The Story of the Ray Mignot Sonnet
The Historian
started with the following post:
*****
From: Mignotray (mignot...@aol.comxspam)
Subject: Oxford sonnet?
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 1998/12/14
My professor told me the following sonnet has implications for
Shakespeare
authorship. He said it was found in amongst a cache of William Cecil's
papers, with a handwritten note in the margin, just "Oxenf." Who
exactly is
William Cecil, (I know he worked for Q. Eliz) and why does this mean
anything?
If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
Full well thy feeble life (with sports well crammed,
Disdaining love which cradles beauty best)
Would stand the hazard of thy rage inflamed,
And shout as though a cryer in the streets,
Descanting upon war or brawls abroad,
That Time will cram thee hard between his sheets,
As all dead beauties, bodies all, are awed.
But thy face summers in its campaign still,
Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And stops the words who pleaseth not thy will,
A fort against which gunstones black are hurled.
Mark! No heir will fight for thee in hell,
If time, in war, destroys thy beauty's spell.
Ray Mignot
*****
Paul Crowley gave a brief dismissal of the sonnet, and before the post
had
even appeared on some servers, did a 180 degree flip. And he wasn't the
only
Oxfordian who swallowed the bait, as Richard Kennedy also gave his
opinion:
*****
This is not De Vere, nor is it Elizabethan. It's a long, long way from
that. In fact, by Elizabethan standards, it's crap. I'm sure it's a
troll
and, in that context, not too bad. Probably better than I could do.
Nice try, Mr Mignot (whoever you are) but I, for one, amn't fooled.
Paul.
On reading it again, I'm completely withdrawing my previous comments,
and
reversing my conclusions. I was much too hasty in assuming tha it was
someone like Jack Vancho doing an Elizabethan pastiche. One reason I
was
suspicious is that the theme is so
Shakespearean. However, it's far too distinctively Elizabethan, and
the
more I read it the more I like it. (Read it quickly and out loud -- it
flows beautifully.) It is very densely packed, and full of complex
imagery. The author shows a willingness to break rules (like putting
in all
those "cram's" words, and rhyming 'crammed' with 'inflamed'). In this
case
it's addressed to a dominating and rather fear-inspiring woman --
although
the author is not afraid to say what he thinks about her in the poem.
If it
is Oxford's (as I am now fairly sure) the only likely candidate would
be
Elizabeth, and that would have been the reason for excluding it from
the
Canon.
Apologies to Mr Mignot -- for believing you were someone else adopting
a
pseudonym.
And tell your professor that it certainly does have authorship
implications!
Who is he, btw?
Paul.
Mark line 10:
Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And compare:
"You cram these words into mine ears." --Tempest ii,1,106
This poem evidently found amongst Cecil's papers, with the notation
"Oxenf".
Can Ray Mignot tell us more, this is close to the bone.
-Richard Kennedy
*****
The critical commentary on the sonnet was as much about Crowley's
assesment
as the sonnet itself:
*****
Is this typical Crowley crap, or what? He claims that "Stratfordian"
scholars cannot and will not make judgments of literary quality unless
they
know who the author is. Of the sonnet he says, "This is not De Vere,
nor is
it Elizabethan. It's a long, long way from that. In fact, by
Elizabethan
standards, it's crap," without, of course, giving any reasons for his
opinion.
Next, he completely reverses himself, saying he was "too hastily
assuming
that it was someone like Jack Vancho doing an Elizabethan pastiche."
Now
the
sonnet is "distinctively Elizabethan," "densely packed, and full of
complex
imagery." Why this new opinion? Well, Kennedy checked in with his
opinion.
Now Crowley is "now fairly sure" it is Oxford's.
Crowley makes Newt Gingrich look like an honest man. And a smart one.
Both,
however, are self-deluded idiots who are incapable of objectivity and
who
accuse others of what they are guilty of.
TR
I, too, find Paul Crowley's opinion of this "Oxford" sonnet
interesting. I
don't see how anyone could easily and quickly identify it as
Elizabethan.
One can only show what date it had to have been composed after--say, if
it
speaks of Disraeli, we know it wasn't from Elizabethan times. But we
don't
know that it wasn't written yesterday. I note Paul's refusal to indulge
in
such academic nonsense as wanting to know the circumstances of its
discovery. Or whose handwriting it's in.
I suspect that it's a hoax simply because it's hard for me to believe
such a
strong piece of (indirect) evidence for Oxford could so suddenly have
turned
up--from Burghley's possessions, no less. If it'd really been around,
surely the Oxfordians would have had references to it in their
boilerplate
for ages now. That's my objective view.
