Meaning of the Title "Twelfth Night, Or What You Will" . . . Time-Pleaser

[Jim F.]

Twelfth Night is the end of revelry, a hint on puritanism.
The play's title says: End your fun (be a puritan),
or do what you will.

"What you will" is not an alternate title but part of the title.

Malvolio (the puritan) is connected to "Twelfth Night" to affirm
this title riddle.

MALVOLIO:
I will be strange, stout, in yellow stockings, and cross Gartered.

*yellow: jealous.
*stock: to confine (the two legs, II).
*cross: the instrument of crucifixion (X).
*garter: to bandage tightly (OED v.1b).

*Cross Gartered: X.
*Yellow stockings: II, as two legs, hinted by ye"ll"ow.
*Twelfth: XII.
*Night: darkness (of puritanism).

Malvolio bandages himself tightly on a cross, and stocks his
jealousy against others' fun. He wears the XII on the stage
in each stocking:

X X
- -
- -

or by combining two:

> <
- -
- -

Malvolio "hath been most notoriously abused" in the play;
however, the puritan will come back:
"I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you."

It's related to Lamilia's Fable by Robert Greene.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/b8DbaPhfQl8

[Peter F.]

When the Court needed a play for the visit of Virginio Orsini,
Duke of Bracciano, to be performed on 5 January (Twelfth Night),
1600/1, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were unable to get a new
one written in time. They therefore took an old play called
*Love's Labour's Won*, changed the names of the characters and
updated some of the dialogue. They also wanted a title having
more relevance to the occasion, such as *Twelfth Night*. When
the original author was asked for his opinion he said "You may
call it *Twelfth Night*, or what you will", so they did.

Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>

[Paul Crowley]

On 20/12/2013 11:51, Peter F. wrote:

> When the Court needed a play for the visit of Virginio Orsini,
> Duke of Bracciano,

An Italian duke would not have been expected to know
one word of English -- any more than anyone would
expect a modern American tourist visiting (say) Finland
to know a word of Finnish. So there would be almost
no point in having a new play for his benefit.

> to be performed on 5 January (Twelfth Night), 1600/1,

There is no record of any such performance.

> the Lord Chamberlain's Men were unable to get a new
> one written in time. They therefore took an old play called
> *Love's Labour's Won*,

Those who believe in the existence of such a play,
fail to grasp that its (entirely invented) name is a
joke. It plays on the ignorance of the masses who
could not see the several meanings of the name
of the play "Loves Labour Lost". That is a multiple
(and beautiful) Elizabethan pun on "Love", "Labour"
and "Lost", with one alluding to the fact that the
Queen ("Love") never went into labour -- to the loss
of the nation. Another is to the vast effort that went
into the entertaining of 500 French courtiers who
came over in 1581 -- for months -- accompanying
Alencon in his bid for the Queen's hand in marriage.

> changed the names of the characters and
> updated some of the dialogue.

The play depicts a failing suitor of a rich, noble,
never-married woman, who controls a large estate.
There was only one such woman in Early Modern
Europe -- Queen Elizabeth. Her failing suitor, at
the time, was Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester.
He was (and is) very well known for the bear-staff
on his escutcheon. That is why he is called (in
the play) Orsino ('Italian' for bear). There would be
absolutely no point in suggesting that the Italian
visitor in 1601 was a suitor for the Queen's hand.
The other characters in the play caricature notable
courtiers around 1581, such as Raleigh as Viola --
a woman, pretending to be a man, with whom
Olivia (Queen Liz) falls violently in love.

> They also wanted a title having
> more relevance to the occasion, such as *Twelfth Night*. When
> the original author was asked for his opinion he said "You may
> call it *Twelfth Night*, or what you will", so they did.

Such a conversation may well have taken place
around 1581, The poet was hardly going to give
his play an accurately descriptive name, such as
"High Jinks in the Royal Court".


Paul.

[Scamel]

The first recorded performance of "Twelfth Night" is 2 February 1602 but, according to Leslie Hotson in his book "The First Night of Twelfth Night" (pp. 12-14): “Another significant fact, noted early in the nineteenth century, is that Shakespeare's company, the Lord Chamberlain's Men, were paid for presenting a play - title not recorded - at Court on Twelfth Night, January 6,1600/1 (…) Why call a play Twelfth Night unless it was written to be presented on Twelfth Night? And why bring in a 'Duke Orsino' if not to compliment the Queen's listening guest of honour, the noble Orsino, Duke of Bracciano?”

Scamel

[Paul Crowley]

On 21/12/2013 19:59, Scamel wrote:

> The first recorded performance of "Twelfth Night" is 2 February 1602
> but, according to Leslie Hotson in his book "The First Night of

> Twelth Night" (pp.. 12-14)�Another significant fact, noted early in the

> nineteenth century, is that Shakespeare's company, the Lord
> Chamberlain's Men, were paid for presenting a play - title not

> recorded - at Court on Twelfth Night, January 6, 1600/1 (�)

>
> Why call a play Twelfth Night unless it was written to be presented
> on Twelfth Night?

Most of Shakespeare's comedies seem to have
''throw-away' names, with little or no bearing on
the plots, characters or settings. This _could_
be just another such 'throw-away' name.
But 12th night seems to have been an occasion
for plays in the Royal Court, and that could well
have been the principal origin of the name.

> And why bring in a 'Duke Orsino' if not to compliment the Queen's

> listening guest of honour, the noble Orsino, Duke of Bracciano?�

If YOU were (say) an important diplomat -- or
government officer, and you went to Finland,
and they put on a play -- in Finnish, of which
you did not know a word -- would YOU be
complimented by having one of the characters
in the play being named after you?

