Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
Franz Gnaedinger
Romeo, in the play Romeo and Juliet, is mentioned
for the first time in a question
O, where is Romeo?
a question offering a pun
O, Vere is Romeo!
a pun providing an answer
de Vere, Oxford
Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford who signed his early
works EO as in Romeo romEO, the pronounced English
initials E and O resembling Italian io meaning I, it's me.
The bard mentioned that his name is bound by one letter,
which is true for the name, the pun, and the answer
Edward de Vere E...e 12 letters (name)
O, Vere is Romeo O...o 12 letters (pun)
de Vere, Oxford d...d 12 letters (answer)
whereby the binding letters of the name E and pun O
yield the initials of the title
Earl of Oxford 12 letters (title)
Name, pun, answer and title contain 12 letters each,
accordingly Juliet in the orchard is awaiting Romeo's
message at twelve.
On a veiled level of the play, Romeo would symbolize
the playwright who was bound to hold back his name
and conceal his authorship; Juliet would symbolize
the adoring audience, rapt public, and loving Muse
who make the poetical torch burn bright; and Paris,
who claimed Juliet for his wife, beautiful Juliet, more
beautiful than all other girls of Verona including lively
Helena - Paris would symbolize William Shakespeare
from Statford on Avon who might secretly have been
given a modest but lifelong pension for pretending
to be the author of those plays and poems, granted
by de Vere's relationship, out of whatever sad reason,
so that a personal tragedy would underly the tragic
love story of the play and make it only the deeper:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and Romeo.
The last lines end on oe and eo respectively, eo
EO Earl of Oxford, so the bard signed his play,
if ever so clandestinely, and although Juliet had
argued most reasonably and beautifully:
What's a name! that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owns
Without that title:--Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.
The bard's name doesn't count, important are
his plays and poems, and the public loves them,
is all for him to take.
Franz Gnaedinger, Zuerich, February 28, 2010
Peter Farey
Goodness me! And have you noticed how often the "EO" is followed
by the word "Will" as in Will Shakespeare?
"RomEO WILL answer it."
"young RomEO WILL be older when you have found him than he
was when you sought him."
"your RomEO WILL be here at night."
Just as a matter of interest, Franz, how would you answer the
questions I say that all Oxfordians must answer (just as all
Marlovians must have an explanation of how Marlowe managed
to survive 1593) at <http://tinyurl.com/ydzqv8r>?
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Panu
> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
Peter Farey
"Panu" wrote:
> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> >
> > Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
Melanie Sands
Mein lieber Franz,
erst mal Grüsse aus Luzern!
Zweitens - war ja sehr lustig deine Post, man könnte aber
auch sagen, Shakespeare war "Sheik-Pére" (Scheich-Pere)- der
marokkanische Vater des Scheichs, und sein
Hamlet würde dann eigentlich fragen -
Tobib or not tobib
und alle Anti-Strats suchen den "wahren" Autor
im falschen Land, und in der falschen Religion!
Würde auch einiges beim "Kaufmann von Venedig"
erklären, so ganz nebenbei...
Melanie
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
Ah, so? Then, who was Anne Hathaway and who lived in the structure
called Shakespeare's cottage?
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 3:07 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> Ah, so? Then, who was Anne Hathaway and who lived in the structure
> called Shakespeare's cottage?
I don't think Oxfordians (or Baconians, or whatever) deny the
existence of the person "William Shakespeare" who is attested in a few
official documents.
Note to h.l.a.s.: Check out the posting history of the originator of
this thread
Panu
> "Panu" wrote:
>
> > Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> > > Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> > Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
>
> Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
Well, I do admit that much that S. Labhrás Ó Súilleabháin's
translation of Macbeth, Traigéide Mhic Bheatha, is an important part
of modern Irish literature. It even restores the original Scots Gaelic
names of the protagonists and must thus be seen as better than the
original.
Panu
urata nodan. Zura zoraqa lana nodan daz re-lana toqapuli, netapuli daz
gatapuli zaq. Daz qomaqa re-ratalana te-lana mar daz lana toqala
nodan. Daz Lanotapele zaq daz natoqali nat. Toqapuli notaq daz
latoqali paq. Daz Lanetapele zaq daz netaqa putaq nara latoqali
takuzu. Daz Lagatapele zaq daz pele re-netapuli var daz te-pele gata
tem daz pele gatapu paq nara pele gatuzu, nara gatapu danuzu.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Panu" wrote:
>
> > > Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> > > > Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> > > Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
>
> > Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
>
> I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
> would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
> Well, I do admit that much that S. Labhrás Ó Súilleabháin's
> translation of Macbeth, Traigéide Mhic Bheatha, is an important part
> of modern Irish literature. It even restores the original Scots Gaelic
> names of the protagonists and must thus be seen as better than the
> original.
What a bizarre criterion.
Harlan Messinger
because he is alluded to when Hamlet asks, "Do you think I meant country
matters?" Country matters = CM = Christopher Marlowe.
Even if these little treasures supposedly hidden among Shakespeare's
works are genuine, some people ought to be introduced to the concept of
the "shout-out".
Panu
> On Feb 28, 9:55 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Panu" wrote:
>
> > > > Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> > > > > Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> > > > Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
>
> > > Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
>
> > I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
> > would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
>
> What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
dramatist from the dark dungeons of literary history writing in an
English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
only second-rate academic interest.
Peter T. Daniels
And of the crowds of Elizabethan playwrights, why is he the only one
whose works are regularly produced, even though they received no
special attention during his lifetime?
Why is he the one who so thrilled the luminaries of the German
Enlightenment?
Panu
You tell me. The Shakespeare cult has been around for so long that it
is self-sustaining by now. Everybody sees it as their duty to praise
the Emperor's new clothes.
>
> Why is he the one who so thrilled the luminaries of the German
> Enlightenment?
Even McPherson's execrable fake "Ossian" thrilled contemporary
luminaries. Today, nobody touches "Ossian", while many of those
luminaries, such as Goethe, are still remembered. Literary history
certainly knows many example of modest or mediocre works that have
inspired vastly superior writing.
Panu
Sorry for not giving my answer in two words: novelty value.
