and Ruth run to the airstrip near the compound and take off in a little
plane just as the compound explodes and the alien spacecraft is revealed.
The spacecraft pulls the plane into it's cargo hold (you may remember that
this is the part E.T. is watching while getting drunk in E.T. the extra
terrestrial). Once on the ship Exeter explains that he is taking them to his
planet Metaluna and that his people are under attack by Zagon and his killer
meteors. After being put in a clear acrylic tube to adapt them to the
atmosphere on Metaluna, Cal and Ruth see that Metaluna is under attack and
the only defense is a radioactive screen that is running out of fuel.
Once on Metaluna our heros are brought before The Monitor, the guy in charge
of the Metaluna millitary. The Monitor tells of a relocation to Earth and
how they plan to make the human race zombies with the "Thought Transformer".
The Monitor orders Exeter to take Cal & Ruth to have their minds changed.
Exeter helps Cal and Ruth to escape back to the ship but is injured by a
Mutant (big bug that is bred for labor) in the process. They escape an
attack by Zagon's meteor ships and head for earth while Metaluna is
destroyed. While in the converter tubes a mutant comes into the control room
and attacks ruth but soon dies because he is depressureized. Once back on
earth Cal and Ruth escape in the plane that was left in the cargo hold and
Exeter crashes the spaceship into the ocean. The end.
THE MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 VERSION
A.K.A MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 THE MOVIE
This version is introduced by Dr. Clayton Forrester. He explains the concept
of what he's doing with Mike and why, since this is the movie they assumed
some new audience members would like some background I guess. Once on the
Satellite Of Love, Mike finds out from Tom Servo that Crow is attempting to
tunnel back to earth with a pickaxe. Crow breaches the hull of the ship but
the group is saved by Tom Servo who covers the hole. After a quick patch job
Dr. Forrester calls Mike to introduce the experiment. "AAAAAaahhhhhhh We got
Movie Sign". Mike and the bots watch the first part of the movie and add
their jokes and comments.
The film breaks and the bots dare Mike to fly the sattelite of love. During
his short time as pilot Mike crashes into the Hubble Telescope and then
drops it into the atmosphere of Earth when he tries to set it back in orbit.
"MOVIE SIGN". Mike and the bots of course add their bit to the movie and
find out that Tom Servo has an InTe.ROSSiter and leave the theater. Once in
Servo's room they use the In-Te.ROSS-iter to contact a guy who looks like
he's from Metaluna but doesn't know how to operate an InTe.ROSSiter. They
are contacted by Dr. Forrester on the In-Te.ROSS-iter to get back in the
theater. Back to the movie, more jokes and comments.
Once the movie is over, Mike's will is far from broken and the crew of the
S.O.L. have a party called A Metaluna Mixer. Dr. Forrester tries to ruin the
party with his In-Te.ROSS-iter but hits the wrong button and vanashes. Mike
and the bots end the movie by giving the credits their usual attack, and
make fun of the people involved.>>
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<b8l3uj$ghm$2$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > Diana Price wrote:
> > > SNIP
> > > Roger Parisious has studied the relationships between the
> > > texts of the Envoi and the main part of the poem far more
> > > than I (as well as V&A), and I think I am correct in saying
> > > that the he reads L'envoi as the culmination of the "Adon"
> > > material in the main text of the poem. I'd be interested to
> > > know what he says about all this.
> >
> > So would I. That would suit me just fine.
> >
> > RNP
> Peter,you sound absolutely ominous and,alack, all of my raw
> materials(most importantly my copy of the complete original text)are
> unavailable to me at the present time.Still my four page commentary at
> the end of my l998 monograph for the Elizabethan Review(and the
> supplement in the following issue)lists for the first time all the
> very slight amount of material that has ever been published on the
> subject of Adon. To make things worse,there is not a single one of the
> commentators,after the l882 group who seems displays a full knowledge
> of what the other later commentators preceeding him said.
> And,with the exception of Mrs.Stopes in the 20's(Life of
> Southampton with cross-reference to a previous article) and Alden
> Brooks,following her,in the early l940's,no critic ever made the
> slightest effort to read the Envoi in relation to the main text of the
> poem.It couldn't be plainer.
