BLUEST OF BLUE?: Is Oxfordian Bloodline Truest of True?
Elizabeth Weir
Every Oxfordian website touts Oxford's 'noble blood' or as
Sobran lectures Alan Nelson on his review site of Nelson's
Oxford biography:
"The de Veres traced their ancestry back to before the conquest in 1066
by William of Normandy, who was accompanied by a fighting de Vere.
The line carried
the bluest of blue blood,
probably more of it than Queen Elizabeth, since she was the daughter
of Henry 8th and
a commoner,
Anne Boleyn."
If Anne Boleyn is 'a commoner' what is Oxford?
Elizabeth may have been an upstart Tudor but Boleyn was 'a commoner'
only in the sense that her father was an earl and her grandfather a duke.
In that ultra-aristocratic sense four of Henry VIII's wives were 'commoners.'
On the other hand Oxford's mother, Margery Golding, could trace her
pedigree back only a generation or two on either side of her family.
Oxford's half-sister Catherine De Vere, however, was descended
through her mother, Dorothy Neville, from the truly bluest of blue-
blooded English families, the Nevilles.
It may or may not have incited their notorious sibling rivalry
but Catherine De Vere of the Nevilles definitely had the bluer blood.
If Oxford was 'half-commoner' it raises the question if
William Cecil--not yet Lord Burghley--used that fact to coerce
the unwilling 17th Earl to marry a commoner, Anne Cecil. Cecil,
had many aristocratic antecedents on the maternal side but
William Cecil's own pedigree stopped at his two grandfathers.
English law prohibted a member of the nobility from being
forced into a marriage with a commoner. It certainly didn't work
on Southampton whose mother was a bona fide aristocrat and
only because Elizabeth conferred a barony on Cecil did
Southampton have to pay an enormous fine for breaking the
betrothal.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
paul streitz
Autobiographical Problems
1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
Oxford.
3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
Cecil being Polonius etc.
4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
Therefore,
1. Oxford is not always telling the truth, or historically
exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
the Queen.
Further, they ignore that if Oxford is telling his autobiography
through Shakespeare, then why are the most biographical characters
royalty. Prince Hal, Bertram, etc, and King Earl?
Historical Problems
1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
son of minor, lowest ranking, not too well thought of Earl of the
realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
marriage on this wastral black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
Cecil made a "mistake." But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
character, he lived at his hourse, etc.. Why the shrewdest man in
England would make a mistake is unexplained.
3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
Contraray to what Weir says, the earliest Oxfordians stressed Oxford's
nobility, lineage etc.. More recent ones don't want to talk about it
other than give him the title. Because to discuss it, is to bring up
problems they do not want to address.
Cheers,
Paul Streitz
Elizabeth Weir
> There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
>
> Autobiographical Problems
> 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
All Oxfordians claim that? Lord Burghley has left two diary entries
that show that Oxford could not have told the truth in the Brincknell
Inquest.
> 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> Oxford.
That could be true in part but it doesn't prevent Oxford's genius
cousin Francis Bacon from writing the Shakespeare works. Bacon
knew everyone Oxford knew and unlike Oxford had all the right
literary connections. Oxford's genealogy shows that he had suprisingly
few.
> 3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
> Cecil being Polonius etc.
Oxford was not in that circle when Hamlet was written. He'd been
evicted.
> 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
Genetically speaking, it's very unlikely that the brown-eyed
Elizabeth gave birth to the blue-eyed Oxford. As far as the
Oxfordians are concerned, I don't doubt they believe that Oxford
is Elizabeth's son, they just don't want to go the Baconian route
and who can blame them. It's too distracting. I rarely think about
it.
> Therefore,
> 1. Oxford is not always telling the truth, or historically
> exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
Or his genius cousin Francis Bacon is submerging the truth on
more than one level (as the subversive Virgillian poets did).
> 2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
> the Queen.
I'm not discounting that theory entirely. Elizabeth was no
virgin--the Baconians dug up a lot of evidence in the Escurial--
the Spanish ambassador was sending regular reports on her
affair with Leicester (and pregnancies) to Philip II.
> Further, they ignore that if Oxford is telling his autobiography
> through Shakespeare, then why are the most biographical characters
> royalty. Prince Hal, Bertram, etc, and King Earl?
The Shakespeare characters are written from life but they
also represent the historical figures from Holinshed and Hall.
> Historical Problems
> 1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
> son of minor, lowest ranking, not too well thought of Earl of the
> realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
Are you talking about Southampton? Oxford had the second
or third highest rank after Rutland who was number two, I believe.
There's another earl that never appeared at Court--can't think of his title
at the moment--who had the highest rank. You rarely hear of him.
> 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> marriage on this wastral black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> Cecil made a "mistake." But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
> character, he lived at his hourse, etc.. Why the shrewdest man in
> England would make a mistake is unexplained.
This is not difficult. Cecil was on a construction rampage. He built
the largest house in England--Theobalds--it's still the largest private
dwelling in England--out of Oxford's accounts. Theobalds was only
one of six or seven estates--all furnished with antiquities from the
Continent--all having vast gardens. Elizabeth, Leicester and
Lord Burghley literally raped Oxford's wealth. I've said so from
the beginning. Apparently an Oxfordian has finally looked into it.
I saw a reference to a recent article on that subject on an Oxfordian
site.
> 3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
> noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
> one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
You're saying that she had a maternal twinge? I very much
doubt it. We know absolutely that Bacon was not a Bacon--
Lady Anne Bacon left three letters stating that Bacon was
'her ward not her son''--and Lady Anne Bacon was Elizabeth's
head lady-in-waiting and her closest friend since they were
both children at Court and York House was just across the
street from Whitehall and Bacon was born just when the Spanish
ambassador was reporting her confinement to Philip, etc, etc,
but the Queene didn't bond to Bacon. She had him at the
palace for years, showing his genius off to visiting royalty but
she never 'took an interest in him.' I doubt she was capable
of maternal love. When she was only two years old her own
mother was violently taken from her by her murderous father--
Bacon called him 'that bloody man'--so there can be no doubt
that she didn't trust any relationship.
> Contraray to what Weir says, the earliest Oxfordians stressed Oxford's
> nobility, lineage etc.. More recent ones don't want to talk about it
> other than give him the title. Because to discuss it, is to bring up
> problems they do not want to address.
I agree that Oxfordians are less touting of Oxford's genealogy
but it still hangs in the air. At the same time Oxford's genealogy
looks barren next to the mob of poets, writers, scholars, intellectuals,
explorers--Gosnold is cousin to both Bacon and Oxford, for
example--adventurers, owners of acting companies--Bacon
was cousin to Cary, Hunsdon, Pembroke, Stanley, Strange,
through the Sidneys the Earl of Leicester--I believe Bacon
was related to all the earls who had companies. This explains
why 'Shakespeare' was first with the Admiral's Men and
then shifted to the Chamberlain's Men. Bacon's genealogy
is like the who's who of Elizabethan literary society.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Paul Crowley
news:5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com...
> There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
>
> Autobiographical Problems
> 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
There are some foolish Oxfordians who suggest
this -- usually dopey puritanical Americans, who
want to see their candidate as an upright, honest,
tax-paying citizen -- who fulfilled all his social
and family responsibilities to the letter. Of course,
our great poet was far from this -- following the
more-or-less standard pattern of great artists
The poet was passionate about truth -- but only
of one kind: the artistic.
> 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> Oxford.
Only in the sense that like all other artists,
he drew from his own life, experience and
circumstances
> 3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
> Cecil being Polonius etc.
More-or-less. But don't forget the 'less'.
No one claims that Oxford was a heir to
the throne of Denmark.
> 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
He's certainly not the son of the Queen
of Denmark.
> Therefore,
> 1. Oxford is not always telling the truth,
Who ever claimed he did?
> or historically
> exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
No one claims any of this.
> 2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
> the Queen.
Nope. No one claims that he is son of the
Queen of Denmark.
Btw, you left out the 'OR'
> Historical Problems
> 1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
> son of minor, lowest ranking, not too well thought of Earl of the
> realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
Cecil wanted his descendants to be born into
the highest possible social rank. Everyone in
1571 would have thought that by marrying his
daughter to the young Earl, he had pulled off a
remarkable coup.
> 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> marriage on this wastral black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> Cecil made a "mistake."
Oxford's character was not far from exemplary
in 1571 (when he married). No doubt, Burghley
knew him better and had a lot of worries
> But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
> character, he lived at his hourse, etc.. Why the shrewdest man in
> England would make a mistake is unexplained.
Burghley certainly regretted the marriage later,
but that's what happens when you give into
greed and ambition.
> 3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
> noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
> one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
The Queen was not stupid -- and she took
a strong interest in literature and the arts.
She would have seen Oxford's extraordinarily
precocious talent developing from the time
he was a child.
> Contraray to what Weir says, the earliest Oxfordians stressed Oxford's
> nobility, lineage etc.. More recent ones don't want to talk about it
> other than give him the title. Because to discuss it, is to bring up
> problems they do not want to address.
In the phrase of the day: "Bring it on . ."
But I know you won't. It is you who
will avoid the discussion.
Paul.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
> > Autobiographical Problems
> > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> There are some foolish Oxfordians who suggest
> this -- usually dopey puritanical Americans, who
> want to see their candidate as an upright, honest,
> tax-paying citizen -- who fulfilled all his social
> and family responsibilities to the letter. Of course,
> our great poet was far from this -- following the
> more-or-less standard pattern of great artists
>
> The poet was passionate about truth
> -- but only of one kind: the artistic.
> "paul streitz" <oxins...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare
> > are the autobiography of Oxford.
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> Only in the sense that like all other artists,
> he drew from his own life, experience and circumstances
>
> "paul streitz" <oxins...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > 3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation
> > of Oxford's circle, Cecil being Polonius etc.
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> More-or-less. But don't forget the 'less'.
> No one claims that Oxford was a heir to the throne of Denmark.
> "paul streitz" <oxins...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> > is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
> He's certainly not the son of the Queen of Denmark.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ed's half sister Mary deVere married a PEREGRINE BERTIE
(i.e., Lord WILLOUGHBY d'Eresby) in 1577.
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
<<And then of course there was his brother-in-law Lord Willoughby's
1583 trip to Elsinore Castle as the Queen's emissary, to invest King
Frederick of Denmark with the order of the Garter. Lord Willoughby
wrote it all down, in a manuscript which still exists today.
He described the King's royal celebration:
"...we royally feasted, and the King [had] all the ordnance
of the castle given us....after a whole volley of al
the great shot of the Castle discharged, a royal feast,
and a most artificial and cunning fireworks."
This splended celebration at Elsinore Castle,
or something suspiciously like it, turns up in Hamlet,
minus the fireworks:
Hamlet: The king doth wake tonight and takes his rouse,
Keeps wassail, and the swaggering upspring reels;
And, as he drinks his draughts of Rhenish down,
The kettle-drum and trumpet thus bray out
The triumph of his pledge.
...all there except for the fireworks.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Later Lord Willoughby was to raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom
against a superior Spanish forces under the Duke of PARMA.
A ballad was even written for our hero:
"The news was brought to England
With all the speed might be,
And soon out gracious Queen was told
Of this same victory
"Oh, this is brave Lord Willoughby,
My love who ever won;
Of all my lords of honour
'Tis he great deeds has done." (Ogburn, p.591)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Elsinore non Isis"
"non sine sole Iris"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'RAINBOW Portrait' of Elizabeth I, c.1600 by Isaac Oliver
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/eliz/images.html
<<Oliver was a pupil of Elizabeth's favorite court painter, Nicholas
Hilliard. The symbolism is quite detailed. Elizabeth's gown is
embroidered with English wildflowers, thus allowing the queen to pose in
the guise of Astraea, the virginal heroine of classical literature. Her
cloak is decorated with eyes and ears, implying that she sees and hears
all. Her headdress is an incredible design decorated lavishly with
pearls and rubies, and supports her royal crown. The pearls symbolize
her virginity (and the crown, of course, symbolizes her royalty.)
Pearls also adorn the transparent veil which hangs over her shoulders.
Above her crown is a crescent-shaped jewel which alludes to Cynthia, the
goddess of the moon. A jeweled serpent is entwined along her left arm,
and holds from its mouth a heart-shaped ruby. Above its head is a
celestial sphere. The serpent symbolizes wisdom; it has captured the
ruby, symbolic of the queen's heart. In other words, the queen's
passions are controlled by her wisdom. The celestial sphere echoes this
theme; it also symbolizes wisdom. Elizabeth's right hand holds a RAINBOW
with the Latin inscription 'Non sine sole iris' ('No RAINBOW without
the sun'). The RAINBOW symbolizes peace, and the inscription reminds
viewers that only the queen's wisdom can ensure peace and prosperity.
Elizabeth was in her late sixties when this portrait was made, but for
iconographic purposes she is portrayed as young and beautiful; she
is more than mortal, after all. In this portrait, she is ageless.
This portrait hangs at Hatfield House.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kathman wrote:
<<* Leslie Hotson . . . identified the Thomas Russell who oversaw
Shakespeare's will as the stepfather of Leonard Digges, author
of two eulogies to Shakespeare; he identified the connections
between Russell and the WILLOUGHBY family, including
Henry WILLOUGHBY , author of *Willobie His Avisa*.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
_Willobie His Avisa_
<<When Avisa has occasion to reply in writing
to attempts on her virtue, she signs herself
"ALWAYS THE SAME AVISA,"
and to call attention to its importance,
the subscription is rendered in the largest type in the book.
Akgrigg observes that "Always the same (Avisa)" in Latin becomes
Elizabeth I motto:"SEMPER Eadem (Avisa)">> (Ogburn, p.737)
(U)nica (S)emper (A)vis
http://www.mun.ca/alciato/whit/w177.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 76
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new-found methods and to compounds strange?
Why write I still all one, EVER THE SAME,
And keep invention in a noted weed,
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> "paul streitz" <oxins...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com...
>
> > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
> >
> > Autobiographical Problems
> > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
>
> There are some foolish Oxfordians who suggest
> this -- usually dopey puritanical Americans,
Speaking as one who descends from two varieties
of English puritanism, let's not forget that there were
two varieties of English puritanism. The Anglican,
not the Calvinist version of puritanism drives the
Shakespeare works. I find the Shakespeare works
refreshingly anti-Calvinist. (Did you know that Whitgift
tried to get predestination accepted as part of Anglican
doctrine?!?!?!).
> who
> want to see their candidate as an upright, honest,
> tax-paying citizen -- who fulfilled all his social
> and family responsibilities to the letter. Of course,
> our great poet was far from this -- following the
> more-or-less standard pattern of great artists
When you find a smoking gun for Oxfordian authorship
we'll consider your argument, Crowley. So far only
Oxford's genius cousin Francis has produced hard
evidence of authorship.
> The poet was passionate about truth -- but only
> of one kind: the artistic.
There's plenty of scientific theory in the Shakespeare works.
> > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> > Oxford.
>
> Only in the sense that like all other artists,
> he drew from his own life, experience and
> circumstances
Or more correctly, Looney and the Ogburns drew from
Oxford's genius cousin Francis Bacon's 'life, experience,
and circumstances.'
> > 3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
> > Cecil being Polonius etc.
It goes much further than 'Polonius.' Bacon, like Spenser,
was writing his relatives into the plays/poems. I just discovered that
the genealogical link that Spenserians have been desperately
seeking for over a hundred years--Sir John Spencer of Althorpe--
who was related to--who else--Francis Bacon--through his antecedent
Jane Spencer. This is a huge find. The Baconians should have
been doing Bacon's family genealogy instead of digging through
the Madrid archives.
> More-or-less. But don't forget the 'less'.
> No one claims that Oxford was a heir to
> the throne of Denmark.
>
> > 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> > is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
>
> He's certainly not the son of the Queen
> of Denmark.
Claudius and Gertrude are allegorical figures. They
are not literally the 'married couple' Burghley and Elizabeth
(folks around Whitehall used to refer to Elizabeth as
'Burghley's wife' and vice versa).
> > Therefore,
> > 1. Oxford is not always telling the truth,
>
> Who ever claimed he did?
I think you're right, Crowley. There is a great deal
of idealizing and romanticizing of Oxford and it's a
shame because Oxford--in his own skin--is one of the most
fascinating of all Elizabethans--Oxfordians have neutered
him.
> > or historically
> > exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
>
> No one claims any of this.
The works are BIOgraphy to the extent Oxford is in them.
Early Oxforidans have entangled TWO lives. Oxford's with
his 'cosen Bacon's.'
> > 2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
> > the Queen.
>
> Nope. No one claims that he is son of the
> Queen of Denmark.
Baconians found documents in the Escurial that
point to Bacon as one of Elizabeth's bastards--plus
she brought Bacon, not Oxford, to Court as a very
young child--he was barely out of infancy. He must
have been the only child at Court since wives were
discouraged from coming to Court.
I think a very strong circumstantial case can be made
for Bacon as Elizabeth's son but I don't make it because
it's NURTURE not nature that made Bacon a genius and
unlike poor Oxford, the fortunate Bacon landed in the middle
of an extended family of poets, scholars and theatre company
owners. He was related to all the theatre company owners
on both sides of the doctrinal and political 'war of the theatres.'
Bacon's 'Shakespeare genealogy' is so strong Oxford's
pales in comparison and of course the Stratford grain
merchant has no 'Shakespeare genealogy' at all.
> Btw, you left out the 'OR'
>
> > Historical Problems
> > 1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
> > son of minor, lowest ranking, not too well thought of Earl of the
> > realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
Money and rank. How hard is that? Other than picking his
pocket and affixing his daughter to the De Vere pedigree
Burghley had no 'personal interest' in his diminutive ward.
I've been saying this from the beginning and I've finally found
an article--I think by an Oxfordian--who says the same thing.
Burghley, Elizabeth and Leicester were robbing Oxford blind.
(I wonder if Oxfordians lurk in HLAS).
> Cecil wanted his descendants to be born into
> the highest possible social rank. Everyone in
> 1571 would have thought that by marrying his
> daughter to the young Earl, he had pulled off a
> remarkable coup.
Let's just say that the ranks of the Stanleys were
slammed shut in William Cecil's face. Cecil had no
class. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sidneys didn't scotch
Philip Sidney's betrothal to Anne Cecil. I guess they were
in love so it's a shame.
I think it's indicative that Elizabeth would not give Burghley
a higher rank than 'baron.' Elizabeth did that as a nod to
her Howard cousins who did not want to admit Burghley to an
earldom. Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, had to buy his earldom
from James. Thomas Cecil also bought one.
> > 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> > marriage on this wastral black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> > Cecil made a "mistake."
>
> Oxford's character was not far from exemplary
> in 1571
That's not what Burghley's second diary entry states
and puleez, Oxford never had 'exemplary character.'
The earls were wild thangs, Crowley. They lived out
in the sticks in their own little fiefdoms. They had their
own set of rules and that was the way it was supposed
to be. Stop imposing your own puritanism on Oxford.
Sobran is correct in stating that the earls had 'private armies'
which was in fact the way the 'unwritten constitution' of England
was 'enforced.'
The earls were incumbent to overthrow the monarchy
whenever it got too full of itself--the Hapsburgs should
have been dealt with the same way--Europe would have
been a far better place had that system--and its two-class
aristocracy--been in effect on the Continent.
The problem that Sobran doesn't see is the threat of Rome's
client Philip II in 1560-1600. England would have been defeated
without that hurricane--Philip had 45,000 armed soldiers on those
galleasses--and when Philip conquered England Oxford or one of
the other Howards would have been placed on Elizabeth's Protestant
throne.
This is why the Sidney faction strived to form--consciously
construct--England as the first nation. It was the Protestant
earls against the Catholic earls. And the Sidneys succeeded.
Despite Essex. Why? Because the Sidney's political philosophy
is built into the Shakespeare plays. As Yamada stated, where
the Shakespeare plays are translated, republics soon follow.
Oxford was not on the Sidney side in this--as an earl he had
not only a self interest in keeping the monarchy weak
it was his hereditary duty to keep the monarchy
weak.
Oxford, for all his personal vagaries, was not unaware of his
hereditary duties. Oxford was a typical 16th century English
earl (castrated by early 20th c. Puritans and not all of them
Americans) but he came up against something bigger than
earldom and that was the Sidney faction's nationalism which
entailed shifting the power from the earls to the monarchy AND
Parliament.
That was the basis for Elizabeth's ongoing quarrel with the Sidney
cousin and loyalist Francis Bacon. She didn't want so much power
to be shifted to Parliament but Bacon was busy creating the modern
British parliamentary monarchy (see his constitution-founding brief for the
Case of the Post-nati--it's all in there). The Shakespeare plays were
written to reinforce the Ciceronian politics of the Sidneys. The Sidneys
and Bacon represent republican Renaissance politics. Oxford and
the other earls (except for three or four) represent their feudal hereditary
position vis a vis a weakened monarchy.
Oxfordianism which has little to do with the real Oxford--Oxford
would be agast--is, in fact, a perfect fit for the rising
New Feudalism of the American Right. Webb keeps asking why
Oxfordianism is so 'right wing.' Because it's not Renaissance
republican, that's why. The British and American-style constitutions
are English Renaissance institutions, particularly the British which
has prevailed numerically--I think that 76 of the existing republics
are British-style parliamentary republics. Thanks to Bacon the
political philosopher and the patronage of the 'English Medici,' his
Sidney cousins.
That's why.
(when he married).
> No doubt, Burghley
> knew him better and had a lot of worries
>
> > But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
> > character, he lived at his hourse, etc.. Why the shrewdest man in
> > England would make a mistake is unexplained.
>
> Burghley certainly regretted the marriage later,
> but that's what happens when you give into
> greed and ambition.
You got that one right, Crowley.
> > 3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
> > noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
> > one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
>
> The Queen was not stupid -- and she took
> a strong interest in literature and the arts.
This is a wrong assumption
upon which some Oxfordian theory is apparently based and
I can prove it wrong with Franklin B. William's work on 15,000 dedications
between 1560 and 1642. Elizabeth was not getting dedications
from poets because the poets had given up long ago. She would not
support the arts other than Hilliard and a few other painters.
Elizabeth was such a stingy patron of the arts Immerito takes
her to task for starving Dyer--he had written hundreds of songs
for the Court--Dyer established the English literary style--and for
not patronizing other poets. Gascoigne is another one Elizabeth
stiffed.
> She would have seen Oxford's extraordinarily
> precocious talent developing from the time
> he was a child.
There's no record of Oxford's 'extraordinary talent' developing
in childhood or at any other time. We need to see 'smoking guns'
Crowley.
Bacon's precocious genius is on the record. Elizabeth brought
Bacon to Court when he was two or three years old because his genius
was already apparent. The Queen called him 'Baby Solomon' and
her 'little Lord Keeper' and showed him off to visiting dignitaries.
Bacon's arrived at the Court of Henry III a full-fledged genius and
was always more famous on the Continent than in England which was
too backward to appreciate his extraordinary mind.
We shall have to see similar records for Oxford before decide whether
Oxford's genius was greater than Bacon's.
> > Contraray to what Weir says, the earliest Oxfordians stressed Oxford's
> > nobility, lineage etc.. More recent ones don't want to talk about it
> > other than give him the title. Because to discuss it, is to bring up
> > problems they do not want to address.
It's not the 'candidate' that counts, it's the 'evidence' that counts.
If Oxfordians can come up with a smoking gun after
80 or more years of 'searching and not finding' then we'll restart
the debate from scratch.
> In the phrase of the day: "Bring it on . ."
> But I know you won't. It is you who
> will avoid the discussion.
First establish authorship--something Oxfordians have
yet to do--then quibble.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Paul Crowley
news:efbc3534.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
> > >
> > > Autobiographical Problems
> > > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
> >
> > There are some foolish Oxfordians who suggest
> > this -- usually dopey puritanical Americans,
>
> Speaking as one who descends from two varieties
> of English puritanism, let's not forget that there were
> two varieties of English puritanism. The Anglican,
> not the Calvinist version of puritanism drives the
'Anglican puritanism' seems to be your own
invention.
> Shakespeare works. I find the Shakespeare works
While Shakespeare was Anglican, there is no
trace of anything that can be called 'Puritanism'
(in any sense) in the canon.
> Baconians found documents in the Escurial that
> point to Bacon as one of Elizabeth's bastards--plus
> she brought Bacon, not Oxford, to Court as a very
> young child--he was barely out of infancy. He must
> have been the only child at Court since wives were
> discouraged from coming to Court.
Not true. There were always plenty of mature
women at court. For example, Oxford's mother
was appointed a Maid of Honour on Elizabeth's
accession in November 1588. The young Oxford
(then aged 8) would have often attended court
and highly probably lived there at times.
The 'honeymoon' period of Elizabeth's reign was
astonishingly vibrant -- full of colour, confidence
and promise. We can assume, for Shakespeare,
great precocity; and that such a time was the
making of his character, that he would have
absorbed all of what was happening, and that,
even if young, would have taken part in much of it.
By the time Bacon first attended court (?~1575),
it had become relatively settled and staid.
> I think a very strong circumstantial case can be made
> for Bacon as Elizabeth's son
Stories about "Elizabeth's sons" are the ultimate
in worthlessness. How can someone, 400 years
after the event, claim to know more than the
people around at the time? Do they think that
those present would not have noticed? Or that
such a thing would not have mattered to them?
> but I don't make it because
> it's NURTURE not nature that made Bacon a genius and
> unlike poor Oxford, the fortunate Bacon landed in the middle
> of an extended family of poets, scholars and theatre company
> owners.
So have lots of others. Did Bacon's father
(or his grandfather before him) have his own
company of players, who performed for the
family in the long winter evenings when he
was small child? Oxford had all that. While
Mary I was on the throne, his parents mostly
stayed at home, giving him the best possible
kind of education for that stage of his life.
Remember that his mother was the sister of
Arthur Golding -- and that this famous Latin
scholar also lived with Oxford in Burghley's
house when 'he' was writing 'his' translation
of Ovid's Metamorphoses.
You have nothing to compare with that.
> He was related to all the theatre company owners
> on both sides of the doctrinal and political 'war of the theatres.'
Boring.
> Bacon's 'Shakespeare genealogy' is so strong Oxford's
> pales in comparison
God knows how you can make such a claim.
Oxford was the 17th Earl of his line -- and
acceded to the title when he was twelve.
> Money and rank. How hard is that?
Err . . most people find both hard (and in the
case of 'rank' impossible) to obtain. And most
people in Elizabethan times did all they possibly
could to obtain what little more of either they
could manage.
> Other than picking his
> pocket and affixing his daughter to the De Vere pedigree
> Burghley had no 'personal interest' in his diminutive ward.
Oxford would -- in his teens -- have had
reasonable hopes to become a great power
in the land. He had a superb brain. Nobles
could expect great responsibility if they had
any real capacity.
> I've been saying this from the beginning and I've finally found
> an article--I think by an Oxfordian--who says the same thing.
> Burghley, Elizabeth and Leicester were robbing Oxford blind.
> (I wonder if Oxfordians lurk in HLAS).
It's grossly exaggerated IMHO; and those who
maintain this line don't grasp the realities of the
position of aristocrats under Tudor monarchs.
Their wealth often (even usually) depended on
how the monarch regarded them. They usually
owed vast amounts to the Crown (for one
reason or another). Whether (or when) it had
to be paid (or not) depended entirely on the
monarch's whim.
> > Cecil wanted his descendants to be born into
> > the highest possible social rank. Everyone in
> > 1571 would have thought that by marrying his
> > daughter to the young Earl, he had pulled off a
> > remarkable coup.
>
> Let's just say that the ranks of the Stanleys were
> slammed shut in William Cecil's face. Cecil had no
> class. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sidneys didn't scotch
> Philip Sidney's betrothal to Anne Cecil. I guess they were
> in love so it's a shame.
Don't you think the sub-plot in the MWW is a
pretty good account of the story?
Anne Page=Anne Cecil; Slender=Philip Sidney;
Fenton= guess who?
> I think it's indicative that Elizabeth would not give Burghley
> a higher rank than 'baron.'
She raised hardly anyone to the nobility
(apart from a few of her own close relations).
> > Oxford's character was not far from exemplary
> > in 1571
>
> That's not what Burghley's second diary entry states
> and puleez, Oxford never had 'exemplary character.'
Never? Was he a vicious bastard from the cradle?
> Sobran is correct in stating that the earls had 'private armies'
> which was in fact the way the 'unwritten constitution' of England
> was 'enforced.'
The 'private army' bit of that proposition had
very little truth after Henry VII and Henry VIII .
> The earls were incumbent to overthrow the monarchy
> whenever it got too full of itself--the Hapsburgs should
> have been dealt with the same way--Europe would have
> been a far better place had that system--and its two-class
> aristocracy--been in effect on the Continent.
Parliament (i.e. mostly the aristocrats) would
not allow the monarch a standing army.
That was not possible on the Continent, so
those monarchs could easily become tyrants.
> The problem that Sobran doesn't see is the threat of Rome's
> client Philip II in 1560-1600. England would have been defeated
> without that hurricane--Philip had 45,000 armed soldiers on those
> galleasses--and when Philip conquered England Oxford or one of
> the other Howards would have been placed on Elizabeth's Protestant
> throne.
There is no way Spain could have maintained
an occupation of England -- which is not to
say that it was not greatly feared.
> This is why the Sidney faction strived to form--consciously
> construct--England as the first nation. It was the Protestant
> earls against the Catholic earls. And the Sidneys succeeded.
> Despite Essex. Why? Because the Sidney's political philosophy
> is built into the Shakespeare plays.
There is little Protestantism in the canon.
It embodies and reflects the Elizabethan
compromise.
> As Yamada stated, where
> the Shakespeare plays are translated, republics soon follow.
That's the nature of all great literature.
> Oxford was a typical 16th century English
> earl (castrated by early 20th c. Puritans and not all of them
> Americans) but he came up against something bigger than
> earldom and that was the Sidney faction's nationalism which
> entailed shifting the power from the earls to the monarchy AND
> Parliament.
Insofar as 'the earls' had power after 1558, it
was mostly expressed through Parliament.
> That was the basis for Elizabeth's ongoing quarrel with the Sidney
> cousin and loyalist Francis Bacon.
There was no 'ongoing quarrel'; Sidney and
Bacon were far too insignificant.
> She didn't want so much power to be shifted to Parliament
She didn't much care what happened after her
death. Parliament might as well have the power
as the Stuart monarchy. THAT was why she
allowed Shakespeare (and other poets) so much
freedom.
> but Bacon was busy creating the modern
> British parliamentary monarchy (see his constitution-founding brief for the
> Case of the Post-nati--it's all in there).
Bacon had only a tiny role in all this.
> The Shakespeare plays were
> written to reinforce the Ciceronian politics of the Sidneys. The Sidneys
> and Bacon represent republican Renaissance politics.
Republican? What nonsense is this? Almost
no one was in favour of republicanism before
1641, and that did not last long. And there is
almost nothing 'republican' in the canon.
> Webb keeps asking why Oxfordianism is so 'right wing.'
I rarely see Webb's post. It's not my impression
that it is 'right wing'.
> The British and American-style constitutions
> are English Renaissance institutions, particularly the British which
> has prevailed numerically--I think that 76 of the existing republics
> are British-style parliamentary republics.
The American version is a bit of an aberration,
prompted by some really bad ideas coming from
the French 'Economists' -- which lead France
into its Revolution.
> Thanks to Bacon the
> political philosopher and the patronage of the 'English Medici,' his
> Sidney cousins.
Thanks to the 'Elizabethan Compromise' -- not
to a couple of near-nobodies.
> > > 3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
> > > noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
> > > one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
> >
> > The Queen was not stupid -- and she took
> > a strong interest in literature and the arts.
>
> This is a wrong assumption
> upon which some Oxfordian theory is apparently based and
> I can prove it wrong with Franklin B. William's work on 15,000 dedications
> between 1560 and 1642. Elizabeth was not getting dedications
> from poets because the poets had given up long ago.
So Elizabeth was stupid? Or she did not like
literature? What exactly are you saying?
> She would not
> support the arts other than Hilliard and a few other painters.
Most of the support was indirect. She financed
a lot of courtiers and aristocrats. They kept
the poets, playwrights, etc., going.
> Elizabeth was such a stingy patron of the arts Immerito takes
> her to task for starving Dyer--he had written hundreds of songs
> for the Court--Dyer established the English literary style--
Where did you pick up all this crap? From
Strats, I suppose. The 'English Literary
Renaissance' was just something in the
English air? The Stratman (or Bacon)
just happened to drift along into it later?
Its presence and his arrival was all pure
coincidence? It's all more-or-less random?
There is no point in trying to make any
sense of it?
> and for
> not patronizing other poets. Gascoigne is another one Elizabeth
> stiffed.
There can never be enough. Those who
miss out will always complain.
> > She would have seen Oxford's extraordinarily
> > precocious talent developing from the time
> > he was a child.
>
> There's no record of Oxford's 'extraordinary talent' developing
> in childhood or at any other time. We need to see 'smoking guns'
> Crowley.
Tell me what's wrong with my sonnet exegeses.
They are either substantially right or completely
insane. If the latter, you should readily be able
to show it. Point out where I am manifestly and
utterly wrong in my treatment of the words and
phrases -- where they could not _possibly_
mean what I say they mean.
No Strat has yet dared to try. If Baconians (or
Marlites or anyone) had any better story, they
should be able to do better on an exercise of
this nature.
> Bacon's precocious genius is on the record. Elizabeth brought
> Bacon to Court when he was two or three years old because his genius
> was already apparent.
Yeah. Where is that reported?
Paul.
lyra
(excerpts)
Some say the iris (flower) was the fleur-de-lis...
(quote)
Myth/Legend:
Iris was the messenger of the gods and the rainbow linking earth
with other worlds.
An Egyptian king had pictures of the iris painted on his temple
walls in 1479 BC.
Irises were on Louis VII's crusade banner in 1147 and were called
fleur de Louis. This in turn became fleur de lis, a famous design
symbol.
The Romans, Egyptians, and Moors have used Iris extensively as a
medicine. It is still used in cosmetics today. In the Victorian
meaning of flowers the iris means hope and power.
(unquote)
Paul Crowley
news:efbc3534.04030...@posting.google.com...
> As Yamada stated, where
> the Shakespeare plays are translated, republics soon follow.
Which Yamada is this? Do you have a reference
for this statement?
Paul.
Art Neuendorffer
> > "Elsinore non Isis"
> > "non sine sole Iris"
> > -----------------------------------------------------
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote
> Some say the iris (flower) was the fleur-de-lis...