Shakespeare's plays surely had some novelty value in the eyes of those
luminaries.
Peter T. Daniels
You don't seem to know much about Shakespeare ... he was admired by
Samuel Johnson; bizarre abridgments of the plays were produced in
Johnson's time, notably by David Garrick; in subsequent decades, the
tragedies were provided with happy endings; and one Mr. Bowdler
removed anything that might be considered salacious.
The Booths didn't perform what today we recognize as Shakespeare's
texts.
Shakespeare as we know it is a phenomenon of the mid to late 20th
century.
> > Why is he the one who so thrilled the luminaries of the German
> > Enlightenment?
>
> Even McPherson's execrable fake "Ossian" thrilled contemporary
> luminaries. Today, nobody touches "Ossian", while many of those
> luminaries, such as Goethe, are still remembered. Literary history
> certainly knows many example of modest or mediocre works that have
> inspired vastly superior writing.-
Did Lessing translate Ossian?
Ignoto
> On Feb 28, 5:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 9:55 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Panu" wrote:
>>>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>>>>> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>>>>> Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
>>>> Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
>>> I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
>>> would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
>> What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
>
> You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
> dramatist
Ok, well, perhaps you would like to tell us the name(s) of the major
english dramatist(s) of (1) the renaissance and (2) all time.
Ign.
Harlan Messinger
This is like the line, "The Odyssey wasn't written by Homer but by
another man of that name." You're arguing that Shakespeare's work isn't
beloved, and that the people who love his work are a "cult" and
therefore something different.
How many figures of speech in common use today come from the works of
any of Shakespeare's contemporaries?
Peter T. Daniels
"The face that launched a thousand ships." (Marlowe)
Panu
Most people who profess to "love" him were taught, indoctrinated,
inculcated to do so. They were initiated to the cult at school. As I
was brought up outside the cult community, i.e. the English-speaking
world, I am able to see Shakespeare for what he is, i.e. the run-of-
the-mill author of moderately successful plays, who, because of a
quirk of literary history, was canonized into a secular saint. Of
course, his genre pieces are probably slightly above average, but I
staunchly refuse to join the cult.
>
> How many figures of speech in common use today come from the works of
> any of Shakespeare's contemporaries?
How should I know? My figures of speech come mostly from Väinö Linna's
"Tuntematon sotilas". As regards the cultists, it is hardly surprising
that their figures of speech have been influenced by the cult.
Panu
> Panu wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 5:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 28, 9:55 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> "Panu" wrote:
> >>>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> >>>>>> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
> >>>>> Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
> >>>> Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
> >>> I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
> >>> would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
> >> What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
>
> > You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
> > dramatist
>
> Ok, well, perhaps you would like to tell us the name(s) of the major
> english dramatist(s) of (1) the renaissance and (2) all time.
I couldn't care less about English dramatists - I didn't major in
English studies. The fact that English is a world language is not
exactly due to English literature or drama being particularly
interesting. And the fact that they haven't been able to produce one
single memorable dramatist after that not-particularly-memorable
scribbler, actually says it all.
Harlan Messinger
Or you could just be a person with an opinion who assumes arrogantly
that anyone else under the same circumstances would agree with him.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
At last, someone breaking into HLAS with an offbeat view of the
Bard!
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Nah. Hamlet as Shakespeare is sarcastically asking, "Do you think I m
CM?"
--Bob
Peter T. Daniels
I guess over in Finland you haven't heard of Oscar Wilde, or Bernard
Shaw, or Eugene O'Neill, or Tennessee Williams, or Arthur Miller, or
Tom Stoppard, or August Wilson? (No, I won't mention Neil Simon,
perhaps the unfortunately most prolific of them all.)
Note, Shakespeare-wallahs, that Panu is a Finn and the best he can
come up with for "good literature" is in irish.
Panu
Of course we have heard of Oscar Wilde (an Irishman), George Bernard
Shaw (another Irishman), Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
familiar.
It is obvious that Americans excel in drama, because their culture has
been cross-pollinated by so many non-English cultures. American
theatrical tradition and film were obviously vitalized by immigrants
escaping from Nazi Germany and its dominions.
As regards good literature, there is obviously a lot of it in
civilized languages, such as German and Polish, to mention just two of
them.
Panu
That is as may be, but I distrust these cthulhu-ish cults. I have more
or less the same view of Pushkin, another writer with an officially-
sponsored cult. Pushkin was obviously a talented poet in Russian, but
his work does not travel or translate well. He should have written
more prose, because the little he did write was not particularly bad.
Panu
>
> Note, Shakespeare-wallahs, that Panu is a Finn and the best he can
> come up with for "good literature" is in irish.
The fact that you are not even vaguely familiar with "Cabhair ní
Ghairfead", "Rotha Mór an tSaoil", "Foras Feasa ar Éirinn", or "Cúirt
an Mheán-Oíche", does not mean that their literary value were any
less.
Franz Gnaedinger
> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> Without that title:--Romeo, doff thy name;
> And for that name, which is no part of thee,
> Take all myself.
>
> The bard's name doesn't count, important are
> his plays and poems, and the public loves them,
> is all for him to take.
>
> Franz Gnaedinger, Zuerich, February 28, 2010
In the play 'Romeo and Juliet' a quarrelsome character
by the name of Tybalt seeks trouble, draws against
Romeo's friend Mercutio, this one also draws, a sword
fight ensues, Romeo intervenes, but in vain, he makes
it only worse, Mercutio falls, whereupon Romeo takes
revenge by killing Tybalt for having murdered his good
and funny friend. Romeo was not guilty under Verona's
law, however, his deed prolonged the feud that came
only to an end with the tragic double death of the 'star-
crossed' young couple. Edward de Vere, as a young
man, probably of Romeo's age, inadvertently killed
an inebriated seventeen-year-old by the name of
Thomas Brincknel. The judges considered his death
a suicide and spoke Edward free. The initials of the
young man who had died, T and B, return as the first
letters of the syllables Ty and Balt, insinuating further
parallels between life and play. Edward was declared
not being guilty, however, the fatal incident, perhaps
on top of other events, could have been a reason
for the strict obligation to hide behind a hired living
pseudonym (which he learned to accept in a playful
manner, calling himself Will personified, William,
Will I am, I am Will). While William Shakespeare
on the stage was applauded, Edward de Vere
attended his own play among the audience,
watching the onlookers, how they reacted to the
fancies of his mind, how the lovely young ladies
by his side laughed and weeped as his cunningly
crafted plot unfolded on the stage ... Reading
the sonnets I come to the conclusion that he
loved attending his own plays, and his observing
the reactions of the audience from close up would
explain the amazing psychological realism of his
plays, while his way of developing an act may be
gleaned from Hamlet who added a couple of lines
to a play and planned to observe the king for every
faint, obscured and concealed reaction. Romeo
the bard, Juliet his audience and beloved Muse.