> The second title of the poem is Narcissus.This is likewise the
> title of a previous(very bad) poem published prior to "Venus and
> Adonis" in which Southampton is portrayed as the self infatuated male
> beauty who spurns the offers of the Burleigh Vere faction.It is
> written by a hanger-on of Burleigh and ,to a lesser
> extent,of Oxford.The fall l593 poem has combined the successive themes
> of the two earlier works and thereby pairs Author Adon(he of the boar)
> with his dedicatee Henry Southampton,the same Southamptonwho just
> previously has been both subject matter and the dedicatee of an
> earlier poem,likewise dealing with the projected Oxford-Southampton
> merger.
> As the poem begins with Southampton, it ends with Adon,the most
> important poet,in terms of the text, toward whom TE has been leading
> us from the very beginning.It is not all surprising Adon gets the
> final three stanzas. It would have been very bad construction if some
> non-entity had been slipped in for the peroration.
> Unfortunately Mrs.Stopes decided she was seeing double and
> ,ignoring the content of the Envoi, proceed to identify Southampton as
> both the creator and his creation.And this despite the clear
> statement that they (Adon and Southampton) had been boys together.
> As there is nothing in the poem which seems to indicate that
> Southampton and Adon are in the same age group,I would read the phrase
> as meaning that the poet,supposed ,like the author who had preceeded
> him, to urge the claims of a Burleigh alliance took off on a
> roistering extended pub crawl(or the equivalent thereof) with the
> youth he was supposed to be morally admonishing..Consider "Willobie
> His Avisa".
> In this overall context(which context Dowden failed to see)Dowden's
> identification of Adon in the Envoi as Edward Oxford is the only
> completely consistent structural interpretation of the poem yet
> advanced.
> (I am not going to argue it here ,as,having waited most of forty
> years in order to present it correctly,I must wait a few months longer
> till the Yeats materials are published and I can speak at first hand
> from the original Elizabeth and nineteenth century material.)
> Dowden did not name Oxford as Shakespeare ,merely Adon; the critic
> who followed him in the text of l882 named Bacon, and the next after
> that,Shakespeare,except that Will was not supposed to be masquing, nor
> in a position to have power flowing far,nor playing as a boy with
> Southampton.Taking these references as a unity, one might further
> conclude that the purple in the second stanza may be staining rather
> than disdaining but it is nonetheless a very royal shade of purple
> that emanates from Adon.
> Edwards is in many respects the perfect witness.He wrote before
> anyone else and therefore before there was any party line to hew. He
> cannot know that he is being controversial and simply takes it for
> granted that Shakespeare was a man of some influence(on the most
> watered down reading) and one easily identifiable among those
> knowlegable with the Southampton set.
> The facts that (a) the publication was held up for two years after
> registration(b)only one complete copy survives (c)there is no known
> contemporary
> comment in either print or manuscript and that (d)the author instantly
> became a literary non-person, strongly suggest that the work,however
> accidentally ,proved very offensive indeed.
> The objection to what sounds like extremely plain evidence is
> likewise quite simple.While we know far too much to take Heminge and
> Condell at face value,we know far too little to casually take it
> Edwards at face value.But that is secondary.The important thing is
> that on the evidence of Greene l587(recognized by Richard Simpson no
> later than l873.See my earlier threads here) and the evidence of
> Edwards(l593) recognized by Dowden l879 and Stopes l923) and the
> evidence of George Buc(l595 and l599),and one could name many more,
> there was already a very serious Elizabethan Shakespeare authorship
> problem.
> I feel Edwards is against you,Peter;but that doesn't mean you
> aren't right.Jonson(l623) is against us both but(contra Rob who is
> growling around here recently) Jonson on many other occasions could
> not be more favorable to positions we both hold.
> Let the controversy continue.There is never one more firmly
> grounded in contemporary evidence.
> Posted without any revision-RNP
> I am appending a post I sent to Peter Dickson last December which will expand the above information.Peter says that his reference to Oxford as the author of "Venus and Adonis" is a completely different one than EdwardesSearch Result 87
From: Roger Nyle Parisious (rpari...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Our EVER-living Poet
View: Complete Thread (4 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2002-07-17 12:30:50 PST
pwd...@aol.com (PWDBard) wrote in message news:<20020713151541...@mb-mf.aol.com>...