-----------------------------------------------------------
> Myth/Legend:
>
> Iris was the messenger of the gods and the rainbow linking earth
> with other worlds.
>
> An Egyptian king had pictures of the iris painted on his temple
> walls in 1479 BC.
>
> Irises were on Louis VII's crusade banner in 1147 and were called
> fleur de Louis. This in turn became fleur de lis, a famous design
> symbol.
>
> The Romans, Egyptians, and Moors have used Iris extensively as a
> medicine. It is still used in cosmetics today. In the Victorian
> meaning of flowers the iris means hope and power.
>
>
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:f6osLzEi4nEJ:www.interbloom.co.uk/flower_guide.html+hyacinth+droop&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip HENSLOWE : a Gentleman Sewer
Item, Iris's head, & rainbow;
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/SLT/stage/henslowe.html
<<HENSLOWE was influential enough to gain Court appointments: in
1592 he became a Groom of the Chamber; in 1603 a Gentleman Sewer
of the Chamber. HENSLOWE's Diary, kept from 1592 to 1603,
contains valuable information about the Elizabethan stage. The diary
includes lists of performances and takings, records of transactions
with players and playwrights and information about costumes and props:
[Phaethon, a play now lost, was written by Thomas Dekker, and paid
for by HENSLOWE in 1597.] The inventory of all the properties
for my Lord Admiral's Men, the 10 of March 1598:
Item, i rock, i cage, i tomb, i Hell mouth... i bedstead.
Item, viii lances, i pair of stairs for Phaethon*.
Item, i globe, & i golden sceptre; iii clubs
Item, i golden fleece, ii racquets, i bay tree.
Item, i lion's skin, i bear's skin; Phaethon's
limbs, & Phaethon's chariot, & Argus's head.
Item, Iris's head, & rainbow; i little altar. . .
i ghost's gown; i crown with a sun*.
On his death, the HENSLOWE's Diary passed to Alleyn.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Background & Synopsis of Aristophanes' BIRDS by Peter Meineck
http://www.temple.edu/classics/birdsnotes.html
<<As soon as the birds have fortified their city, their defenses are
breached by a messenger of the gods, Iris the rainbow goddess. She is
apprehended by MAKEDO and rudely subjected to "immigration procedures"
and sent packing back up to heaven. MAKEDO reigns supreme.
His bird kingdom is revered by mankind and he is crowned king.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained - Milton ** BOOK XI
In time of truce; Iris had dipt the woof;
His starry helm unbuckled showed him prime
In manhood where youth ended; by his side,
As in a glistering zodiack, hung the sword,
Satan's dire dread; and in his hand the *SPEAR*.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes.html
"A few seconds before the sun was all hid, there discovered itself round
the moon a luminous ring about a digit, or perhaps a tenth part of the
moon's diameter, in breadth. It was of a pale whiteness, or rather
pearl-colour, seeming to me a little tinged with the colors of the iris,
and to be concentric with the moon." -- Edmund Halley.
Refers to a total solar eclipse of 3 May 1715.
Quoted in Popular Astronomy by Newcomb, and in
_UK Solar Eclipses from Year 1_ by Williams.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/ps1-18.htm
THE BOOK OF PSALMS BY JOHN CALVIN
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY
[PREFIXED TO THE ORIGINAL TRANSLAT10N, 1571.]
To The Right Honorably And Verie Good Lord,
EDWARD DE VERE, ERLE OF OXINFORD,
Lord Great Chamberlain Of England, Vicount Bulbecke, Etc.
ARTHUR GOLDING
To the furtherance wherof, God hath by householde alyance lincked vnto
your Lordship a long experienced NESTOR, whose counsaile and footsteps
if you folowe, no doubte but you shalbee bothe happie in your selfe,
and singularly profitable to your common welth; and moreouer, God
shall blisse you with plentiful and godly issue by your vertuous
and deerbeloued Spouse, to continew the honor and renoavne of
your noble house after the happy knitting vp of bothe your
yeeres, which I pray God may bee many in vnseperable loue,
like the loue of Ceix and Alcyonee,
to the glory of God, and the contentation of bothe your desires.
Written at London, the 20:of October 1571.
Your good Lordship's moste humlble to commaund, Arthur Golding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<So, calling Iris, [Juno] she said, "Iris, my faithful messenger,
go to the drowsy dwelling of Somnus, and tell him
to send a vision to Halcyone in the form of Ceyx,
to make known to her the event (of Ceyx's drowning)."
Iris puts on her robe of many colours, and tinging the sky with
her bow, seeks the palace of the King of Sleep. Near the Cimmerian
country, a mountain cave is the abode of the dull god Somnus.
As soon as the goddess entered and brushed away the dreams that hovered
around her, her brightness lit up all the cave. The god, scarce opening
his eyes, and ever and anon dropping his beard upon his breast, at
last shook himself free from himself, leaning on his arm, inquired her
errand,- for he knew who she was. She answered, "Somnus, gentlest of the
gods, tranquillizer of minds and soother of care-worn hearts, Juno sends
you her commands that you despatch a dream to Halcyone,
in the city of Trachine (Trikkala?), representing
her lost husband and all the events of the wreck."
Having delivered her message, Iris hasted away, for she could not longer
endure the stagnant air, and as she felt drowsiness creeping over her,
she made her escape, and returned by her bow the way she came.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[FLEDGED] HALCYONE Days [Bulfinch's Mythology]
<<Iris puts on her robe of many colours, and tinging the sky
with her bow, seeks the palace of the King of SLEEP. Near the Cimmerian
country, a mountain cave is the abode of the dull god Somnus. Here
Phoebus dares not come, either rising, at midday, or setting. Clouds &
shadows are exhaled from the ground, and the light glimmers faintly. The
bird of dawning, with crested head, never there calls aloud to Aurora
(Eos), nor watchful dog, nor more sagacious goose disturbs the silence.
No wild beast, nor cattle, nor branch moved with the wind, nor sound of
human conversation, breaks the stillness. Silence reigns there; but from
the bottom of the rock the River Lethe flows, and by its murmur invites
to SLEEP. Poppies grow abundantly before the door of the cave, and other
herbs, from whose juices Night (Nyx) collects SLUMBERs, which she
scatters over the darkened earth. There is no gate to the mansion, to
creak on its hinges, nor any watchman; but in the midst a couch of
black ebony, adorned with black plumes and black curtains. There the
god reclines, his limbs relaxed with SLEEP. Around him lie dreams,
resembling all various forms, as many as the harvest bears stalks,
or the forest leaves, or the seashore sand grains.
As soon as the goddess entered and brushed away the dreams that hovered
around her, her brightness lit up all the cave. The god, scarce opening
his eyes, and ever and anon dropping his beard upon his breast, at last
shook himself free from himself, leaning on his arm, inquired her
errand,- for he knew who she was. She answered, "Somnus, gentlest of
the gods, tranquillizer of minds and soother of care-worn hearts,
Juno sends you her commands that you despatch a dream to Halcyone,
in the city of Trachine (Trikkala?), representing her
lost husband and all the events of the wreck."
Having delivered her message, Iris hasted away, for she could not longer
endure the stagnant air, and as she felt drowsiness creeping over her,
she made her escape, and returned by her bow the way she came...
[Halcyone] went to the seashore, and sought the spot where
she last saw Ceyx, on his departure. "While he lingered here, and cast
off his tacklings, he gave me his last kiss."
There was built out from the shore a mole, constructed to break the
assaults of the sea. [Halcyone] leaped upon this barrier
and (it was wonderful she could do so) she flew, and striking the
air with WINGS PRODUCED ON THE INSTANT, skimmed along the surface of
the water, an unhappy bird. As she flew, her throat poured forth sounds
full of grief, and like the voice of one lamenting. When she touched
the mute and bloodless body, she enfolded its beloved limbs with her
new-formed wings, and tried to give kisses with her horny beak. Whether
Ceyx felt it, or whether it was only the action of the waves, those who
looked on doubted, but the body seemed to raise its head. But indeed he
did feel it, and by the pitying gods both of them were changed into
birds. They mate and have their young ones. For seven placid days, in
winter time, Halcyone broods over her nest, which floats upon the sea.
Then the way is safe to seamen.
The following lines from Byron's "Bride of Abydos" might seem borrowed
from the concluding part of this description, if it were not stated
that the author derived the suggestion from observing
the motion of a floating corpse:
"As shaken on his restless pillow,
His head heaves with the heaving billow;
That hand, whose motion is not life,
Yet FEEBLY seems to menace strife,
Flung by the tossing tide on high,
Then levelled with the wave..."
Milton, in his "Hymn on the Nativity,"
thus alludes to the fable of the HALCYON:
"But peaceful was the night
Wherein the Prince of light
His reign of peace upon the earth began;
The winds with wonder whist
Smoothly the waters kist
Whispering new joys to the mild ocean,
Who now hath quite forgot to rave
While BIRDS of CALM sit brooding on the charmed wave."
Keats also, in "Endymion," says:
"O magic SLEEP! O comfortable BIRD
That broodest o'er the troubled sea of the mind
Till it is hushed and smooth."
----------------------------------------------------
THE ELEVENTH BOOKE OF OVID'S METAMORPHOSIS.
_Metamorphoses by Ovid_ translated by Golding
http://www.elizabethanauthors.com/ovid11.htm
The Gallye. And the moste of them that were within the same
Went downe therwith and never up to open aier came,
But dyed strangled in the gulf. Another sort againe
Caught peeces of the broken shippe. The king himself was fayne
A shiver of the sunken shippe in that same hand to hold,
In which hee erst a royall mace had hilld of yellow gold.
His father and his fathrinlawe he calles uppon (alas
In vayne.) But cheefly in his mouth his wife Alcyone was.
In hart was shee: in toong was shee: he wisshed that his corse
To land where shee myght take it up the surges myght enforce:
And that by her most loving handes he might be layd in grave.
In swimming still (as often as the surges leave him gave
To ope his lippes) he harped still upon Alcyones name,
And when he drowned in the waves he muttred still the same.
Behold, even full uppon the wave a flake of water blacke ... [XI.660]
Did breake, and underneathe the sea the head of Ceyx stracke.
That nyght the lyghtsum Lucifer for sorrowe was so dim,
As scarcely could a man discerne or thinke it to bee him.
And forasmuch as out of heaven he might not steppe asyde,
With thick and darksum clowds that nyght his countnance he did hyde.
Alcyone of so great mischaunce not knowing aught as yit,
Did keepe a reckening of the nyghts that in the whyle did flit,
And hasted garments both for him and for herself likewyse,
To weare at his homecomming which shee vaynely did surmyse.
To all the Goddes devoutly shee did offer frankincence:
But most above them all the Church of Juno shee did sence.
And for her husband (who as then was none) shee kneeld before
The Altar, wisshing health and soone arrivall at the shore,
And that none other woman myght before her be preferd.
Of all her prayers this one peece effectually was heard.
For Juno could not fynd in hart intreated for to bee
For him that was already dead. But to th'entent that shee
From dame Alcyones deadly hands might keepe her Altars free,
Shee sayd: Most faythfull messenger of my commaundments, O
Thou Raynebowe, to the slugguish house of Slomber swiftly go.
And bid him send a Dreame in shape of Ceyx to his wyfe
Alcyone, for to shew her playne the losing of his lyfe.
Dame Iris takes her pall wherein a thousand colours were
And bowwing lyke a stringed bow upon the clowdy sphere,
Immediatly descended to the drowzye house of Sleepe
Whose Court the clowdes continually doo clocely overdreepe.
Among the darke Cimmerians is a hollow mountaine found
And in the hill a Cave that farre dooth ronne within the ground,
The Chamber and the dwelling place where slouthfull sleepe dooth cowch.
The lyght of Phebus golden beames this place can never towch.
A foggye mist with dimnesse mixt streames upwarde from the ground,
And glimmering twylyght evermore within the same is found.
No watchfull bird with barbed bill, and combed crowne dooth call
The moorning foorth with crowing out. There is no noyse at all
Of waking dogge, nor gagling goose more waker than the hound
To hinder sleepe. Of beast ne wyld ne tame there is no sound.
No bowghes are stird with blastes of wynd, no noys eof tatling toong
Of man or woman ever yit within that bower roong.
Dumb quiet dwelleth there. Yit from the Roches foote dooth go
The ryver of forgetfulnesse, which ronneth trickling so
Uppon the little pebble stones which in the channel lye,
That unto sleepe a great deale more it dooth provoke thereby.
Before the entry of the Cave, there growes of Poppye store,
With seeded heades, and other weedes innumerable more,
Out of the milkye jewce of which the night dooth gather sleepes,
And over all the shadowed earth with dankish deawe them dreepes.
Bycause the craking hindges of the doore no noyse should make,
There is no doore in all the house, nor porter at the gate.
Amid the Cave, of Ebonye a bedsted standeth hye,
And on the same a bed of downe with keeverings blacke dooth lye:
In which the drowzye God of sleepe his lither limbes dooth rest.
About him, forging sundrye shapes as many dreames lye prest
As eares of corne doo stand in feeldes in harvest tyme, or leaves
Doo grow on trees, or sea to shore of sandye cinder heaves.
As soone as Iris came within this house, and with her hand
Had put asyde the dazeling dreames that in her way did stand,
The brightnesse of her robe through all the sacred house did shine.
The God of sleepe scarce able for to rayse his heavy eyen,
A three or fowre tymes at the least did fall ageine to rest,
And with his nodding head did knocke his chinne ageinst his brest.
At length he shaking of himselfe, uppon his elbowe leande.
And though he knew for what shee came: he askt her what shee meand.
O sleepe (quoth shee,) the rest of things, O gentlest of the Goddes,
Sweete sleepe, the peace of mynd, with whom crookt care is aye at oddes:
Which cherrishest mennes weery limbes appalld with toyling sore,
And makest them as fresh to woork and lustye as beefore,
Commaund a dreame that in theyr kyndes can every thing expresse,
To Trachine, Hercles towne, himself this instant to addresse.
And let him lively counterfet to Queene Alcyonea
The image of her husband who is drowned in the sea
By shipwrecke. Juno willeth so. Her message beeing told,
Dame Iris went her way. Shee could her eyes no longer hold
From sleepe. But when shee felt it come shee fled that instant tyme,
And by the boawe that brought her downe to heaven ageine did clyme.
Among a thousand sonnes and mo that father slomber had
He calld up Morph, the feyner of mannes shape, a craftye lad.
None other could so conningly expresse mans verrye face,
His gesture and his sound of voyce, and manner of his pace,
Togither with his woonted weede, and woonted phrase of talk.
But this same Morphye onely in the shape of man dooth walk.
There is another who the shapes of beast or bird dooth take,
Or else appeereth unto men in likenesse of a snake.
The Goddes doo call him Icilos, and mortall folke him name
Phobetor. There is also yit a third who from theis same
Woorkes diversly, and Phantasos he highteth. Into streames
This turnes himself, and into stones, and earth, and timber beames,
And into every other thing that wanteth life. Theis three,
Great kings and Capteines in the night are woonted for to see.
The meaner and inferiour sort of others haunted bee.
Sir Slomber overpast the rest, and of the brothers all
To doo dame Iris message he did only Morphye call.
Which doone he waxing luskish, streyght layd downe his drowzy head
And softly shroonk his layzye limbes within his sluggish bed.
Away flew Morphye through the aire: no flickring made his wings:
And came anon to Trachine. There his fethers off he flings,
And in the shape of Ceyx standes before Alcyones bed,
Pale, wan, stark naakt, and like a man that was but lately deade.
His berde seemd wet, and of his head the heare was dropping drye,
And leaning on her bed, with teares he seemed thus to cry:
Most wretched woman, knowest thou thy loving Ceyx now
Or is my face by death disformd? behold mee well, and thow
Shalt know mee. For thy husband, thou thy husbandes Ghost shalt see.
No good thy prayers and thy vowes have done at all to mee.
For I am dead. In vayne of my returne no reckning make.
The clowdy sowth amid the sea our shippe did tardy take,
And tossing it with violent blastes asunder did it shake.
And floodes have filld my mouth which calld in vayne uppon thy name.
No persone whom thou mayst misdeeme brings tydings of the same.
Thou hearest not thereof by false report of flying fame.
But I myself: I presently my shipwrecke to thee showe.
Aryse therefore and wofull teares uppon thy spouse bestowe.
Put moorning rayment on, and let mee not to Limbo go
Unmoorned for. In shewing of this shipwrecke Morphye so
Did feyne the voyce of Ceyx, that shee could none other deeme,
But that it should bee his indeede. Moreover he did seeme
To weepe in earnest: and his handes the verry gesture had
Of Ceyx. Queene Alcyone did grone, and beeing sad
Did stirre her armes, and thrust them foorth his body to embrace.
In stead whereof shee caught but ayre. The teares ran downe her face.
Shee cryed. Tarry: whither flyste? togither let us go.
And all this whyle she was asleepe. Both with her crying so,
And flayghted with the image of her husbands gastly spryght,
She started up: and sought about if fynd him there shee myght.
(For why her Groomes awaking with the shreeke had brought a light.)
And when shee no where could him fynd, shee gan her face to smyght,
And tare her nyghtclothes from her brest, and strake it feercely, and
Not passing to unty her heare shee rent it with her hand.
And when her nurce of this her greef desyrde to understand
The cause: Alcyone is undoone, undoone and cast away
With Ceyx her deare spouse (shee sayd). Leave comforting I pray.
By shipwrecke he is perrisht: I have seene him: and I knew
His handes. When in departing I to hold him did pursew
I caught a Ghost: but such a Ghost as well discerne I myght
To bee my husbands. Nathelesse he had not to my syght
His woonted countenance, neyther did his visage shyne so bryght,
As heeretofore it had beene woont. I saw him, wretched wyght,
Starke naked, pale, and with his heare still wet: even verry heere
I saw him stand. With that shee lookes if any print appeere
Of footing where as he did stand uppon the floore behynd.
This this is it that I did feare in farre forecasting mynd,
When flying mee I thee desyrde thou shouldst not trust the wynd.
But syth thou wentest to thy death, I would that I had gone
With thee. Ah meete, it meete had beene thou shouldst not go alone
Without mee. So it should have come to passe that neyther I
Had overlived thee, nor yit beene forced twice to dye.
Already, absent in the waves now tossed have I bee.
Already have I perrished. And yit the sea hath thee
Without mee. But the cruelnesse were greater farre of mee
Than of the sea, if after thy decease I still would strive
In sorrow and in anguish still to pyne away alive.
But neyther will I strive in care to lengthen still my lyfe,
Nor (wretched wyght) abandon thee: but like a faythfull wyfe
At leastwyse now will come as thy companion. And the herse
Shall joyne us, though not in the selfsame coffin: yit in verse.
Although in tumb the bones of us togither may not couch,
Yit in a graven Epitaph my name thy name shall touch.
Her sorrow would not suffer her to utter any more.
Shee sobd and syghde at every woord, until her hart was sore.
The morning came, and out shee went ryght pensif to the shore
To that same place in which shee tooke her leave of him before.
Whyle there shee musing stood, and sayd: He kissed mee even heere,
Heere weyed hee his Anchors up, heere loosd he from the peere.
And whyle shee calld to mynd the things there marked with her eyes:
In looking on the open sea, a great way off shee spyes
A certaine thing much like a corse come hovering on the wave.
At first shee dowted what it was. As tyde it neerer drave,
Although it were a good way off, yit did it plainely showe
To bee a corce. And though that whose it was shee did not knowe,
Yit forbycause it seemd a wrecke, her hart therat did ryse:
And as it had sum straunger beene, with water in her eyes
She sayd: Alas poore wretch who ere thou art, alas for her
That is thy wyfe, if any bee. And as the waves did stirre,
The body floted neerer land: the which the more that shee
Behilld, the lesse began in her of stayed wit to bee.
Anon it did arrive on shore. Then plainely shee did see
And know it, that it was her feere. Shee shreeked, It is hee.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> 'Anglican puritanism' seems to be your own
> invention.
No, it is not 'my invention.' And the Shakespeare works
are Anglican-Puritan just as the Marprelate Tracts are
quintessential Anglican-Puritan doctrinal statements.
The Anglican-Puritans were a faction within the Anglican
Church that wanted to reform ritual and vestment but this
faction also had a nationalistic pro-England political agenda.
Bacon's cousins the Sidney-Herberts and Robert Dudley and
Essex were the Anglican-Puritan leaders at Court. There were
also Anglican-Puritan factions within the Anglican episcopy and at
Cambridge.
The Anglican-Puritan Court faction lost power with the execution
of Essex but Bacon, his cousins Pembroke, Montgomery, Salisbury, his
friends Digges, Sandys, and Hooker carried on as leaders of the
Virginia Company and in Parliament.
You're stereotyping the Anglican-Puritans as New England Calvinist
Puritans. The Anglican-Puritans were hardly 'puritan.' Sir John
Falstaff
is an Anglican-Puritan type (Prof. Kristen Poole).
WHKMLA : Reformation in England
... A hot Anglican-Puritan dispute was followed by a ban of
Puritan assemblies
in 1593.
E.) The Early Stuarts, 1603-1649 Elizabeth had selected King James
VI. ...
www.zum.de/whkmla/period/reformation/engref.html - 15k - Cached -
Similar
pages
[DOC] Hermeneutics in the Wesleyan Understanding
File Format: Microsoft Word 2000 - View as HTML
... know for our salvation.3. Wesley's context was that of an
Anglican-Puritan
dispute over scripture. For Anglicans scripture was norm ...
www.methodist.org.uk/information/emtc-paper-hermeneutics_in_the_
wesleyan_understanding.doc - Similar pages
ANGLICAN-PURITAN
ANGLICAN-PURITAN CONTROVERSY. The ROOT cause of the Regulative
Principle.
The Strangers? Churches, 1548. The First Vestments Controversy,
1550. ...
acad.erskine.edu/facultyweb/Gore/the_regulative_principle_of_worship/
tsld010.htm - 2k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Anglican Communion Institute--Allison's Response to the ...
... James' response to Anglican puritan objections was that they
must
"conform or I will harry them out of the land or else do
worse.". ...
www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/allison040125.htm - 12k -
Cached - Similar pages
ANGLICAN-PURITAN
First Previous Next Last Index Home Text. Slide 10 of 31.
acad.erskine.edu/facultyweb/Gore/the_regulative_principle_of_worship/
sld010.htm - 3k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from acad.erskine.edu ]
Virtuosity Online - News
... James' response to Anglican puritan objections was that they
must "conform or I will
harry them out of the land or else do worse." Charles I,
paralleling Louis ...
www.virtuosityonline.org/portal/modules/
news/article.php?storyid=211 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary
... Baxter, Richard: (1615-1691) English Anglican Puritan
theologian; persecuted as
a Puritan; wrote 100 books including: 1. The Saint's Everlasting
Rest; 2. The ...
theology.freeyellow.com/tdicb.htm - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary
... Cotton: See Cotton, John Cotton, John: (1585-1652) US Anglican
Puritan pastor in
Boston for 21 years; forced out of England by Archbishop Laud;
advocated exile ...
theology.freeyellow.com/tdicc.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from theology.freeyellow.com ]
Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary
... Cotton, John: (1585-1652) US Anglican Puritan pastor in Boston
for 21 years; forced
out of England by Archbishop Laud; advocated exile of Roger
Williams and ...
www.100megsfree4.com/dictionary/theology/tdicc.htm - 57k - Cached
- Similar pages
Theological and Philosophical Biography and Dictionary
... Howe, John: (1630-1706) English Anglican Puritan who tried to
unite British
Presbyterian and Independents; wrote Blessedness of the Righteous.
...
www.100megsfree4.com/dictionary/theology/tdich.htm - 46k - Cached
- Similar pages
[ More results from www.100megsfree4.com ]
St. Thomas Evangelical Library | Desert Island Books
... If I want to remind myself therefore of the Anglican/Puritan
Controversy, of Puritan
Worship/Preaching, of the Old Dissent, or even the theology of
Chuch ...
www.execulink.com/~vaneyk/el/DesertIslandBooks/
1998winterNo101.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Church History Dynamic Syllabus
... of European Christendom and the development of Protestant
church traditions (Lutheran,
Calvinist/Reformed, Anabaptist, Anglican, Puritan, Wesleyan, and
others ...
courses.drew.edu/chist-203-001/ - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
Lay Presidency at the Lord's Table
... see this as not only Biblical, but with an excellent Anglican
pedigree going back
at least to William Perkins, a great 16th century Anglican Puritan
who taught ...
www.episcopalian.org/efac/layadmin.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar
pages
Blowers Reponse
... Indeed, the Anglican-Puritan debates in interesting ways
adumbrated debates
over church government and offices of ministry in our own
tradition. ...
www.disciples.org/ccu/documents/dialpapblow.htm - 16k - Cached -
Similar pages
Rosicrucian Utopia
... The previous year (1585), a William Brewster had accompanied
Davison on a diplomatic
mission to Leiden, Holland, where anti-Anglican Puritan forces had
been ...
www.tribwatch.com/utopia.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
In Pursuit of Plainness - Papers - Rev Richard Pot Online
... It is essential to understand this fundamental disagreement,
since it also lies
at the heart of the Anglican-Puritan conflict over liturgical
reforms. ...
www.geocities.com/r_e_pot/papers/puritan.html - 101k - Cached -
Similar pages
Marriage, celibacy, and ritual in Robert Herrick's 'Hesperides.'
... Hesperides and the `Proclamation made for May,'" SP 76 (1979):
49-74; Achsah Guibbory,
"The Temple of Hesperides and Anglican-Puritan Controversy," in
Claude J ...
www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6586/swann.html - 72k - Cached
- Similar pages
[ More results from www.geocities.com ]
At the Origins of English Rationalism
... How much of the right-wing 'Enlightenment' was just a
continuation of already settled
characteristics, no longer overshadowed by the Anglican-Puritan
conflict? ...
www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm01_origins.html - 76k -
Cached - Similar pages
History 1301 Lecture 9: Colonial Shared Experiences
... a view regarding religion B. While a lot of diversity in
denominations, overwhelmingly
Protestant by 1775 1. 20% Congregationalist (Anglican Puritan) 2.
20 ...
www.angelfire.com/tx2/ecc/1301lecture9.html - 36k - Cached -
Similar pages
Classic Christianity Number 16
... 1980), 25. Editor's Note: Traherne was an Anglican Puritan
leader who
influenced nineteenth- and twentieth-century holiness leaders. ...
www.christianpublications.com/ Periodicals/classic/clc16.htm - 28k
- Cached - Similar pages
Pamela Jason - Erasmus Institute - University of Notre Dame
... the exploration of this dynamic tradition near the heart of
early modernity by comparing
and contrasting Thomas Hobbes with the Anglican Puritan divine
George ...
www.nd.edu/~erasmus/fellows_research/ 00jason_projects.html - 9k -
Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] HISTORIOGRAPHICALREVI EWS
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... When Nicholas Tyacke turned the model of Anglican \puritan
opposition (with the
puritans as innovators) topsy-turvy in his Anti-Calvinists (
1987),"% an ...
www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/ texts/Morrissey-sermons.pdf -
Supplemental Result - Similar pages
eBooks-Library.com - Your best source for eBooks, historical ...
... Becoming involved in the Anglican/Puritan controversy of
1589-1590, he is known
to have contributed An Almond for a Parrat (1590) in reply to the
puritan ...
www.ebooks-library.com/author.cfm/AuthorID/544 - 38k - Cached -
Similar pages
James 1:17-27
... I am unapologetically rediscovering my own theological
tradition, especially its
Eastern patristic and catholic taproots and Anglican-Puritan
antecedents.". ...
www.textweek.com/epistlesrevelation/james1.htm - 51k - Cached -
Similar pages
Anabaptist and their Stepchildren
... Westminster. Swiftly, the (Ana)Baptists reacted. Arising out
of their
disputation against the leading Anglican Puritan Rev. Dr. Daniel
...
www.reformedreader.org/history/step.htm - 72k - Cached - Similar
pages
[PDF] 1 (absences) 15.5.1994 SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGINS OF
...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... In essence, for accidental reasons, the form of bland
Anglican/Puritan religion
that developed in England, and the relatively tolerant,
pluralistic mix that ...
www.alanmacfarlane.com/TEXTS/ABSENCES.pdf - Similar pages
Christian Spirituality
... Counter-Reformation. Periods (cont.). Ą 17th Century
Anglo-American (Anglican,
Puritan). Ą 18th Century Anglo-American (Great Awakening,
Methodism). ...
faculty.valpo.edu/jnelson/DHWebPage/Notes/HCSS03OL.htm - 45k -
Cached - Similar pages
THEY CROSSED
... English protestants were grouped in roughly three groups:
Anglican, Puritan and
Presbyterian, united only in their opposition to the Catholic
Church and the ...
www.rootsweb.com/~vaschs/BW.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages
As I See It - Vol. 1, No. 12, Dec 1998
... 227- 8). Thomas Brightman (1557-1607), an Anglican Puritan,
was the first that Trench
was able to locate in the post- Reformation era to hold this view,
(p. 228 ...
www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/aisi1_12.html - 27k -
Cached - Similar pages
CatholicHistoricPartIV
... **** The United States was colonized: [1607], by Anglican
Puritan in Virginia. ... ****
The United States was colonized: [1607], by Anglican Puritan in
Virginia. ...
sites.hsprofessional.com/hobarker/ CatholicHistoricPartIV.html -
59k - Cached - Similar pages
"AS I SEE IT"
... 227-8). Thomas Brightman (1557-1607), an Anglican Puritan, was
the first that Trench
was able to locate in the post-Reformation era to hold this view,
(p. 228 ...
www.kjvonly.org/aisi/1998/aisi_1_12_98.htm - 53k - Cached -
Similar pages
[PDF] History 129A EUROPE: 1610-1715 Winter Quarter
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... Often this tension had religious overtones. France:
Catholic-Huguenot,
England: Anglican-Puritan, Spain: Old Catholic- New Catholic ie.
...
www.history.ucsb.edu/syllabi/sonnino/129a2004Syl.pdf - Similar
pages
Then and Now: The Recovery of Patristic Wisdom
... I am unapologetically rediscovering my own theological
tradition, especially its
Eastern patristic and catholic taproots and Anglican-Puritan
antecedents. ...
www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/
showarticle?item_id=61 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
BOOK REVIEWS
... It is a pity that Berg did not have opportunity to integrate
his research with Bassett's
fascinating discussion of Anglican Puritan Ecclesiology, because
this ...
wesley.nnu.edu/WesleyanTheology/ theojrnl/21-25/21-13.htm - 60k -
Cached - Similar pages
Christian Century: Common Prayer: The Language of Public Devotion
...
... of our culture and our churches to reverse this order, the
Anglican poet WH Auden
observed--three centuries after the Anglican-Puritan
controversy--that there ...
www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/13_119/
88581918/p2/article.jhtml?term= - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
PURITANS AND PROPRIETORS
... ANGLICAN PURITAN CHURCHES. Government Type: Episcopalian,
Separatists/ Puritans,
Congregationalists, Presbyterians. Origins: Feudal, Democratic,
Mixed, Collegiate. ...
www.nevadamercantile.com/jparker/Chapter%202B.html - 77k - Cached
- Similar pages
On living with our fallibility by Roy Clements
... 21). Richard Baxter, the Anglican puritan, was one of the few
mainstream
Protestants prior to 1700 to argue that slavery was wrong. ...
www.callnetuk.com/home/clements/fallibilityamended.htm - 43k -
Cached - Similar pages
template2
... powers of monarchy. James? response to Anglican puritan
objections was. that
they must ?conform or I will harry them out of the land or else
do. ...
www.laurengmyers.org/ BishopFitzAllisonRepondsToRadner.html - 27k
- Cached - Similar pages
Puritan
... three definitions that need to be taken seriously in the
contemporary debate, we
must be sure that we have finished with the Anglican - Puritan
dichotomy that ...
www.soluschristus.org.uk/html/puritan.html - 94k - Cached -
Similar pages
. Religious Change & Violence: 16th ? 17th Centuries
... Catholic ?Bloody Mary? (1553-1558): Has 300+ Protestants
killed. +Puritan
Revolution (1640-1660): Anglican-Puritan battles. Charles I
beheaded (1649).
people.sinclair.edu/ryanvanlenning/ ReformationViolence.htm - 20k
- Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
12penttextresources
... unapologetically rediscovering my own theological tradition,
especially its Eastern
patristic and catholic taproots and Anglican-Puritan antecedents."
"James 1 ...
www.dodgenet.com/~tzingale/sermonb/ 12penttextresources.html - 50k
- Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Nov 22
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... I?m sure that we can all imagine the surprise of these
Anglican Puritan immigrants
upon their discov- ery that they were not alone on this new
continent. ...
www.curf.edu/sa/09nov22.pdf - Supplemental Result - Similar pages
Elizabeth Weir
I don't have the book at this time but it's in Tilting
at Chivalric Romances by Yumiko Yamada, a
professor of English lit at Kobe University. I've cited
it a few times in HLAS because Yamada is very critical
of the romantic 'Shakespearean' reading of Cervantes.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> There are a number of problems of Oxfordian [sic] "Earl of Oxford Theory."
>
> Autobiographical Problems
> 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
> 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> Oxford.
Since the action takes place in a variety of times and locales
ranging from ancient Rome to pre-Christian Britain to Medieval Denmark,
the chronological impediments alone render such a claim utterly risible.
> 3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
> Cecil being Polonius etc.
> 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
Yes, some Oxfordians are (relatively) sane. Hamlet is also the son
of a king who was married to the Queen when he was slain. If Gertrude
is Elizabeth I, then which slain king in English history could that
possibly be?
> Therefore,
> 1. Oxford is not always telling the truth, or historically
> exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
The works *certainly* are not autobiography. Oxford, whatever his
other titles, was never Prince of Denmark. Nor was he ever a hunchback,
a Roman general, the estranged consort of a fairy queen, or even a
Scottish thane.
> 2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
> the Queen.
If he is telling the truth in the literal fashion favored by future
Senator Streitz, he must also be the son of the King. Since the realm
was without a King for most of Oxford's life, he certainly could not
have been reporting historical truth with any fidelity in the play.
> Further, they ignore that if Oxford is telling his autobiography
> through Shakespeare,
If frogs had wings...
> then why are the most biographical characters
> royalty. Prince Hal, Bertram, etc, and King Earl [sic]?
There is no "King Earl" in the canon. The closest orthographic
apprOXimation, King Lear, went mad. Try again.
More to the point, how is one to know precisely which characters are
the "most biographical"? I would nominate Dogberry, whom Mr. Streitz
seems unaccountably to have oVERlooked -- but that's probably because
Mr. Streitz has not read that play yet.