The idea is nuts. 'Orsino' was the name of a
well-known long-established noble family in Italy.
The poet had clearly come to know it when he
was in Italy -- and very likely had visited an
Orsino estate and garden.

http://www.4crests.com/orsino-coat-of-arms.html

That a noble Italian visitor bore the same name
as the poet had used 20 years earlier was no
more than a minor coincidence.

Robert Dudley's emblem was also a bear and
a ragged staff:
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/RobertDudley%281ELeicester%29.htm
http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/warwicks.html

Dudley is also represented (or caricatured) in
Mid-Summer-Nights-Dream, as Oberon; the
name 'Oberon' (of the fairy husband of Titania)
means 'noble bear';

Oberon just happens to be the name in the
source Shake--speare used. That was yet
another happy coincidence. The name
'Oberon' can be anagrammed into "No Robe'.
Dudley never got his long-expected royal
robes. That anagram was yet another happy
coincidence. Coincidences happen.

http://www.babynames.com/name/OBERON


Paul.

[Jim F.]

The above logic mars the intelligence of the author, Shakespeare
or Marlowe or anyone you like. It's even an insult to the guests.

"Twelfth Night is the end of revelry, a hint on puritanism.
The play's title says: End your fun (be a puritan),

or do what you will." -- simple and plain.

[Peter F.]

Jim F. wrote:
>
> Peter F. wrote:
> >
> > When the Court needed a play for the visit of Virginio Orsini,

> > Duke of Bracciano, to be performed on 6 January (Twelfth Night),

> > 1600/1, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were unable to get a new
> > one written in time. They therefore took an old play called
> > *Love's Labour's Won*, changed the names of the characters and
> > updated some of the dialogue. They also wanted a title having
> > more relevance to the occasion, such as *Twelfth Night*. When
> > the original author was asked for his opinion he said "You may
> > call it *Twelfth Night*, or what you will", so they did.
>

> The above logic mars the intelligence of the author, Shakespeare
> or Marlowe or anyone you like. It's even an insult to the guests.
>
> "Twelfth Night is the end of revelry, a hint on puritanism.
> The play's title says: End your fun (be a puritan),
> or do what you will." -- simple and plain.

Well, Jim, the reason for the "What You Will" bit was mainly
intended to be amusing, but the theory of it being the reworking
of an earlier play isn't a bad one, and it provides a nice
explanation for why "Love's Labour's Won" disappeared. It
occurred to me as a possibility since (a) they were apparently
given very little notice for the Twelfth Night play, and (b)
there is some stylometric support for it.

If you look at Appendix VII of my "A Deception at Deptford"
(at <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx8a.htm>) you will see a
white square hovering on its own just to the right of 1600 and
just above 30%. This is "Twelfth Night", and it shows that the
*verse* of that play has a style (in respect of line-end flexi-
ility) which had been the norm some four years earlier.

Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>

[Jim F.]

Yes, Peter, there can be many explanations. I view from word's logic,
and select the logical one that benefits the author. Let me complete
the time-pleaser first (somehow my posts were rejected by this forum).

MALVOLIO: "Every one of these Letters are in my name."
-- the definition of one-way anagram.

Every letter of Viola is in Olivia (also a one-way love).
Every letter of Olivia is in Malvolio.

Every letter of "Martin Marprelate" is in Puritane
except M and L, which are mended by Malvolio.
Malvolio-Puritane can spell Martin Marprelate

MARIA:
"The devil a Puritan that he [Malvolio] is, or anything
constantly but a time-pleaser, an affectioned Ass,"

Marprelate is a one-way anagram of time-pleaser.
Time-pleaser with an N can spell Martin Marprelate.

Naming is Shakespeare's secret.

[Paul Crowley]

On 28/03/2014 09:25, Peter F. wrote:

>>> When the Court needed a play for the visit of Virginio Orsini,
>>> Duke of Bracciano, to be performed on 6 January (Twelfth Night),
>>> 1600/1, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were unable to get a new
>>> one written in time. They therefore took an old play called
>>> *Love's Labour's Won*, changed the names of the characters and
>>> updated some of the dialogue. They also wanted a title having
>>> more relevance to the occasion, such as *Twelfth Night*. When
>>> the original author was asked for his opinion he said "You may
>>> call it *Twelfth Night*, or what you will", so they did.
>>
>> The above logic mars the intelligence of the author, Shakespeare
>> or Marlowe or anyone you like. It's even an insult to the guests.
>>
>> "Twelfth Night is the end of revelry, a hint on puritanism.
>> The play's title says: End your fun (be a puritan),
>> or do what you will." -- simple and plain.
>
> Well, Jim, the reason for the "What You Will" bit was mainly
> intended to be amusing, but the theory of it being the reworking
> of an earlier play isn't a bad one, and it provides a nice
> explanation for why "Love's Labour's Won" disappeared.

The theory is nonsense. No explanation is
necessary for why "Love's Labour's Won"
disappeared -- since it never existed.

Surely you can see that "Loves Labours Lost"
(without the anachronistic apostrophes) is a
multiple -- and rather beautiful -- pun? Surely
you accept that Shake-speare, in common with
nearly all Elizabethan poets, loved to pun,
especially in titles? Lastly, you need to accept
that those in-the-know liked to tease the ignorant
masses with nonsensical inventions such as
"Love's Labour's Won".

> It occurred to me as a possibility since (a) they were apparently
> given very little notice for the Twelfth Night play,

Pure imagination. But when has that ever
been a problem for Strat theorists?

> and (b) there is some stylometric support for it.

God help us.

> If you look at Appendix VII of my "A Deception at Deptford"
> (at <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx8a.htm>) you will see a
> white square hovering on its own just to the right of 1600 and
> just above 30%. This is "Twelfth Night", and it shows that the
> *verse* of that play has a style (in respect of line-end flexi-
> ility) which had been the norm some four years earlier.