> Yes. That is correct. And the most fascinating thing about these discoveries
> is that two that point toward Derby being deeply involved in the Shakespeare
> enterprise, if you will, still make clear that he is not the Bard or at least
> he is not the senior Bard. Of course, if the Stratford man was the Bard, we
> should not expect to ever see such documentation that I have found or rather
> recovered since one of the documents...a powerful allusion to Shakespeare
> involving Derby...was well-known to Stratfordians in the 19th-century and they
> repeatedly excluded it from their master lists of allusions (no matter how
> faint) to Shakespeare...the best known lists being the Furnivall-Ingleby and
> Chambers lists. They knew quite well the improtance of excluding this allusion
> and one other I have found fingering Oxford as the poet of Venus and Adonis.
> Buckeye Pete
Peter,I certainly don't want to steal your thunder, but in mentioning
"one other I have found fingering Oxford as the poet of "Venus and
Adonis" are you
referring to a poem slated for publication in the fall of l593 but
not known to
survive except in a single copy dated l595? If so, I published a
history of the allusion in two issues of the Elizabethan Review,l998,
and spoke on it again at
the Shakespeare Roundtable symposium in California. You spoke to us
from somewhere in space and no doubt missed what was happening on the
ground.
I was slated to do a third version "Three Parodies of 'Venus and
Adonis'"
for the Portland Conference,l999(which was erroneously listed as
having been given) but switched to cover your interpretation of the
Peachum publication,with which, on the basis of Gabriel Harvey's
marginalia of a similar
list, I disagreed.Harvey interestingly puts Edward Dyer in the
position which
HP allots to Oxford.Both seem to represent,except in this respect, a
common gradated critical evaluation originating in the Countess of
Pembroke's circle.
Charles Wisner Barrell preceeded us both on VandA in the last
issue of the SFQ in l948. He sent me a copy when I was twelve. I think
under a hundred copies ever
got distributed and it was never publically discussed by anyone
again,except in occasional communications which I made.The Ogburns did
not know it existed, and ignored it after I called it to their
attention ,though it is a better single
piece of evidence than anything they ever produced.They simply had had
enough of
CWB by that point, regardless of what he discovered.
Subject to Warren Hope's correction,I do not believe the
Philadelphian
Oxfordians ever utilized this argument though A.Bronson Feldman
certainly would have realized its importance.
Barrell confines himself to the "L'Envoi" in his identification
argument (largely derived from Dowden of Trinity )whereas the Oxford
persona actually is a prominant figure in the body of the text as
well. I will publish
this as soon as I can find a large library that has the complete
version.
May be you have another text. The more the merrier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
Looking again at:
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard saie doth remaine,
One whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
Well could his bewitching pen,
Done the Muses obiects to vs,
Although he differs much from men,
Tilting under Frieries,
Yet his golden art might woo vs,
To haue honored him with baies.
Robert Southwell?
He appears to have been the most talented purely
religious poet in England. I can see how Edwards
(or people he knew) could have thought "If only he
wasn't Catholic, we'd really be singing his praises."
Tortured by Topcliffe from 1592 to 1594, one
could reasonably say that he remained in
London and that his robes were distained with
blood. (He was executed at Tynburn in Feb 1595.)
That he was a Catholic priest would give an entirely
straightforward explanation for the "Tilting under
Frieries" phrase.
Southwell's poetry was written while he was
in prison and none of it was published
before 1595. Nevertheless, some of it may
have been floating about in manuscript and in
any case, Edwards doesn't seem to know much
about the poet other than the fact that some
people were saying that he was very very good.
(I note that Peter has told us that Edwards
was secretary to Sir John Wolley, a member of
the Privy Council. Perhaps, Edwards heard
about Southwell from Wolley.)
If I suppose Southwell was who was meant, I take
the *Babels* reference to be a reference
to du Bartas or Sylvester. (It may be that it's
there, not because Edwards liked it so much, but
because he felt he needed to balance his qualified
praise for the poetic talent of a Catholic
priest with some praise for an indisputably
Protestant poet.)
Rob
Bob Grumman
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
>
>Robert Southwell?