> Historical Problems
> 1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
> son of minor, lowest ranking,
Whence does Mr. Streitz infer that Oxford was "lowest ranking...Earl
of the realm"?
> not too well thought of Earl of the
> realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
But in Mr. Streitz's magisterial monograph, he opines that
Elizabeth's guardian Thomas Seymour, not Cecil, got Oxford. Moreover,
in that work Mr. Streitz argues (if one can so dignify his inferential
processes) that Seymour got Oxford with the young Elizabeth, not with
Thomas Smith. Why the sudden (or rather, sodden) change of viewpoint?
> 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> marriage on this wastral [sic] black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> Cecil made a "mistake." But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
> character, he lived at his hourse [sic],
His horse? Or his house?
> etc.. Why the shrewdest man in
> England would make a mistake is unexplained.
If the shrewdest man in Connecticut can make a mistake, why not the
shrewdest man in England?
> 3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
> noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
> one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
>
> Contraray [sic] to what Weir says,
That many Oxfordians gainsay Elizabeth's pronouncements merely
underscores how refreshingly sane the latter makes the former look.
Dave Kathman
Oh, come on, David. You're overlooking the obvious. Oxford
was born when Edward VI was on the throne. Obviously, Oxford
was the son of 13-year-old King Edward and his 17-year-old half-sister
Elizabeth, the future queen, after they had been secretly married
to preserve the rule of the Templars. Get on the ball, man!
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Reynolds
paul streitz wrote:
>There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
>
>Autobiographical Problems
>1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
>2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
>Oxford.
>3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
>Cecil being Polonius etc.
>4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
>is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
>
>Therefore,
>1. Oxford is not always telling the truth, or historically
>exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
>2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
>the Queen.
>
The Fartist formerly known as Prince?
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:<Fz32c.21$qP2...@news.indigo.ie>...
> > 'Anglican puritanism' seems to be your own
> > invention.
> No, it is not 'my invention.' And the Shakespeare works
> are Anglican-Puritan just as the Marprelate Tracts are
> quintessential Anglican-Puritan doctrinal statements.
>
> The Anglican-Puritans were a faction within the Anglican
> Church that wanted to reform ritual and vestment but this
> faction also had a nationalistic pro-England political agenda.
Source?
> Bacon's cousins the Sidney-Herberts and Robert Dudley and
> Essex were the Anglican-Puritan leaders at Court. There were
> also Anglican-Puritan factions within the Anglican episcopy and at
> Cambridge.
>
> The Anglican-Puritan Court faction lost power with the execution
> of Essex but Bacon, his cousins Pembroke, Montgomery, Salisbury, his
> friends Digges, Sandys, and Hooker carried on as leaders of the
> Virginia Company and in Parliament.
>
> You're stereotyping the Anglican-Puritans as New England Calvinist
> Puritans. The Anglican-Puritans were hardly 'puritan.' Sir John
> Falstaff
> is an Anglican-Puritan type (Prof. Kristen Poole).
I have certainly seen quotations from Poole characterizing Falstaff
as a Puritan, but not as "an Anglican-Puritan type." Can you furnish an
actual quotation and a citation? Or is this another of your farcical
misattributions and misquotations, like the one where you actually
attribute to Dave Kathman a completely bogus, fabricated quotation of
your own concerning Richard Field's delivery of the Strachey letter to
Shakespeare? (In fact, Dave Kathman's essay says nothing of the kind,
and Field is nowhere even mentioned therein. Since you demonstrably
have not read Kathman's essay, there is little reason to surmise that
you have read Poole either.)
> WHKMLA : Reformation in England
> ... A hot Anglican-Puritan dispute was followed by a ban of
> Puritan assemblies
> in 1593.
> E.) The Early Stuarts, 1603-1649 Elizabeth had selected King James
> VI. ...
> www.zum.de/whkmla/period/reformation/engref.html - 15k - Cached -
> Similar
> pages
Usenet just doesn't get much funnier than this! It has evidently
escaped your attention that in this article the phrase "Anglican-Puritan
dispute" plainly refers to a *DISPUTE BETWEEN* the Anglican and Puritan
factions, not to an "Anglican-Puritan" faction! Here is the quotation
in context:
"The most important religious groups, besides the Anglican state
church, were Catholic and Calvinist minorities, the latter referred
to as PURITANS.
[Note that Puritans are here *distinguished from* Anglicans.]
"The expression 'Puritan' appeared first in 1564; in 1569 a Puritan
program was outlined, in 1575 the GENEVA BIBLE, a new translation
with Puritan comments was printed. A hot Anglican-Puritan dispute was
followed by a ban of Puritan assemblies in 1593."
> [DOC] Hermeneutics in the Wesleyan Understanding
> File Format: Microsoft Word 2000 - View as HTML
> ... know for our salvation.3. Wesley's context was that of an
> Anglican-Puritan
> dispute over scripture.
Amazing! Once again, the text evidently refers to a *dispute*
between the Anglican and the Puritan factions, not to an
"Anglican-Puritan" faction.
> For Anglicans scripture was norm ...
> www.methodist.org.uk/information/emtc-paper-hermeneutics_in_the_
> wesleyan_understanding.doc - Similar pages
Incidentally, this link does not work. Plainly, you have not read it
-- but that was already quite evident.
[Many more links (to other texts that Elizabeth has not read) snipped]
David L. Webb
In article <efbc3534.0403...@posting.google.com>,
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
> news:<5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
> >
> > Autobiographical Problems
> > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
[...]
> > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> > Oxford.
> That could be true in part but it doesn't prevent Oxford's genius
> cousin Francis Bacon from writing the Shakespeare works.
The autobiography of Oxford can scarcely have been written by Bacon.
[...]
> > 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> > is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
> Genetically speaking, it's very unlikely that the brown-eyed
> Elizabeth gave birth to the blue-eyed Oxford.
It's very unlikely for many other reasons having little to do with
genetics. For one thing, unless Elizabeth endured the longest human
pregnancy on record (surpassing even the gestation period of an
elephant), Oxford wouldd have to have been posthumously begotten, at
least if Mr. Streitz's conjecture concerning his paternity is correct.
> As far as the
> Oxfordians are concerned, I don't doubt they believe that Oxford
> is Elizabeth's son, they just don't want to go the Baconian route
> and who can blame them. It's too distracting. I rarely think about
> it.
The last two words are superfluous.
> > Therefore,
> > 1. Oxford is not always telling the truth, or historically
> > exaggerating his position and the works are not autobiography.
> Or his genius cousin Francis Bacon is submerging the truth on
> more than one level (as the subversive Virgillian poets did).
> > 2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
> > the Queen.
> I'm not discounting that theory entirely.
Of course not! Elizabeth possesses the remarkable capacity of making
*anyone*, even Mr. Streitz, appear positively sane by comparison.
> Elizabeth was no
> virgin--the Baconians dug up a lot of evidence in the Escurial--
> the Spanish ambassador was sending regular reports on her
> affair with Leicester (and pregnancies) to Philip II.
No doubt the Spaniards also knew exactly where her weapons of mass
destruction were concealed.
[...]
> > Historical Problems
> > 1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
> > son of minor, lowest ranking, not too well thought of Earl of the
> > realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
> Are you talking about Southampton? Oxford had the second
> or third highest rank after Rutland who was number two, I believe.
> There's another earl that never appeared at Court--can't think of his title
> at the moment--who had the highest rank. You rarely hear of him.
What a pity! If Elizabeth ever remembers whom she is talking about,
surely he should be promptly enlisted as a new Shakespeare authorship
candidate.
> > 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> > marriage on this wastral black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> > Cecil made a "mistake." But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
> > character, he lived at his hourse, etc.. Why the shrewdest man in
> > England would make a mistake is unexplained.
> This is not difficult. Cecil was on a construction rampage. He built
> the largest house in England--Theobalds--it's still the largest private
> dwelling in England--out of Oxford's accounts. Theobalds was only
> one of six or seven estates--all furnished with antiquities from the
> Continent--all having vast gardens. Elizabeth, Leicester and
> Lord Burghley literally raped Oxford's wealth. I've said so from
> the beginning. Apparently an Oxfordian has finally looked into it.
> I saw a reference to a recent article on that subject on an Oxfordian
> site.
Another precise Weir citation!
> > 3. Why would the Queen show such an interest in this obscure young
> > noble, such as going to both his university commencements, (only other
> > one was Southampton). Strange indeed.
> You're saying that she had a maternal twinge? I very much
> doubt it. We know absolutely that Bacon was not a Bacon--
> Lady Anne Bacon left three letters stating that Bacon was
> 'her ward not her son''--and Lady Anne Bacon was Elizabeth's
> head lady-in-waiting and her closest friend since they were
> both children at Court and York House was just across the
> street from Whitehall and Bacon was born just when the Spanish
> ambassador was reporting her confinement to Philip, etc, etc,
> but the Queene didn't bond to Bacon. She had him at the
> palace for years, showing his genius off to visiting royalty but
> she never 'took an interest in him.' I doubt she was capable
> of maternal love. When she was only two years old her own
> mother was violently taken from her by her murderous father--
> Bacon called him 'that bloody man'--so there can be no doubt
> that she didn't trust any relationship.
> > Contraray [sic] to what Weir says, the earliest Oxfordians stressed Oxford's
> > nobility, lineage etc.. More recent ones don't want to talk about it
> > other than give him the title. Because to discuss it, is to bring up
> > problems they do not want to address.
> I agree that Oxfordians are less touting of Oxford's genealogy
> but it still hangs in the air. At the same time Oxford's genealogy
> looks barren
"Barren"?! But his cousin was the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon!
> next to the mob of poets, writers, scholars, intellectuals,
> explorers--Gosnold is cousin to both Bacon and Oxford, for
> example--adventurers, owners of acting companies--Bacon
> was cousin to Cary, Hunsdon, Pembroke, Stanley, Strange,
> through the Sidneys the Earl of Leicester--I believe Bacon
> was related to all the earls who had companies. This explains
> why 'Shakespeare' was first with the Admiral's Men and
> then shifted to the Chamberlain's Men. Bacon's genealogy
> is like the who's who of Elizabethan literary society.
Indeed -- he even boasted, as a cousin, the Earl of Oxford, one of
the most widely admired courtier poets of the period.
LynnE
> Time for another installment of Dueling Delusions!
>
> In article <efbc3534.0403...@posting.google.com>,
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
>
> > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
> > news:<5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
> > >
> > > Autobiographical Problems
> > > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
> [...]
> > > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> > > Oxford.
>
> > That could be true in part but it doesn't prevent Oxford's genius
> > cousin Francis Bacon from writing the Shakespeare works.
>
> The autobiography of Oxford can scarcely have been written by Bacon.
Why not, David? At least, why not his BIography? Most Orthodoxists (new
word, Bob) appear to believe that bits of Oxford's biography were written by
Shakespeare of Stratford.
>
> [...]
> > > 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> > > is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
>
> > Genetically speaking, it's very unlikely that the brown-eyed
> > Elizabeth gave birth to the blue-eyed Oxford.
>
> It's very unlikely for many other reasons having little to do with
> genetics. For one thing, unless Elizabeth endured the longest human
> pregnancy on record (surpassing even the gestation period of an
> elephant), Oxford wouldd have to have been posthumously begotten, at
> least if Mr. Streitz's conjecture concerning his paternity is correct.
First, a brown-eyed mother can easily give birth to a blue-eyed son. Brown,
I believe is dominant, so she would need to carry a blue gene, and said son
could also have either a brown- or green-eyed father, as long as the father
had a recessive blue gene. Son could also, of course, have a blue-eyed
father.
Second, how are we so sure of the colours of their eyes? Portraiture is
unreliable and often dictated by fashion.
Third, one assumes that if Seymour was Oxford's father (is that what Mr.
Steitz is saying?) then Oxford was born earlier than April 1550.
Not that I believe any of it.
>
snip
>
> > next to the mob of poets, writers, scholars, intellectuals,
> > explorers--Gosnold is cousin to both Bacon and Oxford, for
> > example--adventurers, owners of acting companies--Bacon
> > was cousin to Cary, Hunsdon, Pembroke, Stanley, Strange,
> > through the Sidneys the Earl of Leicester--I believe Bacon
> > was related to all the earls who had companies. This explains
> > why 'Shakespeare' was first with the Admiral's Men and
> > then shifted to the Chamberlain's Men. Bacon's genealogy
> > is like the who's who of Elizabethan literary society.
>
> Indeed -- he even boasted, as a cousin, the Earl of Oxford, one of
> the most widely admired courtier poets of the period.
Yes, and best for comedy too. ;)
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:<DIG1c.5474$rb.6...@news.indigo.ie>...
> > "paul streitz" <oxins...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> > The poet was passionate about truth -- but only
> > of one kind: the artistic.
> There's plenty of scientific theory in the Shakespeare works.
Examples?
> > > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> > > Oxford.
[...]
> > > 3. They claim that Hamlet is a representation of Oxford's circle,
> > > Cecil being Polonius etc.
> It goes much further than 'Polonius.' Bacon, like Spenser,
> was writing his relatives into the plays/poems. I just discovered that
> the genealogical link that Spenserians have been desperately
> seeking for over a hundred years--Sir John Spencer of Althorpe--
> who was related to--who else--Francis Bacon--through his antecedent
> Jane Spencer. This is a huge find.
No doubt. Where will it be published?
[...]
> > > 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> > > is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
> > He's certainly not the son of the Queen
> > of Denmark.
> Claudius and Gertrude are allegorical figures. They
> are not literally the 'married couple' Burghley and Elizabeth
> (folks around Whitehall used to refer to Elizabeth as
> 'Burghley's wife' and vice versa).
Source? Is this another vague, unsubstantiated Weir assertion like
"Southampton was overly fond of drag...," etc.?
> > > Therefore,
> > > 1. Oxford is not always telling the truth,
> > Who ever claimed he did?
> I think you're right, Crowley.
In view of its source, that affirmation ought to give even Mr.
Crowley pause.
> There is a great deal
> of idealizing and romanticizing of Oxford and it's a
> shame because Oxford--in his own skin--is one of the most
> fascinating of all Elizabethans--Oxfordians have neutered
> him.
Causality is always tricky. Perhaps it's the reverse -- maybe Oxford
has nuttered them -- although I concede the greater likelihood that they
were nuts to begin with.
[...]
> > > 2. Oxford is telling the truth, and historically must be the son of
> > > the Queen.
> > Nope. No one claims that he is son of the
> > Queen of Denmark.
> Baconians
Source? Is this another vague, unsubstantiated Weir assertion like
"folks around Whitehall used to refer to Elizabeth as 'Burghley's wife'
and vice versa"?
> found documents in the Escurial that
> point to Bacon as one of Elizabeth's bastards--plus
> she brought Bacon, not Oxford, to Court as a very
> young child--he was barely out of infancy. He must
> have been the only child at Court since wives were
> discouraged from coming to Court.
Source? Is this another vague, unsubstantiated Weir assertion like
"Baconians found documents in the Escurial that point to Bacon as one of
Elizabeth's bastards...."?
> I think a very strong circumstantial case can be made
> for Bacon as Elizabeth's son but I don't make it because
> it's NURTURE not nature that made Bacon a genius and
> unlike poor Oxford, the fortunate Bacon landed in the middle
> of an extended family of poets, scholars and theatre company
> owners. He was related to all the theatre company owners
> on both sides of the doctrinal and political 'war of the theatres.'
>
> Bacon's 'Shakespeare genealogy' is so strong Oxford's
> pales in comparison and of course the Stratford grain
> merchant has no 'Shakespeare genealogy' at all.
Perhaps Elizabeth should investigate the geneaolgy of Newton or
Lomonosov.
> > Btw, you left out the 'OR'
> > > Historical Problems
> > > 1. Oxfordians cannot explain Cecil's deep and abiding interest in the
> > > son of minor, lowest ranking, not too well thought of Earl of the
> > > realm. Such as getting him with Thomas Smith, etc.
> Money and rank. How hard is that? Other than picking his
> pocket and affixing his daughter to the De Vere pedigree
> Burghley had no 'personal interest' in his diminutive ward.
>
> I've been saying this from the beginning and I've finally found
> an article--I think by an Oxfordian--who says the same thing.
Reference?
> Burghley, Elizabeth and Leicester were robbing Oxford blind.
> (I wonder if Oxfordians lurk in HLAS).
Comment would be superfluous.
[...]
> > > 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> > > marriage on this wastral black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> > > Cecil made a "mistake."
> > Oxford's character was not far from exemplary
> > in 1571
> That's not what Burghley's second diary entry states
> and puleez, Oxford never had 'exemplary character.'
>
> The earls were wild thangs, Crowley. They lived out
> in the sticks in their own little fiefdoms. They had their
> own set of rules and that was the way it was supposed
> to be. Stop imposing your own puritanism on Oxford.
Has *anyone* managed to read this far without laughing aloud?!
> Sobran is correct in stating that the earls had 'private armies'
> which was in fact the way the 'unwritten constitution' of England
> was 'enforced.'
>
> The earls were incumbent [sic] to overthrow the monarchy
> whenever it got too full of itself--the Hapsburgs should
> have been dealt with the same way--Europe would have
> been a far better place had that system--and its two-class
> aristocracy--been in effect on the Continent.
>
> The problem that Sobran doesn't see is the threat of Rome's
> client Philip II in 1560-1600. England would have been defeated
> without that hurricane--Philip had 45,000 armed soldiers on those
> galleasses--and when Philip conquered England Oxford or one of
> the other Howards would have been placed on Elizabeth's Protestant
> throne.
>
> This is why the Sidney faction strived to form--consciously
> construct--England as the first nation. It was the Protestant
> earls against the Catholic earls. And the Sidneys succeeded.
> Despite Essex. Why? Because the Sidney's political philosophy
> is built into the Shakespeare plays. As Yamada stated, where
> the Shakespeare plays are translated, republics soon follow.
This is surely one of the funniest assertions I have *ever* seen in
h.l.a.s.! Spanish translations of Shakespeare have long existed
(Macpherson's appeared in the 1800s), yet it took quite a while for
Spain to rid itself of the monarchy -- but perhaps Elizabeth sees
Franco's Spain as a shining instance of the indomitable triumph of
republicanism precipitated by translations of the Shakespeare canon.
Nor did the ruthless and murderous Argentine military dictatorship of
the 1980s bear much resemblance to a republic. Elizabeth must also be
blithely unaware of the existence of Russian translations of
Shakespeare, with _Hamlet_ appearing in the mid-1700s and the complete
works by 1870. Yet it appears to have taken the Russians well over a
century to found anything much resembling a republic, and even then the
outcome appears to owe far more to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and others than
to Shakespeare. For that matter, the superb German translation of
Schlegel was complete by the mid-1800s, yet Germany's republican form of
government has not always been evident for memorable parts of the past
century. But history is not Elizabeth's strong suit either.
> Oxford was not on the Sidney side in this--as an earl he had
> not only a self interest in keeping the monarchy weak
>
> it was his hereditary duty to keep the monarchy
> weak.
>
> Oxford, for all his personal vagaries, was not unaware of his
> hereditary duties. Oxford was a typical 16th century English
> earl (castrated by early 20th c. Puritans and not all of them
> Americans) but he came up against something bigger than
> earldom and that was the Sidney faction's nationalism which
> entailed shifting the power from the earls to the monarchy AND
> Parliament.
>
> That was the basis for Elizabeth's ongoing quarrel with the Sidney
> cousin and loyalist Francis Bacon. She didn't want so much power
> to be shifted to Parliament but Bacon was busy creating the modern
> British parliamentary monarchy
Why didn't Bacon just skip all that and found a republic, as
inevitably happens wherever his works are translated?
> (see his constitution-founding brief for the
> Case of the Post-nati--it's all in there). The Shakespeare plays were
> written to reinforce the Ciceronian politics of the Sidneys. The Sidneys
> and Bacon represent republican Renaissance politics. Oxford and
> the other earls (except for three or four) represent their feudal hereditary
> position vis a vis a weakened monarchy.
>
> Oxfordianism which has little to do with the real Oxford--Oxford
> would be agast [sic]
According to Aubrey it was the Queen who was a-gass'd, but Oxford did
participate in the affair.
> --is, in fact, a perfect fit for the rising
> New Feudalism of the American Right. Webb keeps asking why
> Oxfordianism is so 'right wing.'
No, I have never said that Oxfordianism was particularly "right wing"
-- on the contrary, I have surmised that that the political mean of the
Oxfordian population approximates that of the general popoulation, but
that the standard deviation is much larger, due probably to the the
attraction of eccentrics from both ends of the political spectrum to the
Oxfordian cause. The appearance of a right-wing link with Oxfordianism
probably arises merely because a small handful of right-wing Oxfordians
-- Enoch Powell, Lord Burford, Joseph Sobran, etc. -- are merely more
conspicuous than their Oxfordian left-of-center counterparts. Plainly,
Elizabeth cannot read:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=david.l.webb-B9D9FE.13251324092003%
40merrimack.dartmouth.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=david.l.webb-D97EFB.12180723022003%
40merrimack.dartmouth.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=230220021008340416%25David.L.Webb%4
0Dartmouth.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
But Elizabeth does not understand recondite terms like "mean" and
"standard deviation" (she probably surmises that the latter refers to
Southampton's supposed transvestism), so providing Google URLs is
probably an exercise in futility.
> Because it's not Renaissance
> republican, that's why. The British and American-style constitutions
> are English Renaissance institutions,
The Renaissance lasted until 1787?! Remarkable! No doubt Benjamin
Frnaklin enjoyed discussing the latest scientific advances with Galileo
and Giordano Bruno.
> particularly the British which
> has prevailed numerically--I think that 76 of the existing republics
> are British-style parliamentary republics.
Does that include Cuba -- which, since Spanish translations of
Shakespeare have long been available, *must* be a republic by now?
> Thanks to Bacon the
> political philosopher and the patronage of the 'English Medici,' his
> Sidney cousins.
> That's why.
>
> (when he married).
[...]
> > > Contraray to what Weir says, the earliest Oxfordians stressed Oxford's
> > > nobility, lineage etc.. More recent ones don't want to talk about it
> > > other than give him the title. Because to discuss it, is to bring up
> > > problems they do not want to address.
> It's not the 'candidate' that counts, it's the 'evidence' that counts.
Elizabeth certainly does well to enclose the word "evidence" in
quotation marks!
> If Oxfordians can come up with a smoking gun after
> 80 or more years of 'searching and not finding' then we'll restart
> the debate from scratch.
The Baconians have been at it far longer than that, and they *STILL*
haven't come up with anything.
[...]
BCD
>
> > 2. Historians cannot explain why Cecil would ruin a perfectly good
> > marriage on this wastral [sic] black sheep poet, etc., They conclude that
> > Cecil made a "mistake." But Cecil knew full well of Oxford's
> > character, he lived at his hourse [sic],
>
> His horse? Or his house?
***Let us not welter in darkness, forgetting the teachings of our
h.l.a.s. masters. Wouldn't current Crowleyan critical technique
interpret "hourse" as "whore's"? Obviously, he lived at his whore's.
The sentence makes this clear, as, since Cecil lived at Oxie's whore's
place, the good madam would doubtless, perhaps at the dinner-table,
regale C. with such titbits about O. and his character as came to
hand.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-00F7...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > Time for another installment of Dueling Delusions!
> >
> > In article <efbc3534.0403...@posting.google.com>,
> > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> >
> > > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
> > > news:<5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford Theory."
> > > >
> > > > Autobiographical Problems
> > > > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
> > [...]
> > > > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography of
> > > > Oxford.
> > > That could be true in part but it doesn't prevent Oxford's genius
> > > cousin Francis Bacon from writing the Shakespeare works.
> > The autobiography of Oxford can scarcely have been written by Bacon.
> Why not, David? At least, why not his BIography?
Mr. Streitz said *auto*biography.
> Most Orthodoxists (new
> word, Bob) appear to believe that bits of Oxford's biography were written by
> Shakespeare of Stratford.
Can you be specific, Lynne?
> > [...]
> > > > 4. However, when they get to Hamlet as Oxford, they deny that Oxford
> > > > is representing himself as the son of the Queen, the Prince.
> > > Genetically speaking, it's very unlikely that the brown-eyed
> > > Elizabeth gave birth to the blue-eyed Oxford.
> > It's very unlikely for many other reasons having little to do with
> > genetics. For one thing, unless Elizabeth endured the longest human
> > pregnancy on record (surpassing even the gestation period of an
> > elephant), Oxford wouldd have to have been posthumously begotten, at
> > least if Mr. Streitz's conjecture concerning his paternity is correct.
> First, a brown-eyed mother can easily give birth to a blue-eyed son.
The above emphatically should *not* be construed as an implicit
endorsement of Elizabeth's crank genetics! I meant merely that Mr.
Streitz's scenario is unlikely for more quotidian, purely chronological
reasons. Of course Elizabeth's ignorance of genetics is exceeded only
her ignorance of mathematics, physics, foreign languages, English,
philosophy, history, and linguistics.
> Brown,
> I believe is dominant, so she would need to carry a blue gene, and said son
> could also have either a brown- or green-eyed father, as long as the father
> had a recessive blue gene. Son could also, of course, have a blue-eyed
> father.
>
> Second, how are we so sure of the colours of their eyes? Portraiture is
> unreliable and often dictated by fashion.
Not to Elizabeth, who apparently hallucinates that she can ascertain
whether Southampton is wearing a wig in one of his portraits! If you
missed that thread, let me know and I'll post the URL -- Elizabeth was
truly at her best then.
> Third, one assumes that if Seymour was Oxford's father (is that what Mr.
> Steitz is saying?)
It is indeed. (Mr. Streitz lists the rest of Elizabeth's
illegitimate progeny elsewhere in the book.)
> then Oxford was born earlier than April 1550.
Indeed -- that was my point about the necessity of posthumous
conception.
> Not that I believe any of it.
Well, you are certainly among the saner anti-Stratfordians, Lynne.
[...]
> > > next to the mob of poets, writers, scholars, intellectuals,
> > > explorers--Gosnold is cousin to both Bacon and Oxford, for
> > > example--adventurers, owners of acting companies--Bacon
> > > was cousin to Cary, Hunsdon, Pembroke, Stanley, Strange,
> > > through the Sidneys the Earl of Leicester--I believe Bacon
> > > was related to all the earls who had companies. This explains
> > > why 'Shakespeare' was first with the Admiral's Men and
> > > then shifted to the Chamberlain's Men. Bacon's genealogy
> > > is like the who's who of Elizabethan literary society.
> > Indeed -- he even boasted, as a cousin, the Earl of Oxford, one of
> > the most widely admired courtier poets of the period.
> Yes, and best for comedy too. ;)
I used to think so, but "Dr." Faker made a strong case for Marlowe as
best for comedy, only to be surpassed by Elizabeth, whose case for Bacon
is by far the best for comedy among all the authorship scenarios I have
yet encountered. Although Mr. Streitz had his glorious comedic moments
("Elizabeth Petrify," etc.), surely even he must reluctantly acknowledge
Elizabeth's effortless superiority over all comers.
David L. Webb
dj...@ix.netcom.com (Dave Kathman) wrote:
Of course -- it all makes sense now! This is merely yet another of
the instances of incest pointed out by Mr. Streitz (I had already lost
count of them by the time I finished his book; what's one more?). I'm
ashamed to have overlooked so completely the glaringly obvious.
Of course, the Mexican Reconquista, which I also overlooked
completely, did not for a moment escape the vigilance of Mr. Streitz:
"This is not to mention _Reconquista_, Mexico's policy of flooding
the Southwest with Mexicans to force California, New Mexico, Arizona
and Texas to become part of Mexico. It's working. Does that sound
too crazy? Well, in August 2001, what did you think about Islamic
threats to destroy the World Trade Center?"
Clearly, Mr. Streitz will make an excellent senator:
John W. Kennedy
> Yes, some Oxfordians are (relatively) sane. Hamlet is also the son
> of a king who was married to the Queen when he was slain. If Gertrude
> is Elizabeth I, then which slain king in English history could that
> possibly be?
Henry VIII, obviously, given Streitz's -- um -- /idées fixes/.
> Nor was [Oxenford] ever...the estranged consort of a fairy queen....
So the rumors about why Elizabeth opposed her ladies' marriages aren't true?
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy
> Usenet just doesn't get much funnier than this! It has evidently
> escaped your attention that in this article the phrase "Anglican-Puritan
> dispute" plainly refers to a *DISPUTE BETWEEN* the Anglican and Puritan
> factions, not to an "Anglican-Puritan" faction! Here is the quotation
> in context:
I have to defend Lizzie here, in part. During their early phase, the
Puritans aimed at further reform within the Church of England. From a
twenty-first-century viewpoint, it's hard to regard them as "Anglican",
and they are not normally called "Anglican" in modern histories, but
from their own viewpoint, they would have thought themselves so (if the
word had been in use at the time).
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
>
> Examples?
Here's one of about twenty activities on science in the Shakespeare
plays put together by Tufts University with a grant from the Wright
Center for Science Education.
<http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/lessons/pdf/docs/activities/shakespeare.pdf>
Passage 1 - Act 1; Scene 2
Brutus: No, Cassius, for the eye sees not itself
But by reflection, by some other things.
Cassius: Tis just,
And it is very much lamented, Brutus,
That you have no such mirrors as will turn
Your hidden worthiness into your eye
That you might see your shadow....
Activity for Passage 1
Students will be given a diagram of the eye (page 22) and will trace
the path of light as it goes into the eye. An overhead transparency
may be used in order for the teacher to illustrate the difference
between the appearance of the object and the appearance of the image
(inverted, smaller). A presentation of the properties of light should
follow, using the key terms reflection, refraction, real image,
virtual image, plane mirror, convex mirror, concave mirror, convex
lens, and concave lens. If such mirrors and lenses are available, they
should be demonstrated to the students in order that they observe the
difference between images in the different mirrors. A description of
the application of these physical concepts to vision is essential.
I can't think of any poet who made scientific observations in
verse before Francis Bacon, can you?
Best regards,
Elizabeth
LynnE
> In article <D4J3c.37187$lT6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:david.l.webb-00F7...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > > Time for another installment of Dueling Delusions!
> > >
> > > In article <efbc3534.0403...@posting.google.com>,
> > > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > >
> > > > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
> > > > news:<5daf239d.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > There are a number of problems of Oxfordian "Earl of Oxford
Theory."
> > > > >
> > > > > Autobiographical Problems
> > > > > 1. Oxfordians claim that de Vere was a man of unvarnished truth.
> > > [...]
> > > > > 2. They claim that the works of Shakespeare are the autobiography
of
> > > > > Oxford.
>
> > > > That could be true in part but it doesn't prevent Oxford's genius
> > > > cousin Francis Bacon from writing the Shakespeare works.
>
> > > The autobiography of Oxford can scarcely have been written by
Bacon.
>
> > Why not, David? At least, why not his BIography?
>
> Mr. Streitz said *auto*biography.
Right, that's why I said BIography, which fits neatly with Oxford's sexual
proclivities.
>
> > Most Orthodoxists (new
> > word, Bob) appear to believe that bits of Oxford's biography were
written by
> > Shakespeare of Stratford.
>
> Can you be specific, Lynne?
Well, it's five to one and I just got back from a reading, but I'd say
Oxford says in a letter that he's lame (thanks to Alan Nelson for this) and
Shakespeare says it in the sonnets. Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets. He's either aping Oxford or God.
There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit, which took
some sleight of hand, I can tell you. Bob is about 6 ft 3.
My adopted son was born three months before the birthdate the adoption
agency gave us. We thought him a really brilliant baby till we got his birth
certificate.
>
> > Not that I believe any of it.
>
> Well, you are certainly among the saner anti-Stratfordians, Lynne.
I am just among the saner, David, whether we are talking about
anti-Stratfordians or Orthodoxists.
G'night,
LynnE
Lorenzo4344
>From: "David L. Webb" david....@dartmouth.edu
>Date: 3/10/2004
>Of course, the Mexican Reconquista, which I also overlooked
>completely, did not for a moment escape the vigilance of Mr. Streitz:
>
> "This is not to mention _Reconquista_, Mexico's policy of flooding
> the Southwest with Mexicans to force California, New Mexico, Arizona
> and Texas to become part of Mexico. It's working. Does that sound
> too crazy? Well, in August 2001, what did you think about Islamic
> threats to destroy the World Trade Center?"
>
>Clearly, Mr. Streitz will make an excellent senator
He's got his ear to the ground, anyway. The first time I heard that term was
1986. 'Twas told me by Ernesto Valles, a Chicano, in a little bar in San Juan
Bautista, CA. He was discussing an unorganized, widely acknowledged,
not-so-covert Mexican 'movement' to retake the territory the same way it was
lost - pretty much without a shot being fired. Pretty much. The gangbangers
have since kinda blown a hole in that aspect. Ernesto had yet another,
street-hipper Spanish term for this form of 'warfare,' but I can't recall what
it was.
Update from the front lines? "We are the economic engine that runs the valley."
- Jesse Sanchez, Salinas, CA
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Tom Veal
> I can't think of any poet who made scientific observations in
> verse before Francis Bacon, can you?
Lucretius and Dante, to mention the first two who spring to mind.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Most Orthodoxists (new word, Bob) appear to believe
> > > that bits of Oxford's biography were written by
> > > Shakespeare of Stratford.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > Can you be specific, Lynne?
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Well, it's five to one and I just got back from a reading, but I'd say
> Oxford says in a letter that he's lame (thanks to Alan Nelson for this)
and
> Shakespeare says it in the sonnets. Oxford also says in a letter, "I am
that
> I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets. He's either aping Oxford or
God.
> There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
> about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit,
> which took some sleight of hand, I can tell you. Bob is about 6 ft 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/
<<Elwood P. Dowd is a friendly, likeable drunk who has a best friend named
HARVEY, a 6 ft 3 and a half inch invisible white rabbit. HARVEY is a pooka
[e.g., Puck of Pook's Hill - Rudyard Kipling] , which is described in the
movie as, "From old Celtic mythology, a fairy spirit in animal form, always
very large. The pooka appears here and there, now and then, to this one and
that one. A benign but mischievous creature very fond of rumpots, crackpots,
and...."
Elwood P. Dowd tries, all through the movie, to introduce HARVEY to everyone
he meets but the only one who eventually sees him is Dr. Chumley, the
psychiatrist. Dowd's sister Veta sometimes acknowledges the existence of
HARVEY but only when she's under extreme stress.