The last time I pointed out the nonsensicality of
this theory, you took umbrage at my suggestion
that this theory would appeal to aliens (or to
computers) or to any entity that had no grasp
whatever of the English language and lacked all
capacity to understand theatre or any other art.

You used the (probably unconsciously) generated
cloud of indignation to hide your failure to answer
the question. But this absurd theory is not really
yours -- you've taken (or adapted or extended) it
from mobs of brain-dead Strat 'scholars'.

Give ONE example where a comparable measure
either HAS been used or COULD be used in the
career or any other artist.

No one doubts that artists change their styles as
they develop. Early Beethoven does not sound
like late Beethoven. Early Picasso does not look
like late Picasso. Early Beatles were very
different from late Beatles. And so on for every
artist of stature since before the Renaissance.

Yet where is the ONE example of a measure that
could (or should) be applied to the works of an
artist by a computer, or by an uncomprehending
alien, which would reliably inform that entity about
the date of each of his works?

If tools of this type (or even sets of tools) were
available, they would be in routine use in numerous
artistic fields.

The fact that there is NOTHING remotely like the
ridiculous measures you adore should tell you
something. In every case (where their is doubt
about the date of the work) we rely on an expert
who is thoroughly familiar with the field, and who
uses _multiple_ frames of reference. There is
absolutely no scope for a computer nor for an
alien whose use of such 'computations' would
demonstrate that he (or it) knows nothing about
the field.


Paul.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in news:6344849e-14bb-4a29-
9c43-5f8...@googlegroups.com:

> Jim F. wrote:
>>
>> Peter F. wrote:
>> >
>> > When the Court needed a play for the visit of Virginio Orsini,
>> > Duke of Bracciano, to be performed on 6 January (Twelfth Night),
>> > 1600/1, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were unable to get a new
>> > one written in time. They therefore took an old play called
>> > *Love's Labour's Won*, changed the names of the characters and
>> > updated some of the dialogue. They also wanted a title having
>> > more relevance to the occasion, such as *Twelfth Night*. When
>> > the original author was asked for his opinion he said "You may
>> > call it *Twelfth Night*, or what you will", so they did.
>>
>> The above logic mars the intelligence of the author, Shakespeare
>> or Marlowe or anyone you like. It's even an insult to the guests.
>>
>> "Twelfth Night is the end of revelry, a hint on puritanism.
>> The play's title says: End your fun (be a puritan),
>> or do what you will." -- simple and plain.
>
> Well, Jim, the reason for the "What You Will" bit was mainly
> intended to be amusing, but the theory of it being the reworking
> of an earlier play isn't a bad one, and it provides a nice
> explanation for why "Love's Labour's Won" disappeared.

A problematic explanation, given that Manningham, the source for the
February 1602 performance of /Twelfth Night/, reported that the play was
'much like the *Commedy of Errores*, or *Menechmi* in Plautus, but most
like and neere to that in Italian called *Inganni*...' Since he was
familiar enough with the Shakespeare oeuvre to recognise Shakey's reuse
of the 'separated identical twins' motif from /The Comedy of Errors/ as
wells as tropes from the play /Gl'Inganni/ ('The Deceived Ones'), I find
it implausible that he would have watched a rehash of /Love's Labour's
Won/ under a new title and failed to mention it.

> It occurred to me as a possibility since (a) they were apparently
> given very little notice for the Twelfth Night play,

The first person to propose that /Twelfth Night/ was composed and
performed for the occasion of Orsini's visit was Leslie Hotson, but
there is no documentary evidence in support of that proposal. That the
play may have been new when Manningham saw it is suggested by the fact
that he wrote the letters 'Mid' and crossed them out before writing
'Twelue night, or What You Will': presumably he had momentarily confused
the title with 'Midsummer Night's Dream,' an unlikely mistake if
/Twelfth Night/ had been around for over a year already.

While it is true that the Lord Chamberlain's Men put on a play for a
group of spectators including Orsini on 6 January 1601 (modern style),
it seems just as plausible to me that Shakey wrote 'Twelfth Night' after
the event, and to some degree inspired by it. And there is no reason to
suppose that an original play was commissioned for the occasion: we know
from later records that old plays were often performed at court - the
first dated performance of /The Merchant of Venice/ was a court
performance on Shrove Tuesday of 1605, but the play was entered in the
Stationers' Register in 1598, and the Q1 title page (1600) states that
the play 'hath beene diuers times acted by the Lord Chamberlaine his
Seruants'. If the Chamberlain's Men had played /Love's Labour's Won/ for
the court in 1601, they wouldn't have needed to rename it.

> and (b) there is some stylometric support for it.
>
> If you look at Appendix VII of my "A Deception at Deptford"
> (at <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx8a.htm>) you will see a
> white square hovering on its own just to the right of 1600 and
> just above 30%. This is "Twelfth Night", and it shows that the
> *verse* of that play has a style (in respect of line-end flexi-
> ility) which had been the norm some four years earlier.

Does it? The dataset in Appendix IX gives a figure of 32.73% for
/Twelfth Night/: the play with the closest match, 31.02%, is /Richard
III/, which is conventionally dated c. 1592. True, the next closest
match, 35.79%, is /2 Henry IV/, conventionally dated c. 1597, but /Merry
Wives of Windsor/, also conventionally dated c. 1597, comes in at 42.5%.