The most plausible candidate yet. In fact, the ONLY plausible candidate I've
heard about so far, even if we assume Marlowe faked his death. One problem: it
seems to me that "Adon" is merely Shakespeare's nickname in this poem, based on
something he wrote. Therefore, "eke in purple roabes" ought logically to be a
reference to a character written about by the poet Edwards is here referring to.
But I don't expect Edwards to be very logical/consistent.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
writes:
>
>The most plausible candidate yet. In fact, the ONLY plausible candidate I've
>heard about so far, even if we assume Marlowe faked his death. One problem:
>it
>seems to me that "Adon" is merely Shakespeare's nickname in this poem, based
>on
>something he wrote. Therefore, "eke in purple roabes" ought logically to be
>a
>reference to a character written about by the poet Edwards is here referring
>to.
>But I don't expect Edwards to be very logical/consistent.
>
It's hard to figure out badly written poetry. Sidney is referred to as "Colin",
Shakespeare as "Adon", Sidney is Sidney, I guess because he's dead,
but Spenser has also won "her"; who, I don't know. The one who is (or was)
tilting under friaries apparently didn't publish anything to draw a character
from.
Peter Farey
Rob,
Sorry not to have had time to respond to your 'du Bartas'
suggestion yet. Now I'm glad I didn't, because this one is
much better, as I am sure you realize!
Rob wrote:
>
>
> Looking again at:
>
> Eke in purple roabes distaind,
> Amid'st the Center of this clime,
> I haue heard saie doth remaine,
> One whose power floweth far,
> That should haue bene of our rime,
> The onely obiect and the star.
>
> Well could his bewitching pen,
> Done the Muses obiects to vs,
> Although he differs much from men,
> Tilting under Frieries,
> Yet his golden art might woo vs,
> To haue honored him with baies.
>
> Robert Southwell?
>
> He appears to have been the most talented purely
> religious poet in England. I can see how Edwards
> (or people he knew) could have thought "If only he
> wasn't Catholic, we'd really be singing his praises."
>
> Tortured by Topcliffe from 1592 to 1594, one
> could reasonably say that he remained in
> London and that his robes were distained with
> blood. (He was executed at Tynburn in Feb 1595.)
This is good. I had considered Southwell while going
through the fifty or so 'potted biographies', and
rejected him because he was still alive. That the
blood might have represented his being tortured did
not occur to me at the time.
> That he was a Catholic priest would give an entirely
> straightforward explanation for the "Tilting under
> Frieries" phrase.
Does this mean that you agree with my suggestion that it was
referring to Puritan preachers? It would indeed make sense.
> Southwell's poetry was written while he was
> in prison and none of it was published
> before 1595. Nevertheless, some of it may
> have been floating about in manuscript and in
> any case, Edwards doesn't seem to know much
> about the poet other than the fact that some
> people were saying that he was very very good.
I wouldn't read it that way (although he might well have
insisted that was what he meant!). I would take it that
he had heard Southwell was in prison and being tortured.
> (I note that Peter has told us that Edwards
> was secretary to Sir John Wolley, a member of
> the Privy Council. Perhaps, Edwards heard
> about Southwell from Wolley.)
>
> If I suppose Southwell was who was meant, I take
> the *Babels* reference to be a reference
> to du Bartas or Sylvester. (It may be that it's
> there, not because Edwards liked it so much, but
> because he felt he needed to balance his qualified
> praise for the poetic talent of a Catholic
> priest with some praise for an indisputably
> Protestant poet.)
This all sounds pretty convincing, and it may well be
Southwell he had in mind. Only a few problems I would have
with it:
1) I think the first line clearly refers back to Adonis,
and his purple blood. And Adonis had met a violent death,
rather than being tortured.
2) I am not sure that the primary 'image' of torture was that
of blood, although there was undoubtedly plenty around.
Having said that, when Southwell himself was accused by
Topcliffe of being a 'priest and a traitor' he answered
"It is neither priest nor treason that you seek for, but
only blood". I think it was his death he was referring to,
more than his being tortured, however.
3) I find it difficult to find prison in London in the words
"Amids't the Center of this clime". "Amid'st" is a strange
word to choose anyway, of course, when "within" would seem
more appropriate. There seems to me to be more of an
attempt to locate this geographically, than just indicating
that it is in London (which was *not* the 'center' of this
clime, of course. That's much later thinking, I think!)