My biased view is that Oxford did not write it because I don't think he
ever
wrote anything that close to (second-rate) Shakespeare.
I wonder if Paul and Richard would be so ready to accept the sonnet if
the
seventh signature of the Stratford man were supposed to be on it.
I think someone on the Stratford side is being cruel to the Oxfordians.
--Bob G.
*****
Crowley's replies to his critics, then and now, is to claim that they
never
offer any new ideas of their own:
*****
Surely, Tom, I never said anything like that? That academics cannot
and
will not make judgements of literary quality unless they know who the
author
is . . .
You will, of course, immediately prove me wrong by making such a
judgement
on this very sonnet . . . . . after all why else would you want to make
a
contribution to this thread?
But . . in fact . . . I can't see any comment from you . . .that's
strange .
. . . . it must have been some glitch in cyberspace . . . it sort of
got
lost . . . . no doubt . . . . I'm sure you intended to give us the
benefits
of your 'scholarship' . . . in the same way as Dave Kathman, Terry
Ross,
Nigel Davies, Jack Vancho and all the other Stratfordian academic
luminaries
have rushed in . . . . . although we've not exactly been able to
study
their contributions yet . . . there's been a lot of delay in the system
over
the last few days . . . . it's all the Christmas emails. . . . they've
been
held up in lapland . . . . that must be the explanation . . . . . .
don't
you think?
Paul.
*****
Meanwhile attempts were being made to get more information on "Ray
Mignot"
and his sonnet, by both skeptics and fence-sitters. Richard Kennedy
reported
that he emailed Mignot, and the email bounced. However, Peter Wilson
received an email from Mignot:
******
Richard,
I received a private email from mignot...@aol.com signed Ray.
Without providing his exact reply to my original query about source
etc. his
response sounded worried: "I shoudln't have posted... it was a
homework question.. I just wanted some opinions..."
Maybe Ray is a real student perhaps ?
Ray,
If you are still out there... and listening...
It is OK to post a homework question... hopefully you will also do some
real
homework.. like maybe look up Oxford's poetry at
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ and do a comparison yourself ?
You got some opinions. If the discovery is legit, please share it's
source
(the Professor's name and location) with this newsgroup OR if privacy
is a
concern.. ask your Professor if I could email him. (Provide me, of
course,
with his email account.)
There are many academics and researchers (Strats and Skeptics alike)
who
would regard this discovery as an important one. Not Earth-shattering
but
important. I myself would simply put your Prof. in touch with some of
these
interested academics and researchers. Be Cool!
-Peter Wilson
Ray,
If Oxford really had written the sonnet, which I doubt, it would be
better
evidence for the Oxfordians than any "evidence" they have ever come up
with
for their proposition that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare. (I
put
"evidence" in quotes because no Oxfordian has ever come up with any
real evidence. If your professor's sonnet were really by Oxford, it
would
be the first actual evidence EVER for the Oxfordians.)
It wouldn't be proof - it wouldn't even be strong evidence - but it
could
reasonably be called "weak evidence."
In case no one has told you yet who William Cecil was, he was one of
Elizabeth's chief advisors. He was also known as Lord Burghley. He
was
also Oxford's father-in-law.
The Earl of Oxford called himself Oxenford or Oxenforde.
I'm sure many of us are curious as to what the hell your professor is
attempting to prove.
If Oxford had written that sonnet, it would be weak evidence that
Oxford had
written the works of William Shakespeare. But if Robert E. Lee had
had the atomic bomb, the south would have won the U.S. Civil War.
And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
-Richard Nathan
******
Meanwhile, Crowley was engaged in debate with a number of skeptics on
HLAS.
The nuggets of Crowleyian wisdom, dispensed with his grand, all-knowing
manner, make fascinating reading. Here Crowley argues with John
Kennedy, who
from the first claimed the "Ray Mignot" sonnet was a fake, and
attempted
serious analysis of the poem. Here are some excerpts from their
exchanges.
Particulary amusing are Crowley's explanations on what forgers do when
they
want to fake a poem. The series of posts have been edited to read
continuously, but no attempt was made to keep the responses in
chronological
order:
*****
Can you really see a modern writer even thinking about the possibility
of
such rhymes? Or using 'awed' in that tortured sense? IMO it's there
largely for its 'aw' sound . . all , , beauties . . all . . awed . ."
It's clumsy, but it's an Elizabethan clumsiness.