This excellent lighthearted film was adapted from the Pulitzer Prize winning
hit play written by Mary Chase. Josephine Hull won a best supporting actress
Oscar for her portrayal of Elwood P. Dowd's long suffering sister Veta
Louise Simmons. James Stewart, who plays Dowd, was nominated for best actor
in this 1950 film but lost out to Jose Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
one HARVEY, my Lord of Oxford's man,
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/library/bowen/20babbles.htm
<<On 22nd June, 1582: "Upon Friday last, in the afternoon," they saw one
called GASTRELL and "maned"' to be my Lord of Oxford's man draw his sword
upon 3 or 4 of Mr. Knyvet's men. And one of Mr. Knyvet's men said twice or
thrice: "Put up thy sword GASTRELL, we will not deal with thee here, there
is no place here," and xxxred the street to bear witness. GASTRELL replied
and said he would fight with them, and one HARVEY, my Lord of Oxford's man,
would have parted the fray and willed GASTRELL to put up his sword, which he
did accordingly. And then one of Mr. Knyvet's men said: "GASTRELL, another
time use thy discretion." Whereupon GASTRELL drew again and ran upon one of
Mr. Knyvet's men furiously; and they struck 5 or 6 blows, and Mr. Knyvet's
man hurt GASTRELL. The rest of Mr. Knyvet's men had their swords drawn but
struck not at all. HARVEY, my Lord of Oxford's man, with his sword drawn,
would have parted the fray and (according to Bothame) was hurt by chance,
by GASTRELL, for he did not see any of Mr. Knyvet's men strike at him,
or he at any of them."
The part played by HARVEY here may be of special interest to students of
the Elizabethan literary world, for though no Christian name is given, this
was in all probability Spenser's and Sidney's friend and Nashe's enemy,
the eccentric Cambridge don, [G]abriel [H]ARVEY; who is known to have
been a protégé of the Earl of Oxford at about this time. There is no
evidence that either Oxford or Knyvet was present on this occasion>>
<<1583: GASTRELL avenged the day at Blackfriars. He killed one of Knyvet's
men called Long Tom. This comes ot in a letter of March 12th from Burghley
to Christopher Hatton. Long Tom, [a former Oxford man], was "a bad
fellow" and Burghley says he is sending Hatton the records of the Coroner's
inquest acquitting [former Oxford man] GASTRELL.>> CO2 p. 653
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE NAMES IN WRITING OF Oxford's PRINCIPAL MEN.
[G]astrell [H]orsleye
[G]abriel [H]arvey
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<the Blackfriars affair: June 18, 1582: The junior master of
Caverley's fencing-school, which shared Blackfriars with the theatre,
was able to name Oxford's two men as [G]astrell and [H]orsleye:
"Seeing swords drawn, and having only about him a single sword,
he went in amongst them--- only to keep the peace.">> CO2 p. 652
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Apocrypha 1 Esdras 6:9
*Building an house unto the Lord, great and new* , of hewn and costly
STONEs, and the TIMBER already laid upon the walls. Then asked we
these elders, saying, By whose commandment build ye this house,
and lay the foundations of these works? Therefore to the intent
that we might give knowledge unto thee by writing,
we demanded of them who were the chief doers, and
WE REQUIRED OF THEM THE NAMES
IN WRITING OF THEIR PRINCIPAL MEN.
So they gave us this answer, We are the servants of the Lord which
made heaven and earth. And as for this house, it was builded many years
ago by a king of Israel great and strong, and was finished. But when
our fathers provoked God unto wrath, and sinned against the Lord
of Israel which is in heaven, he gave them over into the power
of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, of the Chaldees;
WHO PULLED DOWN THE HOUSE, and BURNED IT,
and carried away the people captives unto Babylon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1613 The First Globe BURNED
1644 The Second Globe PULLED DOWN
1759 Francis GASTRELL PULLED DOWN & BURNED New Place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/554920
<<At his death, the house passed to his daughter, Susanna, and her
husband, Dr John Hall, and then to their daughter and son-in-law,
Elizabeth & Thomas Nash. New Place was sold in 1675 to Sir Edward
WALKER, and passed from him to his daughter and, in 1699, into the
Clopton family. It was extensively rebuilt by Sir John Clopton,
who settled it on his son, Hugh, in 1702 before it was ready for
reoccupation. When Sir Hugh died, it passed to his daughters, who sold
it to the Reverend Francis GASTRELL in 1756. He demolished it in 1759.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.btinternet.com/~steveaj/Shakespeare/nash.htm
<<A subsequent owner, Rev Francis GASTRELL, the Canon of Lichfield,
spent only half of each year in the house and disputed having
to pay full rates on the property. The town council disagreed,
so in 1759 HE BURNT THE HOUSE DOWN.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.johnrausch.com/PuzzleWorld/toc.asp?t=_cat/io001.htm&m=cat/io000.htm
New Place remained in possession of Shakespeare's successors
until the Restoration; it was then purchased by the Clopton family:
about 1752 it was sold by the executor of Sir Hugh to a clergyman
of the name of Francis GASTRELL, who, on some offence
taken at the authorities of the borough of Stratford,
on the subject of rating the house, PULLED IT DOWN,
and cut down the MULBERRY tree.
According to a letter in the Annual Register of 1760,
the wood was bought by a silver-smith,
who "made many odd things of it for the curious.">>
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
news:20040311040554...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: BLUEST OF BLUE?: Is Oxfordian Bloodline Truest of True?
> >From: "David L. Webb" david....@dartmouth.edu
> >Date: 3/10/2004
>
> >Of course, the Mexican Reconquista, which I also overlooked
> >completely, did not for a moment escape the vigilance of Mr. Streitz:
> >
> > "This is not to mention _Reconquista_, Mexico's policy of flooding
> > the Southwest with Mexicans to force California, New Mexico, Arizona
> > and Texas to become part of Mexico. It's working. Does that sound
> > too crazy? Well, in August 2001, what did you think about Islamic
> > threats to destroy the World Trade Center?"
> >
> >Clearly, Mr. Streitz will make an excellent senator
>
> He's got his ear to the ground, anyway. The first time I heard that term
was
> 1986. 'Twas told me by Ernesto Valles, a Chicano, in a little bar in San
Juan
> Bautista, CA. He was discussing an unorganized, widely acknowledged,
> not-so-covert Mexican 'movement' to retake the territory the same way it
was
> lost - pretty much without a shot being fired.
They must have taken the Confederate south as their model. Southern
politicians have pretty much controlled the U.S. government for some time
now, and without a shot being fired -- or at least not too many on native
soil.
TR
LynnE
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b6dnfE0Xuy...@comcast.com...
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Most Orthodoxists (new word, Bob) appear to believe
> > > > that bits of Oxford's biography were written by
> > > > Shakespeare of Stratford.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > Can you be specific, Lynne?
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Well, it's five to one and I just got back from a reading, but I'd say
> > Oxford says in a letter that he's lame (thanks to Alan Nelson for this)
> and
> > Shakespeare says it in the sonnets. Oxford also says in a letter, "I am
> that
> > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets. He's either aping Oxford or
> God.
> > There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
> > about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit,
> > which took some sleight of hand, I can tell you. Bob is about 6 ft 3.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/
>
> <<Elwood P. Dowd is a friendly, likeable drunk who has a best friend named
> HARVEY, a 6 ft 3 and a half inch invisible white rabbit.
Yes, Art, that's all very well, but Bob is far from invisible, either as a
poet or a bunny, so it was a very hard task to reinvent him. ;)
Robert Stonehouse
Weir) wrote:
>"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
><snip>
>I can't think of any poet who made scientific observations in
>verse before Francis Bacon, can you?
Parmenides, Empedocles, the Alexandrians (Aratus, Nicander etc.) the
Romans (Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Manilius etc.) and many others.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Art Neuendorffer
>>> There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
>>> about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit,
>>> which took some sleight of hand, I can tell you. Bob is about 6 ft 3.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/
> >
> > <<Elwood P. Dowd is a friendly, likeable drunk who has a best friend
> > named HARVEY, a 6 ft 3 and a half inch invisible white rabbit.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Yes, Art, that's all very well, but Bob is far from invisible, either as
> a poet or a bunny, so it was a very hard task to reinvent him. ;)
Well, I'VE NEVER met him.
http://www.marlovian.com/mobs/mobss.jpg
http://www.tigersweat.com/images/harv06.jpg
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
Should we vote? I like the James Stewart pic better. I've lost at least ten
pounds since the other one was taken. I notice the bunny was in both. He
looks pretty much ok--for a rabbit.
LynnE
>
> Art Neuendorffer
>
>
Elizabeth Weir
I simply forgot about De Rerum Natura which was a huge
influence on Francis Bacon.
Dante wouldn't have occurred to me because I see him
as an idealist, not an empiricist.
I can't believe that Lucretius was not an influence on 'Shakespeare.'
De Rerum Natura seems to have been translated only in 1656 but
it must have been available in Latin. Strats tend to limit the sources
to what the Stratford grain merchant could have known except for
the impossible Strachey letter, of course.
Thanks
Elizabeth
Tom Veal
interested in hearing about Shakespearean passages that were palpably
influenced by De Rerum Natura.
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.04031...@posting.google.com>...
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > > Most Orthodoxists (new
> > > word, Bob) appear to believe that bits of Oxford's biography were
> written by
> > > Shakespeare of Stratford.
> > Can you be specific, Lynne?
> Well, it's five to one and I just got back from a reading, but I'd say
> Oxford says in a letter that he's lame (thanks to Alan Nelson for this) and
> Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
You've *got* to kidding, Lynne! *That's* what you call "biography"?!
The poet also laments that he cannot boast of proud titles. Since I,
too, am unable to boast of proud titles, you must have concluded by now
that the Sonnets contain bits of *my* biography!
> Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
May I infer that you, Al Gore, and Oxford must all be the same person?
> He's either aping Oxford or God.
> There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
> about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit, which took
> some sleight of hand, I can tell you.
Some Oxfordians excel at sleight of hand. Many others are like the
rapt members of a conjurer's audience who don't recognize it when they
see it.
[...]
> > > Not that I believe any of it.
> >
> > Well, you are certainly among the saner anti-Stratfordians, Lynne.
> I am just among the saner, David, whether we are talking about
> anti-Stratfordians or Orthodoxists.
I'll be discreet and refrain from comment. :-)
LynnE
> In article <XkT3c.38381$6y1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > Most Orthodoxists (new
> > > > word, Bob) appear to believe that bits of Oxford's biography were
> > written by
> > > > Shakespeare of Stratford.
>
> > > Can you be specific, Lynne?
>
> > Well, it's five to one and I just got back from a reading, but I'd say
> > Oxford says in a letter that he's lame (thanks to Alan Nelson for this)
and
> > Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
>
> You've *got* to kidding, Lynne! *That's* what you call "biography"?!
> The poet also laments that he cannot boast of proud titles. Since I,
> too, am unable to boast of proud titles, you must have concluded by now
> that the Sonnets contain bits of *my* biography!
I think you're a bit too young. How long is your beard?
>
> > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
>
> But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
> You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
> ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
>
> May I infer that you, Al Gore, and Oxford must all be the same person?
Could be. I'll do a quick role call of my alters and get back to you.
>
> > He's either aping Oxford or God.
> > There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
> > about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit, which
took
> > some sleight of hand, I can tell you.
>
> Some Oxfordians excel at sleight of hand. Many others are like the
> rapt members of a conjurer's audience who don't recognize it when they
> see it.
Pity 'tis, 'tis true. I do excel at hand tricks, although I could never
juggle more than two balls at a time (OK, let's move on or we'll bring the
Crowley police down on us).
>
> [...]
> > > > Not that I believe any of it.
> > >
> > > Well, you are certainly among the saner anti-Stratfordians, Lynne.
>
> > I am just among the saner, David, whether we are talking about
> > anti-Stratfordians or Orthodoxists.
>
> I'll be discreet and refrain from comment. :-)
Just as well, or you might suddenly find yourself the Wicked Webbed Warlock
in a novel-- a real sleight, much worse than being changed into Bobby Bunny.
;)
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> > Usenet just doesn't get much funnier than this! It has evidently
> > escaped your attention that in this article the phrase "Anglican-Puritan
> > dispute" plainly refers to a *DISPUTE BETWEEN* the Anglican and Puritan
> > factions, not to an "Anglican-Puritan" faction! Here is the quotation
> > in context:
> I have to defend Lizzie here, in part. During their early phase, the
> Puritans aimed at further reform within the Church of England. From a
> twenty-first-century viewpoint, it's hard to regard them as "Anglican",
> and they are not normally called "Anglican" in modern histories, but
> from their own viewpoint, they would have thought themselves so (if the
> word had been in use at the time).
I'm not disputing the existence of the term "Anglican-Puritan" or
even its appropriateness; rather, I'm noting that several of the sources
that Elizabeth cites (from an indiscriminate web-grep whose results she
plainly has not read) are *not* using "Anglican-Puritan" in the sense
that Elizabeth assumes. In particular, I would like to see a quotation
from Kristen Poole asserting that Falstaff was an "Anglican-Puritan
type." One knows by now that whenever Elizabeth attributes an opinion
to someone, the likelihood is overwhelming that the person never said
anything of the kind, as the examples of Akrigg, Dogariu-Kuzmich-Wang,
Hsu, Kathman, Rips, etc. abundantly attest.
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-D5C4...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <XkT3c.38381$6y1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > > Most Orthodoxists (new
> > > > > word, Bob) appear to believe that bits of Oxford's biography were
> > > written by
> > > > > Shakespeare of Stratford.
> > > > Can you be specific, Lynne?
> > > Well, it's five to one and I just got back from a reading, but I'd say
> > > Oxford says in a letter that he's lame (thanks to Alan Nelson for this)
> and
> > > Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
> > You've *got* to kidding, Lynne! *That's* what you call "biography"?!
> > The poet also laments that he cannot boast of proud titles. Since I,
> > too, am unable to boast of proud titles, you must have concluded by now
> > that the Sonnets contain bits of *my* biography!
> I think you're a bit too young. How long is your beard?
It's pretty short andd tidy now, but it used to be so long that one
of friends joked that I looked like a wild man.
> > > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> > > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
> > But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
> > You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
> > ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
> We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
Anyone can quote or paraphrase scripture, and many writers do. In
particular, it does not follow that two persons who quote or paraphrase
the same scriptural text must necessarily be the same person. That
would be an error on a par with Art's comic conviction that two persons
who share the same name must perforce be the same person.
> > May I infer that you, Al Gore, and Oxford must all be the same person?
> Could be. I'll do a quick role call of my alters
Your altered states of consciousness? :-)
> and get back to you.
> > > He's either aping Oxford or God.
> > > There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to think
> > > about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit, which
> took
> > > some sleight of hand, I can tell you.
> > Some Oxfordians excel at sleight of hand. Many others are like the
> > rapt members of a conjurer's audience who don't recognize it when they
> > see it.
> Pity 'tis, 'tis true. I do excel at hand tricks, although I could never
> juggle more than two balls at a time (OK, let's move on or we'll bring the
> Crowley police down on us).
Crowley's fetishes tend to be more scatological (so your admonition
"let's move" is far more apt to rouse the Keystone/Crowley cops than is
your mention of balls), but your point is well taken nonetheless.
> > [...]
> > > > > Not that I believe any of it.
> > > > Well, you are certainly among the saner anti-Stratfordians, Lynne.
> > > I am just among the saner, David, whether we are talking about
> > > anti-Stratfordians or Orthodoxists.
> > I'll be discreet and refrain from comment. :-)
> Just as well, or you might suddenly find yourself the Wicked Webbed Warlock
> in a novel-- a real sleight, much worse than being changed into Bobby Bunny.
> ;)
Sounds intriguing -- perhaps I should have lived dangerously after
all.
Elizabeth Weir
> Lucretius was an empiricist? An odd concept of empiricism.
I searched Lucretius + empiricism and found this:
(Lucretius') was a vision of the "open society" -- and of the empirical
inquiry method necessary for sustaining it -- as the only lasting protection
against authoritarianism.
<http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/humanist%20articles/lucritus.htm>
Strats, blinded as they are by the influential notion that 'Shakespeare
wrote only for money,' can't see that the works are empirical philosophical
works that (subversively) advocate against authoritarianism.
> And I'd be
> interested in hearing about Shakespearean passages that were palpably
> influenced by De Rerum Natura.
I can probably find some.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
LynnE
This is likely terribly un-PC but my husband was once in class when the
teacher told someone else that his hair was so untidy he looked like the
wild man of Borneo. My husband guffawed. "What are you laughing at,
Kositsky?" asked the teacher. "You look like his brother."
>
> > > > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> > > > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
>
> > > But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
> > > You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
> > >
> > >
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
> > > ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
>
> > We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
>
> Anyone can quote or paraphrase scripture, and many writers do. In
> particular, it does not follow that two persons who quote or paraphrase
> the same scriptural text must necessarily be the same person. That
> would be an error on a par with Art's comic conviction that two persons
> who share the same name must perforce be the same person.
>
> > > May I infer that you, Al Gore, and Oxford must all be the same person?
>
> > Could be. I'll do a quick role call of my alters
>
> Your altered states of consciousness? :-)
I was referring to multiples, but altered states will do just as well.
>
> > and get back to you.
>
> > > > He's either aping Oxford or God.
> > > > There's a canopy in the answer somewhere too, but I'm too tired to
think
> > > > about it, having just changed Bob Grumman into a bunny rabbit, which
> > took
> > > > some sleight of hand, I can tell you.
>
> > > Some Oxfordians excel at sleight of hand. Many others are like the
> > > rapt members of a conjurer's audience who don't recognize it when they
> > > see it.
>
> > Pity 'tis, 'tis true. I do excel at hand tricks, although I could never
> > juggle more than two balls at a time (OK, let's move on or we'll bring
the
> > Crowley police down on us).
>
> Crowley's fetishes tend to be more scatological (so your admonition
> "let's move" is far more apt to rouse the Keystone/Crowley cops than is
> your mention of balls), but your point is well taken nonetheless.
You missed "bring down on."
>
> > > [...]
> > > > > > Not that I believe any of it.
>
> > > > > Well, you are certainly among the saner anti-Stratfordians,
Lynne.
>
> > > > I am just among the saner, David, whether we are talking about
> > > > anti-Stratfordians or Orthodoxists.
>
> > > I'll be discreet and refrain from comment. :-)
>
> > Just as well, or you might suddenly find yourself the Wicked Webbed
Warlock
> > in a novel-- a real sleight, much worse than being changed into Bobby
Bunny.
> > ;)
>
> Sounds intriguing -- perhaps I should have lived dangerously after
> all.
Still time.
Terry Ross
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-D5C4...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
Quoth Lynne:
> >
> > > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> > > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
> >
> > But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
> > You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
> > ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
>
> We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
Or St. Paul:
"But by the grace of God, I am that I am: and his grace which is in me,
was not in vaine: but I laboured more aboundantly then they all: yet not
I, but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).
Or Lyly, or Melbancke. Perhaps Oxford himself was echoing the scriptures
AND Lyly, since he refers to Lyly in the letter where he uses the words.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LynnE
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0403121658420.8329@mail...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, LynnE wrote:
>
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:david.l.webb-D5C4...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
>
> Quoth Lynne:
>
> > >
> > > > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> > > > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
> > >
> > > But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
> > > You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
> > >
> > >
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
> > > ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
> >
> > We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
>
> Or St. Paul:
>
> "But by the grace of God, I am that I am: and his grace which is in me,
> was not in vaine: but I laboured more aboundantly then they all: yet not
> I, but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).
That's very interesting. Corinthians isn't my strong suit. But it's also
interesting that St. Paul says *by the grace of God* I am that I am. It is
as if God has poured his spirit into him, allowing Paul to quote him as he
has in a sense imported God's essence. In any case it's very different from
both the mood of Oxford's letter, and the similar mood in the sonnet when
the words are used.
>
> Or Lyly, or Melbancke. Perhaps Oxford himself was echoing the scriptures
> AND Lyly, since he refers to Lyly in the letter where he uses the words.
I believe from the context that Oxford was referring to himself, as was
Shakespeare. Both of them were of course echoing the words in the
scriptures.
I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that Lyly was quoting God. I'm sure
you'll put me right if I'm wrong. What about Melbancke?
LynnE, who was just having a bit of fun at one in the morning but is being
taken very seriously.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > I think you're a bit too young. How long is your beard?
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > It's pretty short andd tidy now, but it used to be so long that one
> > of friends joked that I looked like a wild man.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> This is likely terribly un-PC but my husband was once in class when the
> teacher told someone else that his hair was so untidy he looked like the
> wild man of Borneo. My husband guffawed. "What are you laughing at,
> Kositsky?" asked the teacher. "You look like his brother."
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE: Ulysses, Nausicca
<<The sister of the wife of the wild man of BORNEO
has just come to town.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "Oberon" is an anagram of "E.O. born"! (If one prefers
> a higher INPNC score, it's also an anagram of "BORNEO")
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robinson Crusoe - Further Adventures - Daniel Defoe
<<However, at last, nothing else offering, and as sitting still, to me
especially, was the unhappiest part of life, I resolved on this voyage
too, which we made very successfully, touching at BORNEO and several
other islands, and came home in about five months, when we sold our
spices, with very great profit, to the Persian merchants,
who carried them away to the Gulf.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Poe, Edgar Allan - THE HAUNTED PALACE
<<When this chaining arrangement was complete, and the party stood as
far apart from each other as possible, they formed a circle; and to make
all things appear natural, Hop-Frog passed the residue of the chain in
two diameters, at right angles, across the circle, after the fashion
adopted, at the present day, by those who capture Chimpanzees,
or other large apes, in BORNEO.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Poe, Edgar Allan - THE MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE
<<What he stated was, in substance, this. He had lately made a voyage
to the Indian Archipelago. A party, of which he formed one, landed
at BORNEO, and passed into the interior on an excursion of pleasure.
Himself and a companion had captured the Ourang-Outang.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
_Cargo Cult Science_ by Richard Feynman
From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974
<< In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people.
During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials,
and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged
to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to
make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the
controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing
everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked
before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo
cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of
scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential,
because the planes don't land.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/subliminal-persuasion.html
<<For Feynman, a cargo-cult science is one that has all the trappings of
science-the illusion of objectivity, the appearance of careful study, and
the motions of an experiment-but lacks one important ingredient: skepticism,
or a leaning over backward to see if one might be mistaken. The essence
of science is to doubt your own interpretations and theories
so that you may improve upon them.>> -- Anthony R. Pratkanis
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that I am."
> > > Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
> > > We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> > Or St. Paul:
> >
> > "But by the grace of God, I am that I am: and his grace which is in me,
> > was not in vaine: but I laboured more aboundantly then they all: yet not
> > I, but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> That's very interesting. Corinthians isn't my strong suit. But it's also
> interesting that St. Paul says *by the grace of God* I am that I am. It is
> as if God has poured his spirit into him, allowing Paul to quote him as he
> has in a sense imported God's essence. In any case it's very different
from
> both the mood of Oxford's letter, and the similar mood in the sonnet
> when the words are used.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul says *by the grace of God I am WHAT I am:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1 COR 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I AM WHAT I AM:
and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;
but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether
it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
Depends on which version of the Bible you're looking at, Art. I checked.
Geneva, for example, and several other versions, read "I am that I am."
Best,
LynnE.
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>> Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that I am."
>>>>> Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
>>>>> We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
>>> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
>>>> Or St. Paul:
>>>> "But by the grace of God, I am that I am: and his grace which is in me,
>>>> was not in vaine: but I laboured more aboundantly then they all: yet
>>>> not I, but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).
> >
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
>>> That's very interesting. Corinthians isn't my strong suit. But it's also
>>> interesting that St. Paul says *by the grace of God* I am that I am. It
is
>>> as if God has poured his spirit into him, allowing Paul to quote him as
he
>>> has in a sense imported God's essence. In any case it's very different
from
>>> both the mood of Oxford's letter, and the similar mood in the sonnet
> > > when the words are used.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > St. Paul says *by the grace of God I am WHAT I am:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1 COR 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
> > to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
> >
> > But by the grace of God I AM WHAT I AM:
> >
> > and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;
> > but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
> > the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether
> > it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Depends on which version of the Bible you're looking at, Art. I checked.
> Geneva, for example, and several other versions, read "I am that I am."
Well, Lynne, I tried MY BEST to give a short answer. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntin.net/McDaniel/0210.htm
February 10, 60, St. Paul shipwrecked on Malta.
(Earls of Oxford were Knights of Malta)
February 10, 1563, Peace d'Amboise grants some freedom to Huguenots.
February 10, 1606, Poet Sir John Suckling (Inventor of cribbage) born.
February 10, 1670, Will CON-G-REVE, dramatist [Way of the World] born
February 10, 1749, serialization of Henry Fielding's novel Tom Jones
completed. It was common in the 18th and 19th centuries to publish
novels in magazines. When one had collected all the installments,
one carried them to a book-binder who bound it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<February 10, 1567, Henry Stuart, earl of Darnley & consort to Mary
Queen of Scots, was murdered by his wife's order. She made Darnley,
corrupted with venereal disease, sleep in a small house, Kirk o' Field,
behind Holyrood Castle in Edinburgh and had it blown up. When Henry
and a servant tried to escape, they were strangled. She was indicted
for the murder and left the country, ending up imprisoned in England,
Their child was King James I of Britain.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Feb 1605 => "Merchant of Venice" performed for James I
10 Feb 1616 => Judith Shakspere marries T.Quiney
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntin.net/McDaniel/0210.htm
February 10, 60, St. Paul shipwrecked on Malta.
(Oxford was a Knight of Malta)
ACTS 27:37 And we were in all in the ship
two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
#souls shipwrecked on Malta = 276 = 46 x 6
#souls on Magellan's voyage = 276 = 46 x 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
1) Psalm 46, 46th word is "shake"
101th (middle) word is "MO-VeD"
46th from last word is "spear"
2) King James I was 46th descendent of Jesus (Priory of Sion)
2) 46 was the number of Plutarch's Lives.
3) 46 was associated Hermetic mysticism since
the planet Mercury has an astrological cycle of 46 years.
4) 46 years before the first Folio
Francis Drake left for his voyage around the world.
Also: Elizabeth's advisors warned her NOT to gaze upon
the Great COMET of 1577; Liz looked anyway and remarked:
"JACTA est ALEA" ("The die is cast").
5) 46 W was the Longitudinal Tordesillas Demarcation line
separating the Spanish & Portuguese parts of the brave New World
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntin.net/McDaniel/0324.htm
March 24, 809, Harun al-Rashid, caliph of the Abbasid empire (786-809),
dies at 44 in Baghdad.
March 24, 1471, Sir Thomas Malory, the English knight who assembled
all the Arthurian matter into Le Morte d'Arthur, dies at 55.
March 24, 1530, King Charles signs the Deed which entrusts the Knights
of Malta with responsibility for the defence of Malta,
Gozo, Comino and the outpost of Tripoli.
March 24, 1534, Pope Clement VII (under duress from Charles V) ruled
against Henry's annulment to Catherine of Aragon.
March 24, 1603, Queen Elizabeth I dies
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The English "The Hystorie of HAMBLET" was adapted from
the "AM-LETH" story of Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus.
----------------------------------------------------------
"MA-LETH" (a haven)
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.holiday-malta.com/resort/malta/village/valletta/harbourofvalletta.htm
<<At one time or other the traders of yesteryear- the Pheonicians and
the Carthagenians, the Romans and the Saracens, the Normans, the Normans
and the Aragonese, the hospitalier Knights, Napoleon and Nelson- have
used Malta's Harbours. It was the Pheonicians who gave the island the
name MALETH (a haven), which was later corrupted by the Greeks
into MELITA (honey), from which the modern name of Malta derives.
When Emperor Charles V offered Malta to the Knights of St. John in
1526, the island came into the limelight as a possible place where the
Knights could re- establish themselves permanently after the loss of
Rhodes, the island of Roses, in 1522. An eight-man commission
was dispatched to Malta to report on the nature of the island. The
commissioners reported : "The island of Malta is only one continued
rock of soft sand stone.the surface of the rock is stony, unfit to
produce corn.except for a few springs in the middle of the island, there
is no running water. wood is scarce. but. there are several ports or
capes and places that form a sort of bays and coves in which ships may
anchor; there are two spacious and very good harbours in the island ,
capable of receiving the largest fleet. The convenience of so many
ports, so convenient for the armada of the Order, make us be of the
opinion that the Emperors proposals ought not to be rejected."
At the time, the order`s fleet was based in the Roman port of
Cittavecchia. In October 1530 the Knights entered Maltas main harbour on
board the great carrack Santa Anna- the first ever ARMOUR-plated vessel
under the command of Sir William Weston, who had commanded the
Santa Maria as the Order pulled out of Rhodes eight years before.
A landmark on the Grand Harbour basin is the vedette
on Senglea Point bearing the figures of AN EAR & AN EYE -
symbols of the hearkening ear and the watchful oculus.
During his second visit to Malta in 1811
Lord Byron carved his name among the graffiti on one of the
terraces of Lazzaretto. A landmark on Valletta itself, as seen
from Marsamxett Harbour side, is St. Pauls`s Anglican
Cathedral with its smart, elegant behind the bastions.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry V Act 1, Scene 2
CANTERBURY Therefore doth heaven divide
The state of man in diVERs functions,
Setting endeavour in continual motion;
To which is fixed, as an aim or butt,
Obedience: for so work the HONEY-BEEs,
Creatures that by a rule in nature teach
The act of order to a peopled kingdom.
They have a king and officers of sorts;
Where some, like magistrates, correct at home,
Others, like merchants, venture trade abroad,
Others, like soldiers, armed in their stings,
Make boot upon the summer's velvet buds,
Which pillage they with merry march bring home
To the tent-royal of their emperor;
Who, busied in his majesty, surveys
The singing *MASONS* BUILDING ROOFS of gold,
The civil citizens kneading up the HONEY,
The poor mechanic porters crowding in
Their heavy burdens at his narrow gate,
The sad-eyed justice, with his surly hum,
DeliVERing o'er to EXECUTORS pale
The lazy yawning drone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE EARL OF OXFORD TO THE READER OF BEDINGFIELD'S "CARDANUS' COMFORT"
The *MASON* poor, that BUILDS the lordly halls,
Dwells not in them, they are for high degree;
His cottage is compact in paper walls,
And not with brick or *STONE* as others be.
The idle drone that labours not at all
Sucks up the sweet of HONEY from the *BEE* .
Who worketh most, to their share least doth fall;
With due desert reward will never be.
------------------------------------------------------
Francis Meres' *Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury*, (1598):
"As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras
so the sweete wittie soule of OVID lives
in mellifluous & hony-tongued Shakespeare,
The honey bee (Apis mellifera mellifera)
is known to inhabite the Maltese Islands for centuries.
http://www.geocities.com/maltabee01/history.html
<<The Maltese Islands possess a very rich wild flora with over 1000
flowering plants recorded. This is one reason why the Islands are
renowned for best quality honey produced. Wild Thyme (Thymus capitatus)
honey collected from the barren land in the North of Malta is the most
preferred type of honey. According to Longo, Roman and Greek people, 200
years b.c, gave our Island the name of Melita, the Island of honey.
Since prehistoric times, the geographical position of the Maltese
Archipelago, found in the principal route of communication of the
ancient world, was one of the most important meeting centres of various
civilisations flourishing in the mediterranean seas (Longo, 1990). The
Islands were famous in the ancient world, for the abbundance production
of wild thyme honey. It was not occassionally that the Greek gave our
island the name of Melite, and the Romans who conquisted the island in
the year 218b.c. , named it Melita (Longo, 1992). Ancient Malta was
known as the central precious Island of the Mediterranean, always
supplying unlimited amounts of honey. This fact attracted a lot of
Pirates, who used to visit the Islands.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Melita = "honey" / Malta
Acts 28:1 And when they were escaped,
then they knew that the island was called Melita.
28:2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for
they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of
the present rain, and because of the cold.
28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid
them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and
fastened on his hand.
28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on
his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is
a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet
vengeance suffereth not to live.
28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen
down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while
, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds,
and said that he was a god.
28:7 In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of
the island, whose name was Publius; who received us, and
lodged us three days courteously.
28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of
a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and
prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.
28:9 So when this was done, others also,
which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed:
28:10 Who also honoured us with many honours; and when we
departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary.
28:11 And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria,
which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was CASTOR & POLLUX.
28:12 And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
First, I think you mean VERse 10, Art. Second, since God in EXOdus
and Paul in Corinthians used different tongues, neither of which was
English (although this may well be news to you, Art), I cannot see any
real substance in your rejoinder. In fact, many English translations
don't use either wording. For example,
"10 But because God was so gracious, so VERy generous, here I am.
And I'm not about to let his grace go to WASTE. Haven't I worked
hard trying to do more than any of the others? Even then, my work
didn't amount to all that much. It was God giving me the work to
do, God giving me the energy to do it."
Or,
"10 But whateVER I am now, it is all because God poured out his
special favor on me--and not without results. For I have worked
harder than all the other apostles, yet it was not I but God who
was working through me by his grace."
Or,
"10 I am different now. It is all because of what God did for me by
His loving I CORINTHIANS 14, 15 I CORINTHIANS 15 favor. His loving
was not WASTEd. I worked harder than all the other missionaries. But
it was not I who worked. It was God's loving working through me."
Or,
"10 But God was kind! He made me what I am, and his wonderful
kindness wasn't WASTEd. I worked much harder than any of the other
apostles, although it was really God's kindness at work and not me."
Or,
"10 But God has been kind to me. He has made me what I am today.
And he did not bless me for nothing. I did more work than any of
them. Yet it was not I, but the loving kindness of God was working
with me."
Or,
"10 But by the grace of God I am that thing that I am; and his grace
was not void in me [and his grace was not void, or idle, in me].
For I travailed more plenteously than all they [But I travailed more
plenteously than all they]; but not I, but the grace of God with me."
See
<http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1COR%2B15&showfn=on&showxref=on
&language=english&version=MSG&x=15&y=7>.
Popeye, Al Gore, and Lynne are all closer to Oxford's wording than any
of the above.
For that matter, God appears to express himself in English in rather
a variety of ways in Exodus 3:14 (note that those are the first three
decimal digits of pi, Art -- I'm sure you can find some nutcase
numerological significance therein) as well. In fact, God appears
strongly to prefer the wording "I am who I am" to "I am that I am." For
example,
"14 God said to Moses, 'I-AM-WHO-I-AM. Tell the People of Israel,
"I-AM sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14 God said to Moses, '[1](22 )I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, 'Thus
you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14 God said to Moses, 'I-AM-WHO-I-AM. Tell the People of Israel,
"I-AM sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14 And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE; and He said, You shall say this to the Israelites:
I AM has sent me to you!"