4) I can't believe that he would be claiming that Southwell,
good as he was, would have been deemed good enough to have
outshone Spenser if he had only toed the line. Nothing
he had written would have suggested that. I go back to
saying that the word 'star' refers to Venus, and that he is
implying that (for whatever reason) this person had more of
a right to be called *Adon* than the current holder of
the title.
5) I find more of Marlowe than Southwell in the words
"bewitching pen" and "golden art".
One thing that does please me about this possible identity,
however, is that it does solve a problem that has been
concerning me. IF I am right, and it was Marlowe that Edwards
was talking about, and he knew that he was taking a risk in
doing so, then he had to be able realistically to *deny* this.
So far, the lack of a viable alternative has meant that he
wouldn't have been able to. But now he can, so thanks, Rob!
lyra
>
> >> > "Although he differs much from men,
> >> > Tilting under Frieries,"
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >Blackfriars therefore appears to have been one of the
> >> >favorite places for the Puritans to make their speeches
> >> >'tilting' at the way the established church was organized.
> >> >The men "Tilting under Frieries", who would indeed get their
> >> >chance to "down the Muses' objects" eventually, are therefore
> >> >the more fundamentalist Puritans, and Marlowe did certainly
> >> >"differ much" from them.
A bit of information about tilting...
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Chasm/7207/page.html
(quote)
Boys destined to become knights are trained from early childhood in
the knightly arts. The first stage in their military apprenticeship
was served as a page in a noble's household. A page learned not only
about military matters but also about honor and courteous behavior,
especially towards women.
The son of a knight spent his earliest years with his nurse and
other women in the castle. During this time, he learned manners and
how to behave. Sometimes he was taught to read, but rarely to write.
In addition he started to learn to sing and play a musical instrument.
The turning point in his life came when he was given his first pony.
He was taught to look after horses and ride them expertly.
When he was about seven or eight, he was sent away from home to be
a page at the court of the king or some lord. A page's main duties
were to run errands, help the lady of the household with the chores,
and learn to come when he was called.
As he grew older, he was trained in the use of weapons,
particularly the sword and bow. He learned to handle a lance by
tilting (riding full speed) at the quintain, an upright post with a
pivoted crossbar with a shield on one end and a sack on another. The
idea is to hit the shield with his lance, and duck under the swinging
sack – most beginners are swept out of the saddle.
The page also started to learn the art of venery, or hunting. He
had to be able to recognize the spoor (footmarks)
(unquote)
* * * * * *
lyra
<snip>
> >> > I think there may be two meanings of this intended here, if
> >> > it is in fact Marlowe that Edwards is writing about. One of
> >> > them might refer to the "golden art" of alchemy, for which
> >> > Marlowe may well have had a special enthusiasm, given the
> >> > interest in all things esoteric apparently shared by those
> >> > with whom he was said to be associated. More specifically,
> >> > it could refer to his translation of Ovid's *Amores*, much
> >> > to do with 'wooing', and by a poet who flourished right in
> >> > the middle of what was called 'the golden age'. I prefer
> >> > this explanation, although both could have been intended, as
> >> > I said.
> >>
> >> But it couldn't have meant his art was pretty good?
> >
> >Yes it could. It is more likely, however, to be particularly
> >relevant to the person he has in mind. Your handicap is, of
> >course, that while you are determined to deny that this can
> >possibly be Marlowe, you have not the slightest clue as to
> >who *else* it might be.
>
> So what? We only have 6 to 12 lines of poetry to go from, Peter. None of them
> direct. And I also have some good clues about who it could not have been about:
> the previous mention of Marlowe in this poem, and the fact that Marlowe was dead
> at the time of this poem.
>
> ><snip>
> >
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Peter Farey wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> Sorry not to have had time to respond to your 'du Bartas'
> suggestion yet.
Given how long it has taken me to return to the
thread, I'm certainly in no position to complain.
> Now I'm glad I didn't, because this one is
> much better, as I am sure you realize!
>
Yes.
No. I was thinking that "Tilting under
Frieries" is a statement about how Southwell's
vocation led him to write poems of a sort that
no one else was writing.