Though the increasing percentage of run-on lines and 'feminine' endings
correlates reasonably closely with the speculated composition dates of
Shakey's 'later' plays (i.e., from /Henry V/ onward), it shows very
little correlation with the dates of the 'earlier' ones, and where
Marlowe's concerned it leads to the absurd conclusion that the last two
plays he composed under his own name were the two parts of /Tamburlaine/
- and if one posits that Marlowe wrote all the plays under
consideration, the next play he composed after the second part of
/Tamburlaine/ was apparently /A Midsummer Night's Dream/!
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:dc219a1c-403a-40f0-a008-
1c25de...@googlegroups.com:

> Yes, Peter, there can be many explanations. I view from word's logic,
> and select the logical one that benefits the author. Let me complete
> the time-pleaser first (somehow my posts were rejected by this forum).
>
> MALVOLIO: "Every one of these Letters are in my name."
> -- the definition of one-way anagram.

Note that Malvolio's 'one-way anagram,' viz., 'M.O.A.I.,' was invented
by his enemies as part of their scheme to make a complete fool out of
him.

> Every letter of Viola is in Olivia (also a one-way love).
> Every letter of Olivia is in Malvolio.
>
> Every letter of "Martin Marprelate" is in Puritane
> except M and L, which are mended by Malvolio.
> Malvolio-Puritane can spell Martin Marprelate

And much else besides.

> MARIA:
> "The devil a Puritan that he [Malvolio] is, or anything
> constantly but a time-pleaser, an affectioned Ass,"
>
> Marprelate is a one-way anagram of time-pleaser.

And Posthumus (from /Cymbeline/) is a 'one-way anagram' of 'O. Possum.'
Amazing!

> Time-pleaser with an N can spell Martin Marprelate.

And if you add a KEY to 'Posthumus Leonatus', it can spell 'Sneaky O.
Possum'!!!

> Naming is Shakespeare's secret.

And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

S.O.P.,

All my anagrams and riddles will converge to Wilton House,
including Marlowe protected by the Herberts, Oxford losing
the control of Shakespeare, rumors about the Queen and Bacon.
Their stories were sealed in Shakespeare by Wilton poets.

I prove that by reasoning difficult lines. You're welcome
to comment. Try James Gourney (one of the best anagrams),
"Nameplay in Robert Greene's Groat's-Worth of Wit",
"Impact of Catchword in the First Folio", or
"Kate Arden and B. Bs. in Ben Jonson's An Execration upon Vulcan".

Or try to solve Lamilia's Fable. It's the origin of Shakespeare,
and it's about Martin Marprelate.

Diverged examples mean nothing; if one cannot Converge, one fails.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:b53f0dde-702d-4a1b-9403-
0fd46c...@googlegroups.com:

> S.O.P.,
>
> All my anagrams and riddles will converge to Wilton House,
> including Marlowe protected by the Herberts, Oxford losing
> the control of Shakespeare, rumors about the Queen and Bacon.
> Their stories were sealed in Shakespeare by Wilton poets.

And so was mine: Sneak-KEY-O-possum = Posthumus Leonatus + KEY. Can you
disprove it?

> I prove that by reasoning difficult lines.

So do I. But I do it better.
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:20:11 PM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > I prove that by reasoning difficult lines.
> So do I. But I do it better.

> S.O.P.

To S.O.P.,

You can do it better? Good. Show to us.
Solve Lamilia's Fable if you can, a difficult one.

Jim

(Stone to sonnet is actually a perfect anagram in
Shakespeare's time. Check the OED.)

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:ae8d83ff-7e7b-4956-a844-
d354a6...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:20:11 PM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> > I prove that by reasoning difficult lines.
>> So do I. But I do it better.
>> S.O.P.
>
> To S.O.P.,
>
> You can do it better? Good. Show to us.

I already have. Who has eyes, let him see.
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

> > To S.O.P.,
> > You can do it better? Good. Show to us.
> I already have. Who has eyes, let him see.

> S.O.P.

Do you mean Bartholomew=Both-Marlowe that perfect anagram?

Christopher Sly with Bartholomew tells Marlowe's presence.
Sly is controlled by a *Lord* like Marlowe by Wilton House (Mr. W.H.);
Why the author didn't name the *Lord* but his page and hounds?

Marlowe knew the world will doubt, so he added:

Am not I Christopher Sly,
old Sly's son of Burton-heath,
by birth a Peddler,
by education a Cardmaker,
by transmutation a Bear-herd, and now
by present profession a Tinker.

Peddler, Cardmaker, Bear-herd, and Tinker, look like some code.
This one is easier than Lamilia's Fable, but to reason every word
is still hard, or not? You can try.

(Don't forget Robert Greene's Lamilia's Fable.)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/b8DbaPhfQl8

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in

news:f2804fb8-0cb2-45b9...@googlegroups.com:

>> > To S.O.P.,
>> > You can do it better? Good. Show to us.
>> I already have. Who has eyes, let him see.
>> S.O.P.
>
> Do you mean Bartholomew=Both-Marlowe that perfect anagram?

No.
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

I'll start a new thread to support my "Naming is Shakespeare's secret."
Welcome to comment there.

Marlowe or Wilton poets are not being degraded here. For them, serving
Pembroke was an honor then, especially for William Shakespeare.

[Jim F.]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:41:20 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > MARIA:
> > "The devil a Puritan that he [Malvolio] is, or anything
> > constantly but a time-pleaser, an affectioned Ass,"
> > Marprelate is a one-way anagram of time-pleaser.
> And Posthumus (from /Cymbeline/) is a 'one-way anagram' of 'O. Possum.'
> Amazing!
>
> > Time-pleaser with an N can spell Martin Marprelate.
> And if you add a KEY to 'Posthumus Leonatus', it can spell 'Sneaky O.
> Possum'!!!
>
> > Naming is Shakespeare's secret.
> And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!
> --
> S.O.P.