Note that here God can't seem to decide between "what" or "who" and
settles for both, but he rejects "that."
Or,
"14 God replied, 'I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS. [3]Just tell them,
"I AM has sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14 And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Say to the
Israelites, "I AM has sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14-15 God said to Moses: 'I am the eternal God. So tell them that
the LORD, [3]whose name is "I Am," has sent you. This is my name
forever, and it is the name that people must use from now on.'"
Or,
"14 And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you
shall say to the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14 And God saith unto Moses, `I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' He saith
also, `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me
unto you.'"
Or,
"14 God said to Moses, 'I am who I am. Here is what you must say to
the Israelites. Tell them, "I am has sent me to you."'"
Or,
"14 God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to
the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
Out of eighteen VERsions, I count only three or four (the KJV and its
lineal descendants) in which the text reads "I am that I am." OVERall,
God appears to display a significant preference (by a ratio of two to
one, in fact) for "I am who I am" -- *exactly* the wording employed by
Al Gore.
Of course, God's use of the name "I-AM" makes one wonder how Sam-I-am
fits into all this. Of course, no doubt the momentous significance of
"GREENE eggs and HAMlet" is not lost upon you, Art. And I've already
pointed out to you that another of Dr. Seuss's book titles, _The Lorax_,
is an anagram of
Ox, th'Earl.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Art Neuendorffer
> First, I think you mean VERse 10, Art. Second, since God in EXOdus
----------------------------------------------------------
Davidic Lorax
----------------------------------------------------------
Druidic Lore
http://chitalnja.narod.ru/celtic/celtmag/29.htm
<<Let us commence in the words
of the immortal Taliesin in his poem:
Buarth Beirdd, 'The OX-Pen of the Bards'.
Gliding with rapidity were my thoughts,
Over the vain poetic art of the Bards of Britain,
Who labouring to make an excessive shew at the solemn meeting,
With sufficient care hammer out a song.
[I] require A STAFF, at unity with the Bardic lore.
[A]s for him who knows not the OX-pen of the Bards,
[M]ay fifteen thousand overpower and afflict him at once!
[I AM] a skilful composer: I am a clear singer:
[I AM] a tower: I am a Druid:
[I AM] an architect: I am a prophet:
[I AM] a serpent: I am love:
In the social banquet will I indulge.
A Bard am I, not doting upon superfluous trifles.
When a master sings his song will be close to the subject.
He will not be searching for those remote wonders.
Shall I then admit these, like men suing for garments,
Without a hand to receive them -
Like men toiling in the lake, without a ship!
Then let the giver of the mead feast cause to be proclaimed.
'[I AM] the CELL;
[I AM] the opening chasm;
[I AM] the bull Beer Lled;
[I AM] the repository of the mystery;
[I AM] the place of reanimation.
I love the tops of trees, with the points well connected,
And the Bard who composes without meriting a repulse;
But him I love not, who delights in contention.
He who traduces the adept shall not enjoy the mead.
It is time to hasten to the banquet
Where the skilful ones are employed in their mysteries,
With the HUNDRED KNOTS - the custom of our countrymen.'
The shepherds of the plains, the supporters of gates,
Are like persons marching to battle without their clan.
[I AM] the Bard of the hall;
[I AM] the stock that supports the chair:
I shall succeed in impeding the progress of the loquacious Bards.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
In the Geneva, Exodus 3.14, which is what we were first discussing (or at
least what I was discussing, perhaps with myself), God says "I am that I
am," which is rather significant, because as I understand it most Biblical
scholars believe that the Geneva was the Bible with which Shakespeare was
most familiar. It's no use looking at the KJV for wording because it came
out first in 1611, two years after the sonnets were published and long after
Oxford wrote his letter. Both Shakespeare and Oxford were clearly harkening
back to that verse as it appeared in the Geneva and/or other early versions
such as the Bishops' Bible.
LynnE
Art Neuendorffer
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > St. Paul says *by the grace of God I am WHAT I am:
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 1 COR 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
> > > to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
> > >
> > > But by the grace of God I AM WHAT I AM:
> > > and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;
> > > but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
> > > the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether
> > > it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > First, I think you mean VERse 10, Art. Second, since God in EXOdus
> > and Paul in Corinthians used different tongues, neither of which was
> > English (although this may well be news to you, Art),
Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and treat Webb with kid
glove, I am a resounding ass, or a Richard Kimble.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > I cannot see any real substance in your rejoinder.
I am WHAT I am.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > In fact, many English translations don't use either wording.
One should note that it's not clear that Popeye speaks English most of the
time either.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> In the Geneva, Exodus 3.14, which is what we were first discussing (or at
> least what I was discussing, perhaps with myself), God says "I am that I
> am," which is rather significant, because as I understand it most Biblical
> scholars believe that the Geneva was the Bible with which Shakespeare was
> most familiar. It's no use looking at the KJV for wording because it came
> out first in 1611, two years after the sonnets were published and long
after
> Oxford wrote his letter. Both Shakespeare and Oxford were clearly
harkening
> back to that verse as it appeared in the Geneva and/or other early
versions
> such as the Bishops' Bible.
I concede the preference for using the Geneva version (which is now more
readily available on the web than it was when I previously discussed this
issue); although I do find it curious (and not entirely irrelevant) that the
KJV changes Paul's "that" to "what."
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
Elizabeth appears to be getting distracted by a side issue -- not
that she won't make a fool of herself most amusingly there as well.
However, she has been strangely mute concerning the subject line of this
thread. Earlier, Elizabeth opined, supposedly paraphrasing Yamada, that
republics soon form wherever Shakespeare's works are translated:
"As Yamada stated, where the Shakespeare plays are translated,
republics soon follow."
and
"...the record of the conduct of the Stratford Menace in his home
shire proves that there is no way in hell, Grumman, that sucn an
Immoral Beast could have written the Shakespeare works which, as
Yamada stated, form republics where they are translated."
Of course, there is no telling whether Elizabeth's paraphrase is even
remotely close to what Yamada wrote (we have seen samples of Elizabeth's
farcically inaccurate paraphrases and even her supposed "quotations" of
Kathman, Hsu, Dogariu, Kuzmich, and Wang, Rips, and others, which
certainly raise grave doubts), but whether or not Yamada actually said
anything of the kind, this belief of Elizabeth's appears quite curious.
To jog Elizabeth's memory (such as it is), Spanish translations of
Shakespeare have long been in existence (Macpherson's appeared in the
1800s), yet it took quite a while for Spain to rid itself of the
monarchy -- but perhaps Elizabeth sees Franco's fascist Spain as a
shining instance of the indomitable triumph of republicanism, directly
precipitated by translations of the Shakespeare canon a century earlier.
Nor did the ruthless and murderous Argentine military dictatorship of
the 1980s bear much resemblance to a republic.
Elizabeth must also be blithely unaware of the existence of Russian
translations of Shakespeare, with _Hamlet_ appearing in the mid-1700s,
several more plays during the reign of Catherine the Great, and the
complete works (in a good translation in which Nekrasov had a hand)
appearing by 1870. Indeed, _Hamlet_ was so influential as to become a
Russian obsession, a work that many Russians regard as an integral part
of their culture, a quintessentially Russian work that just happened to
have been written by an Englishman. Yet it appears to have taken the
Russians well over a century to found anything much resembling a
republic -- and even then the outcome appears to owe far more to
Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and others than to Shakespeare. Elizabeth
evidently has a very eccentric understanding of the meaning of the word
"soon" in the political sphere.
For that matter, the superb German translation of Schlegel was
complete by the mid-1800s, yet Germany's republican form of government
has not always been in evidence for certain memorable parts of the
twentieth century. But history is not Elizabeth's strong suit either.
Where *does* Elizabeth get this stuff?!
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
> I'm not disputing the existence of the term "Anglican-Puritan" or
> even its appropriateness; rather,
You don't need to explain, Webb. Everyone who posts or lurks
in HLAS knows that you have little or no interest in the Authorship
Dispute least of all an interest in the theology or politics of the
Anglican-Puritans.
> I'm noting that several of the sources
> that Elizabeth cites (from an indiscriminate web-grep whose results she
> plainly has not read) are *not* using "Anglican-Puritan" in the sense
> that Elizabeth assumes.
No doubt a note made purely out of concern for maintaining
a certain standard of scholarship in HLAS and one that has nothing
to do with your inability to control your--what did Stephanie call it?
--nasty behavior.
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > St. Paul says *by the grace of God I am WHAT I am:
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 1 COR 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
> > > > to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
> > > >
> > > > But by the grace of God I AM WHAT I AM:
> > > > and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;
> > > > but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
> > > > the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether
> > > > it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > First, I think you mean VERse 10, Art. Second, since God in EXOdus
> > > and Paul in Corinthians used different tongues, neither of which was
> > > English (although this may well be news to you, Art),
> Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and treat Webb with kid
> glove, I am a resounding ass,
Well said, Art!
> or a Richard Kimble.
Huh?
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > I cannot see any real substance in your rejoinder.
> I am WHAT I am.
What is that, Art? I could hazard a shrewd guess, but I'll let you
answer.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > In fact, many English translations don't use either wording.
> One should note that it's not clear that Popeye speaks English most of the
> time either.
His English is better than Bush's. In fact, although Popeye speaks
with an accent, his command of the tongue may well be better than yours,
Art.
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > In the Geneva, Exodus 3.14, which is what we were first discussing (or at
> > least what I was discussing, perhaps with myself), God says "I am that I
> > am," which is rather significant, because as I understand it most Biblical
> > scholars believe that the Geneva was the Bible with which Shakespeare was
> > most familiar. It's no use looking at the KJV for wording because it came
> > out first in 1611, two years after the sonnets were published and long
> after
> > Oxford wrote his letter. Both Shakespeare and Oxford were clearly
> harkening
> > back to that verse as it appeared in the Geneva and/or other early
> versions
> > such as the Bishops' Bible.
> I concede the preference for using the Geneva version (which is now more
> readily available on the web than it was when I previously discussed this
> issue);
You neVER visit a library, do you, Art?
> although I do find it curious (and not entirely irrelevant) that the
> KJV changes Paul's "that" to "what."
It's about time for you to hatch another of your hilarious
hypotheses, Art -- you could conjecture that Paul couldn't pronounce
intradental spirants, for example.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > St. Paul says *by the grace of God I am WHAT I am:
> > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 1 COR 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
> > > > > to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
> > > > >
> > > > > But by the grace of God I AM WHAT I AM:
> > > > > and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;
> > > > > but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
> > > > > the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether
> > > > > it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
>
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > > First, I think you mean VERse 10, Art. Second, since God in
EXOdus
> > > > and Paul in Corinthians used different tongues, neither of which was
> > > > English (although this may well be news to you, Art),
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and treat Webb with
kid
> > glove, I am a resounding ass,
>
> Well said, Art!
Because I speak with the tongues of men & Angels.
> > or a Richard Kimble.
>
> Huh?
Besides not watching TV
you apparently don't go to movies either.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > > I cannot see any real substance in your rejoinder.
>
> > I am WHAT I am.
>
> What is that, Art? I could hazard a shrewd guess,
----------------------------------------------------------
The Sufi Basis of The Taming of The Shrew
http://www.sirbacon.org/mshrew.htm
by Mather Walker
<< The word Shrew has an interesting orgin.
In old english it was schrewe,-a maliciousperson;
but its ultimate origin was from the even older
german word schrouwel which meant devil.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > > In fact, many English translations don't use either wording.
>
> > One should note that it's not clear that
> > Popeye speaks English most of the time either.
>
> His English is better than Bush's.
Careful! Your mike is on and tax time is coming up.
> In fact, although Popeye speaks with an accent,
> his command of the tongue may well be better than yours,
Thanks a bunch, Bluto.
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
> > > In the Geneva, Exodus 3.14, which is what we were first discussing (or
at
> > > least what I was discussing, perhaps with myself), God says "I am that
I
> > > am," which is rather significant, because as I understand it most
Biblical
> > > scholars believe that the Geneva was the Bible with which Shakespeare
was
> > > most familiar. It's no use looking at the KJV for wording because it
came
> > > out first in 1611, two years after the sonnets were published and long
> > after
> > > Oxford wrote his letter. Both Shakespeare and Oxford were clearly
> > harkening
> > > back to that verse as it appeared in the Geneva and/or other early
> > versions
> > > such as the Bishops' Bible.
>
> > I concede the preference for using the Geneva version (which is now
more
> > readily available on the web than it was when I previously discussed
this
> > issue);
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You neVER visit a library, do you, Art?
My home IS a library(; just ask my wife).
> > although I do find it curious (and not entirely irrelevant) that the
> > KJV changes Paul's "that" to "what."
>
> It's about time for you to hatch another of your hilarious
> hypotheses, Art -- you could conjecture that
> Paul couldn't pronounce intradental spirants, for example.
O, could he but have drawne his wit as well
in sounding brasse, as he hath hit his tinkling symbol.
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
<snip of Webb's unread obsessive repetitions>
> Elizabeth appears to be getting distracted by a side issue -- not
> that she won't make a fool of herself most amusingly there as well.
Lucretius, as it turns out, exposes a coverup of sorts in Stratfordian
what-passes-for-scholarship.
Strats refuse to acknowledge that Lucretius is a main source for
the Shakespare plays--Bullough doesn't list Lucretius, he's not on the
University of Basel site that is otherwise so thorough about
listing sources--not on Perseus' Shakespeare source list--but
individual Shakespearean scholars find a significant amount of
Lucretius in the plays.
As it turns out Lucretius is a real problem for Strats because he
appears on the list of Romans not read in grammar schools.
Strat scholars state that 'Shakespeare picked up Lucretius from
Montaigne' but Florio didn't translate Montaigne into English until
1603 after the plays in which De Rerum Natura appears were
written.
And then there's Bacon who was hugely influenced by Lucretius.
Bacon's brother Anthony lived in Bordeaux for two years with
Montaigne and of course John Florio grew up in Lord Burghley's
house and Bacon and Florio lived together for nearly three years
in the Paris Embassy with the most Lucretian of all Renaissance
thinkers--Giodorno Bruno.
So, as usual we have 'multiple ties' between Francis Bacon--
who read Latin like a Roman and had easy access to De Rerum
Natura from childhood, who was a lifelong friend of Montaigne's
translator Johns Florio, whose brother Anthony lived with Montaigne
(Dame Daphne Du Maurier's biography of Anthony Bacon) and
who spent more than three years--counting Bruno's stay at Wilton
with Bacon's Sidney cousins--being influenced by the most profoundly
Lucretian thinker Bruno.
I'll post on the influence of Lucretius in specific plays in
subsequent
posts.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > St. Paul says *by the grace of God I am WHAT I am:
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > 1 COR 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet
> > > > > > to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But by the grace of God I AM WHAT I AM:
> > > > > > and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;
> > > > > > but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but
> > > > > > the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether
> > > > > > it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > > First, I think you mean VERse 10, Art. Second, since God in
> EXOdus
> > > > > and Paul in Corinthians used different tongues, neither of which was
> > > > > English (although this may well be news to you, Art),
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and treat Webb with
> kid
> > > glove, I am a resounding ass,
> > Well said, Art!
> Because I speak with the tongues of men
I wouldn't go quite that far, Art. You speak your own idiosyncratic
VERsion of ONE of the tongues of men. But I suppose that's close enough
for most purposes.
> & Angels.
I don't know what tongues are spoken by angels -- or for that matter
by bronze statues.
> > > or a Richard Kimble.
> > Huh?
> Besides not watching TV
> you apparently don't go to movies either.
I know who the character Richard Kimble is, Art; I don't know why you
style yourself so, howeVER.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > > I cannot see any real substance in your rejoinder.
> > > I am WHAT I am.
> > What is that, Art? I could hazard a shrewd guess,
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The Sufi Basis of The Taming of The Shrew
> http://www.sirbacon.org/mshrew.htm
> by Mather Walker
>
> << The word Shrew has an interesting orgin.
>
> In old english it was schrewe,-a maliciousperson;
> but its ultimate origin was from the even older
> german word schrouwel which meant devil.>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > > In fact, many English translations don't use either wording.
> > > One should note that it's not clear that
> > > Popeye speaks English most of the time either.
> > His English is better than Bush's.
> Careful! Your mike is on and tax time is coming up.
> > In fact, although Popeye speaks with an accent,
> > his command of the tongue may well be better than yours,
> Thanks a bunch, Bluto.
You just need to eat more spinach, Art. (I've already pointed out to
you that "spinach" is an anagram of "A.C.N.'s hip.")
A library without an English dictionary?! A library composed
exclusively of a Fiction section has certain limitations, Art. Of
course, another alternative is that your entire library is aptly housed
under the Library of Congress classication prefix for the Bible.
> > > although I do find it curious (and not entirely irrelevant) that the
> > > KJV changes Paul's "that" to "what."
> > It's about time for you to hatch another of your hilarious
> > hypotheses, Art -- you could conjecture that
> > Paul couldn't pronounce intradental spirants, for example.
> O, could he but have drawne his wit as well
> in sounding brasse, as he hath hit his tinkling symbol [sic].
What symbol did you have in mind, Art? <G>
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-DC32...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
>
> <snip of Webb's unread obsessive repetitions>
>
> > Elizabeth appears to be getting distracted by a side issue -- not
> > that she won't make a fool of herself most amusingly there as well.
> Lucretius, as it turns out, exposes a coverup of sorts in Stratfordian
> what-passes-for-scholarship.
>
> Strats refuse to acknowledge that Lucretius is a main source for
> the Shakespare plays--Bullough doesn't list Lucretius, he's not on the
> University of Basel site that is otherwise so thorough about
> listing sources--not on Perseus' Shakespeare source list--but
> individual Shakespearean scholars find a significant amount of
> Lucretius in the plays.
>
> As it turns out Lucretius is a real problem for Strats because he
> appears on the list of Romans not read in grammar schools.
This is only a "problem" if one assumes, as Elizabeth apparently
does, that Shakespeare could never have read any book other than those
read in the grammar school curriculum. It seems likely that Elizabeth
is merely extrapolating from her own experience.
But Elizabeth is *still* getting distracted by a side issue. To
remind her of the thread's subject line, Elizabeth earlier opined,
supposedly paraphrasing Yamada, that republics soon form wherever
Shakespeare's works are translated:
"As Yamada stated, where the Shakespeare plays are translated,
republics soon follow."
Of course, there is no telling whether Elizabeth's paraphrase is even
remotely close to what Yamada wrote (we have seen numerous samples of
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > > Though I speak with the tongues of men and Angels,
> > > > and treat Webb with kid glove, I am a resounding ass,
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > Well said, Art!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Because I speak with the tongues of men . . .
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I wouldn't go quite that far, Art. You speak your own
> idiosyncratic VERsion of ONE of the tongues of men.
> But I suppose that's close enough for most purposes.
For government work, at least.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > . . .& Angels.
"David L. Webb" wrote
> I don't know what tongues are spoken by angels --
> or for that matter by bronze statues.
I'm not a bit surprised.
> > > > or a Richard Kimble.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I know who the character Richard Kimble is, Art;
> I don't know why you style yourself so, howeVER.
<<Art Neuendorffer, innocent victim of blind justice, is on the run from a
professor obsessed with his capture--Captain David L. Webb. Literary
scholars refuse to track down leads pointing to the true author of
Shake-speare, a one-arm-hidden Earl named Edward de Vere
http://homepage.iprolink.ch/~dpeck/pictures/ccd-oxford.jpg.>>
>>>>> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>>> >
>>>>>> I cannot see any real substance in your rejoinder.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > > I am WHAT I am.
> > "David L. Webb" wrote
> > > What is that, Art? I could hazard a shrewd guess,
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > The Sufi Basis of The Taming of The Shrew
> > http://www.sirbacon.org/mshrew.htm
> > by Mather Walker
> >
> > << The word Shrew has an interesting orgin.
> >
> > In old english it was schrewe,-a maliciousperson;
> > but its ultimate origin was from the even older
> > german word schrouwel which meant devil.>>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > "David L. Webb" wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > In fact, many English translations don't use either wording.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > One should note that it's not clear that
> > > > Popeye speaks English most of the time either.
> > "David L. Webb" wrote
> > > In fact, although Popeye speaks with an accent,
> > > his command of the tongue may well be better than yours,
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Thanks a bunch, Bluto.
"David L. Webb" wrote
> You just need to eat more spinach, Art. (I've already pointed
> out to you that "spinach" is an anagram of "A.C.N.'s hip.")
I'm sure you meant that in a nice way. :-)
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > You neVER visit a library, do you, Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > My home IS a library(; just ask my wife).
"David L. Webb" wrote
> A library without an English dictionary?! A library composed
> exclusively of a Fiction section has certain limitations, Art.
It's mostly non-fiction: science & math
(including the Landau & Lifshitz you aint gonna get).
"David L. Webb" wrote
> another alternative is that your entire library is aptly housed
> under the Library of Congress classication prefix for the Bible.
More Stratfordian PR.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Library of Congress Classification:
BS Bible
PR English Literature
Shakespeare = PR 2750 - PR 3112;
Authorship = PR 2937
Baconianism = PR 2944
Oxfordianism = PR 2947
7 x 421 = 2947
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centered 20-gonal (or icosagonal) numbers:
1 1
2 21
3 61
4 121
5 201
6 301
7 421
When viewed from above, the basic shape of the
Globe Theater is a regular icosagon (a 20-sided polygon).
http://my.nctm.org/eresources/view_article.asp?article_id=6221&page=6
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.goldenmuseum.com/0307DodecIcosaedrIdea_engl.html
Plato's cosmology is based on the regular polyhedrons
called "Platonic Solids". Each Plato's Solid symbolized
some of the five "beginnings" or "elements":
tetrahedron - the body of fire,
octahedron - the body of air,
a hexahedron (cube) - the body of the Earth,
dodecahedron - the body of the Universe.
regular icosahedron - the body of water,
------------------------------------------------------------
May 4th [ 124th day of year with 241 days left.]
Year 421 May 4, 1891 Sherlock HOLMes drowns at Reichenbach Falls.
Year 1 May 4, 1471 Battle of TEWKESBURY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard the Third Act II scene 1
Edward IV The mighty Warwicke, and did fight for me?
Who told me in the field at TEWKESBURY,
When OXFORD had me downe, he rescued me:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'His wit as thick as TEWKESBURY MUSTARD'
-- Henry IV, Part II
--------------------------------------------------------------
PUNTARVOLO: Let the word be NOT WITHOUT MUSTARD:
your crest is very rare, sir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<SIR HENRY WYATT (1460-1537), the father of the poet, resisted
the pretensions of Richard III to the throne, and was in consequence
arrested and imprisoned in the Tower for two years. According to his
son's statement he was racked in Richard's presence and vinegar and
MUSTARD were forced down his throat. There is an old tradition in the
family that while in the Tower a cat brought him a pigeon every day
from a neighbouring dovecot and thus saved him from starvation.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.taylors-foods.co.uk/html/history.html
<<By the Middle Ages mustard was being ground in stone querns and used
to over come the harsh taste of salt meat and smoked herrings and by the
13th century there were authorised "Mustarders" who mixed batches for
the rich and lazy. Part of its popularity was the fact that it was
cheap, about a farthing a pound in the 15th century, also its strength
covered almost all the foul tastes found in the rather rotten meat of
the day. By the 17th century Tewkesbury mustard was all the rage. This
was mustard flour made into balls and dried, when needed the balls were
reconstituted in all sorts of liquid from water to apple juice.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > although I do find it curious (and not entirely irrelevant) that the
> > > > KJV changes Paul's "that" to "what."
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > It's about time for you to hatch another of your hilarious
> > > hypotheses, Art -- you could conjecture that
> > > Paul couldn't pronounce intradental spirants, for example.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > O, could he but have drawne his wit as well
> > in sounding brasse, as he hath hit his tinkling symbol [sic].
"David L. Webb" wrote
> What symbol did you have in mind, Art? <G>
One that often tinkles and that you hit a lot, Dave.
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
> > As it turns out Lucretius is a real problem for Strats because he
> > appears on the list of Romans not read in grammar schools.
>
> This is only a "problem" if one assumes, as Elizabeth apparently
> does, that Shakespeare could never have read any book other than those
> read in the grammar school curriculum. It seems likely that Elizabeth
> is merely extrapolating from her own experience.
The burden of proof is on the Strats, Webb.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Strats have claimed that a Stratford grain merchant is history's
greatest literary genius.
All Strats have offered as proof for this truly extraordinary claim is
pure conjecture.
> But Elizabeth is *still* getting distracted by a side issue.
Typical that you, Webb, would characterize the most crucial question
in the Authorship Dispute--was the Stratford grain merchant even
literate?--as a 'side issue.'
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> >
> > <snip of Webb's unread obsessive repetitions>
> To jog Elizabeth's memory (such as it is), Spanish translations of
> Shakespeare have long been in existence (Macpherson's appeared in the
> 1800s), yet it took quite a while for Spain to rid itself of the
> monarchy --
Spain hasn't 'rid itself of the monarchy.'
<http://www.staugustine.com/king/images/king_large.jpg>
The Parliamentary Monarchy.
... reads: 'The political form of the Spanish State is that of a
Parliamentary Monarchy'. ... In restoring Monarchy in Spain King
Juan Carlos I has shown intelligence ...
<http://www.sispain.org/english/history/monarchy.html> - 5k -
Cached - Similar pages
> but perhaps Elizabeth sees Franco's fascist Spain as a
> shining instance of the indomitable triumph of republicanism,
No, I see the Spanish parliamentary monarchy as
a 'shining instance of the indomitable triumph of republicanism.'
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Tom Veal
amount of Lucretius in the plays" themselves Stratfordians? If so,
isn't that fact inconsistent with your allegation of a Stratfordian
cover-up of this supposedly devastating fact?
I suspect that your "research" consists of googling
"Shakespeare+Lucretius" and triumphantly obtaining over 700 hits on
.edu Web pages, but perhaps I'll be surprised.
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.04031...@posting.google.com>...
Tom Veal
didn't "soon follow" translations of Shakespeare into Spanish, Russian
and German, because the unenlightened translators were Stratfordians
and therefore authoritarians. Wherever Shakespeare has been translated
by people who realized that his works were written by the Renaissance
Genius Francis Bacon, republics have followed instantly. I defy you to
present a single counter-example!
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-9EAF...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
David L. Webb
Tom...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Veal) wrote:
> Are the "individual Shakespearean scholars [who] find a significant
> amount of Lucretius in the plays" themselves Stratfordians? If so,
> isn't that fact inconsistent with your allegation of a Stratfordian
> cover-up of this supposedly devastating fact?
I was about to ask the same question -- but then consistency has
never been among Elizabeth's strengths. Who else would argue --
*simultaneously* -- that Poincaré and Lorentz deserve credit for the
theory of relativity that Einstein "plagerized" from them *and* that
that theory is hopelessly wrong (and incidentally that "aether theory"
adequately explains optical phenomena)?!
> I suspect that your "research" consists of googling
> "Shakespeare+Lucretius" and triumphantly obtaining over 700 hits on
> .edu Web pages, but perhaps I'll be surprised.
It would be shocking -- and unprecedented -- if Elizabeth's
"research" consisted of anything else. In fact, Elizabeth's "research"
usually isn't even *that* ambitious -- often she dispenses with the .edu
domain criterion and just credulously imbibes whatever complete crap her
search returns. More often still, her "research" appears to be limited
to invention and/or hallucination -- her "quotation" of Dave Kathman's
(nonexistent) remarks on Richard Field's delivery of the Strachey letter
furnishes one amusing instance, and her recent hallucination concerning
the intimate details of Southampton's tonsorial and sartorial
arrangements is another. And it is difficult to recall her assurances
concerning Southampton's supposed stage performances (attired as a
woman) with bursting out laughing.
[...]
John W. Kennedy
> In article <efbc3534.04031...@posting.google.com>,
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
>>As it turns out Lucretius is a real problem for Strats because he
>>appears on the list of Romans not read in grammar schools.
> This is only a "problem" if one assumes, as Elizabeth apparently
> does, that Shakespeare could never have read any book other than those
> read in the grammar school curriculum. It seems likely that Elizabeth
> is merely extrapolating from her own experience.
I must have missed Shakespeare's defense of atomism. But, pray, where
has Lizzie found "the [sic] list of Romans not read in grammar schools"?
> Yet it appears to have taken the
> Russians well over a century to found anything much resembling a
> republic
Hey, let's have no journalese here, if you please. The USSR was most
definitely a republic.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
> And it is difficult to recall her assurances
> concerning Southampton's supposed stage performances (attired as a
> woman) with bursting out laughing.
You're up to 45 posts containing the phrase 'overly fond of drag.'
Is it possible that you're a little obsessed with the subject?
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> I suspect that your "research" consists of googling
> "Shakespeare+Lucretius" and triumphantly obtaining over 700 hits on
> .edu Web pages, but perhaps I'll be surprised.
No, I've got a few books on Lucretius that have entries for
the plays.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
I just wanted to revisit this post.
Terry Ross
>
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0403121658420.8329@mail...
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, LynnE wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:david.l.webb-D5C4...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> >
> > Quoth Lynne:
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Oxford also says in a letter, "I am that
> > > > > I am." Shakespeare says it in the sonnets.
> > > >
> > > > But I've already noted that Popeye also says it, as does Al Gore.
> > > > You've even said it yourself, Lynne:
> > > >
> > > >
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc19a094.0310222040.76c62a9b%40post
> > > > ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>.
> > >
> > > We are all somewhat later. We were also copying God or Oxford.
> >
> > Or St. Paul:
> >
> > "But by the grace of God, I am that I am: and his grace which is in me,
> > was not in vaine: but I laboured more aboundantly then they all: yet not
> > I, but the grace of God which is with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).
>
> That's very interesting. Corinthians isn't my strong suit. But it's also
> interesting that St. Paul says *by the grace of God* I am that I am. It
> is as if God has poured his spirit into him, allowing Paul to quote him
> as he has in a sense imported God's essence. In any case it's very
> different from both the mood of Oxford's letter, and the similar mood in
> the sonnet when the words are used.
Here is the Exodus instance: "And God answered Moses, I Am That I Am.
Also he said, Thus shalt thou say vnto the children of Israel, I Am hath
sent me vnto you."
Here is a bit more context from St. Paul:
"9. For I am the least of the Apostles, which am not meete to be called an
Apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.
10. But by the grace of God, I am that I am: and his grace which is in me,
was not in vaine: but I laboured more aboundantly then they all: yet not
I, but the grace of God which is with me."
We need not believe that Paul's "I am that I am" is a deliberate echo of
God's line in Exodus -- in other translations Paul's words differ from
God's. Shakespeare (and Oxford, for that matter) may be echoing Paul OR
God OR Lyly OR Melbancke or some combination of sources.
Here is part of Oxford's letter of 30 October 1584:
"My lord, this other day yowre man stainner towld me that yow sent for
Amis my man, and yf he wear absent that Lylle showld come vnto yow. I sent
Amis for he was in ye way. And I thinke very strange yat yowre Lordship
showld enter into that course towards me, wherby I must lerne yat I knev
[=knew] not before, bothe of yowre opinion and good will towards me. but I
pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be yowre ward nor yowre
chyld, I serve her magestie, and I am that I am, and by allyance neare to
yowre lordship, but fre, and scorne to be offred that iniurie, to thinke I
am so weake of gouernment as to be ruled by servants, or not able to
gouerne my self."
This is not at all like God's saying that his name is "I am," but Oxford
may be suggesting that Burghley has been acting more godlike than is meet.
God says Moses should tell the Israelites, "I Am hath sent me vnto you."
God, therefore, is the one who "sends ... unto." Oxford complains about
Burghley's acting gas the one who "sends ... unto": "stainner towld me that
yow sent for Amis my man, and yf he wear absent that Lylle showld come
vnto yow." Thus perhaps Oxford is saying that with respect to his
servants, he (and not Burghley) should be their god.
On the other hand, we may consider Oxford's use closer to Paul's use if we
take Elizabeth's power as enabling Oxford to be what he is, as God's grace
allows Paul to be what HE is.
Here is Shakespeare's Sonnet 121:
TIS better to be vile then vile esteemed,
When not to be,receiues reproach of being,
And the iust pleasure lost,which is so deemed,
Not by our feeling,but by others seeing.
For why should others false adulterat eyes
Giue saluation to my sportiue blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies;
Which in their wils count bad what I think good?
Noe,I am that I am,and they that leuell
At my abuses,reckon vp their owne,
I may be straight though they them-selues be beuel
By their rancke thoughtes,my deedes must not be shown
Vnlesse this general euill they maintaine,
All men are bad and in their badnesse raigne.
This sonnet could almost have been written in response to Paul. Paul
would certainly deny that it is "better to be vile then vile esteemed" --
he WAS vile when he persecuted Christ's followers, and now, if he is not
so vile, the change is not doing but God's. As for esteem, Paul says, he
is "the least of the Apostles, which am not meete to be called an
Apostle."
I would not deny the Exodus echo in any of the later texts (it is more
explicit in Lyly and Melbancke, yet one cannot but hear it in Oxford and
Shakespeare), but we should not bury Paul.
Melbanke, byt the way, does a nice transformation of the Exodus phrase
that might have appealed particularly to someone with Shakespeare's first
name:
"Shall the pot aske the potter why he fashioneth it so, or the anuile the
smith why he striketh it with the hammer, or thou search a reason of Gods
seuere punishmente, whose name is in Scripture I am that I am (so
incomprehensible is his maiestie) who renders his reason I will that I
will (so vncapable is his wisdome?)"
The next lines add a Pauline flavor:
"If any man haue tasted some extraordinary mercies, it was his free will,
not their deserte: if either the gentleman of whome the history mentions,
or thou Periander haue felt his heauie hande, it is your merite, not his
desire. I reprehend not thy presumption, but reproue thy despayre: for
prosperitie puffeth vp with contempt of God his bounty, and aduersity
pulleth downe to distrust his fauour, Therefore Periander."
Only the good, and not the vile, are God's handiwork. The virtuous may
say "i am that I am by the grace of God"; the vile "I am that I am by my
evil."
> >
> > Or Lyly, or Melbancke. Perhaps Oxford himself was echoing the scriptures
> > AND Lyly, since he refers to Lyly in the letter where he uses the words.
>
> I believe from the context that Oxford was referring to himself, as was
> Shakespeare. Both of them were of course echoing the words in the
> scriptures.
All four of our Elizabethans were echoing the words in the scriptures.