It _is_ the intent that we are talking about. And it's in
eccentricities or
'mistakes' where it's easiest to detect one intent on fraud. It's easy
enough to imititate a fairly predictable (if highly competent) writer
like
Pope or Goldsmith, but it's very hard to copy Shakespeare's behaviour
of
going off in wierd and unpredictable directions. I simply can't
envisage
the mental process that would lead an imitator to pick 'awed' -- or
indeed
to produce the rest of the line.
>>Just what antecedent is the "fort" to be taken to allude to?
The woman herself; and/or the vanity in her ears.
>>What does "hell" have to do with anything? from one Christian, even a
merely nominal one,
>>to another, the implication is worse than insulting.
I think that's much too literal a reading. The 'hell' is there partly
to
rhyme with 'spell' and suggests death or oblivion rather than the
strict
Christian interpretation. Although if it was addressed to Elizabeth,
one
must wonder if it was ever sent.
>>I smell a clever, but unlearned, modern pastiche.
That was my first instinct. It seemed to fit too well. But now I
don't
think it's the least 'unlearned'. It's too good. It shows too great
a
degree of familiarity with the Elizabethan world for it to be a hoax.
Its
author has too much sympathy with, and understanding of, the Oxfordian
cause. I have to conclude that it really is Oxford's.
So, on the face of it, it is a magnificent discovery. (As Richard
Kennedy
says, it's front-page stuff.) But who is 'Ray Mignot'? (An anagram --
'n
try amigo?) And why can't we find out more?
We're discussing whether the 'Oxenf' sonnet is genuine or faked. It is
clearly addressed to the Queen, so it implies (whether genuine or
faked)
that sonnets 1-17 were addressed to the Queen. The absence of any
consensus
(to put it mildly), that they are so addressed, either shows an
extraordinary state of affairs around 1570 (if it's genuine) or a
highly
imaginative and remarkably devious (as well as highly talented) faker.
We have to accept that if this sonnet is fake, the faker really knew
his
Elizabethan onions; and not knowing 'pleaseth' is singular would be
very
surprising. Whereas Shakespeare often makes his grammar wrong for the
sake
of the sound.
It would be hard to find throughout the last 400 years two
closely-associated individuals more exposed to neo-classicism than
Shakespeare/ Oxford and the Queen -- and less likely to believe in the
medieval concept of Hell. If this sonnet was
faked, you've now an extra (and unlikely) attribute for the author.
And
his/her own beliefs are really irrelevant; he/she would have been
intent on
contriving a sonnet to fool others -- and would have avoided apparently
inappropriate words.
No. We all know about the nature of hell -- and how it has been
regarded
since the Middle Ages. No modern author doing a pastiche would put in
such
an apparently inappropriate word. We don't have a good explanation
what it
is doing there -- but that's not uncommon in both life and in
Shakespearean
sonnets. However, putting in highly unlikely or near-inexplicable words
is
not something a hoaxer would do.
*****
And, of course, what is an HLAS thread without an argument between
Crowley
and Our Ever-Posting Poet Bob Grumman? Again, the excerpts have been
edited
for continous reading.
******
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:18:52 GMT, BobGrum...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>Of course, I
>think at least five people on this ng could have written the "Oxenf"
>sonnet, including me--and Richard Kennedy.
You are seeing this sonnet through a very different prism from mine.
Maybe
you see it as a 'poetic exercise'. Something like playing a piece on a
piano. And you think you're a competent
player! Well, it's not remotely like that. You have not bothered
with the
idea of its meaning -- which is where you have to start.
It's about urging someone to have an heir -- like the Canonical 1-17.
But
in this case we have much better guidance as to who it might be. It
has not
been distorted by being turned into advice to a man.
If this sonnet is a hoax, its writer had an extraordinary depth of
understanding of Oxfordian themes, with an ability to push them well
beyond
normally expected limits. It brings out a
principal theme -- that Oxford was intimate with the Queen, and that
while
he was in awe of her and feared her temper, he could stand up to her;
that
they had an extraordinary relationship and together made a team that
set
new levels for the whole world
of literature and consequently of politics. The hoaxer would also have
appreciated the extent and depth of the impact on her at a personal
level of
the great controversy of the first half of her reign -- whether she
should
marry and have an heir, and if so, who?
You have to see the sonnet as an impassioned plea to her to abandon her
follies and consider her duty to her people. Now this may (or may not)
be
faked, but that is the context within which the poem is to be judged.