Martin Droeshout spells Mary Sidney. Wilton poets knew the world
will doubt, so they added one more letter B to make Martin Droeshout
to spell Mary Sidney "Herbert".

Collar in Shakespeare's portrait is a page with the missing B.

M with Rosalinde (Colin's Mistress) spells Mary Sidney.

Maria's "devil a Puritan . . . time-pleaser" mocks Martin Marprelate,
a subject of that play.

Adding few letters to make an anagram or logogriph is Wilton's trick.
Many such wordplays exist in Shakespeare. Why you laugh?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in

news:15e9b331-af44-4a84...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:41:20 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> > MARIA:
>> > "The devil a Puritan that he [Malvolio] is, or anything
>> > constantly but a time-pleaser, an affectioned Ass,"
>> > Marprelate is a one-way anagram of time-pleaser.
>> And Posthumus (from /Cymbeline/) is a 'one-way anagram' of 'O.
>> Possum.' Amazing!
>>
>> > Time-pleaser with an N can spell Martin Marprelate.
>> And if you add a KEY to 'Posthumus Leonatus', it can spell 'Sneaky O.
>> Possum'!!!
>>
>> > Naming is Shakespeare's secret.
>> And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!
>

> Martin Droeshout spells Mary Sidney.

There isn't even one 'y' in 'Martin Droeshout', let alone two (and
before you ask, no, the 'i' can't double as a 'y'). And none of the
Wilton Poets would have been so gauche as to refer to the Countess of
Pembroke as 'Mary Sidney' anyway.

> Wilton poets knew the world will doubt, so they added one more letter
> B to make Martin Droeshout to spell Mary Sidney "Herbert".

It seems they also knew that later generations would think of Lady Mary,
Countess of Pembroke, as 'Mary Sidney'. How remarkable that they should
have anticipated the decay of respect for the English nobility!

> Collar in Shakespeare's portrait is a page with the missing B.

No it isn't.

> M with Rosalinde (Colin's Mistress) spells Mary Sidney.

There's no 'y' in 'Rosalinde', either.

> Maria's "devil a Puritan . . . time-pleaser" mocks Martin Marprelate,
> a subject of that play.

Absurd.

> Adding few letters to make an anagram or logogriph is Wilton's trick.
> Many such wordplays exist in Shakespeare. Why you laugh?

Because is funny.
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:41:41 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > M with Rosalinde (Colin's Mistress) spells Mary Sidney.
> There's no 'y' in 'Rosalinde', either.

Do you mean I cannot interchange y and i?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:4fbc48f9-ed4f-433d-9e3f-
807350...@googlegroups.com:

You can do whatever you like, since you're just making it up as you go
along anyway - but for what it's worth, you need to do more than
interchange: you need to multiply the 'i' into three 'i's and change two of
the three into 'y's. And that's /before/ you conjure an 'm' out of nothing.

Not that it matters, since no one would have referred to the Countess of
Pembroke as 'Mary Sidney' in the first place. In addition to being
unacceptably rude, it would have been unnecessarily confusing, since the
Countess's mother was also named Mary (born Mary Dudley, she married Henry
Sidney, and became a Lady upon his being knighted), and the Countess had a
niece, Lady Mary Wroth, whose maiden name was also Sidney, and Lady Mary
Wroth was, like the Countess, a poet and a patron (Jonson dedicated /The
Alchemist/ to her).
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

Mary Sidney can be a countess, poetess, poet, lord ...
in her world of Shakespeare depending on the context,
just like Arcadia.

Shakespeare's naming is funny? Try Diana Capilet and
Fontybell (Fontibell).

[Jim F.]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:41:20 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > Naming is Shakespeare's secret.
> And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!

Can't solve Fontybell and Diana Capilet? A hint. Mariana
is an unnecessary name, appeared in stage direction only.
Solve these names can reason some difficult lines.

DIANA: "I see that men make rope's in such a scarre,
That wee'l forsake our selues. Giue me that Ring."

Sly means full of *duplicity* or wile (OED 4b), a hint to
treat Christopher Sly's wife Bartholomew as *both*-Marlowe.
If you can't solve Shakespeare's naming, why you laugh?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:4fc1fda9-0d75-4a62-9f4c-
4bcffa...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:41:20 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> > Naming is Shakespeare's secret.
>> And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!
>
> Can't solve Fontybell and Diana Capilet? A hint. Mariana
> is an unnecessary name, appeared in stage direction only.
> Solve these names can reason some difficult lines.

Achieving greater fluency in English might be a better strategy.
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:51:09 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:41:20 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> >> > Naming is Shakespeare's secret.
> >> And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!
> > Can't solve Fontybell and Diana Capilet? A hint. Mariana
> > is an unnecessary name, appeared in stage direction only.
> > Solve these names can reason some difficult lines.
>
> Achieving greater fluency in English might be a better strategy.
> --
> S.O.P.

Change subject? Little can be found in internet? Another hint.
It's irrelevant to authorship question. You can simply quit or
come back only when you have an answer.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:273cae51-3f83-42b1-b13d-
831499...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:51:09 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> > On Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:41:20 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> >> > Naming is Shakespeare's secret.
>> >> And Sneaky O. Possum is the KEY to Shakespeare!
>> > Can't solve Fontybell and Diana Capilet? A hint. Mariana
>> > is an unnecessary name, appeared in stage direction only.
>> > Solve these names can reason some difficult lines.
>>
>> Achieving greater fluency in English might be a better strategy.
>

> Change subject?

Don't mind if I do.

> Little can be found in internet?

You're kidding, right? There's all kinds of crap about 'Fontybell' and
'Capilet' out there, all of it equally interesting, i.e., not at all.
There's nothing to solve there, unless you count the mystery of why
people have to overanalyse every bit of Shakespeherian trivia.