When Edward de Vere was of Romeo's age he
may have found a real Muse among a crowded
audience, Romeo his Juliet, as it were, a young
lady who turned his rhiming into glorious poetry.
Act 1 Scene 5, Romeo speaking:
O, she doeth teach the torches to burn bright!
Her beauty hangs upon the cheek of night
Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear;
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!
So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows,
As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows.
The measure done, I'll watch her place of stand,
And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.
Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I never saw true beauty till this night.
The veiled metaphorical tale of the bard's awakening
heightens the love story.
Franz Gnaedinger
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, so? Then, who was Anne Hathaway and who lived in the structure
> called Shakespeare's cottage?
His living hired pseudonym William Shakespeare
and this one's wife Anne Hathaway. Greetings
to Melanie at Lucerne, beautiful 'city of lights',
with my plea for 'more light, more light' - a pun
is fine but only if it turns on a light ...
Willedever
> ...
> gleaned from Hamlet who added a couple of lines
> to a play ...
Four lines.
The play "The Murder of Gonzago" was written in sestets, as the line
count overall demonstrates, but as performed it has two eight-line
speeches by the Queen. The Queen's first speech is actually seven and
a half lines, when she interrupts the King. Hamlet changed those
Queen's speeches, adding four lines, total. Or three and a half
lines, as long as we're being precise.
Franz Gnaedinger
Peter Farey, himself supporting the Marlowe-
Shakespeare connection, gave me a fine advice:
to look out for combinations of Romeo and will.
The first such instance occurs at a signifcant place,
following Juliet's plea that Romeo doff his name
and instead take all of her, whereupon Romeo:
I take thee at thy word;
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
In other words: I, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford,
cease being EO romEO Romeo, instead I'll be
new baptized in the name of thy love, my 'nome
de plume' will be Will, William Shakespeare, hired
living pseudonym who shall claim to have written
my plays and poems. I shall publish my works
under his name, he will get all the fame - if only
I can have your love, if only you keep word of
loving me and being all mine, dear Juliet, Muse,
audience
Will will fulfil the treasure of thy love
(sonnet 136), as 'William Shakespeare' I will fulfil
the promise of my work on the wings of your love,
dear Juliet, inspiring Muse, beloved audience, as
'William Shakespeare' I will fill your heart with sweet
poetry, all the best I can muster as Master William
Shakespeare (while hiding my true identity from
now on, and only give a few well concealed hints
to the ones who can read between my lines).
Ignoto
> On Feb 28, 11:12 pm, Ignoto <""ignoto \"@ blahblahblah.org"> wrote:
>> Panu wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 5:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 28, 9:55 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Panu" wrote:
>>>>>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>>>>>>> Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
>>>>>> Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
>>>>> I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
>>>>> would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
>>>> What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
>>> You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
>>> dramatist
>> Ok, well, perhaps you would like to tell us the name(s) of the major
>> english dramatist(s) of (1) the renaissance and (2) all time.
>
> I couldn't care less about English dramatists - I didn't major in
> English studies.
IOW you have no idea what you are talking about.
> The fact that English is a world language is not
> exactly due to English literature or drama being particularly
> interesting.
And having confessed to a zero familiarity or interest in english drama
your judgment is based on... ?
> And the fact that they haven't been able to produce one
> single memorable dramatist after that not-particularly-memorable
> scribbler, actually says it all.
What on earth are you talking about. There is a voluminous literature of
memorable (or better) english drama:
Thomas Kyd
John Lyly
Christopher Marlowe
Thomas Middleton
William Shakespeare
John Webster
John Fletcher
Ben Jonson
Francis Beaumont
John Ford
William Wycherly
George Etherege
Richard Brinsley Sheridan
William Congreve
Terence Rattigan
Noel Coward
Harold Pinter
Simon Grey
Tom Stoppard
David Hare
Howard Brenton
Ign.
Harlan Messinger
> On Mar 1, 6:13 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Note, Shakespeare-wallahs, that Panu is a Finn and the best he can
>> come up with for "good literature" is in irish.
>
> Ghairfead", "Rotha M�r an tSaoil", "Foras Feasa ar �irinn", or "C�irt
> an Mhe�n-O�che", does not mean that their literary value were any
> less.
>
Is any of those Irish for "Brian Friel" or "John Millington Synge"? (I
won't mention James Joyce. Now *that's* a cult, if your idea that having
a "cult" stands in opposition to a writer actually being good has any
validity.)
Ignoto
Actually the major influence on those American dramatists would be
Henrik Ibsen, who was himself influenced by, you guessed it,
Shakespeare: "something of Shakespeare" is present in all of Ibsen's
works (Fjelde, Rolf, ed. Ibsen: A Collection of Critical Essays).
Ign.
Peter T. Daniels
Can you point to the works they wrote in Irish? Can you enumerate the
days they spent in Ireland or the Gaeltacht after they became old
enough to leave?
(Ditto, BTW, Yeats [who stayed] and Beckett. Harlan named a few other
famous Irish writers who didn't use the language, but chose to write
in English.)
> Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
> Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
> August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
> familiar.
>
> It is obvious that Americans excel in drama, because their culture has
> been cross-pollinated by so many non-English cultures. American
> theatrical tradition and film were obviously vitalized by immigrants
> escaping from Nazi Germany and its dominions.