Does
it or doesn't it convey this message (and the passion behind it) to
this
exalted person? It is not to be assessed solely on the basis of your
own
sensibilities and whether or not you dislike a rhyme here or there.
> If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
> Full well thy feeble life
Is this something that Oxford (in his twenties) could say to this
immensely
powerful woman who was seventeen years his senior? I would never have
thought 'feeble' was a conceivable word in such a context. I am almost
certain that no modern writer (especially a Stratfordian) would reach
for
it.
> It's true I don't see all the meanings you find in the sonnet, Paul.
> I only see what's there, a typical Stratfordian failing.
You mean you are wearing your Stratfordian blinkers.
> I don't see anything in the sonnet to indicate it is NOT
> addressed to the queen (other than my own subjective impression
> that it would not have been, due to its tone, etc.), but neither
> do I see anything in it to indicate it WAS.
But you have to decide. It is not a question that can be left hanging.
Or,
if there is some uncertainty, you have to give two quite separate
interpretations (a) assuming that it is addressed to her, and (b)
assuming
it addressed to some other woman, who flies into a rage whenever
someone
suggests to her that she ought to have an heir.
They'll be very different interpretations.
But first, could it really be (b)? If we take the near- universal view
in
this ng, that they sonnet is a hoax, then the hoaxer must have meant us
to
believe that it was addressed to the Queen. He/she clearly failed with
you -- and I'd suggest he/she would fail with almost all Stratfordians
and
most Oxfordians --- which is a major reason that I don't think it could
be a
hoax.
But if it's not the Queen, who else (hoaxingly or otherwise) is it
addressed
to? I suggest that there are no other remotely likely candidates.
Women
did not generally own property at that time -- but if they did, they
could
leave it to whomsoever they wished -- and even without a will, there
would
still be heirs.
There was only one woman in the whole realm who could die without an
heir.
And that issue, quite rightly, dominated the court and the nation.
There was only one woman who was liable to fly into a rage when the
question
of an heir was raised. Everyone knew who she was.
> I've had enough of it. I merely claim that you're forcing all kinds of
extra meanings on it that I don't see.
Come on, Bob. You've taken off the blinkers and replaced them with
blackened
goggles. Who could this sonnet be addressed to? Answer that, and
you're 99%
there.
******
But the handwriting was on the wall for Ray Mignot and his sonnet. Even
among Oxfordians, there was a defection from the believers in the
sonnet's
authenticity. But this defection prompted Crowley's most outrageous
claim
yet:
*****
On 20 Dec 1998 17:50:43 GMT, rkenn...@OregonVOS.net (Richard J
Kennedy) wrote:
>Good work by Gary Allen, which leads us closer to concluding that
>the "Oxenf" sonnet is some sort of hoax on us.
But if it is a hoax, just who is good enough to create it? Certainly
no one
in this ng. And the notion that anyone connected with the Stratford
Trust
has such a capacity is close to unthinkable.
Seriously -- is there anyone alive with that sort of talent,
experience,
knowledge and understanding?
Paul.
******
But it was "one in this newsgroup" - none other than Agent Jim, who
posted
his confession on January 4, 1999.As he wrote, "the 'Oxenford' sonnet
is a
hoax, although I didn't think anyone would really take it seriously
because
of the way I introduced it to the newsgroup."
The one person who took it seriously did concede defeat, and
congratulated
the hoaxer who tricked him. There were some brief Crowleyian jibs at
"skunks" like Tom Reedy, but Crowley's reply to Agent Jim was dignified
and
subdued. And in this typical HLAS comedy, it is fitting the fool makes
the
curtain speech:
******
Congratulations on an excellent piece of work. I don't know how you
did it.
Most praiseworthy.
It was your use of strange phraseology which was near enough to
ordinary
Elizabethan yet so outrageous in a Shakespearean context to be just
about
possible, while being the sort of thing that I could not imagine being
selected by an ordinary hoaxer.
Of course, in retrospect I'm kicking myself for being taken in. You
certainly played on Oxfordian dreams. Nothing would suit our purposes
better than the finding of such a sonnet.
>I wrote a program in BASIC that counts the words in a text, and
>I used it to look at sonnets 1-17. The five most common nouns
>(apart from pronouns) were beauty, time, world, love and eyes.
To some extent you produced a distillation of sonnets 1-17. The
exercise
has certainly changed my view of them. I hadn't realised before how
there
can really be no doubt that they were addressed to the Queen. It was
this
new understanding that made me so subject to the temptation to believe
in
the possibility of your sonnet's authenticity.