From an online dictionary:
Any member of a religious order may be
properly termed a friar. (Usually, the
word is used in reference to a member of
a mendicant order, but it is apparently
applicable to any member of any order.)
One of the meanings for the word "friary"
is "the institution or practices of friars".
From the "General Introduction" of MacDonald and
Brown's _ The Poems of Robert Southwell S.J."
(page xv.): "His life in the Society of Jesus
had been dedicated to the Roman Catholic cause
in England; the prose and poetry he wrote in
English had been undertaken in order to
further his work as a priest."
> > Southwell's poetry was written while he was
> > in prison and none of it was published
> > before 1595. Nevertheless, some of it may
> > have been floating about in manuscript and in
Since I wrote this, I discovered that there is
evidence that suggests that all of Southwell's
poetry was written *before* he was captured.
(Prior to his capture, a number of his prose works
were printed on a secret Catholic press.)
> > any case, Edwards doesn't seem to know much
> > about the poet other than the fact that some
> > people were saying that he was very very good.
>
> I wouldn't read it that way (although he might well have
> insisted that was what he meant!). I would take it that
> he had heard Southwell was in prison and being tortured.
From what I've read, that information was
certainly very widely spread among the Catholics
and it seems probable that it was similarly
widespread among the Protestants. I can't see
why Edwards would give it as if he knew it only
as hearsay.
FWIW, the PC supervised some of the torture
sessions and as Edwards was Wolley's secretary,
I think he likely knew more facts than most.
After reading some more about and by Southwell,
I've got a somewhat different take on who was
the one in purple robes distained. I think that
that man is not Southwell; I think it is Southwell's
main character.
> > (I note that Peter has told us that Edwards
> > was secretary to Sir John Wolley, a member of
> > the Privy Council. Perhaps, Edwards heard
> > about Southwell from Wolley.)
> >
> > If I suppose Southwell was who was meant, I take
> > the *Babels* reference to be a reference
> > to du Bartas or Sylvester. (It may be that it's
> > there, not because Edwards liked it so much, but
> > because he felt he needed to balance his qualified
> > praise for the poetic talent of a Catholic
> > priest with some praise for an indisputably
> > Protestant poet.)
>
> This all sounds pretty convincing, and it may well be
> Southwell he had in mind. Only a few problems I would have
> with it:
>
> 1) I think the first line clearly refers back to Adonis,
> and his purple blood. And Adonis had met a violent death,
> rather than being tortured.
True.
I don't believe we're supposed to be
imagining Southwell in those bloody
robes, but if I did believe it, I'd
try to make something out of the fact
that neither _Narcissus_ nor its L'Envoy
were mentioned in the 1593 Stationers
Company registration of _Cephalus
and Procis_.
> 2) I am not sure that the primary 'image' of torture was that
> of blood, although there was undoubtedly plenty around.
>
> Having said that, when Southwell himself was accused by
> Topcliffe of being a 'priest and a traitor' he answered
> "It is neither priest nor treason that you seek for, but
> only blood". I think it was his death he was referring to,
> more than his being tortured, however.
It does not seem to matter much, but after one
instance of torture, Southwell is said to have
thrown up a great deal of blood. (Reported by
both Garnet and Richard Verstegan.)
Spenser's Colin was arguably his alter ego, however,
I doubt anyone would argue that Spenser was
literally a shepherd who one day, when winter's
wasteful spite was almost spent, led a flock of
sheep to pasture. Similarly, I doubt anyone
would argue that Daniel was a woman who had had
an adulterous relationship with a King and was
then poisoned by the Queen. Did Marlowe die
swimming the Hellespont? Nope. Did Shakespeare
die gored by a wild boar? Obviously, not.
Rather than looking for a poet who died
like Adonis, I think we should be looking for
a poet who had a main character who died
something like Adonis. (ie. bloodily)
Southwell's main character was Christ and
he most certainly depicted him as suffering
a bloody death.
Some examples:
_Man to the wound in Christs side_:
"Heere would I view that bloudy sore,
Which dint of spitefull speare did breed,
The bloody woundes laid there in store
Would force a stony heart to bleed."