> Another hint. It's irrelevant to authorship question.

You could have stopped after 'irrelevant'.

> You can simply quit or come back only when you have an answer.

An answer? Don't be silly. There isn't even a question.
--
S.O.P.

[Phil Innes]

On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:51:12 AM UTC-5, Peter F. wrote:
> When the Court needed a play for the visit of Virginio Orsini,
>

> Duke of Bracciano, to be performed on 5 January (Twelfth Night),

>
> 1600/1, the Lord Chamberlain's Men were unable to get a new
>
> one written in time. They therefore took an old play called
>
> *Love's Labour's Won*,

TWEY: Two [A. Sax]

Twey schelyng there is more ;
Forgete hem not, be Goddis ore !

MS Cantab Ff v 48 f 53

> changed the names of the characters and
>
> updated some of the dialogue. They also wanted a title having
>
> more relevance to the occasion, such as *Twelfth Night*. When
>
> the original author was asked for his opinion he said "You may
>
> call it *Twelfth Night*, or what you will", so they did.

Night itself is always coupled--hyphenated

NIGHTY; dark [Oxon]

WILL: passion, desire [West] These senses of the word are used by early writers.

Al his wille don him ache pete
And it was apperceived skeet

//Arthour and Merlin p. 30

as well as the origin of

WILL-I-Nill-I; whether I will, willing or unwilling

The origin of the word in English is A. Sax. rendered WILLY among others [WILLE, WILLEN, WILNE], meaning Favorable.

WILNE is separately an A. Sax word; To desire.

Hast thou wylnet by covets
Worldes gode over syse
//MS Cott. Claud A ii f. 142

and also occurs in MS Burney 356 f. 86

In all these combinations there is intimation of two variables in the dark whereto our desire leads us -- and this is some proto statement of to be or not to be [in the dark]

Phil Innes


>
> Peter F.
>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>

[Jim F.]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:08:29 PM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> There's nothing to solve there, unless you count the mystery of why
> people have to overanalyse every bit of Shakespeherian trivia.

> S.O.P.

"Shakespeherian trivia"? It means, you can't solve it. Besides, over
60 lines are related to Diana Capilet and Fontybell.

Key to reason the famous "To be, or not to be" hides in the word *bare*
in "bare Bodkin." That *bare* is trivial? You don't know until you can
solve it.

Twelfth Night mocks Malvolio the Puritan. "Malvolio Puritane" spells
Martin Marprelate, which is the cause of Shakespeare. Edward de Vere
was the initiator of that late anti-Marprelate project, but he escaped.
Mary Sidney's Wilton poets continued. Robert Greene told the story in
Lamilia's Fable and Roberto's Tale.

[Phil Innes]

> Malvolio (the puritan) is connected to "Twelfth Night" to affirm
>
> this title riddle.
>
>
>
> MALVOLIO:
>
> I will be strange, stout, in yellow stockings, and cross Gartered.
>
>
>
> *yellow: jealous.
>
> *stock: to confine (the two legs, II).
>
> *cross: the instrument of crucifixion (X).
>
> *garter: to bandage tightly (OED v.1b).


YELOWSE: jealous. MS Cantab Ff ii 38 f. 152

Thou wildest be so yellows,
And of me so amerowse

Other than Skak. the word is used in Two Lancashire Lovers, 1640p 27

Thy blood is yet uncorrupted, yellows has not tainted it.

And if you like puns on stockings Yellow Slippers are very young calves.

GART: Made; caused [A. Sax] also see Perceval 1411; Isumbras 343

"Make of garre to do, as the Scottish men say. //Florio

And oldest seems to be 'a dart' or javelin [A. Sax] [GARETT; watch tower] and quite possibly GARLAND is derived from this, being the prick or mark in the center of the target.

When he came into the halle,
The role he gart before hym calle.
//MS Cantab etc

With scrape axis of stele,
Mony knyghte gart he knele
//MS Lincoln Ff ii 38 f 243

Here is a direct connection between the words GARTEN: garter, also corn in the sheaf, and YELLOW-BOTTLE: corn marigold

Phil Innes



> *Cross Gartered: X.
>
> *Yellow stockings: II, as two legs, hinted by ye"ll"ow.
>
> *Twelfth: XII.
>
> *Night: darkness (of puritanism).
>
>
>
> Malvolio bandages himself tightly on a cross, and stocks his
>
> jealousy against others' fun. He wears the XII on the stage
>
> in each stocking:
>
>
>
> X X
>
> - -
>
> - -
>
>
>
> or by combining two:
>
>
>
> > <
>
> - -
>
> - -
>
>
>
> Malvolio "hath been most notoriously abused" in the play;
>
> however, the puritan will come back:
>
> "I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you."
>
>
>
> It's related to Lamilia's Fable by Robert Greene.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/b8DbaPhfQl8

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:a45fb8b1-a735-4c29-8a6a-
68e6ae...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:08:29 PM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> There's nothing to solve there, unless you count the mystery of why
>> people have to overanalyse every bit of Shakespeherian trivia.
>> S.O.P.
>
> "Shakespeherian trivia"? It means, you can't solve it.

Oh, are you still around? I thought maybe you'd finally gotten bored and
left.

> Besides, over 60 lines are related to Diana Capilet and Fontybell.

Whoa! Over *60* out of 118,000+ lines! The 'mystery' of Diana Capilet
and Fontybell occupies all of 0.05% of Shakespeare's dramatic output!
Nothing trivial about /that/.

> Key to reason the famous "To be, or not to be" hides in the word
> *bare* in "bare Bodkin." That *bare* is trivial? You don't know until
> you can solve it.

Are you saying you didn't understand that speech before you worked out
what 'bare' meant? Interesting.