>I wanted to use at least some of those words because I was trying
>to write a poem that would seem to fit into that part of the sonnet
>sequence. Whenever I came up with a word or a phrase, I checked
>the canon to see if it had been used before (even in another sense)
>so that most (not all) of the words would appear to be Shakespearean.
>I deliberately chose the phrase "words who pleaseth" because that use
>of "who" was known to be Shakespearean, and that use of the singular
>verb is also in the canon. I wanted to use a key word and a couplet tie
>because many of Shakespeare's sonnets employ those structural
>components, so I used 'cram' as my key word (because one of my
>favorite Shakespearean lines is "Can this cockpit hold the vasty
>fields of France, or may we cram within this wooden O the very
>casques that did affright the air at Agincourt?"). I thought
>'mark' as the couplet tie ('cram' spelled backwards) was
>rather clever. :) The use of 'awe' (in a different sense) was
>also inspired by a line from Henry V: "France being ours, we'll
>bend it to our awe".
Both were very clever, especially the latter.
> I also thought that some Stratfordians were not very
>objective. John W. Kennedy's comments in particular were not
>very convincing, because the things he objected to can be found
>in the actual sonnets or canon, and his comments about the
>'words who pleaseth' phrase were especially wrong.
I think John was right here. In the other cases the 'who' can be tied
to a
singular subject, even when several lines back. In your case there's
no
possibility of a singular subject, making the wording necessarily
ungrammatical. And while Shakespeare often disdains grammar, that
particular breach of the rules grated a bit too much. John's
sensibilities
were IMO sound.
Anyway, well done! You certaily understood how to get to me.
Paul.
Richard Kennedy
Mignot sonnet, and if anyone cares for the history of my part in the
hoax, they will find my scrap of gloss on the poem, along with the
clear opinion that "someone is putting up a hoax on us," and that some
"clown" was having a "good joke" with the poem. Or else, if truly by
Oxford, the discovery of the poem would be front page news. Here's the
long history, from 1998:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy (rkenn...@OregonVOS.net)
Subject: Re: Oxford sonnet?
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 1998/12/18
John Kennedy finds for himself much wrong in the Oxenf.
sonnet, but as much could be said for several of Shakespeare's
sonnets. Yet I think we may boh agree that someone is putting
up a hoax on us, for we have heard no more from Ray Mignot
about the matter, and in fact for the Oxfordians this is just too
good to be true, as close to a smoking gun as would be needed.
A good joke, a good poem by someone who knows his Shakespeare
and some history besides. And too bad for an immediate
solution to the Authorship Question, in which case we could
all take the rest of the day off.
Here again is the questioned sonnet submitted by Ray Mignot
on the hlas line: he says it was found in Cecil's papers, with
the notation aside "Oxenf."
If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
Full well thy feeble life (with sports well crammed,
Disdaining love which cradles beauty best)
Would stand the hazard of thy rage inflamed,
5 And shout as though a cryer in the streets,
Descanting upon war or brawls abroad,
That Time will cram thee hard between his sheets,
As all dead beauties, bodies all, are awed.
But thy face summers in its campaign still,
10 Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And stops the words who pleaseth not thy will,
A fort against which gunstones black are hurled.
Mark! No heir will fight for thee in hell,
If time, in war, destroys thy beauty's spell.
Oxenf line 10: Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
Shaks: "You cram these words into mine ears." --Tempest ii,1,106
Oxenf. line 4: Would stand the hazard of thy rage inflamed.
Shaks: I will inflame thy noble liver, and make thee rage. 2 Hen VI
I am burned up with inflaming wrath. King John
Oxenf. line 9: But thy face summers in its campaign still
Shaks: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day Sonnet 18
But thy eternal summer shall not fade. ditto
Let not winter's ragged hand deface in thee thy summer Son. 6
The sonnet seems to be directed to some disdainful beauty who
sports with love, the "sport" being fornication in the sense we
have here, I think. Shakespeare writes much of a woman's
disdain, and often makes a threat that beauty will die at last.
The first17 sonnets play on this theme exclusively, and also that
the person addressed (who can doubt but that it's a woman) should
bring a child into the world -- "Beauty's waste hath in the world
an end/And kept unused, the user so destroys it." Sonnet 8.
Beauty is of a summer's day only, that's the message of this
Oxenf. sonnet, and an heir upon the earth is needed to keep
that beauty after the flower has fallen. More important than
that, to give the historical gloss to the matter, an heir is needed
by Queen Elizabeth: the people cry for it, Parliament joins in urging
her to get married, and the poet wraps the instruction in the most
unctuous flattery.