>
> As regards good literature, there is obviously a lot of it in
> civilized languages, such as German and Polish, to mention just two of
> them.-
But not, you apparently concede, Finnish.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Of course we have heard of Oscar Wilde (an Irishman), George Bernard
> Shaw (another Irishman), Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
> Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
> August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
> familiar.
>
> It is obvious that Americans excel in drama,
Actually, America has not yet produced a first-rate (performed)
playwright. WIlliams, O'Neill and Miller aren't even second-rate.
> because their culture has
> been cross-pollinated by so many non-English cultures. American
> theatrical tradition and film were obviously vitalized by immigrants
> escaping from Nazi Germany and its dominions.
>
> As regards good literature, there is obviously a lot of it in
> civilized languages, such as German and Polish, to mention just two of
> them.- Hide quoted text -
I'm curious, Panu, as to (1) what authors of any kind in English you
find to be first-rate, and (2) why Shakespeare is not.
--Bob G.
Harlan Messinger
>> Of course we have heard of Oscar Wilde (an Irishman), George Bernard
>> Shaw (another Irishman), Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
>> Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
>> August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
>> familiar.
>>
>> It is obvious that Americans excel in drama,
>
> Actually, America has not yet produced a first-rate (performed)
> playwright. WIlliams, O'Neill and Miller aren't even second-rate.
Such a remark would lead one to wonder what its maker thinks the
criteria are for declaring someone to be a first-rate, or even
second-rate, playwright.
Nathan Sanders
<09d70b56-62be-415b...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"bobgr...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > Of course we have heard of Oscar Wilde (an Irishman), George Bernard
> > Shaw (another Irishman), Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
> > Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
> > August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
> > familiar.
> >
> > It is obvious that Americans excel in drama,
>
> Actually, America has not yet produced a first-rate (performed)
> playwright. WIlliams, O'Neill and Miller aren't even second-rate.
I'm no drama snob, so you might consider these to be off-the-wall
suggestions, but what about Edward Albee, Christopher Durang, Neil
Simon, David Mamet, George Kaufman, Thornton Wilder, Tony Kushner,
Lorraine Hansberry, or Woody Allen?
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Peter T. Daniels
> In article
> <09d70b56-62be-415b-9586-b54764bcf...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > > Of course we have heard of Oscar Wilde (an Irishman), George Bernard
> > > Shaw (another Irishman), Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
> > > Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
> > > August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
> > > familiar.
>
> > > It is obvious that Americans excel in drama,
>
> > Actually, America has not yet produced a first-rate (performed)
> > playwright. WIlliams, O'Neill and Miller aren't even second-rate.
>
> I'm no drama snob, so you might consider these to be off-the-wall
> suggestions, but what about Edward Albee, Christopher Durang, Neil
> Simon, David Mamet, George Kaufman, Thornton Wilder, Tony Kushner,
> Lorraine Hansberry, or Woody Allen?
Kushner and Hansberry are one-hit wonders (also Harvey Fierstein); has
Woody Allen written specifically for the stage?
Sampled Durang & Mamet a couple of times. Naah.
Christopher Culver
> You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
> English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
> modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
> schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
> monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
> if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
> of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
> only second-rate academic interest.
That's a bizarre claim, Panu, as interest in Shakespeare extends far
outside the English-speaking world. Russian poets have long looked to
Shakespeare for inspiration. When visiting the home of an elderly
Romanian, the portion of his library of which he was proudest was a
collection of Shakespeare plays collected with great difficulty during
a time of privation in the country. Kurosawa felt Shakespeare's plays
were so universal in their conception that he localized _King Lear_
for his film "Ran". Sándor Weöres quoted Shakespeare for the epigraph
of at least once collection of poems. The list goes on.
Indeed, I'd say that the obligatory assignment of Shakespeare in the
English-speaking world leaves pupils with a distaste, while in
countries where people encounter him with a bit more liberty, he
arguably invokes more passion.
Peter Farey
>
> In the play 'Romeo and Juliet' a quarrelsome character
> by the name of Tybalt seeks trouble,
Tybalt is Juliet's cousin who, angered at Romeo (a Montague)
gatecrashing the Capulets' ball - but being prevented by
Capulet from challenging him at the time - has apparently
sent a challenge to the Montagues' house and is now looking
for him.
> draws against Romeo's friend Mercutio,
No he doesn't. Mercutio is the first to utter provocative
words and neither draws initially.
> this one also draws, a sword fight ensues,
Not yet it doesn't. Romeo arrives, at which point Tybalt
says "Here's my man", and tries to provoke him to fight.
Romeo refuses (because this is Juliet's cousin), which
angers Mercutio as a "vile submission", and he's determined
to fight even if Romeo won't. He draws first, and some
lines later Tybalt draws too.
> Romeo intervenes, but in vain, he makes it only worse,
> Mercutio falls,
Romeo tries to beat down their swords, but in doing so
allows Mercutio to be stabbed (under Romeo's arm). Tybalt
flees and Mercutio, mortally wounded but still alive, is
led away by Benvolio, who soon returns to say that he has
died. Romeo decides that this death must be revenged.
> whereupon Romeo takes revenge by killing Tybalt for
> having murdered his good and funny friend.
Tybalt returns and Romeo challenges him. They fight and
Tybalt dies. Benvolio urges him to flee, which he does
eventually.
> Romeo was not guilty under Verona's law,
The Prince arrives, and incensed that his prohibition of
any such fighting has been ignored and his kinsman Mercutio
killed, he banishes Romeo from Verona on pain of death.
<snip>
> Peter Farey, himself supporting the Marlowe-
> Shakespeare connection, gave me a fine advice:
Peter Farey was joking. Any alleged "hidden meanings" like
these are worthless unless that meaning is grammatically
correct, says something which is actually meaningful, and
can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been placed
there deliberately.
The only "fine advice" I gave you was to make sure that you
have a satisfactory answer to the questions posed in my
short article at <http://tinyurl.com/ydzqv8r>. How are you
doing?
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
John W Kennedy
> Panu wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 6:13 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Note, Shakespeare-wallahs, that Panu is a Finn and the best he can
>>> come up with for "good literature" is in irish.