> Twelfth Night mocks Malvolio the Puritan. "Malvolio Puritane" spells
> Martin Marprelate,

No it doesn't. You're free to ignore letters, but multiplying them is
against the rules. Already explained that.

> which is the cause of Shakespeare. Edward de Vere
> was the initiator of that late anti-Marprelate project, but he
> escaped.

No he didn't. He was captured and a false Edward de Vere was substituted
in his place, which is clearly revealed in the famous crux of the Arme-
gaunt steed. You honestly didn't know that?

> Mary Sidney's Wilton poets continued. Robert Greene told the story in
> Lamilia's Fable and Roberto's Tale.

Are you suggesting that there actually /was/ a Robert Greene?
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

> > Twelfth Night mocks Malvolio the Puritan. "Malvolio Puritane" spells
> > Martin Marprelate,
>
> No it doesn't. You're free to ignore letters, but multiplying them is
> against the rules. Already explained that.

> --
> S.O.P.

Thou breedest *crickets*, I think, and that will serve for the
anagram to a *critic*. -- Thomas Middleton

Letter i appears once in crickets but twice in critic.
This agrees not your "multiplying them is against the rules."

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in news:9dfba60e-98ed-42bc-b01e-
3f25c5...@googlegroups.com:

>> > Twelfth Night mocks Malvolio the Puritan. "Malvolio Puritane" spells
>> > Martin Marprelate,
>>
>> No it doesn't. You're free to ignore letters, but multiplying them is
>> against the rules. Already explained that.
>

> Thou breedest *crickets*, I think, and that will serve for the
> anagram to a *critic*. -- Thomas Middleton
>
> Letter i appears once in crickets but twice in critic.
> This agrees not your "multiplying them is against the rules."

Silly. 'Middleton' attributes the line you quoted to the personification of
St James's Palace: the humour of the line /depends/ on the fact that
'crickets' is not a legitimate anagram of 'critic'.

You haven't worked out the meaning of the title, I take it?
--
S.O.P.

[Jim F.]

> >> > Twelfth Night mocks Malvolio the Puritan. "Malvolio Puritane" spells
> >> > Martin Marprelate,
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. You're free to ignore letters, but multiplying them is
> >> against the rules. Already explained that.
> >
> > Thou breedest *crickets*, I think, and that will serve for the
> > anagram to a *critic*. -- Thomas Middleton
> > Letter i appears once in crickets but twice in critic.
> > This agrees not your "multiplying them is against the rules."
>
> Silly. 'Middleton' attributes the line you quoted to the personification of
> St James's Palace: the humour of the line /depends/ on the fact that
> 'crickets' is not a legitimate anagram of 'critic'.
> You haven't worked out the meaning of the title, I take it?

> S.O.P.

Mix to confuse? Critic is "derived lawfully" from crickets,
and "breedest crickets" is from Richmond's "the brick-kilns."
Brick-kilns hides something, but that's irreverent to anagram.
(Have you worked out the meaning of Brick-kilns to critic?
An easy one.)

Anagram is a method carrying ideas without interpreting them.
Wilton Poets didn't follow "legitimate" rules of normal anagram,
the reason Shakespeare's secret can be kept for 400 years.

Counting letter is futile with unfixed spelling. Wilton poets'
convergent anagram reduces words. It's logical not to repeat.
Shakspere, Shakspeare, Shakespr ... matter little in this case.

John Milton knew the secret too. His "starre-ypointing Pyramid"
is a difficult puzzle. The y in _y_pointing is the key.

[Jim F.]

> > > Thou breedest *crickets*, I think, and that will serve for the
> > > anagram to a *critic*. -- Thomas Middleton
> > > Letter i appears once in crickets but twice in critic.
> > > This agrees not your "multiplying them is against the rules."
> >
> > Silly. 'Middleton' attributes the line you quoted to the personification of
> > St James's Palace: the humour of the line /depends/ on the fact that
> > 'crickets' is not a legitimate anagram of 'critic'.
> > You haven't worked out the meaning of the title, I take it?
> > S.O.P.
>
> Mix to confuse? Critic is "derived lawfully" from crickets,
> and "breedest crickets" is from Richmond's "the brick-kilns."
> Brick-kilns hides something, but that's irreverent to anagram.
> (Have you worked out the meaning of Brick-kilns to critic?
> An easy one.)
>

Repeating W. Shakespeare's name means little to his authorship.
People also talk about Martin Marprelate. Actually, Shakespeare
game followed the anti-Marprelate.

Time-pleaser as an anagram of Marprelate is supported by
Malvolio-Puritane (one-way anagram of Martin Marprelate).

MARIA: The devil a Puritan that he is,

or anything constantly but a time-pleaser,

Authorship is a question 250 years after Shakespeare's death.
Sonnet 66 talks about roles in Shakespeare. It has been misread
for 400 years, right? Riddle is harder than anagram.

[marco]

[Jim F.]

>
> > Besides, over 60 lines are related to Diana Capilet and Fontybell.
>
> Whoa! Over *60* out of 118,000+ lines! The 'mystery' of Diana Capilet
> and Fontybell occupies all of 0.05% of Shakespeare's dramatic output!
> Nothing trivial about /that/.
>
> > Key to reason the famous "To be, or not to be" hides in the word
> > *bare* in "bare Bodkin." That *bare* is trivial? You don't know until
> > you can solve it.
>
> Are you saying you didn't understand that speech before you worked out
> what 'bare' meant? Interesting.

> --
> S.O.P.

You think Fontybell (60 lines or "0.05% of Shakespeare") is trivial.
"To be, or not to be" has only 35 lines.
You don't know the reason I put this example after Fontybell?