None of them was saying of himself, "my name is 'I am.'" A reasonable
case can be made for a Pauline influence in all of the texts, but there is
no reason to think Shakespeare, who would have known Exodus and 1
Corinthians, and who (like Oxford) could have read Lyly and Melbancke,
must have been familiar with Oxford's letter.
>
> I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that Lyly was quoting God. I'm sure
> you'll put me right if I'm wrong. What about Melbancke?
See above for Melbancke (of course the Euphuism in Melbancke is strong; he
would have known Exodus, 1 Corinthians, AND Lyly). As for Lyly, please
allow me to repost some of what I have said before:
The section "Euphues and Atheos" (which is completely different in tone
from the rest of the work) contains the words "I am that I am." Let me
break down and quote a few paragraphs from the 1578 edition of *Euphues*:
"But why go I about in a thing so manifest to use proofs so manifold? If
thou deny the truth who can prove it; if thou deny that black is black,
who can by reason reprove thee when thou opposest thyself against reason?
Thou knowest that manifest truths are not to be proved but believed, and
that he that denieth the principal of any art is not to be confuted by
arguments, but left to his own folly.
"But I have a better opinion of thee, and therefore I mean not to trifle
with philosophy but to try this by the touchstone of the scriptures. We
read in the second of Exodus that when Moses desired of God to know what
he should name Him to the children of Israel He answered, [`]Thou shalt
say, I am that I am. Again, He that is hath sent me unto you. The Lord,
even your God, He is God in the heaven above and in the earth beneath. I
am the first and the last I am. I am the Lord and there is none other.
I have created the light and made darkness, making peace and framing
evil[']. If thou desire to hear what God is, thou shalt hear He is even a
consuming fire, the Lord of revenge, the God of judgment, the living God,
the searcher of the reins, He that made all things of nothing, Alpha and
Omega, the Beginning and yet without beginning, the end and yet
everlasting. One at whose breath the mountains shake, whose seat is the
lofty cherubim, whose footstool is the earth, invisible yet seeing all
things, a jealous God, a loving God, miraculous in all points, in no part
monstrous."
The passage that Euphues claims he found in book 2 of Exodus contains
nothing from that book, but instead quotes Exodus 3, Deuteronomy 4, Isaiah
34, and Isaiah 35; then Euphues takes off in a mock-biblical riff of his
own. In the 1581 (and later editions), after "I am that I am" are added 6
more words: "Again, I am that I am." It seems to me that Euphues in his
dialogue with Atheos pretends at first merely to be quoting scripture, but
is actually rewriting scripture and perhaps even replacing it, just as the
repetition of "I am that I am" suggests that he may wish to to convert
Atheos to the worship not so much of the Christian God as of Euphues
himself. At the end of this section the godlike Euphues changes his
fellow's name from Atheos ("godless") to Theophilus ("god-loving).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LynnE
Thanks for a very informative post, Terry. I hadn't seen the Melbancke
before. Of course, I would still suggest that Oxford and Shakespeare use the
Biblical quote in a very different way from Melbancke and Lyly. Oxford's and
Shakespeare's usage, where the words are turned in order to be
self-referential, is pretty close to blasphemy.
L.
David L. Webb
No, I'm merely interested in ascertaining whether there is any
substance in your assertion that
"Southampton was overly fond of drag and used to hang about
the theatres hoping to play female roles. He was given a few
parts and was apparently very convincing as a girl."
In view of your conspicuous failure to furnish any credible evidence,
apparently there is no substance whatever to your claim. Evidently you
merely invented (or hallucinated) the whole thing.
What makes the whole affair so farcically funny is that you neither
acknowledge that you cannot adduce any evidence, nor do you retract your
statement. Rather, you make a complete, ridiculous ass of yourself by
inventing (or hallucinating) yet *more* hilarious crap -- about you can
tell that Southampton is wearing a wig in a portrait (a THEATRICAL wig,
no less!) because of his visible parietal bones, therefore he is also
wearing a dress, therefore he played feminine roles in the theatre,
therefore he was very convincing in those roles, a chain of inferences
so cretinous that one wonders what psychotropic substance could possibly
have induced it.
I expect that ten years from now, you'll *still* be insisting, with
the frantic desperation of the intellectually bankrupt, that Southampton
was overly fond of drag, that he used to hang about the theatres hoping
to play female roles, that he was very convincing in the feminine
theatrical roles he played, etc.; I also expect that you will still be
hopelessly unable to substantiate any of it -- because "This is the
perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search function yet."
David L. Webb
> You simply don't grasp Miss Weir's theory in its fullness. Republics
> didn't "soon follow" translations of Shakespeare into Spanish, Russian
> and German, because the unenlightened translators were Stratfordians
> and therefore authoritarians. Wherever Shakespeare has been translated
> by people who realized that his works were written by the Renaissance
> Genius Francis Bacon, republics have followed instantly. I defy you to
> present a single counter-example!
Of course! Why didn't I see it myself? Then it follows that
Karamzin and Nekrasov were authoritarians, as was Pasternak. Also
Schiller, Goethe, and Schlegel (doubtless Elizabeth will soberly inform
us that they were despicable German Idealists, and were therefore
sentenced at "Nuremburg"). And the first complete translation into
Basque did not appear until 1970, which no doubt accounts for the
nonexistence of an independent Basque republic today. It's really
amazing what one can learn from reading Elizabeth's posts!
But your brilliant insight does raise an interesting question: what
Baconians have translated Shakespeare into other tongues? Most of the
Baconians whose nonsense I have read can scarcely have done so, since
English does not appear to be a tongue in which they are even competent,
let alone fluent. Delia Bacon and Elizabeth herself are salient
examples of this regrettable tendency.
Terry Ross
usenet server yet, so I am responding here.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, LynneE wrote:
[snip]
> Thanks for a very informative post, Terry. I hadn't seen the Melbancke
> before. Of course, I would still suggest that Oxford and Shakespeare use
> the Biblical quote in a very different way from Melbancke and Lyly.
> Oxford's and Shakespeare's usage, where the words are turned in order to
> be self-referential, is pretty close to blasphemy.
>
All four authors use the words "I am that I am" differently, and they are
used very differently in Exodus than they are in 1 Corinthians.
Blasphemy is in the ear of the beholder. There is no blasphemy if Oxford
is echoing St. Paul (or if Shakespeare is, for that matter). What WOULD
be blasphemous, I suppose, would be if Oxford had said "MY name is "I am
that I am" -- but he did not say that. Unlike God, Oxford's essence is
not identical with his existence.
Oxford wanted to make it clear that while he was the queen's servant, he
was no other person's. If he had denied being the queen's servant (if he
had said "I am that I am regardless of the queen") then he might be
tending toward lese-majesty -- but he said no such thing. Unlike God, who
"is that he is" without qualification, Oxford is very much the queen's
creature: but he does NOT consider himself Burghley's creature.
Paul "is that he is" by the grace of God, as is every one who is in God's
graces.
The speaker of the sonnet "is that he is" in a different sense from Paul
or from Oxford -- he is whatever it is that he is, but he doesn't tell us
what it is that he is (it may depend on what the meaning of "is" is).
He says "I may be straight" -- but while he appears to be in some ways
esteemed as "vile" it is also possible that he actually IS somewhat
"vile." The speaker does not say that his is-ness is by the grace of God
(as Paul says) or of the queen (as Oxford allows) -- in fact, if he is
indeed "vile," it might be a kind of blasphemy to blame God for this. As
Melbancke says, while God's graces are his gifts, his punishments are
earned -- "if ... thou have felt [God's] heavy hand, it is your merit, not
His desire."
Oxford in his letter to Burghley does not acknowledge that he may be vile
or even that he may be esteemed by some to be vile. He resents Burghley's
talking to his men because Burghley's doing so does not show the kind of
respect that Oxford feels entitled to. Unlike what we see in Paul or in
Lyly or in Melbancke or in Shakespeare, morality is not an issue in
Oxford's use of "I am that I am"; rather we see injured pride.
Bob Grumman
pretty much the same as "I yam what I yam?" Or "I am that (which) I am?" If
the latter, does "that" come up in texts of Shakespeare's time where we would
use "that which?"
--Bob G.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403150915480.25775@mail>, Terry Ross says...
Terry Ross
> Quick question which has no doubt been answered before: isn't "I am that
> I am" pretty much the same as "I yam what I yam?"
Not if what you are is God.
In the Douay-Rheims, God tells Moses "I AM WHO AM," while Paul in 1
Corinthians says, "I am what I am." (In the Vulgate, God says, "ego sum
qui sum"; Paul says, "sum id quod sum.")
In the King James, God says, "I AM THAT I AM"; Paul says, "I am what I
am." In the Geneva, God says, "I Am That I Am"; Paul says, "I am that I
am."
> Or "I am that (which) I am?"
God is that which exists by definition; Paul makes no such claim for
himself. "I am what I am" or "I am that which I am" would be reasonable
ways to translate Paul's words, but not God's.
> If the latter, does "that" come up in texts of Shakespeare's time where
> we would use "that which?"
>
It's very common. There are many instances in Shakespeare and his
contemporaries (and predecessors). Here are a few examples from Spenser
where "that" means "that which":
Thenot to that I choose, thou doest me tempt
So when I thinke to end that I begonne,
Then that I feele, and harbour in mine hart:
I cast to pay, that I so dearely bought;
To steale away, that I with blowes haue wonne,
For well I may this weene, by that I fynd,
Bob Grumman
Shakespeare wrote. "I am that I am," he was just in his Popeye mood, as I always
assumed, and used a locution probably a lot of people used at the time although
it has seldom been tagged by scholars in published works of the time.
I rather doubt Lynne will ever agree. Shakespeare's "I am that I am" is one of
the two main reasons she believes Oxford was Shakespeare, according to my
reading of some things she's written.
--Bob G.l
LynnE
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c35al...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Thanks for the full and prompt reply, Terry. It would seem that when
> Shakespeare wrote. "I am that I am," he was just in his Popeye mood, as I
always
> assumed, and used a locution probably a lot of people used at the time
although
> it has seldom been tagged by scholars in published works of the time.
>
> I rather doubt Lynne will ever agree. Shakespeare's "I am that I am" is
one of
> the two main reasons she believes Oxford was Shakespeare, according to my
> reading of some things she's written.
>
> --Bob G.l
No, of course that's not true, Bob G.1. (Who is G.2?) I have said somewhere
that everyone needs a different burden of proof, but the bits of the sonnets
I mentioned to David are not the two main reasons I believe Oxford is
Shakespeare. They're just what finally tipped the scales for me.
We're also looking up the original in the Torah to see what we come up with
by way of a translation for "I am that I am." I should say rather that
Michael is seeing what he can come up with. I'm just holding the flashlight.
;)
Best,
LynnE
Bob Grumman
>
>No, of course that's not true, Bob G.1. (Who is G.2?)
I'll tell you when I find out who Bob G.1 is. I suspect someone unauthorized
got at my computer again.
> I have said somewhere
>that everyone needs a different burden of proof, but the bits of the sonnets
>I mentioned to David are not the two main reasons I believe Oxford is
>Shakespeare. They're just what finally tipped the scales for me.
Okay.
>We're also looking up the original in the Torah to see what we come up with
>by way of a translation for "I am that I am." I should say rather that
>Michael is seeing what he can come up with. I'm just holding the flashlight.
>;)
>
>Best,
>LynnE
I don't see much point. Terry's won the argument. Just as I won the argument
about tennis. . . .
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
"that" for "that which":
He smylde, and thus he answerd than, "Desire can have no greater payne
Then for to see an other man that he desirethe to obtayne,
Nor greater Joy Can be than this,
Than to enjoy that others mysse."
The author of these lines was the 17th Earl of Oxford.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
> >
>>> Quick question which has no doubt been answered before: isn't
>>> "I am that I am" pretty much the same as "I yam what I yam?"
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > Not if what you are is God.
> >
>> In the Douay-Rheims, God tells Moses "I AM WHO AM," while
>> Paul in 1 Corinthians says, "I am what I am." (In the Vulgate,
>> God says, "ego sum qui sum"; Paul says, "sum id quod sum.")
>>
>> In the King James, God says, "I AM THAT I AM"; Paul says,
>> "I am what I am." In the Geneva, God says, "I Am That I Am";
>> Paul says, "I am that I am."
>>
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > Or "I am that (which) I am?"
> >
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > God is that which exists by definition; Paul makes no such claim for
> > himself. "I am what I am" or "I am that which I am" would be
> > reasonable ways to translate Paul's words, but not God's.
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > If the latter, does "that" come up in texts of Shakespeare's time
> > > where we would use "that which?"
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > It's very common. There are many instances in Shakespeare and his
> > contemporaries (and predecessors). Here are a few examples
> > from Spenser where "that" means "that which":
> >
> > Thenot to that I choose, thou doest me tempt
> >
> > So when I thinke to end that I begonne,
> >
> > Then that I feele, and harbour in mine hart:
> >
> > I cast to pay, that I so dearely bought;
> >
> > To steale away, that I with blowes haue wonne,
> >
> > For well I may this weene, by that I fynd,
-----------------------------------------------
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> Here are two more examples of the common Elizabethan
> (and earlier) use of "that" for "that which":
>
> He smylde, and thus he answerd than, "Desire can have no greater payne
> Then for to see an other man that he desirethe to obtayne,
> Nor greater Joy Can be than this,
> Than to enjoy that others mysse."
>
> The author of these lines was the 17th Earl of Oxford.
Shakspere simply states: "By me"
(which probably means "Over my head.")
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
This is really in response to both your emails:
Well, we've been stewing over the Hebrew in 3.14. One of the problems is
that there are no vowels, However, it appears that *in the Hebrew* God says
something to the effect of "I will be who I will be." It's interesting that
in the English translations the line is rendered in(to) the present tense,
usually "I am that I am," or "I am who I am." Perhaps this makes it appear,
at least on the surface, a bit more decipherable.
To me it is a conundrum. Although you suggest that the sentence tells us
that God is that which exists by definition, I think the meaning of the
sentence, rather like the essence of God, is deliberately unknowable. And
therefore I'd have to say that the same is true, to some extent, when Oxford
and Shakespeare use the sentence about themselves. We think we know what it
means, we believe we have some grasp of it, but it's a delusion. They are
consciously copying God or God through St. Paul, and what God says is really
not definable. The wonder of it is that two men at roughly the same time
both have the chutzpah, as we say in Jewish, to use God's words about
himself when referring to *themselves*. The arrogance of both men is
astonishing.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Peter Farey
"LynnE" wrote:
>
> Well, we've been stewing over the Hebrew in 3.14. One of the problems is
> that there are no vowels, However, it appears that *in the Hebrew* God
says
> something to the effect of "I will be who I will be." It's interesting
that
> in the English translations the line is rendered in(to) the present tense,
> usually "I am that I am," or "I am who I am." Perhaps this makes it
appear,
> at least on the surface, a bit more decipherable.
What doctrine call you this? *Che sera, sera*:
What will be, shall be? Divinity, adieu!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Terry Ross
That's a theological point open (obviously) to dispute.
> And therefore I'd have to say that the same is true, to some extent,
> when Oxford and Shakespeare use the sentence about themselves.
But they don't. They do not say, simpliciter, "I am that I am." In each
case, the words are part of a longer sentence, and in neither case does
the context support the reading that either person intends his reader to
take him for God. In Oxford's case, the words are part of a complaint
that while he is the queen's creature, he does not with to be treated as
Burghley's. Can you imagine the God of Moses saying, "if it's OK with the
pharaoh, I am that I am"?
> We think we know what it means, we believe we have some grasp of it, but
> it's a delusion.
A mystery, perhaps, but hardly a delusion.
> They are consciously copying God or God through St. Paul, and what God
> says is really not definable.
You have not dealt with the difference between the use in Exodus and that
in 1 Corinthians. Paul is NOT claiming to be God. There are expressions
that are taken as echoes of God's claim in the New Testament, but they are
given to Jesus.
> The wonder of it is that two men at roughly the same time
Oxford's letter is dated October 30, 1584. Shakespeare's *Sonnets* were
published in 1609. Some of them may have been written somewhat earlier,
but we cannot date that sonnet to within a generation of the time Oxford
wrote.
> both have the chutzpah, as we say in Jewish, to use God's words about
> himself when referring to *themselves*. The arrogance of both men is
> astonishing.
That Oxford was arrogant I grant you, but that he thought of himself or
wrote of himself as if he thought he were God is not something that you
have shown. What makes you think Oxford was quoting Exodus and not 1
Corinthians? What makes you think Oxford and Shakespeare could not have
been influenced by Lyly or Melbancke, or by other texts in which the words
"I am that I am" occur?
We know that Oxford in his verse sometimes used "that" in the sense of
"that which" -- this usage was not peculiar to Oxford, of course; it was
very common in Elizabethan literature, and anyone who digs an inch deep
into the matter can come up with dozens of contemporary instances.
We know that "I am that I am" appeared in Exodus and (in a different
sense) in 1 Corinthians. It also occurred in the Book of Common Prayer --
see the epistle for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, which is from 1
Corinthians.
The phrase appears among John Knox's dying words, according to William
Perkins's *salve for a Sicke Man* (1597):
"He [Knox] lay on his death bedde silent for the space of four hours, very
often giving great sighes, sobbes, and grones, so as the standers by well
perceived that he was troubled with some grievous temptation: and when at
length he was raised in his bedde, they asked him how he did, to whome he
answered thus: that in his life he had indured many combates and conflicts
with Satan, but that now most mightily the roaring lyon had assaulted him:
often (said he) before he set my sinnes before mine eyes, often he urged
me to desperation, often he laboured to intangle me with the delights of
the world, but being vanquished by the sword of the spirit, which is the
word of God, he could not prevaile. But now he assaults me another way:
for the wily serpent would perswade me that I shall merit eternall life
for my fidelitie in my ministrie. But blessed be God which brought to my
minde such Scriptures whereby I might quench the fierie darts of the
devill, which were, What hast thou that thou hast not received: and, By
the grace of God, I am that I am: and, not I but the grace of God in me:
and thus being vanquished he departed."
No doubt the words appear in a number of sermons and tracts; they may also
occur in wills of the period, and it would not be surprising to find them
in private letters NOT written by Oxford.
I really do not know what the Oxfordian claim is supposed to be on this
matter. A common phrase, known to just about everybody, something that
everyone who attended church services regularly would hear every year,
something that appears not just in scripture (twice), and not just in
devotional literature but also appears in secular works -- somehow the
appearance of this phrase in Oxford's letter to Burghley and in a sonnet
by Shakespeare published 25 years later is supposed to persuade us that
the author of the *Sonnets* must have seen Oxford's letter? Are we really
meant to take this sort of thing seriously?
Contrast that line of reasoning with the kind of coincidence that would
indeed persuade us that the writer of one text must have been familiar
with another.
Brian Melbancke's *Philotimus* was printed in 1583, but he quotes two of
Oxford's poems that had not yet appeared in print; on the basis of these
quotations, scholars are able to give a terminal date for the composition
of those poems. (Of course if there were Melbanckians around, as there
are Oxfordians, we would be told that Oxford was the borrower, and not
Melbancke).
Philotimus writes in a letter to his beloved (page 131), "Ah Aurelia,
faine would I singe, but furie makes me fret, and rage hath sworne to
seeke reuenge of wronge."
Melbancke is quoting the first lines of Oxford's "Fain would I sing, but
fury makes me fret."
In his next letter, Philotimus says (page 139), "Tenne thousand times a
day desire doth liue and dye, faine would I liue to gaine thy loue, or die
with griefe to leaue with losse." Melbancke is quoting Oxford's "When
wert thou born, desire," which concludes with these lines:
NO, NO, DESYR BOTHE LYVES AND DYES,
TEN THOWSAND TYMES A DAY.
Why is this case of influence persuasive while the "I am that I am" fails?
For one thing, the lines from Oxford's poems did not also occur in Exodus.
For another, they did not also occur in 1 Corinthians. Third, they did
not occur in the Book of Common Prayer. Fourth, they did not occur in
*Euphues*. Fifth, they were not among John Knox's dying words. In fact,
we cannot trace those lines to any source earlier than Oxford's poems.
Melbancke does not name the author of the lines; he does not even identify
them as quotations (nor does he identify most of the other sources for the
many things he borrows from other writers). Although Melbancke rewrites
Oxford's "NO, NO, DESYR BOTHE LYVES AND DYES, / TEN THOWSAND TYMES A DAY"
as "Tenne thousand times a day desire doth liue and dye," the language is
distinctive enough that we accept it as a borrowing, and the fact that he
elsewhere in the same work quotes Oxford more closely confirms our
judgment in this case.
Contrast that with the "I am that I am" bit. We know that Shakespeare
often borrowed from the scriptures and the Prayer Book; there are other
passages that seem clearly indebted to Lyly. The fact that the words "I
am that I am" appear in all those known Shakespearean sources already
overdetermines the allusion. We cannot say that Shakespeare had Exodus in
mind but Not 1 Corinthians; we cannot say that the immediate prompting for
him was the Prayer Book but not the Bible; we cannot say that reading Lyly
drew new attention to words he had read and heard many times from the
Bible and the Prayer Book. Add to that Melbancke's *Philotimus*, which is
a possible source, and in which "I am that I am" is quoted and then
converted to "I will that I will" -- an expression that might have been
especially noticed by someone who made much in his sonnets of that fact
this his name was "Will." We could add to that, I suppose, whatever
other instances of "I am that I am" will be found, such as William
Perkins's.
Why should we be impressed that Oxford, in a private letter to Burghley
written 25 years before the *Sonnets* appeared, also happened to use the
expression? More to the point, perhaps, Lynne, is why exactly does this
happenstance impress you?
David L. Webb
I'm afraid that you're missing the most conclusive argument of all, Lynne --
"Exodus" is a perfect anagram of "Ox: Deus." What better proof could you seek
that Oxford is likening himself to God rather than to Popeye or Al Gore?
[...]
LynnE
Well. I'd prefer to say obviously open to *discussion*; however, please note
I was merely giving my own opinion on it.
>
> > And therefore I'd have to say that the same is true, to some extent,
> > when Oxford and Shakespeare use the sentence about themselves.
>
> But they don't. They do not say, simpliciter, "I am that I am." In each
> case, the words are part of a longer sentence, and in neither case does
> the context support the reading that either person intends his reader to
> take him for God. In Oxford's case, the words are part of a complaint
> that while he is the queen's creature, he does not with to be treated as
> Burghley's. Can you imagine the God of Moses saying, "if it's OK with the
> pharaoh, I am that I am"?
No, Terry, I can't; however, I would say this is a larger issue than whether
it's part of a longer sentence, that issue being that both Oxford (from a
study of his Geneva) and Shakespeare (from a study of the sonnets and plays)
seem well versed in the Bible, not unusual at the time, and therefore, when
they use these words we can be reasonably sure they are alluding to Ex 3.14.
One assumes they also knew that "I am that I am" is somehow tied to YHWH.
Thus, they used it in respect to themselves while fully understanding its
greater implications. It's not as if they chose by accident the words of
God. They knew what they were doing. They used the exact text of the Geneva.
>
> > We think we know what it means, we believe we have some grasp of it, but
> > it's a delusion.
>
> A mystery, perhaps, but hardly a delusion.
Well, I would agree it's a mystery, but if we really think we know what it
means, then we are deluded. Jewish scholars have been arguing over the
Hebrew for many, many years. Since they don't agree with one another, I
would say we probably can't say with any certainty what was meant.
>
> > They are consciously copying God or God through St. Paul, and what God
> > says is really not definable.
>
> You have not dealt with the difference between the use in Exodus and that
> in 1 Corinthians. Paul is NOT claiming to be God. There are expressions
> that are taken as echoes of God's claim in the New Testament, but they are
> given to Jesus.
Paul is definitely not claiming to be God, but I would say that he feels
inspired by the *spirit* and *grace* of God and therefore he can make the
same statement. There is something else. The two statements, in Ex and
Corinth, were written in different languages. One could argue that Paul was
not actually quoting God. Are we sure, for example, that as a non-Jew he
knew the OT very well? (I'm really not certain of this. Just throwing the
question out because it seems possible to me that the translations were made
to agree.)
>
> > The wonder of it is that two men at roughly the same time
>
> Oxford's letter is dated October 30, 1584. Shakespeare's *Sonnets* were
> published in 1609. Some of them may have been written somewhat earlier,
> but we cannot date that sonnet to within a generation of the time Oxford
> wrote.
Some of them may have been written SOMEWHAT earlier? But Terry, you know
that they were. Besides, when I talk about roughly the same time, I mean
around the turn of the 17th century, as opposed to the 18th or 19th.
>
> > both have the chutzpah, as we say in Jewish, to use God's words about
> > himself when referring to *themselves*. The arrogance of both men is
> > astonishing.
>
> That Oxford was arrogant I grant you, but that he thought of himself or
> wrote of himself as if he thought he were God is not something that you
> have shown. What makes you think Oxford was quoting Exodus and not 1
> Corinthians?
Does he say "By the grace of God" or something similar? Does Shakespeare?
They both knew the Bible well enough to quote the words within Paul's
context if they meant their words to be taken as being his rather than
God's.
>What makes you think Oxford and Shakespeare could not have
> been influenced by Lyly or Melbancke, or by other texts in which the words
> "I am that I am" occur?
Well, of course, Oxford and Lyly were connected, and it has been suggested
that Oxford was the model for Euphues--not something I wish to argue because
I'm not sure enough about it; however, I would again say that the words were
used very differently, and that both Oxford and Shakespeare were using the
words with reference to THEMSELVES.
>
> We know that Oxford in his verse sometimes used "that" in the sense of
> "that which" -- this usage was not peculiar to Oxford, of course; it was
> very common in Elizabethan literature, and anyone who digs an inch deep
> into the matter can come up with dozens of contemporary instances.
Yes, but we also know both he and Shakespeare were versed in the Geneva and
likely the Bishops etc, and would be well aware of the heft of the words.
Literary or Biblical allusions have enormous weight. You cannot separate
those words from what God said by suggesting that Oxford or anyone else used
"that" for "that which." It's like saying I would use a sentence such as "It
was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." because I understand
contrast, rather than that I would necessarily have a consciousness of where
those words came from.
>
> We know that "I am that I am" appeared in Exodus and (in a different
> sense) in 1 Corinthians. It also occurred in the Book of Common Prayer --
> see the epistle for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, which is from 1
> Corinthians.
>
> The phrase appears among John Knox's dying words, according to William
> Perkins's *salve for a Sicke Man* (1597):
>
> "He [Knox] lay on his death bedde silent for the space of four hours, very
> often giving great sighes, sobbes, and grones, so as the standers by well
> perceived that he was troubled with some grievous temptation: and when at
> length he was raised in his bedde, they asked him how he did, to whome he
> answered thus: that in his life he had indured many combates and conflicts
> with Satan, but that now most mightily the roaring lyon had assaulted him:
> often (said he) before he set my sinnes before mine eyes, often he urged
> me to desperation, often he laboured to intangle me with the delights of
> the world, but being vanquished by the sword of the spirit, which is the
> word of God, he could not prevaile. But now he assaults me another way:
> for the wily serpent would perswade me that I shall merit eternall life
> for my fidelitie in my ministrie. But blessed be God which brought to my
> minde such Scriptures whereby I might quench the fierie darts of the
> devill, which were, What hast thou that thou hast not received: and, By
> the grace of God, I am that I am: and, not I but the grace of God in me:
> and thus being vanquished he departed."
This is totally different. Knox is saying that he is reminded (by God) of
scriptures such as "by the grace of God, I am that I am." The clue is *WHICH
WERE*. He is not a) quoting the words with reference to himself or b)
quoting Ex 3.14. He is clearly quoting Paul.
>
> No doubt the words appear in a number of sermons and tracts;
Jeez, Terry, one would hope that they did. One would also suggest that they
were said with reference to God rather than with reference to the
sermonizers.
they may also
> occur in wills of the period, and it would not be surprising to find them
> in private letters NOT written by Oxford.
Well, it MIGHT not be surprising (although it would be to me), but so far
you haven't raised a single instance of a private letter not written by
Oxford in which these words appear and at the same time refer to the writer
himself. You haven't even given an instance where the words appear in a
letter and are not self-referential.
>
> I really do not know what the Oxfordian claim is supposed to be on this
> matter. A common phrase, known to just about everybody, something that
> everyone who attended church services regularly would hear every year,
> something that appears not just in scripture (twice), and not just in
> devotional literature but also appears in secular works -- somehow the
> appearance of this phrase in Oxford's letter to Burghley and in a sonnet
> by Shakespeare published 25 years later is supposed to persuade us that
> the author of the *Sonnets* must have seen Oxford's letter? Are we really
> meant to take this sort of thing seriously?
No. Of course not. We are meant to take seriously the fact that there are
many such coincidences between Oxford and Shakespeare. I don't say that the
author of the sonnets must have seen Oxford's letter. I think he must have
*written* Oxford's letter. I'm certainly not suggesting that one copied from
another, only that they both had enough arrogance copy God.
Either you're not getting it or I'm nuts. Either or both are possible.
>
> Why should we be impressed that Oxford, in a private letter to Burghley
> written 25 years before the *Sonnets* appeared, also happened to use the
> expression? More to the point, perhaps, Lynne, is why exactly does this
> happenstance impress you?
Because I cannot find ANY instance of it during the period, except in the
sonnets and the Oxford letter, where anyone was arrogant enough to use God's
words with reference to himself. You are much more learned than I, and yet
you haven't yet given me an example either. You must allow me to believe it
is not a happenstance, Terry. You must allow me to believe that it is one
clue among many that gives away the author's identity. And you must allow
that 1609 is just the end date of the sonnets. They may have been written
many years before. We know for a fact that some of them were. Most experts
believe they were written in the 1590s. I've seem some material lately that
endeavours to date them even earlier, much closer to the period when Oxford
wrote the "I am that I am" letter, although I'm not convinced by it;
however, that said, the letter and the publication of the sonnets may have
been separated by 25 years, but I would suggest the period between the
writing of the letter and the writing of 121 was much briefer. The context
may be different but the tone is similar.
LynnE, who has just come back from an anniversary celebration. 35 years!
LynnE
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:f456d47a.04031...@posting.google.com...
O dear, David. I think Terry told me he'd looked at one of Oxford's poems
and concluded he couldn't be Shakespeare because
ode sux.
:)
>
> [...]
Art Neuendorffer
> > Why should we be impressed that Oxford, in a private letter to Burghley
> > written 25 years before the *Sonnets* appeared, also happened to use the
> > expression? More to the point, perhaps, Lynne, is why exactly does this
> > happenstance impress you?
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Because I cannot find ANY instance of it during the period, except in the
> sonnets and the Oxford letter, where anyone was arrogant enough to use
God's
> words with reference to himself. You are much more learned than I, and yet
> you haven't yet given me an example either. You must allow me to believe
it
> is not a happenstance, Terry. You must allow me to believe that it is one
> clue among many that gives away the author's identity. And you must allow
> that 1609 is just the end date of the sonnets. They may have been written
> many years before. We know for a fact that some of them were. Most experts
> believe they were written in the 1590s. I've seem some material lately
that
> endeavours to date them even earlier, much closer to the period when
Oxford
> wrote the "I am that I am" letter, although I'm not convinced by it;
> however, that said, the letter and the publication of the sonnets may have
> been separated by 25 years, but I would suggest the period between the
> writing of the letter and the writing of 121 was much briefer. The context
> may be different but the tone is similar.
>
> LynnE, who has just come back from an anniversary celebration. 35 years!
Congratulations, Lynne!
Wish I had something happier info vis-a-vis 35 years. :-(
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly 35 years after his meetings with BREAKSPEAR
Frederick Barbarossa drowns under the weight of
his own armor in the SALEPH river on June 10, 1190
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly 35 years after the suicide of her father. Actress
Margaux Hemingway commits suicide in her Malibu home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<The rumour that Salieri poisoned Mozart originated with the opera
singer Callisto Bassi, who gave it as the reason for Mozart's mysterious
death aged 35. The Russian writer Pushkin gave the rumour credibility
in his story Mozart & Salieri, written in 1830, five years after Salieri's
death. This became the basis of Rimski-Korsakov's 1898 opera.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<In the Cathar language of old Provence, a female elf was an albi
(elbe or ylbi), & Albi was the name given to the main Cathar centre in
Languedoc. This was in deference to the matrilinear heritage of the
Grail dynasty, for the Cathars were supporters of the original Albi-gens
- the Elven Bloodline which had descended through the Dragon Queens of
yore, such as Lilith, Miriam, Bathsheba and Mary Magdalene. It was for
this reason that, when Simon de Montfort and the armies of Pope Innocent
III descended upon the region in 1209, it was called the Albigensian
Crusade. Through some 35 years, tens of thousands of innocent people
were slaughtered in this brutal campaign - all because the inhabitants
of the region were champions of the original concept of Grail kingship,
as against the pseudo-style of monarchy which had been implemented
by the papal machine.>> -- Sir Laurence Gardner
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, Art
LynnE
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aeidndV-6pN...@comcast.com...
Thanks, Art. That has certainly capped a two day break during which the
hotel tried to throw us out because they said we didn't have a reservation,
our tickets were so far back for *The Producers* that I could only be
pleased that I hated the show, and we lined up for two hours in the freezing
cold to get into an Egyptian exhibit, only to realise, when we finally made
it, that I'd recently seen the same exhibition in Balt.
Perhaps 36 will be a luckier number.
Lynne
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
35 letters:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"CLAMBRING TO HAN(G),
AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
--------------------------------------------------------------
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A----___----L
G----___----E
A----___----N
B----___----K
O----___----C
N----___----N
[D]--_____---I
------------------- R
------------------- B
------------------- S
------------------- A
------------------- M
------------------- O
------------------- H
------------------- T
Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Thanks, Art. That has certainly capped a two day break during which the
> hotel tried to throw us out because they said we didn't have a
reservation,
> our tickets were so far back for *The Producers* that I could only be
> pleased that I hated the show, and we lined up for two hours in the
freezing
> cold to get into an Egyptian exhibit, only to realise, when we finally
made
> it, that I'd recently seen the same exhibition in Balt.
>
> Perhaps 36 will be a luckier number.
The Plays' the thing! (So long as it's not Mel Brooks)
------------------ *
----------------- * *
------------ * * * * * * *
3rd even -- * * * * * *
Star# 36 = * * G * * # First Folio PLAYS
------------- * * * * * *
------------- * * * * * * *
----------------- * *
------------------ *
Art :-)
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Terry has a point. Of course, "Ode" could also be "Ed. O."