>>
>> The fact that you are not even vaguely familiar with "Cabhair ní
>> Ghairfead", "Rotha Mór an tSaoil", "Foras Feasa ar Éirinn", or "Cúirt
>> an Mheán-Oíche", does not mean that their literary value were any
>> less.
>>
> Is any of those Irish for "Brian Friel" or "John Millington Synge"? (I
> won't mention James Joyce. Now *that's* a cult, if your idea that
> having a "cult" stands in opposition to a writer actually being good
> has any validity.)
No, they're titles of various Irish works that are not plays. In other
words, his posting was completely non-responsive.
Are there /any/ Finnish plays that have world status outside of
Finland, and, perhaps, Estonia? Apart from the Kalevala, is there any
Finnish literature at all that matters to the rest of humanity?
(His invocation of pseudo-Ossian is mildly intriguing, in light of the
fact that the present state of scholarship suggests that Macpherson and
Lönnrot may have equally guilty -- and not guilty -- of forgery.)
In the meantime, I'm afraid Shakespeare (like Dante) persists in being
over a mile high, maugre the complaints of peikoista and alp-luachraí.
--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Harlan Messinger
> Panu <craoi...@gmail.com> writes:
>> You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
>> dramatist from the dark dungeons of literary history writing in an
>> English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
>> modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
>> schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
>> monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
>> if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
>> of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
>> only second-rate academic interest.
>
> That's a bizarre claim, Panu, as interest in Shakespeare extends far
> outside the English-speaking world. Russian poets have long looked to
> Shakespeare for inspiration.
Even Klingons claim him as their own.
Panu
Well, I like John McGahern's novel "Amongst Women", for instance, and
William Butler Yeats has written some fine poetry.
As regards Shakespeare's greatness, I think the burden of proof is on
those who profess to believe in it. When asked why Shakespeare is so
great, their answers usually boil down to the fact that they were
taught so.
Harlan Messinger
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that for everything I like in life, I have
any obligation to prove to anyone else that I like it or that I have any
basis for liking it.
> When asked why Shakespeare is so
> great, their answers usually boil down to the fact that they were
> taught so.
Really? Fascinating. I'm sure lots of people openly explain that they
like this or that because someone taught them that they like it. As
though people even think that way about the things that they like.
Panu
<hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
> Panu wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 6:13 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Note, Shakespeare-wallahs, that Panu is a Finn and the best he can
> >> come up with for "good literature" is in irish.
>
> > The fact that you are not even vaguely familiar with "Cabhair n
> > Ghairfead", "Rotha M r an tSaoil", "Foras Feasa ar irinn", or "C irt
> > an Mhe n-O che", does not mean that their literary value were any
> > less.
>
> Is any of those Irish for "Brian Friel" or "John Millington Synge"?
I am afraid not. Synge, however, basically just translated folklore
from Irish.
(I
> won't mention James Joyce. Now *that's* a cult, if your idea that having
> a "cult" stands in opposition to a writer actually being good has any
> validity.)
I perfectly agree.Well, not perfectly - there are some interesting
ideas and scenes in "The Portrait of the Artist...", and I rather
liked "Dubliners".
Panu
wrote:
> Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
> > dramatist from the dark dungeons of literary history writing in an
> > English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
> > modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
> > schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
> > monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
> > if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
> > of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
> > only second-rate academic interest.
>
> That's a bizarre claim, Panu, as interest in Shakespeare extends far
> outside the English-speaking world.
He has been translated by poets far superior to himself.
Panu
I am always happy to tell people why I like a particular writer. I
might even have a vivid memory of reading his works for the first
time.
>
> > When asked why Shakespeare is so
> > great, their answers usually boil down to the fact that they were
> > taught so.
>
> Really? Fascinating. I'm sure lots of people openly explain that they
> like this or that because someone taught them that they like it. As
> though people even think that way about the things that they like.
In my opinion, the evidence for Shakespeare's greatness presented in
this thread boils down exactly to that. The fact that people
unwittingly quote Shakespeare all the time only shows that they were
brought up among the cultists.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
> Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
> > dramatist from the dark dungeons of literary history writing in an
> > English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
> > modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
> > schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
> > monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
> > if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
> > of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
> > only second-rate academic interest.
>
> That's a bizarre claim, Panu, as interest in Shakespeare extends far
> outside the English-speaking world. Russian poets have long looked to
> Shakespeare for inspiration. When visiting the home of an elderly
> Romanian, the portion of his library of which he was proudest was a
> collection of Shakespeare plays collected with great difficulty during
> a time of privation in the country. Kurosawa felt Shakespeare's plays
> were so universal in their conception that he localized _King Lear_
> for his film "Ran".
...and _Macbeth_ for "Throne of Blood".
Peter T. Daniels
Or that they were brought up speaking the English language.
Incidentally, Shakespeare is a lot better on the stage than on the
page.
Peter T. Daniels
Ah, so it's the _mature_ work of great artists that's beyond you.
So you'd probably like, say, Love's Labour's Lost or A Comedy of
Errors.
Peter T. Daniels
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Christopher Culver wrote:
But Klingons were written by Americans, victims of the cult, so their
taste is suspect.
Harlan Messinger
I'm glad it makes you happy. That's a far cry from a burden of proof.
>
>>> When asked why Shakespeare is so
>>> great, their answers usually boil down to the fact that they were
>>> taught so.
>> Really? Fascinating. I'm sure lots of people openly explain that they
>> like this or that because someone taught them that they like it. As
>> though people even think that way about the things that they like.
>
> In my opinion, the evidence for Shakespeare's greatness presented in
> this thread boils down exactly to that.
You are supposing that anyone has presented anything they consider to be
"evidence" of his greatness or that they had any burden to provide such
evidence.
> The fact that people
> unwittingly quote Shakespeare all the time only shows that they were
> brought up among the cultists.
Now you're going to tell us that people actively discard vocabulary that
comes from literary works that they realize they don't care for. I've
also found through the years that my vocabulary incorporates all kinds
of turns of phrases from the New Testament, and I am most assuredly not
a New Testament cultist.