But there is something of the Dark Lady in the poem as well, with
the line, "Mark! No heir will fight for thee in hell...." That's
remindful of Sonnet 147, the last lines: "For I have sworn thee
fair, and thought thee bright/ Who art as black as hell, as dark
as night." Of course if we are speaking of Queen Elizabeth, I must
defend that the poet is not speaking of the woman's complexion
at all, but of a darkness that passeth show.
And so you see that whoever wrote this sonnet might pass it
off as Shakespeare's own. But has anyone contacted Mignot yet,
for if he is not a clown, and his professor who discovered the poem
truly exists, they can go to the front page with this sonnet.
Richard Kennedy
Mignot sonnet, and if anyone cares for the history of my part in the
hoax, they will find my scrap of gloss on the poem, along with the
clear opinion that "someone is putting up a hoax on us," and that some
"clown" was having a "good joke" with the poem. Or else, if truly by
Oxford, the discovery of the poem would be front page news. Here's the
long history, from 1998:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy (rkenn...@OregonVOS.net)
Subject: Re: Oxford sonnet?
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 1998/12/18
John Kennedy finds for himself much wrong in the Oxenf.
sonnet, but as much could be said for several of Shakespeare's
sonnets. Yet I think we may boh agree that someone is putting
up a hoax on us, for we have heard no more from Ray Mignot
about the matter, and in fact for the Oxfordians this is just too
good to be true, as close to a smoking gun as would be needed.
A good joke, a good poem by someone who knows his Shakespeare
and some history besides. And too bad for an immediate
solution to the Authorship Question, in which case we could
all take the rest of the day off.
Here again is the questioned sonnet submitted by Ray Mignot
on the hlas line: he says it was found in Cecil's papers, with
the notation aside "Oxenf."
If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
Full well thy feeble life (with sports well crammed,
Disdaining love which cradles beauty best)
Would stand the hazard of thy rage inflamed,
5 And shout as though a cryer in the streets,
Descanting upon war or brawls abroad,
That Time will cram thee hard between his sheets,
As all dead beauties, bodies all, are awed.
But thy face summers in its campaign still,
10 Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And stops the words who pleaseth not thy will,
A fort against which gunstones black are hurled.
Mark! No heir will fight for thee in hell,
If time, in war, destroys thy beauty's spell.
John W. Kennedy
Rosenbaum's "The Shakespeare Wars" confuses you with me? (Subsequent
printings are supposed to be corrected, with an apology.)
Richard Kennedy wrote:
> Every few years the Strats like to say that I was fooled by the Ray
> Mignot sonnet, and if anyone cares for the history of my part in the
> hoax, they will find my scrap of gloss on the poem, along with the
> clear opinion that "someone is putting up a hoax on us," and that some
> "clown" was having a "good joke" with the poem. Or else, if truly by
> Oxford, the discovery of the poem would be front page news. Here's the
> long history, from 1998:
Here is your first posting:
> From: Richard J Kennedy
> Date: Tues, Dec 15 1998 12:00 am
> That's a very interesting sonnet, and much like Shakespeare to
> my ear as well. It helps with the old, old notion prevailing
> before 1750 or so, that the sonnets were written to a woman,
> not a man, but tell us more. Kennedy.
Here is your second:
> From: Richard J Kennedy
> Date: Wed, Dec 16 1998 12:00 am
> Here again is the questioned sonnet submitted by Ray Mignot
> on the hlas line:
[snipped]
> Mark line 10:
> Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
> And compare:
> "You cram these words into mine ears." --Tempest ii,1,106
> This poem evidently found amongst Cecil's papers, with the
> notation "Oxenf". Can Ray Mignot tell us more, this is close
> to the bone.
Here is your third:
> From: Richard J Kennedy
> Date: Thurs, Dec 17 1998 12:00 am
> On the other hand, that Oxfd. sonnet might be a joke, and if so
> it's a very good joke and a very good poem, just the sort of
> puzzle often puts up, nobody really knowing what in the world he
> meant. I wrote to the poster of the sonnet, Ray Mignot, got his
> email address right, I think, but the message got bounced. Has
> anyone had any better luck?
> What I mean about the joke is that if Oxford is the real author
> of the poems and plays, then the discovery of the Oxenf. sonnet
> in Cecil's papers is exactly the sort of chance you'd hope for,
> and the name Oxenf. in the margin would be very exciting.
The one you quote is your fourth.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"