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0403170914300.27363@mail...
[...]
> > You have not dealt with the difference between the use in Exodus and that
> > in 1 Corinthians. Paul is NOT claiming to be God. There are expressions
> > that are taken as echoes of God's claim in the New Testament, but they are
> > given to Jesus.
> Paul is definitely not claiming to be God, but I would say that he feels
> inspired by the *spirit* and *grace* of God and therefore he can make the
> same statement. There is something else. The two statements, in Ex and
> Corinth, were written in different languages. One could argue that Paul was
> not actually quoting God. Are we sure, for example, that as a non-Jew he
> knew the OT very well?
What are you talking about, Lynne? Paul most certainly *was* a Jew
(originally named Saul), although later in his career he was of course
instrumental in extending what had begun as a small Jewish sect to the
Gentile communities of the Roman empire as well. (However, as far as I
know, Popeye was not a Jew, nor is Al Gore, so you're on firmer ground
there.)
> (I'm really not certain of this. Just throwing the
> question out because it seems possible to me that the translations were made
> to agree.)
In a great many Biblical translations the words of Paul are
translated quite differently from the words of God in Exodus.
On what do you base your assertion that Oxford was VERsed in the
Geneva Bible, Lynne? He may VERy likely have owned one, if the
provenance of the Bible that Dr. Stritmatter studied has been correctly
determined, but the marginalia therein scarcely seem indicative of deep
scriptural knowledge.
That does not necessarily follow.
> > they may also
> > occur in wills of the period, and it would not be surprising to find them
> > in private letters NOT written by Oxford.
> Well, it MIGHT not be surprising (although it would be to me), but so far
> you haven't raised a single instance of a private letter not written by
> Oxford in which these words appear and at the same time refer to the writer
> himself. You haven't even given an instance where the words appear in a
> letter and are not self-referential.
> > I really do not know what the Oxfordian claim is supposed to be on this
> > matter. A common phrase, known to just about everybody, something that
> > everyone who attended church services regularly would hear every year,
> > something that appears not just in scripture (twice), and not just in
> > devotional literature but also appears in secular works -- somehow the
> > appearance of this phrase in Oxford's letter to Burghley and in a sonnet
> > by Shakespeare published 25 years later is supposed to persuade us that
> > the author of the *Sonnets* must have seen Oxford's letter? Are we really
> > meant to take this sort of thing seriously?
> No. Of course not.
I'm relieved to hear it.
> We are meant to take seriously the fact that there are
> many such coincidences between Oxford and Shakespeare.
There are? What do you mean by "many"? And can be more explicit
about which ones you have in mind? I'm very fond of many of the
locutions of Nabokov and of the wit of Piet Hein, and I use both freely
in both writing and speech; that circumstance does not suggest by any
means that I wrote _Pale Fire_ or _Grooks_.
> I don't say that the
> author of the sonnets must have seen Oxford's letter. I think he must have
> *written* Oxford's letter.
That's certainly a jarring non sequitur!
I'll be discreet and remain uncommitted regarding which possibility
seems to me more likely. :-)
> > Why should we be impressed that Oxford, in a private letter to Burghley
> > written 25 years before the *Sonnets* appeared, also happened to use the
> > expression? More to the point, perhaps, Lynne, is why exactly does this
> > happenstance impress you?
> Because I cannot find ANY instance of it during the period, except in the
> sonnets and the Oxford letter, where anyone was arrogant enough to use God's
> words with reference to himself. You are much more learned than I, and yet
> you haven't yet given me an example either. You must allow me to believe it
> is not a happenstance, Terry. You must allow me to believe that it is one
> clue among many that gives away the author's identity. And you must allow
> that 1609 is just the end date of the sonnets. They may have been written
> many years before. We know for a fact that some of them were. Most experts
> believe they were written in the 1590s. I've seem some material lately that
> endeavours to date them even earlier, much closer to the period when Oxford
> wrote the "I am that I am" letter, although I'm not convinced by it;
> however, that said, the letter and the publication of the sonnets may have
> been separated by 25 years, but I would suggest the period between the
> writing of the letter and the writing of 121 was much briefer. The context
> may be different but the tone is similar.
>
> LynnE, who has just come back from an anniversary celebration. 35 years!
Happy anniVERsary, Lynne!
LynnE
> In article <YOo6c.10584$Eb6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0403170914300.27363@mail...
> [...]
> > > You have not dealt with the difference between the use in Exodus and
that
> > > in 1 Corinthians. Paul is NOT claiming to be God. There are
expressions
> > > that are taken as echoes of God's claim in the New Testament, but they
are
> > > given to Jesus.
>
> > Paul is definitely not claiming to be God, but I would say that he feels
> > inspired by the *spirit* and *grace* of God and therefore he can make
the
> > same statement. There is something else. The two statements, in Ex and
> > Corinth, were written in different languages. One could argue that Paul
was
> > not actually quoting God. Are we sure, for example, that as a non-Jew he
> > knew the OT very well?
>
> What are you talking about, Lynne? Paul most certainly *was* a Jew
> (originally named Saul),
Yep, knew he was Saul of Tarsus. What was I thinking? But look at it this
way--another member of the clan!
although later in his career he was of course
> instrumental in extending what had begun as a small Jewish sect to the
> Gentile communities of the Roman empire as well. (However, as far as I
> know, Popeye was not a Jew, nor is Al Gore, so you're on firmer ground
> there.)
Oh, yes, sorry, I once knew that. Medication has addled my brain, likely
permanently. And I've been trying to sort out an MS where a copy editor has
turned all my little slave Rachel's speeches into standard English.
I kept thinking Saul/Paul was a Roman, which he was, and in my typically
muddled state imagined that Jews and Romans were mutually exclusive.
>
> > (I'm really not certain of this. Just throwing the
> > question out because it seems possible to me that the translations were
made
> > to agree.)
>
> In a great many Biblical translations the words of Paul are
> translated quite differently from the words of God in Exodus.
Yes. It's hard to know if Paul meant to echo God. It is not hard, however,
in the case of Shakespeare and Oxford. They both used the exact words of an
English translation of the time.
snip
>
> > Yes, but we also know both he and Shakespeare were versed in the Geneva
and
> > likely the Bishops etc, and would be well aware of the heft of the
words.
>
> On what do you base your assertion that Oxford was VERsed in the
> Geneva Bible, Lynne? He may VERy likely have owned one, if the
> provenance of the Bible that Dr. Stritmatter studied has been correctly
> determined, but the marginalia therein scarcely seem indicative of deep
> scriptural knowledge.
We KNOW he owned AT LEAST one, David. There is a bill of sale for it. We
also know that the Bible Roger studied belonged to de Vere. It has his arms
on the cover. What we don't know with any exactitude is whether the Geneva
for which there is a bill of sale is the same Geneva that is in the
Folger's. It's likely that it is. The marginalia in the Folger's Geneva seem
to suggest that Oxford read his Bible and was therefore versed in it. He
wouldn't have needed profound scriptural knowledge to know where "I am that
I am" came from or what it signified. There are underlinings of various
verses of Exodus in de Vere's Geneva Bible, so one assumes he read the
entire book of Exodus. I hope we're not going to get into a discussion now
about whether he actually wrote the marginalia in the Bible. If we are,
please have reasonable arguments ready to counter Appendix H: Forensic
Paleography, in Roger's dissertation. It's certainly not my forte, so you
can argue amongst yourselves.
Good. That's fine. Give me some examples from the period where it doesn't.
I'm relieved you're relieved.
In fact
And we're relieved, I think you'll say,
To argue in this kind of way;
And I'm relieved
And you're relieved
We're both relieved--too-looral-lay!
>
> > We are meant to take seriously the fact that there are
> > many such coincidences between Oxford and Shakespeare.
>
> There are? What do you mean by "many"? And can be more explicit
> about which ones you have in mind?
I'll tell you when you come through with the sermons of the time where the
sermonizers use the "I am that I am" bit when referring to themselves.
>I'm very fond of many of the
> locutions of Nabokov and of the wit of Piet Hein, and I use both freely
> in both writing and speech;
Presumably their work is published. ;)
that circumstance does not suggest by any
> means that I wrote _Pale Fire_ or _Grooks_.
Pity. Think how famous you would be.
Oxford couldn't have copied either "I am lame" or "I am that I am" from
Shakespeare, because as Terry was so quick to point out, the Oxford came
before the Shakespeare. Therefore one suggestion is that Shakespeare read
Oxford's letters. Rather a feat as the letters were private. But perhaps you
would argue that Shakespeare of Stratford had thoughts of holding the canopy
too.
>
> > I don't say that the
> > author of the sonnets must have seen Oxford's letter. I think he must
have
> > *written* Oxford's letter.
>
> That's certainly a jarring non sequitur!
And as the letters were private, as I said above, to my mind *Shakespeare
was Oxford* is a more likely scenario than *Shakespeare read Oxford*. But
that's only one jigsaw piece in a whole puzzle.
snip
>
> > Either you're not getting it or I'm nuts. Either or both are possible.
>
> I'll be discreet and remain uncommitted regarding which possibility
> seems to me more likely. :-)
It's impressive that you're so mindful of Terry's feelings. :)
Thanks VERy much. I must be almost as old as Art to be married that long.
Think of that and show some respect to your elders. ;)
Terry Ross
[snip]
> > >
> > > This is really in response to both your emails:
> > >
> > > Well, we've been stewing over the Hebrew in 3.14. One of the problems is
> > > that there are no vowels, However, it appears that *in the Hebrew* God
> > > says something to the effect of "I will be who I will be." It's
> > > interesting that in the English translations the line is rendered in(to)
> > > the present tense, usually "I am that I am," or "I am who I am." Perhaps
> > > this makes it appear, at least on the surface, a bit more decipherable.
> > >
> > > To me it is a conundrum. Although you suggest that the sentence tells us
> > > that God is that which exists by definition, I think the meaning of the
> > > sentence, rather like the essence of God, is deliberately unknowable.
> >
> > That's a theological point open (obviously) to dispute.
>
> Well. I'd prefer to say obviously open to *discussion*; however, please
> note I was merely giving my own opinion on it.
That claim that God's essence WAS his existence was a Christian
commonplace, and still has its adherents.
>
> >
> > > And therefore I'd have to say that the same is true, to some extent,
> > > when Oxford and Shakespeare use the sentence about themselves.
> >
> > But they don't. They do not say, simpliciter, "I am that I am." In each
> > case, the words are part of a longer sentence, and in neither case does
> > the context support the reading that either person intends his reader to
> > take him for God. In Oxford's case, the words are part of a complaint
> > that while he is the queen's creature, he does not with to be treated as
> > Burghley's. Can you imagine the God of Moses saying, "if it's OK with the
> > pharaoh, I am that I am"?
>
> No, Terry, I can't; however,
The queen for Oxford occupies the role that neither the pharaoh nor any
other mortal occupies for the God of Moses.
> I would say this is a larger issue than whether it's part of a longer
> sentence, that issue being that both Oxford (from a study of his Geneva)
He certainly owned a Geneva Bible, and I do hope he studied it.
> and Shakespeare (from a study of the sonnets and plays) seem well versed
> in the Bible, not unusual at the time, and therefore, when they use
> these words we can be reasonably sure they are alluding to Ex 3.14.
We can be reasonably sure in each case that the author was alluding
(perhaps also alluding) to 1 Corinthians 15.10.
> One assumes they also knew that "I am that I am" is somehow tied to
> YHWH.
They might have associated the Tetragramaton with "LORD."
You should not forget that the words are used in 1 Corinthians (where Paul
does NOT claim to be God) and that both Oxford and Shakespeare, as well as
a great many contemporaries, used "that" in the sense of "that which."
We can be reasonably sure that Shakespeare knew *Euphues* (as Oxford may
well have been) as well as Exodus, 1 Corinthians, and the Book of Common
Prayer, and he could also have been familiar with Melbancke and even with
the story of John Knox's dying words. The phrase "I am that I am" was
common; everybody who went to church would have heard it every year.
> Thus, they used it in respect to themselves while fully understanding
> its greater implications. It's not as if they chose by accident the
> words of God. They knew what they were doing. They used the exact text
> of the Geneva.
>
They are using the exact text of Exodus, of 1 Corinthians, of the Prayer
Book, of Lyly, of Melbancke, of Knox.
> >
> > > We think we know what it means, we believe we have some grasp of it, but
> > > it's a delusion.
> >
> > A mystery, perhaps, but hardly a delusion.
>
> Well, I would agree it's a mystery, but if we really think we know what
> it means, then we are deluded. Jewish scholars have been arguing over
> the Hebrew for many, many years. Since they don't agree with one
> another, I would say we probably can't say with any certainty what was
> meant.
>
There is no reason to believe that either Oxford or Shakespeare was a
Hebrew scholar. Their understanding of Exodus would have been Christian.
Whether they read scriptures in English or Latin, they would have
understood the difference between the words in Exodus and the words in 1
Corinthians.
> >
> > > They are consciously copying God or God through St. Paul, and what God
> > > says is really not definable.
> >
> > You have not dealt with the difference between the use in Exodus and that
> > in 1 Corinthians. Paul is NOT claiming to be God. There are expressions
> > that are taken as echoes of God's claim in the New Testament, but they are
> > given to Jesus.
>
> Paul is definitely not claiming to be God, but I would say that he feels
> inspired by the *spirit* and *grace* of God and therefore he can make the
> same statement.
It is NOT the same statement. Paul is NOT saying "because I have faith I
am God." He is saying that he what he is not through his own efforts, but
by God's grace -- this is not the same thing as saying that his own
essence is his existence.
> There is something else. The two statements, in Ex and Corinth, were
> written in different languages.
This is true -- but the Greek-reading Jewish community of Paul's time
would have known the Septuagint.
> One could argue that Paul was not actually quoting God.
This is what I have been trying to tell you. This is one reason why in
most translations Paul's words are different from those in Exodus. We do
not find a note in the Geneva that directs us to read Paul's words as an
echo or fulfilment in any way of Exodus.
> Are we sure, for example, that as a non-Jew he knew the OT very well?
He was a Jew. He knew his OT, and he believed that Jesus was the Messiah
foretold of old.
> (I'm really not certain of this. Just throwing the question out because
> it seems possible to me that the translations were made to agree.)
I don't know that that is what happened. What may be more likely is that
we have a coincidence -- a coincidence made possible by the fact that in
the 16th Century, "that" was often used to mean "that which." The "that"
in Exodus does not mean "that which," but the "that" in 1 Corinthians and
the Prayer Book (and in Oxford and in Shakespeare) DOES mean "that which."
> >
> > > The wonder of it is that two men at roughly the same time
> >
> > Oxford's letter is dated October 30, 1584. Shakespeare's *Sonnets* were
> > published in 1609. Some of them may have been written somewhat earlier,
> > but we cannot date that sonnet to within a generation of the time Oxford
> > wrote.
>
> Some of them may have been written SOMEWHAT earlier? But Terry, you know
> that they were.
We know some of them existed in the late 1590s-- Meres mentions
Shakespeare's "sugared sonnets" and two of them appeared in *The
Passionate Pilgrim* in 1599. I know of no scholar who dates Sonnet 121 to
the 1580s -- do you?
> Besides, when I talk about roughly the same time, I mean around the turn
> of the 17th century, as opposed to the 18th or 19th.
Twenty-five years passed between Oxford's letter and the publication of
Sonnet 121.
>
> >
> > > both have the chutzpah, as we say in Jewish, to use God's words about
> > > himself when referring to *themselves*. The arrogance of both men is
> > > astonishing.
> >
> > That Oxford was arrogant I grant you, but that he thought of himself or
> > wrote of himself as if he thought he were God is not something that you
> > have shown. What makes you think Oxford was quoting Exodus and not 1
> > Corinthians?
>
> Does he say "By the grace of God" or something similar? Does Shakespeare?
Have you read Oxford's letter? Let me quote it once more.
"My lord, this other day yowre man stainner towld me that yow sent for
Amis my man, and yf he wear absent that Lylle showld come vnto yow. I sent
Amis for he was in ye way. And I thinke very strange yat yowre Lordship
showld enter into that course towards me, wherby I must lerne yat I knev
[=knew] not before, bothe of yowre opinion and good will towards me. but I
pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be yowre ward nor yowre
chyld, I serve her magestie, and I am that I am, and by allyance neare to
yowre lordship, but fre, and scorne to be offred that iniurie, to thinke I
am so weake of gouernment as to be ruled by servants, or not able to
gouerne my self."
"Lylle," of course, is John Lyly, whose riff on Exodus had appeared in
*Euphues* before he entered Oxford's service. Oxford whines that he has
only just now learned something about Burghley's "opinion and good will
towards me" -- and what he learned has hurt him, the poor little dear.
"But I pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be yowre ward
nor yowre chyld" -- ah, does that mean that Oxford is an entirely free
agent, a being self-created and self-governing? Read on: "I serve her
magestie." Why do you ignore these words? "I serve her magestie."
Oxford will not be Burghley's ward or Burghley's child, but he WILL be
whatever the queen wants him to be. "I serve her magestie." This
statement of fealty occupies the same space as Paul's declaration of faith
in God:
I serve her magestie, and I am that I am,
But by the grace of God, I am that I am:
Oxford, of course, conveys nothing of Paul's submission to the divine
(although he could certainly have uttered the words); he is almost all
petulance. While acknowledging his submission to the queen, he does not
wish to be inferior to Burghley:
"but I pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be yowre ward
nor yowre chyld, I serve her magestie, and I am that I am, and by allyance
neare to yowre lordship, but fre, and scorne to be offred that iniurie, to
thinke I am so weake of gouernment as to be ruled by servants, or not able
to gouerne my self."
So Oxford is what he is (subject to the queen's pleasure). He would like
to be free (subject to the queen's pleasure), rather than be "ruled by
servants" or "not able to govern myself." This is his highest ambition --
to be subject only to the queen but to no other living person.
The God of Moses was not subject to any person.
> They both knew the Bible well enough to quote the words within Paul's
> context if they meant their words to be taken as being his rather than
> God's.
They both knew Paul well enough that if they meant to be taken as
referring purely to Exodus and NOT to Paul, they could have done so by
uttering God's words as a free standing sentence, without surrounding it
either in the context of vileness and esteem (as Shakespeare did) or in
terms of personal subjection to a greater power (as Oxford did). You
probably are not as familiar with 1 Corinthians as they were. Those who
came after Shakespeare and Oxford, who were brought up on a translation
where the words in Exodus are not the same as those in Sonnet 121, would
not hear Paul the same way Oxford or Shakespeare would have -- these
anachronistic factors should have no place in our understanding of how the
words would have appeared at the long, long, turning of the 17th Century.
> >What makes you think Oxford and Shakespeare could not have
> > been influenced by Lyly or Melbancke, or by other texts in which the words
> > "I am that I am" occur?
>
> Well, of course, Oxford and Lyly were connected,
Lyly was mentioned in the very letter where Oxford used words that Lyly
himself has used to good effect.
> and it has been suggested that Oxford was the model for Euphues
Ha! "It has been suggested" seems a strange way to describe a completely
baseless (though common) Oxfordian delusion.
> --not something I wish to argue because I'm not sure enough about it;
I know of absolutely no reason to believe it -- but that makes it perfect
for the Oxfordian "case."
> however, I would again say that the words were used very differently,
> and that both Oxford and Shakespeare were using the words with reference
> to THEMSELVES.
See the appropriation of the words in Lyly. See Melbancke's
transformation of "I am that I am" to "I will that I will" -- don't you
think that might have caught the eye of a writer who, unlike Oxford, liked
to pun on his first name "Will"? See John Knox's dying comfort in the
fact that Paul's words could become his own.
>
> >
> > We know that Oxford in his verse sometimes used "that" in the sense of
> > "that which" -- this usage was not peculiar to Oxford, of course; it was
> > very common in Elizabethan literature, and anyone who digs an inch deep
> > into the matter can come up with dozens of contemporary instances.
>
> Yes, but we also know both he and Shakespeare were versed in the Geneva
> and likely the Bishops etc, and would be well aware of the heft of the
> words.
Don't forget the Book of Common Prayer. In addition to presenting the
prayers and biblical passages that were to be used during services, the
Prayer Book also lists the suggested Biblical readings for matins and
evensong for every day of the year. The Old Testament was to be read
through once a year, while the New Testament was read three times a year.
Thus Exodus 3 was to be read on January 28, but 1 Corinthians 15 was to be
read every February 3, June 1, and September 30.
> Literary or Biblical allusions have enormous weight.
Exactly. A pious Christian who followed the Prayer Book would have heard
1 Corinthians 15 four times a year at least. This is quite apart from any
separate reading of the Bible, or from hearing sermons, or reading tracts.
> You cannot separate those words from what God said by suggesting that
> Oxford or anyone else used "that" for "that which."
It is a fact that Oxford in his verse used "that" for "that with" -- as
did a great many others through the Sixteenth Century. Here are two
examples from a single poem:
He smylde, and thus he answerd than, "Desire can have no greater payne
Then for to see an other man that he desirethe to obtayne,
Nor greater Joy Can be than this,
Than to enjoy that others mysse."
Oxford does not mean that the "he" of this poem desires to obtain "an
other man," but that he desires to obtain that which the other man has.
The joy comes from enjoying that which others miss.
> It's like saying I would use a sentence such as "It was the best of
> times, it was the worst of times..." because I understand contrast,
> rather than that I would necessarily have a consciousness of where those
> words came from.
You are forgetting the words of St. Paul -- his words were part of the
epistle for the 11th Sunday after Easter before Oxford was born, and
throughout his life, and after his death. If Oxford attended services on
that day in any year of his life, or if he were present at evensong on any
February 3, June 1, or September 30 in any year of his life -- then he
heard Paul's words.
He is quoting the words with respect to himself. Read the passage again.
The devil tempted him (and what a marvelously insidious temptation this
is) to believe that because he was God's faithful minister, he had merited
eternal life. Knox believed better -- it was by the grace of God that he
was what he was, and not by his own merit. It would not answer the devil
to say that Paul was what Paul was by the grace of God; it WOULD answer
the devil if John Knox's statement of his own submission were to use
Paul's words.
> >
> > No doubt the words appear in a number of sermons and tracts;
>
> Jeez, Terry, one would hope that they did. One would also suggest that
> they were said with reference to God rather than with reference to the
> sermonizers.
No, Paul's words could be said by any good Christian with respect to
himself. You continue to overlook 1 Corinthians.
>
>
> they may also
> > occur in wills of the period, and it would not be surprising to find them
> > in private letters NOT written by Oxford.
>
> Well, it MIGHT not be surprising (although it would be to me), but so
> far you haven't raised a single instance of a private letter not written
> by Oxford in which these words appear and at the same time refer to the
> writer himself. You haven't even given an instance where the words
> appear in a letter and are not self-referential.
I haven't looked -- I said it would not surprise me to find examples, but
such texts as wills and unpublished letters are not so easy to search.
In any event, we have more than enough already: we have Exodus and 1
Corinthians and the Prayer Book and Lyly and Melbancke and John Knox.
You cannot wish the others away by pretending that the only three texts in
the world are Exodus, Oxford's letter, and Sonnet 121.
>
> >
> > I really do not know what the Oxfordian claim is supposed to be on this
> > matter. A common phrase, known to just about everybody, something that
> > everyone who attended church services regularly would hear every year,
> > something that appears not just in scripture (twice), and not just in
> > devotional literature but also appears in secular works -- somehow the
> > appearance of this phrase in Oxford's letter to Burghley and in a sonnet
> > by Shakespeare published 25 years later is supposed to persuade us that
> > the author of the *Sonnets* must have seen Oxford's letter? Are we really
> > meant to take this sort of thing seriously?
>
> No. Of course not. We are meant to take seriously the fact that there
> are many such coincidences between Oxford and Shakespeare.
Well, Oxfordians take that sort of thing seriously, I suppose, but that's
hardly a reason for anyone else -- but you are avoiding the issue. The
phrase "I am that I am" was a common one; it was not coined by Oxford.
He did not use it the same way Shakespeare did (they each seem to refer to
1 Corinthians but in very different ways).
> I don't say that the author of the sonnets must have seen Oxford's
> letter. I think he must have *written* Oxford's letter.
Did he also write Lyly? Did her write Melbancke? Did he write the Book
of Common Prayer and the English Bibles? Did he feed lines to John Knox
as the man lay dying?
If you do indeed take Oxford's letters as the writings of Shakespeare,
then you need to account for the fact that there is very little overlap
between the two sets of texts. If you expect us to take an isolated
coincidence -- the fact that two men writing a generation apart both
employed a common phrase that each one must have heard dozens if not
hundreds of times -- then you need to tell us why the greatest topic of
Oxford's epistolary career is never touched anywhere in Shakespeare's
great body of work. You've seen this bit before, but it gains new
importance if we are expected to believe that one person wrote Oxford's
letters AND Shakespeare's works.
Surely one would expect Shakespeare to mention "tin" at least once in his
hundred thousand lines -- but the word is not there. In the much shorter
corpus of Oxford's output, we find "tin" more than 170 times. Here are
lines from Oxford's writings in which we find references to "tin":
fyrst for that the Tyne Mynes [do] may fayle and yeald
sume yeares lesse Tyne then other
further that he must giue the [contrye] Tynners for
ther tyne as they have at this present, which is 29l or
The Tyne whiche is spent in the realme is abowt
The Tynne whiche is transported owt of ye Realme is
Vpone every hundred l weyght of Tyne whiche is
The Quantite of Tyne beinge no more, yet her Maiestie
thowsand l weyght of Tyne yerly transported, yf her
Magestie at every coynage shall by [=buy] the Tyne into
Tyne comes not in but at twoo Coynages in ye yere,
bwye the halfe of 700 thowsand l weyght of Tyne at 25l
1000l weyght of Tyne gaynethe 10l in every 1000l weyght.
So yat for 350 thowsand pownd weyght of Tyne,
of her Tyne mynes to ryse to the sume yerlye by
Caput xviij yt was inacted thatt noo Tyne, nor leade
transportations of Tyne whiche beinge nott diligently
of Tynne, and Leade and to no other. I will not only
her Magestie yat I myght ferme her Tynes, gyvinge 3000l
concerninge the licence for ye transportatione of Tyne
Lord; Tinne.
fyrst to that poynt, wher yt ys sayd that the Tynners
ingrossers of ther Tyne, is not amonge them all, aboue
every 1000l weyght of Tyne.
Tyne dothe direct to that wheroff I have all thys
whyle motioned, & that is that the rates of the Tyne
for yf the Tyne were no more then [=than] yt ys rated,
Tyne, of whiche mony the one halfe ys to be imployed
for the fyrst Coynage, wher ys Tyne for so muche monye
My lord leues [=leaves] the Tynners to ther former
knowlege of the quantety of Tynne by mowthe, for yat I
for the 40 hundred thowsande l weyght of Tyne, yf he
Tynnes. It ys trwe that I have found the Lord of
Tyne matters. He I say is the only man yat sett me in
of the great quantite of Tynnes wherof her Magestie is
touchinge thys matter of ye Tynnes that he shall thinke
for the tyne, and that ar customers to the Tynners.
payed for ther Tyne, & to whome the Tynners are
possiblie to aduance her Magesties Customes of Tyne,
which she expects to be made of her Tynne. But yt may
Tyne into Bares. This swte by reasone so many ryvers
have laded ther tyne, to make a stey, as a thynge
ye Tyne before him. he protestes the contrarie & I doo
transportatione of Tyne & Leade, imposinge there one
preemptione & transportatione of the Tyne.
wowld knowe the secret of this Bargayne, of Tyne,
one which is the value of the Tyne, whiche may be
quantetye of Tyne came to xv hundred thowsande how he
is therbe sume slabes of Tyne, (for in that he cales
to have a slabe of Tyne for there howshowld provisione,
the quantite of Tyne cannot trwly appeare.
Blokes of Tyne which are to be sene now in towne, as
no Tyne be sowlde or bowght tyll Iulye which is the
Tyne showld be bowght ore sowlde tyll all the
number of Tyne I shall desyre yowre Lordship that I may
have her Maiestyes Letter, for the stay of Tyne, that
hundred or two ^\\100// thowsand Tyne, that is but a
The deceyt lyees where the Tyne is transported, and
letter for the stay of the Tyne that none be bought and
Guydolphine for the stey of the Tyne that none be
Tynne before hande, that expeditione may be vsed of the
for yf yt be to inquyre of the quantetye of Tyne,
them, for Tynne wythein this 18 monthes was as good
appoynted to take in the Tynne for the Queens vse at
every twoo thowsand three. The quantetye of || Tynne
Tyne then hathe bene this fortye yeares before, & yat
Buchurst towld him that in his swte of ye Tyne he hadd
of Tyne, for 20l the thowsand.
in vncerteynte as the quantite of Tyne rysethe as yt
answer to Mideltons certificat for ye tyn workes
vnto yowe concerninge the peremptione of Tynne, I
her commodite which she may make of her Tyne
Tyne. yf yt shall pleas her Magesty to loke with good
[whoo] whatt quantetie of Tyne, ys ^\\yerlye//
Tyne, 20z to the pound, and sell after 16z the pound,
pound, which ys nothinge sythe Tyne ys sould now as yt
matter of Tyne which ys called the great sute. for
Tyne, and after yt ys wrowght into Bares & lygates that
losse vnto the great matter of Tyne yt ys, how she
Blokes of Tyne into Barrse or Lygets.
Preemption of Tyne
By her Tyne she ys to rayse her Commodite to her self.
sythe Tyne ys sowld ordinariely in the Realme & londone
Tyne her owne Commodite ther ys no suche allowance in
transportinge the Tyne owt of the Reame [=realm] into
shillinges a pound of Tyn there ys reasone for her
fyrst there owne Necescite, for Tyne beinge one of
that for suche a quantite of Tyne transported the
Magesty havinge taken the preemptione of Tyne that she
Where all the Tyne they fynd not browght to the coynage
but The Tyne ys dygged out of the Myne in the tyme of
Tynemaster at the mynes. And thus beinge bowght vp
The Tyne whiche ys yearlye transportedes, come to
The Tyne whiche ys spent in the realme, comes to a
So that the whoole quantetie of Tyne ys fyftene
This Tyne ys bought vp by the marchant, as shale
pounde weyght of Tyne.
thowsand, thes yeares, they sowld Tyne in Turchie at
after the ratte of fyftene hundred thowsand of Tyne
marchantes of Tyne and the Contrie have agreed and by
castinge the Tyne into Bares.
in to Bares All suche Tyne as shalbe transported, yowre
briefly sett downe whatt commodite thys matter of Tyne
If yowre Magestye [buye thys Tyne,]
[=buy] at fowre Markes the hundrede sythe the Tynners
fore [=for] one thowsande pounde weyght of Tyne, have
And thys ys vpon the Tyne as well spent within the
Twelve hundred thowsand pound weyght of Tyne, comes to
Tyne is vnwrowght; yet caried owte of the Realme,
the stranger, whoo yf he maye have owre Tyne at thes
wrowght. Then Tyne beinge a Commodite vnwrowght, may
pounde. So yat The Tyne which ys now bowght at
downe, and yt makethe nott Tyne full a groot [=groat]
Her Magestyes Tyne whiche ys yerly transported owt
to the hundred. Throwghe all England besyde, Tyne ys
The Marchent byinge hys Tyne here [at] for sixpence the
The whoole yeares profit of Tyne after this Rate ys
pound of Tyne at a Coynage. But for yat yt ys at sume
the Myne Tynes are constreyned to kepe a multitude at
ys not payed bake his interest in monye but in Tyne,
there Tyne Mynes, the Marchant howlds the Master of the
Tyn worke whiche ys allwayes in his dett by thys
Tyne as yt pleasethe them.
This mischiefe the Masters of the Tynes mynes, shalbe
imployed, to that vse shall furnishe the Tyn master to
fyve pound, in the hundred, and payinge yt in Tyne as
And wheras thes Tyn Masters sume thre yeres sythence
twenty pound price the thowsand, [to] of Tyne, to have
pound of Tyne, so the contrie sythe to the Marchant
streyght at there plesure rayse the prise of Tyne to
they kep [=keep] the great Commodite of ye Tyne
Intricat[+,] the state of her Magestye Tyne. What
Tyne be sowld to any Marchant at this coynage but to
other they wowld have her Magestye take & Tyne ys
agayne with the sale of the Tyne, & so quarterly yt
perceyve, The rate of Tyne ys greater than this here
Tyne
other twelue hundred thousand pounde weyght of Tyne.
restrayne yat no Tyne showld be caried away owt of the
this of Tyne and Leade, sythe yt ys one of the greatest
commodites that she hathe, and that Tyne beares but the
grotes custome for every hundred pound weyght of Tyne,
commodite of Tyne into her owne hands. Havinge now by
the whole commodite of the Tyne whiche by thes Blynders
Tyne, That shalbe transported so th'effect ys all one,
Matter of Tyne.
ordinarely, Tyne was sowlde at twentye three pound ye
of Tyne.
The Tyne thys yeare proves to be in greater quantite
thowsand pound, yat wyll buye vp the Tyne.
Sythe then the quantite of Tyne ys so muche which
Yf yer Maiestie shall, sett bothe vpon Tyne and leade,
ten shyllinges one [=on] the hundred of Tyne, and
of the Tyne fallinge agayne, I will giue over my
quantyte of Tynes the Mynes doo yealde she myght have
shalbe more profitable, the Tyne by thys meanes browght
[=stock] to bwye the Tyne yerelye in Cornwaale and
wythe me about this matter of the Tyne; at nonetyme
dothe shyne. for the Quantetie of Tyne beinge supposed
weyght of Tyne, yat her Maiestye gaynes fyftene
concerning Tynne
cheife Iustice about the matter of Tyne, whoo declared
yowre handes the preemptione of Tyne, and that yt was
whiche the Tyne myght be bowght of the contrie.
concerning Tynne.
Tyne by twoo sortes, of suters. the one sort weare
that there showldbe no Tyne caried owt of the Relame,
then I, how the Tyne ys her Magestyes Commodite, and
Fyftene hundred thowsand pounde weyght of Tyne so far
whatt number of Tyne ys transported, may easly and
What a motherlode of tin, tin, tinners and tin, and more tin, and the
price of tin, and the matter of tin, and a certain weight of tin, and how
tin may be transported, and the sale of tin, and the mischief of the
masters of the tin mine, and more than a hundred other references to tin
in Oxford's letters, while we find "tin" nowhere in Shakespeare's works.