Panu
I am terribly sorry, but that depends. For instance, I don't think
"The Leavetaking" is anywhere near "Amongst Women".
>
> So you'd probably like, say, Love's Labour's Lost or A Comedy of
> Errors.
I don't think I am that short of toilet paper. Besides, printing ink
irritates the anal region anyway.
Panu
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> w
>
> Now you're going to tell us that people actively discard vocabulary that
> comes from literary works that they realize they don't care for. I've
> also found through the years that my vocabulary incorporates all kinds
> of turns of phrases from the New Testament, and I am most assuredly not
> a New Testament cultist.
Mine too, and I am always happy to admit that I was brought up by and
among New Testament cultists, or to use the professional jargon,
"Christians".In fact, I tend to admit being a cultist myself, at least
to some extent.
John W Kennedy
two generally regarded as his finest work. He also worked for years on
"Il re Lear", but found it, by his own admission, too terrifying a
prospect.
DKleinecke
You don't need an actual stage. Doing Shakespeare in the shower is
just as good as singing.
Other Elizabethans have good lines. Webster "Cover her face. Mine eyes
dazzle. She died young."
Marlow has a hundred good lines "Is it not brave to ride in triumph
through Persopolis?" "Why this is Hell nor am I out of it." But
Shakespeare has thousands.
I've never really understood why people flocked to WATCH plays. The
actors have all the fun. Sort of the reverse of bull-baiting.
Franz Gnaedinger
> > > Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>
> > > for the first time in a question
>
> > > O, where is Romeo?
>
> > > a question offering a pun
>
> > > O, Vere is Romeo!
>
> > > a pun providing an answer
>
> > > de Vere, Oxford
>
> > > Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford who signed his early
> > > works EO as in Romeo romEO, the pronounced English
> > > initials E and O resembling Italian io meaning I, it's me.
> > > The bard mentioned that his name is bound by one letter,
> > > which is true for the name, the pun, and the answer
>
> > > Edward de Vere E...e 12 letters (name)
>
> > > O, Vere is Romeo O...o 12 letters (pun)
>
> > > de Vere, Oxford d...d 12 letters (answer)
>
> > > whereby the binding letters of the name E and pun O
> > > yield the initials of the title
>
> > > Earl of Oxford 12 letters (title)
>
> > > Name, pun, answer and title contain 12 letters each,
> > > accordingly Juliet in the orchard is awaiting Romeo's
> > > message at twelve.
>
> > > On a veiled level of the play, Romeo would symbolize
> > > the playwright who was bound to hold back his name
> > > and conceal his authorship; Juliet would symbolize
> > > the adoring audience, rapt public, and loving Muse
> > > who make the poetical torch burn bright; and Paris,
> > > who claimed Juliet for his wife, beautiful Juliet, more
> > > beautiful than all other girls of Verona including lively
> > > Helena - Paris would symbolize William Shakespeare
> > > from Statford on Avon who might secretly have been
> > > given a modest but lifelong pension for pretending
> > > to be the author of those plays and poems, granted
> > > by de Vere's relationship, out of whatever sad reason,
> > > so that a personal tragedy would underly the tragic
> > > love story of the play and make it only the deeper:
>
> > > For never was a story of more woe
> > > Than this of Juliet and Romeo.
>
> > > The last lines end on oe and eo respectively, eo
> > > EO Earl of Oxford, so the bard signed his play,
> > > if ever so clandestinely, and although Juliet had
> > > argued most reasonably and beautifully:
>
> > > What's a name! that which we call a rose
> > > By any other name would smell as sweet;
> > > So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
> > > Retain that dear perfection which he owes
> > > Without that title:--Romeo, doff thy name;
> > > And for that name, which is no part of thee,
> > > Take all myself.
>
> > > The bard's name doesn't count, important are
> > > his plays and poems, and the public loves them,
> > > is all for him to take.
>
> > > Franz Gnaedinger, Zuerich, February 28, 2010
>
> > In the play 'Romeo and Juliet' a quarrelsome character
> > Romeo's friend Mercutio, this one also draws, a sword
> > fight ensues, Romeo intervenes, but in vain, he makes
> > it only worse, Mercutio falls, whereupon Romeo takes
> > revenge by killing Tybalt for having murdered his good
> > law, however, his deed prolonged the feud that came
> > only to an end with the tragic double death of the 'star-
> > crossed' young couple. Edward de Vere, as a young
> > man, probably of Romeo's age, inadvertently killed
> > an inebriated seventeen-year-old by the name of
> > Thomas Brincknel. The judges considered his death
> > a suicide and spoke Edward free. The initials of the
> > young man who had died, T and B, return as the first
> > letters of the syllables Ty and Balt, insinuating further
> > parallels between life and play. Edward was declared
> > not being guilty, however, the fatal incident, perhaps
> > on top of other events, could have been a reason
> > for the strict obligation to hide behind a hired living
> > pseudonym (which he learned to accept in a playful
> > manner, calling himself Will personified, William,
> > Will I am, I am Will). While William Shakespeare
> > on the stage was applauded, Edward de Vere
> > attended his own play among the audience,
> > watching the onlookers, how they reacted to the
> > fancies of his mind, how the lovely young ladies
> > by his side laughed and weeped as his cunningly
> > crafted plot unfolded on the stage ... Reading
> > the sonnets I come to the conclusion that he
> > loved attending his own plays, and his observing
> > the reactions of the audience from close up would
> > explain the amazing psychological realism of his
> > plays, while his way of developing an act may be
> > gleaned from Hamlet who added a couple of lines
> > to a play and planned to observe the king for every
> > faint, obscured and concealed reaction. Romeo
> > the bard, Juliet his audience and beloved Muse.
> > When Edward de Vere was of Romeo's age he
> > may have found a real Muse among a crowded
> > audience, Romeo his Juliet, as it were, a young
> > lady who turned his rhiming into glorious poetry.
> > Act 1 Scene 5, Romeo speaking:
>
> > O, she doeth teach the torches to burn bright!
> > Her beauty hangs upon the cheek of night
> > Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear;
> > Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!
> > So shows a snowy dove trooping with crows,
> > As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows.
> > The measure done, I'll watch her place of stand,
> > And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.
> > Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
> > For I never saw true beauty till this night.
>
> > The veiled metaphorical tale of the bard's awakening
> > heightens the love story.
>
> Peter Farey, himself supporting the Marlowe-
> Shakespeare connection, gave me a fine advice:
> The first such instance occurs at a signifcant place,
> following Juliet's plea that Romeo doff his name
> and instead take all of her, whereupon Romeo:
>
> I take thee at thy word;
> Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
> Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
>
> In other words: I, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford,
> cease being EO romEO Romeo, instead I'll be
> new baptized in the name of thy love, my 'nome
> de plume' will be Will, William Shakespeare, hired
> living pseudonym who shall claim to have written
> my plays and poems. I shall publish my works
> under his name, he will get all the fame - if only
> I can have your love, if only you keep word of
> loving me and being all mine, dear Juliet, Muse,
> audience
>
> Will will fulfil the treasure of thy love
>
> (sonnet 136), as 'William Shakespeare' I will fulfil
> the promise of my work on the wings of your love,
> dear Juliet, inspiring Muse, beloved audience, as
> 'William Shakespeare' I will fill your heart with sweet
> poetry, all the best I can muster as Master William
> Shakespeare (while hiding my true identity from
> now on, and only give a few well concealed hints
> to the ones who can read between my lines).
Ending lines of sonnet 83:
There lives more life in one of your fair eyes
Than both of your poets can in praise devise.
The bard is complementing his Muse, the audience
personified in Juliet, while her poets are Edward de
Vere, author of the plays, and William Shakespeare,
director of the Globe and main performer, both creating
a play, bringing it to life, making it in the original sense
of Greek poieo poiesis poietes. However, as lively
a play might be, it never can compete with the life
in the eye of a young lady watching the play, observed
by the bard among the attending crowd, obliged to keep
his silence about the true authorship of those lines and
scenes that make the lovely young lady laugh and weep ...
This silence for my sin you did impute
The audience and general public was not able to respect
the Earl of Oxford in the same way as they loved the plays
and poems and worshiped William Shakespeare in the
role of his life, as the Sweet Swan of Avon (Ben Jonson),
alleged author of those moving plays, intricate plots, and
easy, nimble, sweet and lively lines. William Shakespeare,
main actor of the Globe, must have been brillant in this role
he played for all his life, beyond the life of the bard, and
even beyond his own life. Paris in the play Romeo and
Juliet, alias of William Shakespeare, is called valiant,
a flower; in faith, a real flower. We may infer that he eagerly
adopted the plays and made them 'bloom' on the stage.
Yet when it comes to Romeo, Juliet uses the image of
a sweet smelling rose, flower of all flowers, placing the
playwright above the actor. By choosing the name of Paris,
Prince of Troy, for William Shakespeare, director of the
Globe, and by calling Juliet more beautiful than all other
girls of Verona including lively Helena, the bard evokes
the Trojan war caused by Paris abducting Helena. The
war lasted long, then it was decided by a ruse of wily
Odysseus hiding in the Trojan horse. The bard gives
his own version of Odysseus in the poem Lucrece:
But the mild glance that sly Odysseus lent
Show'd deep regard and smiling government.
This may be how Edward de Vere, sly and a master
hider himself, directed his own plays, attending probes
in the Globe, pretending to be a big fan of the bard and
knowing this one's mind better than William Shakespeare
himself, everybody thinking William the bard (de Vere's
Trojan horse, as it were), showing deep regard for the
questions raised by the play, for the actors as well,
encouraging them with mild glances and smiles when
they found the right way of presenting a scene, and thus
'directing' his play and 'governing' the Globe although
having been obliged to keep silent about the true
authorship of his plays --- a comic tragedy or tragic
comedy, as in a play by 'Shakespeare' one might say.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Tybalt is Juliet's cousin who, angered at Romeo (a Montague)
> gatecrashing the Capulets' ball - but being prevented by
> Capulet from challenging him at the time - has apparently
> sent a challenge to the Montagues' house and is now looking
> for him.
>
> words and neither draws initially.
>
> says "Here's my man", and tries to provoke him to fight.
> Romeo refuses (because this is Juliet's cousin), which
> angers Mercutio as a "vile submission", and he's determined
> to fight even if Romeo won't. He draws first, and some
> lines later Tybalt draws too.
>
> allows Mercutio to be stabbed (under Romeo's arm). Tybalt
> flees and Mercutio, mortally wounded but still alive, is
> led away by Benvolio, who soon returns to say that he has
> died. Romeo decides that this death must be revenged.
>
> Tybalt dies. Benvolio urges him to flee, which he does
> eventually.
>
> any such fighting has been ignored and his kinsman Mercutio
> killed, he banishes Romeo from Verona on pain of death.
Kindly consider me an eyewitness delivering my personal
report. Ask the police, they will tell you that one witness
saw a blue jacket, the next one a red jacket, and the third
a yellow one. What counts in the end is that the right villain
is revealed by a witness.
> Peter Farey was joking. Any alleged "hidden meanings" like
> these are worthless unless that meaning is grammatically
> correct, says something which is actually meaningful, and
> can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been placed
> there deliberately.
The joke in the Baroque theater is that the chester is speaking
the truth, the least likely one to do so. And you, as a Marlowe
supporter in the Shakespeare question, helped me establish
de Vere. So Peter Farey made a fine joke.
> The only "fine advice" I gave you was to make sure that you
> have a satisfactory answer to the questions posed in my
> short article at <http://tinyurl.com/ydzqv8r>. How are you
> doing?
I replied yesterday afternoon, telling you that I can't print
out your blog, told you so in all detail, and therefore had to
answer your question in a general way. Didn't you see it?