_Sinnes heavie loade_:
"And bloody sweat runs trickling from thy brow"
and
"She[the earth] shortly was to drink thy dearest
blood"
_Christs bloody sweat_:
"Thus Christ unforst prevents in shedding blood
The whips, the thornes, the nailes, the speare and roode."
_The virgin Mary to Christ on the Crosse_ is about
the dying and bloody Christ.
"What mist hat dimd that glorious face"
"But waile my soule, thy comfort dies"
"Thy bloody woundes be made a rod"
_Marie Magdalens complaint at Christs death_ is
entirely about how sad she is that Christ is dead.
> 3) I find it difficult to find prison in London in the words
> "Amids't the Center of this clime".
>
> "Amid'st" is a strange
> word to choose anyway, of course, when "within" would seem
> more appropriate.
Southwell argued that the poets *should*
have been writing about God.
"POETS by abusing their talent, and making the
follies and fayninges of love, the customary
subject of their base endevours, have so
discredited this facultie, that a Poet, a Lover,
and a Liar, are by many reckoned but three words
of one signification...[Speaking of poets] For
in lieu of solemne and devout matter, to which
in duety they owe their abilities, they now
busy themselves in expressing such passions,
as onely sever for testimonies to how unwoorthy
affections they have wedded their wils. And
because the best course to let them see the
errour of their workes, is to weave a new webbe
in their own loome; I have heere layde a four
course threds together..." (From the epistle
written by Southwell affixed to _Saint Peters
Complaint_ published in 1595.)
It's seems to me that my argument is getting
a bit scattered so I'll try to pull it all
together.
Changing one word and inserting
another in brackets:
Eke in purple roabes distaind,
Amid'st the Center of this clime,
I haue heard [Southwell] saie doth remaine,
Christ whose power floweth far,
That should haue bene of our rime,
The onely obiect and the star.
The meaning of the "Center of this clime"
I take to be the poetic center of Albion,
and I take the definition of "remain" to
be something along the lines of "not yet
properly dealt with".
No inconsistencies that I can see and pretty
much everything in the stanza is explained.
>There seems to me to be more of an
> attempt to locate this geographically, than just indicating
> that it is in London (which was *not* the 'center' of this
> clime, of course. That's much later thinking, I think!)
I think London might easily have been seen as the
political, poetical, and/or cultural Center
of Albion.
> 4) I can't believe that he would be claiming that Southwell,
> good as he was, would have been deemed good enough to have
> outshone Spenser if he had only toed the line. Nothing
> he had written would have suggested that.
I believe that Edwards's point was that Southwell
was extremely talented and that if he had had a longer
career directed down more conventional lines, he
would have been considered worthy of bays.
> I go back to
> saying that the word 'star' refers to Venus, and that he is
> implying that (for whatever reason) this person had more of
> a right to be called *Adon* than the current holder of
> the title.
>
> 5) I find more of Marlowe than Southwell in the words
> "bewitching pen" and "golden art".
No doubt. So do I. Should we expect
that Edwards saw them the same way?
Probably not. He was coming at it
from the perspective of a late 16th
century Englishman and a large number
of them seem to have been, for reasons
that I don't entirely grasp, very fond
of Southwell's work. (In 1595 alone, in
England, three editions of _St. Peter's
Complaint_ and three editions of
_Moniae_ were printed.)
Additionally, I'm fairly sure that we
have a higher regard for plays than
Edwards is likely to have had. (Not
that I know he read or saw any of
Marlowe's plays.)
In any event, your point seems to me to
be irrelevant. I strongly suspect
that Edwards would have said that
*all* of the poets he mentioned
possessed "bewitching pens" and "golden
art". If someone had asked him whose
pen was the *most* golden and bewitching,
I think the odds are he'd have answered
"Spenser."
I'm running late, so I'll leave it off here.
(I don't have much more I could say about it
anyway.)
> One thing that does please me about this possible identity,
> however, is that it does solve a problem that has been
> concerning me. IF I am right, and it was Marlowe that Edwards
> was talking about, and he knew that he was taking a risk in
> doing so, then he had to be able realistically to *deny* this.
> So far, the lack of a viable alternative has meant that he
> wouldn't have been able to. But now he can, so thanks, Rob!
If Southwell is satisfactory, why bother with Marlowe? It
is not as if his known circumstances provide us with a
reasonable fit.
Rob