Where in Shakespeare's works is the obsessive devotion to tin? It is not
to be found. OK, where is there so much as a casual interest in tin? It
is not there. We have no tin mines in Shakespeare. We have no
tin-farming. We have no worry about the price of tin. We have no
interest in the weight of tin. We have no mention of tin at all. If
Shakespeare and Oxford were the same person, why did the central obsession
of the one never enter into the other's work?
> I'm certainly not suggesting that one copied from another, only that
> they both had enough arrogance copy God.
>
They may have echoed Exodus or 1 Corinthians or the Prayer Book or Lyly or
Melbancke; Shakespeare may have echoed Knox; either of them may have
echoed some other user of those very common words that we haven't thought
of. Oxford was not arrogant enough to speak as if he thought he were a
god -- he served the queen. He WAS upset enough to ask not to be treated
as Burghley's child or ward, and he was not happy that Burghley wanted to
talk to his men. The most astonishing coincidence in this whole matter is
one you have not faced: Lyly in *Euphues* uses "I am that I am" in a very
striking way; and Lyly is mentioned in Oxford's letter.
What is there to get? You would have us ignore many, many instances of
this common phrase, and pretend that one person must have written Oxford's
letter and Shkaespeare's sonnet.
> >
> > Why should we be impressed that Oxford, in a private letter to Burghley
> > written 25 years before the *Sonnets* appeared, also happened to use the
> > expression? More to the point, perhaps, Lynne, is why exactly does this
> > happenstance impress you?
>
> Because I cannot find ANY instance of it during the period, except in
> the sonnets and the Oxford letter, where anyone was arrogant enough to
> use God's words with reference to himself.
You are assuming what you have not attempted to show: that the words in
both Oxford's letter and Shakespeare's sonnet were used entirely without
regard to 1 Corinthians. What you call "God's words" were also St. Paul's
words in the Prayer Book and in versions of the Bible familiar to Oxford
and to Shakespeare. Neither Oxford nor Shakespeare said of himself "I am
that I am." Each used the Pauline words in a context, even though Oxford
and Shakespeare used the words differently from each other. In each case
the meaning is (or cannot be said not to be) "I am that which I am."
> You are much more learned than I, and yet you haven't yet given me an
> example either.
I gave you John Knox. If I get the chance to look further I may find more
examples, but there are already far more than we need.
> You must allow me to believe it is not a happenstance, Terry.
By all means, Lynne, believe as thou list.
> You must allow me to believe that it is one clue among many that gives
> away the author's identity.
Far be it from me to interfere with the profession of any creed.
> And you must allow that 1609 is just the end date of the sonnets. They
> may have been written many years before. We know for a fact that some
> of them were.
We know some were circulating a decade before; there is no reason to think
they existed in the 1580s.
> Most experts believe they were written in the 1590s.
A more common view among scholars today is many of them are later.
> I've seem some material lately that endeavours to date them even
> earlier, much closer to the period when Oxford wrote the "I am that I
> am" letter, although I'm not convinced by it;
Oh puh-leeze. Shakespeare's sequence reflects and responds to the sonnet
craze of the 1590s; it was not written before the craze began -- unless
you side with Sobran, who thinks Oxford wrote all the Elizabethan sonnets.
> however, that said, the letter and the publication of the sonnets may
> have been separated by 25 years, but I would suggest the period between
> the writing of the letter and the writing of 121 was much briefer.
Perhaps it was briefer by 5 or 10 years; that still leaves the better part
of a generation between the two documents. In every year during that
generation, Paul's words were read as the epistle for the 11th Sunday
after Trinity, and at evensong three times a year.
> The context may be different but the tone is similar.
>
The tone is really very different. Oxford attempts to fix his social
position -- servant to the queen, but Burghley's peer; not Burghley's
child or ward, and not someone whose own servants should be talking to
Burghley. Shakespeare is concerned with the relationship between one's
true moral state and the judgments of others -- it it indeed better to be
vile than to be vile esteemed?
> LynnE, who has just come back from an anniversary celebration. 35 years!
>
Congratulations! I hope to be able to say the same for myself some day.
Robert Stonehouse
...
>We know that "I am that I am" appeared in Exodus and (in a different
>sense) in 1 Corinthians. It also occurred in the Book of Common Prayer --
>see the epistle for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, which is from 1
>Corinthians.
Just to mention the point, the reading for the epistle at Communion
would usually be from the same text as when the passage was read in
the Second Lesson at Morning or Evening Prayer. Since 1662 it has been
the KJV, but the Prayer Book never used unique translations of its
own; for example the Psalms in the 1662 book are from the Great Bible.
The KJV actually has "I am what I am".
Before 1662 there was less of a standard, of course, and a particular
parson might choose a different text for the Lessons but still feel
obliged to use the prescribed version for the Epistle.
Tyndale (the ultimate source of all the other translations) has "For I
am the lest off all the Apostles, which am nott worthy to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the congregacioun of God: but by the
faveour of God I am that I am."
The Greek has "chariti de Theou eimi ho eimi" - it would be hard to
avoid "I am what I am", though I would be tempted to begin "but it is
by the grace of God that ...". The New English Bible has "I am what I
am", as against Exodus 3.14 "I AM; that is who I am" in response to
Moses' request for a name.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Terry Ross
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:14:26 -0500, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> ...
> >We know that "I am that I am" appeared in Exodus and (in a different
> >sense) in 1 Corinthians. It also occurred in the Book of Common Prayer --
> >see the epistle for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, which is from 1
> >Corinthians.
> ... Just to mention the point, the reading for the epistle at Communion
> would usually be from the same text as when the passage was read in the
> Second Lesson at Morning or Evening Prayer. Since 1662 it has been the
> KJV, but the Prayer Book never used unique translations of its own; for
> example the Psalms in the 1662 book are from the Great Bible. The KJV
> actually has "I am what I am".
The 1662 book and the 1611 KJV are, of course, too late to have influenced
Oxford's 1584 letter or Shakespeare's sonnets. The passage from 1
Corinthians in the 1549 prayer book (and later editions during Oxford's
and Shakespeare's lives) gives "I am that I am."
>
> Before 1662 there was less of a standard, of course, and a particular
> parson might choose a different text for the Lessons but still feel
> obliged to use the prescribed version for the Epistle.
There was a table of "Proper Psalms and Lessons at Morning and Evening
Prayers" in Elizabethan Prayer Books. The 1559 edition (in the Folger
edition edited by John Booty) lists Exodus 3 as the first lesson for
evening prayer for January 28, while 1 Corinthians 15 is the second lesson
for evening prayer on February 7, June 1, and September 30.
>
> Tyndale (the ultimate source of all the other translations) has "For I
> am the lest off all the Apostles, which am nott worthy to be called an
> apostle, because I persecuted the congregacioun of God: but by the
> faveour of God I am that I am."
>
> The Greek has "chariti de Theou eimi ho eimi" - it would be hard to
> avoid "I am what I am",
In the 16th Century, "that" was often used in the sense of "that which";
while "I am what I am" would be hard to avoid for us, "I am that I am" was
a perfectly valid Elizabethan equivalent.
> though I would be tempted to begin "but it is by the grace of God that
> ...". The New English Bible has "I am what I am", as against Exodus 3.14
> "I AM; that is who I am" in response to Moses' request for a name.
The language has shifted in many ways since the 16th Century, and
translators today are not likely to translate the Exodus phrase and that
in 1 Corinthians using the same words, since the meaning is different --
but in the Prayer Book that Oxford and Shakespeare would have known, and
in many of the Bible translations before KJV, we find Paul saying "I am
that I am."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, LynnE wrote:
This has not turned up on my server at all, Terry. I've just found it
here and will respond to a little of it before going to bed.
>
> [snip]
> > > >
> > > > This is really in response to both your emails:
> > > >
> > > > Well, we've been stewing over the Hebrew in 3.14. One of the problems is
> > > > that there are no vowels, However, it appears that *in the Hebrew* God
> > > > says something to the effect of "I will be who I will be." It's
> > > > interesting that in the English translations the line is rendered in(to)
> > > > the present tense, usually "I am that I am," or "I am who I am." Perhaps
> > > > this makes it appear, at least on the surface, a bit more decipherable.
> > > >
> > > > To me it is a conundrum. Although you suggest that the sentence tells us
> > > > that God is that which exists by definition, I think the meaning of the
> > > > sentence, rather like the essence of God, is deliberately unknowable.
> > >
> > > That's a theological point open (obviously) to dispute.
> >
> > Well. I'd prefer to say obviously open to *discussion*; however, please
> > note I was merely giving my own opinion on it.
>
> That claim that God's essence WAS his existence was a Christian
> commonplace, and still has its adherents.
It's a very fancy sentence, but I'm afraid I'm too stupid to
understand what it really means. I tend to think it's unexplainable,
but perhaps you could have a go.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > And therefore I'd have to say that the same is true, to some extent,
> > > > when Oxford and Shakespeare use the sentence about themselves.
> > >
> > > But they don't. They do not say, simpliciter, "I am that I am." In each
> > > case, the words are part of a longer sentence, and in neither case does
> > > the context support the reading that either person intends his reader to
> > > take him for God. In Oxford's case, the words are part of a complaint
> > > that while he is the queen's creature, he does not with to be treated as
> > > Burghley's. Can you imagine the God of Moses saying, "if it's OK with the
> > > pharaoh, I am that I am"?
> >
> > No, Terry, I can't; however,
>
> The queen for Oxford occupies the role that neither the pharaoh nor any
> other mortal occupies for the God of Moses.
>
> > I would say this is a larger issue than whether it's part of a longer
> > sentence, that issue being that both Oxford (from a study of his Geneva)
>
> He certainly owned a Geneva Bible, and I do hope he studied it.
I do believe he did. Shakespeare did, in any case, whoever he was.
>
> > and Shakespeare (from a study of the sonnets and plays) seem well versed
> > in the Bible, not unusual at the time, and therefore, when they use
> > these words we can be reasonably sure they are alluding to Ex 3.14.
>
> We can be reasonably sure in each case that the author was alluding
> (perhaps also alluding) to 1 Corinthians 15.10.
Perhaps also alluding. But the source of Corinthians is perhaps Ex
3.14. In any case, it appears to be in the Geneva, where the wording
is the same. So we might conclude that the source of the Shakespeare
and the Oxford is Exodus, and perhaps, but not necessarily, also
Corinth.
>
> > One assumes they also knew that "I am that I am" is somehow tied to
> > YHWH.
>
> They might have associated the Tetragramaton with "LORD."
I know it as Tetragrammaton; however, yes, it is associated with
adonai or (my)Lord, referring to God.
>
> You should not forget that the words are used in 1 Corinthians (where Paul
> does NOT claim to be God)
I think he claims to have God's essence by the grace of God.
and that both Oxford and Shakespeare, as well as
> a great many contemporaries, used "that" in the sense of "that which."
Yes. As did Exodus. "I am that I am" can no doubt be further broken
down into "I am that which I am."
> We can be reasonably sure that Shakespeare knew *Euphues* (as Oxford may
> well have been) as well as Exodus, 1 Corinthians, and the Book of Common
> Prayer, and he could also have been familiar with Melbancke and even with
> the story of John Knox's dying words.
Possibly.
The phrase "I am that I am" was
> common; everybody who went to church would have heard it every year.
Yes.
>
> > Thus, they used it in respect to themselves while fully understanding
> > its greater implications. It's not as if they chose by accident the
> > words of God. They knew what they were doing. They used the exact text
> > of the Geneva.
> >
>
> They are using the exact text of Exodus, of 1 Corinthians, of the Prayer
> Book, of Lyly, of Melbancke, of Knox.
But unlike Lyly, or Melbanke, or (possibly) Knox, they had the
temerity to use it when speaking of themselves.
>
>
> > >
> > > > We think we know what it means, we believe we have some grasp of it, but
> > > > it's a delusion.
> > >
> > > A mystery, perhaps, but hardly a delusion.
> >
> > Well, I would agree it's a mystery, but if we really think we know what
> > it means, then we are deluded. Jewish scholars have been arguing over
> > the Hebrew for many, many years. Since they don't agree with one
> > another, I would say we probably can't say with any certainty what was
> > meant.
> >
>
> There is no reason to believe that either Oxford or Shakespeare was a
> Hebrew scholar. Their understanding of Exodus would have been Christian.
> Whether they read scriptures in English or Latin, they would have
> understood the difference between the words in Exodus and the words in 1
> Corinthians.
Um, I'm not sure about Oxford. He may well have learned Hebrew, I
believe from his tutor, and Shakespeare (whoever he was) perhaps got
the names of Iessica and Shiloch from the Torah. They do not appear in
the same form in English.
>
>
> > >
> > > > They are consciously copying God or God through St. Paul, and what God
> > > > says is really not definable.
> > >
> > > You have not dealt with the difference between the use in Exodus and that
> > > in 1 Corinthians. Paul is NOT claiming to be God. There are expressions
> > > that are taken as echoes of God's claim in the New Testament, but they are
> > > given to Jesus.
> >
> > Paul is definitely not claiming to be God, but I would say that he feels
> > inspired by the *spirit* and *grace* of God and therefore he can make the
> > same statement.
>
> It is NOT the same statement. Paul is NOT saying "because I have faith I
> am God." He is saying that he what he is not through his own efforts, but
> by God's grace -- this is not the same thing as saying that his own
> essence is his existence.
It is the same statement in the Geneva. Whether it has been tailored
to be the same statement is of no matter. Both God and Paul say "I am
that I am," although Paul is able to say it by the grace of God.
Whether the statements MEAN the same thing or not, which I imagine is
where you're going, is arguable.
>
> > There is something else. The two statements, in Ex and Corinth, were
> > written in different languages.
>
> This is true -- but the Greek-reading Jewish community of Paul's time
> would have known the Septuagint.
A confusing word but yes.
>
> > One could argue that Paul was not actually quoting God.
>
> This is what I have been trying to tell you. This is one reason why in
> most translations Paul's words are different from those in Exodus. We do
> not find a note in the Geneva that directs us to read Paul's words as an
> echo or fulfilment in any way of Exodus.
I see where you're going now. Sorry to be so thick. We're saying two
different things. I'm saying that Paul may not actually be quoting God
because the meaning of the texts might differ in the original
languages. You're saying that Paul was not actually quoting God,
therefore he did not see himself as God, therefore Shakespeare and
Oxford were quoting Corinthians rather than Exodus, therefore they
weren't likening themselves to God either. Ha. I call that sleight of
hand. And some other things. Better left unprinted.
>
> > Are we sure, for example, that as a non-Jew he knew the OT very well?
>
> He was a Jew. He knew his OT, and he believed that Jesus was the Messiah
> foretold of old.
Yes, sorry, I've already been through this with David. My mind is
working remarkably slowly lately. And I'm having difficulty thinking
and writing in this little box. This is not the time to get into the
difference between what the Jews believed the messiah to be, and what
the Christians believed him to be, a change that may have begun with
Paul, but perhaps we can talk about it another time.
>
> > (I'm really not certain of this. Just throwing the question out because
> > it seems possible to me that the translations were made to agree.)
>
> I don't know that that is what happened. What may be more likely is that
> we have a coincidence -- a coincidence made possible by the fact that in
> the 16th Century, "that" was often used to mean "that which." The "that"
> in Exodus does not mean "that which," but the "that" in 1 Corinthians and
> the Prayer Book (and in Oxford and in Shakespeare) DOES mean "that which."
But Terry, how can you tell? It's remarkable to me that you make these
distinctions with such confidence, especially after I've suggested
that the actual Hebrew in Exodus bears little resemblance to "I am
that (which?) I am" in the first place. It seems to me that you're
making such statements because you wish to believe they're so, not
because they are so. By the way, I checked this with an Israeli
yesterday. She also said the words in the original are closer to "I
will be what I will be." It's a mystery.
>
>
> > >
> > > > The wonder of it is that two men at roughly the same time
> > >
> > > Oxford's letter is dated October 30, 1584. Shakespeare's *Sonnets* were
> > > published in 1609. Some of them may have been written somewhat earlier,
> > > but we cannot date that sonnet to within a generation of the time Oxford
> > > wrote.
> >
> > Some of them may have been written SOMEWHAT earlier? But Terry, you know
> > that they were.
>
> We know some of them existed in the late 1590s-- Meres mentions
> Shakespeare's "sugared sonnets" and two of them appeared in *The
> Passionate Pilgrim* in 1599. I know of no scholar who dates Sonnet 121 to
> the 1580s -- do you?
Nope. But I don't think we need to date it to the eighties. There's an
outside chance it could have been written that early, but it's
unlikely; however, what is significant is the coincidence of the
words, not the coinciding dates.
>
> > Besides, when I talk about roughly the same time, I mean around the turn
> > of the 17th century, as opposed to the 18th or 19th.
>
> Twenty-five years passed between Oxford's letter and the publication of
> Sonnet 121.
If I dig up a penny, and it says 1958 on it, does that mean it was
buried in 1958? Of course not. All we can gauge is that 1958 is the
earliest possible date it could have been buried. In the same way, if
something is published in 1609, does that mean it was written in 1609?
Of course not. That's just the outside date of publication. In this
case, as you've said above, we know that at least some of the sonnets
date back to the 1590s, so the publication date seems to have had
little to do with the date of composition. But I would argue that even
if the sonnets were written twenty odd years after Oxford's letter,
the significance is that the authors used those particular words with
reference to themselves.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > both have the chutzpah, as we say in Jewish, to use God's words about
> > > > himself when referring to *themselves*. The arrogance of both men is
> > > > astonishing.
> > >
> > > That Oxford was arrogant I grant you, but that he thought of himself or
> > > wrote of himself as if he thought he were God is not something that you
> > > have shown. What makes you think Oxford was quoting Exodus and not 1
> > > Corinthians?
> >
> > Does he say "By the grace of God" or something similar? Does Shakespeare?
>
> Have you read Oxford's letter? Let me quote it once more.
>
> "My lord, this other day yowre man stainner towld me that yow sent for
> Amis my man, and yf he wear absent that Lylle showld come vnto yow. I sent
> Amis for he was in ye way. And I thinke very strange yat yowre Lordship
> showld enter into that course towards me, wherby I must lerne yat I knev
> [=knew] not before, bothe of yowre opinion and good will towards me. but I
> pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be yowre ward nor yowre
> chyld, I serve her magestie, and I am that I am, and by allyance neare to
> yowre lordship, but fre, and scorne to be offred that iniurie, to thinke I
> am so weake of gouernment as to be ruled by servants, or not able to
> gouerne my self."
Yep, actually I've read it many times. I think you know me well enough
by now to know I rarely argue about material I haven't read. Oxford
sounds arrogant and angry. He doesn't sound in "by grace of God" mode
to me.
>
> "Lylle," of course, is John Lyly, whose riff on Exodus had appeared in
> *Euphues* before he entered Oxford's service. Oxford whines
WHINES? A word of high colour.
Have you read sonnet 121? <g>
"No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own."
Not much of "by grace of God" there either. Shakespeare sounds pretty
arrogant and annoyed too.
>that he has
> only just now learned something about Burghley's "opinion and good will
> towards me" -- and what he learned has hurt him, the poor little dear.
See, Terry, you're being pretty sarcastic about Oxford. Unnecessary.
Doesn't help your case. Especially as Shakespeare displays a similar
tone in 121 to that of the poor little dear.
> "But I pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be yowre ward
> nor yowre chyld" -- ah, does that mean that Oxford is an entirely free
> agent, a being self-created and self-governing? Read on: "I serve her
> magestie." Why do you ignore these words? "I serve her magestie."
> Oxford will not be Burghley's ward or Burghley's child, but he WILL be
> whatever the queen wants him to be. "I serve her magestie." This
> statement of fealty occupies the same space as Paul's declaration of faith
> in God:
>
> I serve her magestie, and I am that I am,
>
> But by the grace of God, I am that I am:
My dear friend--I hope you're still a friend--the tone of the Oxford
passage is entirely different from the tone of Corinth. The parallel
is perhaps a mirage, though I grant you it's interesting, and could be
present.
>
> Oxford, of course, conveys nothing of Paul's submission to the divine
> (although he could certainly have uttered the words);
Right, that's what I'm saying.
>he is almost all
> petulance.
Um, frustration, anger, arrogance. Everything that one can also say
about 121.
I am still convinced that they would also have heard Ex 3.14. It would
have spoken to them with a voice of thunder and lightning. They could
not have quoted those words without hearing that voice, to them the
voice of God.
>
> > >What makes you think Oxford and Shakespeare could not have
> > > been influenced by Lyly or Melbancke, or by other texts in which the words
> > > "I am that I am" occur?
Oh, I'm sure it was common currency. The difference is that they were
arrogant enough to use it, with all its resonances, about themselves.
> >
> > Well, of course, Oxford and Lyly were connected,
>
> Lyly was mentioned in the very letter where Oxford used words that Lyly
> himself has used to good effect.
>
> > and it has been suggested that Oxford was the model for Euphues
>
> Ha! "It has been suggested" seems a strange way to describe a completely
> baseless (though common) Oxfordian delusion.
Well, it has been suggested, but not by me. That is not to say I
believe it a baseless Oxfordian delusion. I'm just not in a position
to make a judgement on it because I haven't investigated it.
>
> > --not something I wish to argue because I'm not sure enough about it;
>
> I know of absolutely no reason to believe it -- but that makes it perfect
> for the Oxfordian "case."
Terry, if you believe you're right, which of course you do, there's no
need to be sarcastic.
>
> > however, I would again say that the words were used very differently,
> > and that both Oxford and Shakespeare were using the words with reference
> > to THEMSELVES.
>
> See the appropriation of the words in Lyly. See Melbancke's
> transformation of "I am that I am" to "I will that I will" -- don't you
> think that might have caught the eye of a writer who, unlike Oxford, liked
> to pun on his first name "Will"?
If the circumstances were different(if, for instance, the word was
EVER), you would say you knew of absolutely no reason to believe
it--but that would make it perfect for the Oxfordian "case." So I am
obliged to say I know of absolutely no reason to believe it--but that
makes it perfect for the orthodox "case." Please note also that
Melbancke comes closer to the original Hebrew text, which is much more
interesting to note.
>See John Knox's dying comfort in the
> fact that Paul's words could become his own.
>
> >
> > >
> > > We know that Oxford in his verse sometimes used "that" in the sense of
> > > "that which" -- this usage was not peculiar to Oxford, of course; it was
> > > very common in Elizabethan literature, and anyone who digs an inch deep
> > > into the matter can come up with dozens of contemporary instances.
> >
> > Yes, but we also know both he and Shakespeare were versed in the Geneva
> > and likely the Bishops etc, and would be well aware of the heft of the
> > words.
>
> Don't forget the Book of Common Prayer. In addition to presenting the
> prayers and biblical passages that were to be used during services, the
> Prayer Book also lists the suggested Biblical readings for matins and
> evensong for every day of the year. The Old Testament was to be read
> through once a year, while the New Testament was read three times a year.
> Thus Exodus 3 was to be read on January 28, but 1 Corinthians 15 was to be
> read every February 3, June 1, and September 30.
One presumes the fact that Exodus 3 was to be read once a year gave
ample opportunity for parishioners to hear it and understand it
contained the words of God. Besides, Oxford had his own Bible, and
Exodus was underlined in several places.
>
> > Literary or Biblical allusions have enormous weight.
>
> Exactly. A pious Christian who followed the Prayer Book would have heard
> 1 Corinthians 15 four times a year at least. This is quite apart from any
> separate reading of the Bible, or from hearing sermons, or reading tracts.
Right, which could just as easily have been of the OT. You seem to be
suggesting that men as brilliant as Shakespeare or Oxford would have
needed Exodus drummed into them at least four times a year to realise
that "I am that I am" was attributed to God in the first instance.
>
> > You cannot separate those words from what God said by suggesting that
> > Oxford or anyone else used "that" for "that which."
>
> It is a fact that Oxford in his verse used "that" for "that with" -- as
> did a great many others through the Sixteenth Century. Here are two
> examples from a single poem:
>
> He smylde, and thus he answerd than, "Desire can have no greater payne
> Then for to see an other man that he desirethe to obtayne,
> Nor greater Joy Can be than this,
> Than to enjoy that others mysse."
>
> Oxford does not mean that the "he" of this poem desires to obtain "an
> other man," but that he desires to obtain that which the other man has.
> The joy comes from enjoying that which others miss.
>
> > It's like saying I would use a sentence such as "It was the best of
> > times, it was the worst of times..." because I understand contrast,
> > rather than that I would necessarily have a consciousness of where those
> > words came from.
>
> You are forgetting the words of St. Paul -- his words were part of the
> epistle for the 11th Sunday after Easter before Oxford was born, and
> throughout his life, and after his death. If Oxford attended services on
> that day in any year of his life, or if he were present at evensong on any
> February 3, June 1, or September 30 in any year of his life -- then he
> heard Paul's words.
You haven't spoken to my point regarding Dickens. You are just
iterating the fact that Corinthians was quoted more often than Exodus,
and I'm saying that even if that was true, it doesn't matter, because
even if Exodus had only ever been quoted once in their lifetimes,
those two men would likely have remembered it and understood its
import.
I'd say "oy" but Bob or someone would say I was being insulting. This
is clearly very different in tone from both the Oxford letter and the
Shakespeare sonnet. Very, very different. He says God has given him
the scriptures *which were* etc, so he could quote them. And again,
he's definitely quoting Corinth. This is by no means clear with Oxford
and Shakespeare.
>
>
> > >
> > > No doubt the words appear in a number of sermons and tracts;
> >
> > Jeez, Terry, one would hope that they did. One would also suggest that
> > they were said with reference to God rather than with reference to the
> > sermonizers.
>
> No, Paul's words could be said by any good Christian with respect to
> himself. You continue to overlook 1 Corinthians.
You continue to overlook Exodus 3.14 and the tone of the Oxford letter
and the Shakespeare sonnet. Paul is submissive. Knox is submissive.
Oxford and Shakespeare are arrogant and angry.
>
>
> >
> >
> > they may also
> > > occur in wills of the period, and it would not be surprising to find them
> > > in private letters NOT written by Oxford.
> >
> > Well, it MIGHT not be surprising (although it would be to me), but so
> > far you haven't raised a single instance of a private letter not written
> > by Oxford in which these words appear and at the same time refer to the
> > writer himself. You haven't even given an instance where the words
> > appear in a letter and are not self-referential.
>
> I haven't looked -- I said it would not surprise me to find examples, but
> such texts as wills and unpublished letters are not so easy to search.
> In any event, we have more than enough already: we have Exodus and 1
> Corinthians and the Prayer Book and Lyly and Melbancke and John Knox.
> You cannot wish the others away by pretending that the only three texts in
> the world are Exodus, Oxford's letter, and Sonnet 121.
I do not do so, not by any means. I say this:
Exodus says "I am that I am." This is Ha Shem (the name). He is
entitled to his arrogance.
Corinthians says "By the grace of God I am that I am." This is Paul.
The parallel may or may not be accidental. He is submissive.
The Prayer Book quotes both Ex and Corinth, so is useless as a
separate piece of evidence. It advances neither case.
Lyly is not speaking about himself.
Melbancke is not speaking about himself.
Knox is on his deathbed, is saying by the Grace of God he is what he
is. He is quoting Paul (through the intervention of God and His
scriptures). He is submissive. I am still not sure he is speaking
about himself, but it doesn't really matter as the context is pure
Paul.
Oxford quotes only the words of Exodus, although the sentence in some
sense parallels Corinth. His tone is arrogant and angry. He is
speaking of himself.
Shakespeare quotes only the words of Exodus. His tone is arrogant and
angry. He is speaking of himself.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I really do not know what the Oxfordian claim is supposed to be on this
> > > matter. A common phrase, known to just about everybody, something that
> > > everyone who attended church services regularly would hear every year,
> > > something that appears not just in scripture (twice), and not just in
> > > devotional literature but also appears in secular works -- somehow the
> > > appearance of this phrase in Oxford's letter to Burghley and in a sonnet
> > > by Shakespeare published 25 years later is supposed to persuade us that
> > > the author of the *Sonnets* must have seen Oxford's letter? Are we really
> > > meant to take this sort of thing seriously?
> >
>
> > No. Of course not. We are meant to take seriously the fact that there
> > are many such coincidences between Oxford and Shakespeare.
>
> Well, Oxfordians take that sort of thing seriously, I suppose, but that's
> hardly a reason for anyone else -- but you are avoiding the issue. The
> phrase "I am that I am" was a common one; it was not coined by Oxford.
> He did not use it the same way Shakespeare did (they each seem to refer to
> 1 Corinthians but in very different ways).
>
> > I don't say that the author of the sonnets must have seen Oxford's
> > letter. I think he must have *written* Oxford's letter.
>
> Did he also write Lyly? Did her write Melbancke? Did he write the Book
> of Common Prayer and the English Bibles? Did he feed lines to John Knox
> as the man lay dying?
I don't think he did; in fact I'm sure he did not, though he might
have looked over the Lyly as a friend; however, I've categorized what
I believe are the differences in the texts above. I also have to say,
Terry, and this is a mere suspicion, that I'm not certain Knox ever
said those words. People appear in retrospect to have made amazingly
brilliant and literary speeches on their deathbeds. This is incredibly
cynical of me, but I've read such accounts so many times in my novel
research that I'm beginning to doubt them.
Terry, we've dealt with this at length in another post. And now I
would add the following: I went through the most horrible treatment
imaginable for almost a year. During that time I wrote one and a half
books and edited another. Did I even mention in those books what was
always, always on my mind? I think you know the answer.
>
>
> > I'm certainly not suggesting that one copied from another, only that
> > they both had enough arrogance copy God.
> >
>
> They may have echoed Exodus or 1 Corinthians or the Prayer Book or Lyly or
> Melbancke; Shakespeare may have echoed Knox; either of them may have
> echoed some other user of those very common words that we haven't thought
> of. Oxford was not arrogant enough to speak as if he thought he were a
> god -- he served the queen. He WAS upset enough to ask not to be treated
> as Burghley's child or ward, and he was not happy that Burghley wanted to
> talk to his men. The most astonishing coincidence in this whole matter is
> one you have not faced: Lyly in *Euphues* uses "I am that I am" in a very
> striking way; and Lyly is mentioned in Oxford's letter.
I do face it. I find it very interesting. Oxford might indeed have
been reminded of the phrase because of his connection to Lyly; and
thus he used it, as writers are known to; however, he used it in a
very different way and was almost certainly secure in the knowledge
that God had used the same words. God was, after all, the source of
the Lyly quote.
snip
>
>
> > >
>> >
> > Either you're not getting it or I'm nuts. Either or both are possible.
>
> What is there to get? You would have us ignore many, many instances of
> this common phrase, and pretend that one person must have written Oxford's
> letter and Shkaespeare's sonnet.
I do not ignore them at all. I see them as different. And I am not
pretending. I never pretend except when I'm writing novels or playing
charades with friends. If this were the only point of contact, as it
were, between Oxford and Shakespeare, you know I would dismiss it as a
coincidence. But it's not and I can't.
>
>
> > >
> > > Why should we be impressed that Oxford, in a private letter to Burghley
> > > written 25 years before the *Sonnets* appeared, also happened to use the
> > > expression? More to the point, perhaps, Lynne, is why exactly does this
> > > happenstance impress you?
> >
> > Because I cannot find ANY instance of it during the period, except in
> > the sonnets and the Oxford letter, where anyone was arrogant enough to
> > use God's words with reference to himself.
>
> You are assuming what you have not attempted to show: that the words in
> both Oxford's letter and Shakespeare's sonnet were used entirely without
> regard to 1 Corinthians. What you call "God's words" were also St. Paul's
> words in the Prayer Book and in versions of the Bible familiar to Oxford
> and to Shakespeare. Neither Oxford nor Shakespeare said of himself "I am
> that I am." Each used the Pauline words in a context, even though Oxford
> and Shakespeare used the words differently from each other. In each case
> the meaning is (or cannot be said not to be) "I am that which I am."
>
> > You are much more learned than I, and yet you haven't yet given me an
> > example either.
>
> I gave you John Knox. If I get the chance to look further I may find more
> examples, but there are already far more than we need.
I disagree. Please find more. Find examples where writers are saying
"I am that I am" in a tone of arrogance and annoyance about
THEMSELVES.
>
> > You must allow me to believe it is not a happenstance, Terry.
>
> By all means, Lynne, believe as thou list.
I shall, of course. :)
>
> > You must allow me to believe that it is one clue among many that gives
> > away the author's identity.
>
> Far be it from me to interfere with the profession of any creed.
I do not call it a creed, unless orthodoxy is also a creed.
>
> > And you must allow that 1609 is just the end date of the sonnets. They
> > may have been written many years before. We know for a fact that some
> > of them were.
>
> We know some were circulating a decade before; there is no reason to think
> they existed in the 1580s.
I agree. But we need not hang anything on that.
>
> > Most experts believe they were written in the 1590s.
>
> A more common view among scholars today is many of them are later.
>
> > I've seem some material lately that endeavours to date them even
> > earlier, much closer to the period when Oxford wrote the "I am that I
> > am" letter, although I'm not convinced by it;
>
> Oh puh-leeze. Shakespeare's sequence reflects and responds to the sonnet
> craze of the 1590s; it was not written before the craze began -- unless
> you side with Sobran, who thinks Oxford wrote all the Elizabethan sonnets.
I trust I do not side with Sobran with regard to most of his beliefs.
>
> > however, that said, the letter and the publication of the sonnets may
> > have been separated by 25 years, but I would suggest the period between
> > the writing of the letter and the writing of 121 was much briefer.
>
> Perhaps it was briefer by 5 or 10 years; that still leaves the better part
> of a generation between the two documents. In every year during that
> generation, Paul's words were read as the epistle for the 11th Sunday
> after Trinity, and at evensong three times a year.
Well, I'll say this for you, you don't give up. You've omitted the
once a year when Ex was read.
>
> > The context may be different but the tone is similar.
> >
>
> The tone is really very different. Oxford attempts to fix his social
> position -- servant to the queen, but Burghley's peer; not Burghley's
> child or ward, and not someone whose own servants should be talking to
> Burghley. Shakespeare is concerned with the relationship between one's
> true moral state and the judgments of others -- it it indeed better to be
> vile than to be vile esteemed?
That is context. The context is different. The tone is very similar.
>
>
> > LynnE, who has just come back from an anniversary celebration. 35 years!
> >
>
> Congratulations! I hope to be able to say the same for myself some day.
I'm sure you will. By the way, isn't the ring cycle on this weekend?
Forgive all typos, accidental segues, non sequiturs, and my usual
idiocies. I have to go to bed. Even the dogs are snoring.
L.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
> http://Shakespearefellowship.org.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)