Anagram will rebuild Shakespeare's authorship.
You know the consequence.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Jim F." <jim....@gmail.com> wrote in

news:debb2ced-3ec8-4eec...@googlegroups.com:

>> > Besides, over 60 lines are related to Diana Capilet and Fontybell.
>>
>> Whoa! Over *60* out of 118,000+ lines! The 'mystery' of Diana Capilet
>> and Fontybell occupies all of 0.05% of Shakespeare's dramatic output!
>> Nothing trivial about /that/.
>>
>> > Key to reason the famous "To be, or not to be" hides in the word
>> > *bare* in "bare Bodkin." That *bare* is trivial? You don't know
>> > until you can solve it.
>>
>> Are you saying you didn't understand that speech before you worked
>> out what 'bare' meant? Interesting.
>

> You think Fontybell (60 lines or "0.05% of Shakespeare") is trivial.

I thought the 60-line figure included both Fontybell and Diana Capilet.

> "To be, or not to be" has only 35 lines.
> You don't know the reason I put this example after Fontybell?

'To be, or not to be' is also trivial, albeit less so than the names
'Fontibell' and 'Diana Capilet'. I grant that it is famous, probably the
single most famous bit of Shakespeare, but fame is a poor measure of
significance: 'To be, or not to be' isn't even the most significant
speech in /Hamlet/, never mind the works as a whole. Might as well claim
the opening notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony are the most significant
aspect of his music. (But who /really/ composed Beethoven's works? Aha!)

> Anagram will rebuild Shakespeare's authorship.

Even a /good/ anagram won't rebuild Shakespeare's authorship. Anagrams
aren't evidence. Perhaps someday you'll work that out for yourself.

> You know the consequence.

If I'm wrong about anagrams being evidence, the consequence will
be...what, exactly? What greater significance has the hurlyburly over
who wrote Shakespeare's works? Will it potentially realign our
understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe, the way
Quantum Mechanics did? Or realign our understanding of our planet's
nature, the way plate tectonics did? Will it provide a model for the
history of the universe, like the Big Bang theory, or a model for the
development of life, like Evolutionary theory?

Even if I'm wrong, and someone other than Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare's works, in the end it will have no more effect on our lives
than it would if we discovered that someone other than Aeschylus wrote
Aeschylus's works.
--
S.O.P.

[Paul Crowley]

On 12/06/2014 18:21, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

> Even if I'm wrong, and someone other than Shakespeare wrote
> Shakespeare's works, in the end it will have no more effect on our lives
> than it would if we discovered that someone other than Aeschylus wrote
> Aeschylus's works.

A ridiculous proposition, springing from ignorance
and promoting ignorance.

As far as you (and everyone else) is concerned
'Aeschylus' is (necessarily) a Mr Nobody. To you
Shakespeare is also a Mr Nobody. You can only
imagine your Mr Nobody X being replaced by a
Mr Nobody Y. But think of some authors that
you really do know -- and like and have studied.

Would it make any difference to you if (say) you
found out that the works of Tolstoy were actually
written by Sam Clemens? Or if the works of
Mark Twain were written by Thomas Hardy?

Of course it would. Such switches are next-to-
inconceivable. Likewise, when (and if) you ever
grasp what it was that enabled and allowed the
true author of the great canonical works to
produce them, it will be next-to-inconceivable
that anyone ever thought they could have been
written by someone else. It will be like putting
yourself back in some primitive world where
everyone assumed that the earth was static and
the sun and stars went around it each day. In
such a world, there can be little conception of
science. Likewise in the Stratfordian world,
there is almost no conception of what it is to
be a literary artist nor to grasp the basics of
literature, theatre, or much of Early-Modern
history and culture.


Paul.

[Anonymous Remailer (austria)]

Paul Crowley <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> Likewise in the Stratfordian world, there
> is almost no conception of what it is to be a literary artist nor to grasp
> the basics of literature, theatre, or much of Early-Modern history and
> culture.

Paul Crowley is about the only man here who makes any sense.

[Jim F.]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 at 1:21:12 AM UTC+8, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
. . .

> > Anagram will rebuild Shakespeare's authorship.
>
> Even a /good/ anagram won't rebuild Shakespeare's authorship. Anagrams
> aren't evidence. Perhaps someday you'll work that out for yourself.

. . .
> S.O.P.

The power of anagram is beyond your imagination.
It can solve Lamilia's Fable, Roberto's Tale,
A green and gilded snake, Fontybell, Diana Capilet,
Kate Keep-down, Alice Short-cake, . . .

How can you debate with the above without anagram?

Anagram allows the first word of the First Folio to
spell Ben Jonson, "Bote-swain." Would Jonson be so bold
to take the lead of Wilton poets?

"Enter a Ship-master, and a Boteswaine." -- The Tempest.

Boteswain has a master. "Ship-master and" spells
Mary Sidney. If we add the "B" from Boteswain, it spells
Mary Sidney Herbert.

***

Martin Droeshout and Collar-B

In the 1623 portrait, the name Martin Droeshout is being used to
complete Mary Sidney Herbert via a page-collar with letter B.
It says William Shakespeare is Pembroke's servant (page) wearing
a badge (collar) showing his constraint by Wilton House.

John Benson and Mirror

In Poems 1640, John Benson is being used to mirror Ben Johnson hinted
by a mirrored image of William Shakespeare, a wordplay similar to
James Gourney and Games Journey that leads to Guy Earl of Warwick.

The doublet shows an "I" with the collar-B for Ben Jonson (a member of
the Wilton poets) to claim his mirror authorship. Poems 1640 mirrors
Shake-speares Sonnets. This portrait is about Jonson and Shakespeare,
no Sidney, Marlowe, or others.

***

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

?

an