Must I repeat it for you? Well then:
(begin of copy)
I just tried to print it out, impossible, four pages
slid out of the printer, the first one with the title,
rest of the sheet empty, then your blog on the next
page, cut off in the middle of the second table,
then another empty page, only a narrow column
of advertisements on the margin, then a page with
a couple of links at the top, rest empty. Most of
your question blog swallowed. So I had to read
it online and will answer it here, without having
studied it at home. Kurt Kreiler wrote a book on
The Man who Invented Shakespeare, I heard him
on a radio program but didn't see his book, an
English translation is bound to appear this summer,
as I am informed, and he will answer your questions,
I hope, for he found a lot of remote material. For the
time being I rely on him for the historical aspects
and carry on my hermetic work. First I read Hamlet,
looking out for possible references of Hamlet and
de Vere, but found nothing new, then I read Romeo
and Juliet, looking out for the first appearance of
Romeo, having been taught by Homer who always
gives a lot of information on a god or a hero when
introducing him, and found the following question
in Act 1 Scene 1
O, where is Romeo? (question)
which quickly led to the following lines
O, Vere is Romeo! (pun)
de Vere, Oxford (answer)
Edward de Vere (name)
Earl of Oxford (title)
Pun, answer, name and title consist of twelve letters each,
pun, answer and name are bound by the same letter,
while the binding letter E..e of the name and the binding
letter O...o of the pun yield EO, the early signature of
Edward de Vere. Reason enough for me to look out
for parallels between the play and de Vere's life.
I dare say that the play has many layers, one of them
being the bard telling about his vocation and his fate
as playright and poet, and how his art goes along with
troubles he encountered in his life, and some he caused
himself. I know very little about Edward de Vere, coming
from Homer, interpreting his Odyssey, but I think a fresh
look at the greatest playright of all times might also be
welcome, at least to some
(end of copy)
Franz Gnaedinger
we wouldn't know of 'Shakespeare' today: also he
would have been killrated.
I let my text stand, with all mistakes a beginner can make,
for example counting letters in a modern edition. Edward
de Vere signed his poems
Earle of Oxenforde (and/or) E.O.
so that his title has sixteen instead of twelve letters.
The all deciding question in the First Folio
O where is _Romeo_?
yields an even more expressive pun of 12 letters
O Vere is _Romeo_!
I find the name always written in the same form
of 12 letters
Edward de Vere
The comment on the binding letter is not by the bard,
as I wrongly said, but by John Marston in a poem
from 1598
Far, far fly thy fame,
Most, most of me beloved, whose silent name
One letter bounds.
We have then the name and pun
Edward de Vere E...e 12 letters
O Vere is _Romeo_ O...o 12 letters
The twelve letters of the name evoke the 12 hours
of a day belonging to the various occupations of
the earl, and the 12 letters of the equation of Vere
and Romeo the 12 hours of the night belonging to
the bard and the dreamworld of his plays
O blessed, blessed night! I am afeared,
Being in night, all this is but a dream,
Too flattering-sweet to be so substantial.
How silver-sweet sound lovers' tongues by night,
Like softest music to attending ears!
Peter F.
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
> > >
> > > In the play 'Romeo and Juliet' a quarrelsome character
> > > by the name of Tybalt seeks trouble,
> >
> > gatecrashing the Capulets' ball - but being prevented by
> > Capulet from challenging him at the time - has apparently
> > sent a challenge to the Montagues' house and is now looking
> > for him.
> > >
> >
> > words and neither draws initially.
> > >
> >
> > says "Here's my man", and tries to provoke him to fight.
> > Romeo refuses (because this is Juliet's cousin), which
> > angers Mercutio as a "vile submission", and he's determined
> > to fight even if Romeo won't. He draws first, and some
> > lines later Tybalt draws too.
> > >
> > > Mercutio falls,
> >
> > allows Mercutio to be stabbed (under Romeo's arm). Tybalt
> > flees and Mercutio, mortally wounded but still alive, is
> > led away by Benvolio, who soon returns to say that he has
> > died. Romeo decides that this death must be revenged.
> > >
> > > having murdered his good and funny friend.
> >
> > Tybalt dies. Benvolio urges him to flee, which he does
> > eventually.
> > >
> >
> > any such fighting has been ignored and his kinsman Mercutio
> > killed, he banishes Romeo from Verona on pain of death.
Interesting that you snipped all of those parts of your own
report of what happened which I pointed out as being wrong.
Seems to me that in order to have anything sensible to say
about who wrote Shakespeare one should at least have a work-
ing knowledge of what was written. You apparently don't.
> Kindly consider me an eyewitness delivering my personal
> report. Ask the police, they will tell you that one witness
> saw a blue jacket, the next one a red jacket, and the third
> a yellow one. What counts in the end is that the right villain
> is revealed by a witness.
I see. So we are to assume that Shakespeare's own account of
what "really" happened was inaccurate? Interesting theory!
> > Peter Farey was joking. Any alleged "hidden meanings" like
> > these are worthless unless that meaning is grammatically
> > correct, says something which is actually meaningful, and
> > can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been placed
> > there deliberately.
>
> The joke in the Baroque theater is that the chester is speaking
> the truth, the least likely one to do so. And you, as a Marlowe
> supporter in the Shakespeare question, helped me establish
> de Vere. So Peter Farey made a fine joke.
Yes, we chesters have our uses. Pity you didn't get it.
> > The only "fine advice" I gave you was to make sure that you
> > have a satisfactory answer to the questions posed in my
> > short article at <http://tinyurl.com/ydzqv8r>. How are you
> > doing?
>
> I replied yesterday afternoon, telling you that I can't print
> out your blog, told you so in all detail, and therefore had to
> answer your question in a general way. Didn't you see it?
No I didn't. Not being a subscriber to sci.lang, the only posts
I would see as a matter of course would be those to newsgroup
<humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare>.
> Must I repeat it for you? Well then:
>
> (begin of copy)
>
> I just tried to print it out, impossible, four pages
> slid out of the printer, the first one with the title,
> rest of the sheet empty, then your blog on the next
> page, cut off in the middle of the second table,
> then another empty page, only a narrow column
> of advertisements on the margin, then a page with
> a couple of links at the top, rest empty. Most of
> your question blog swallowed. So I had to read
> it online and will answer it here, without having
> studied it at home.
You must have more trees in Switzerland, I guess?
> Kurt Kreiler wrote a book on
> The Man who Invented Shakespeare, I heard him
> on a radio program but didn't see his book, an
> English translation is bound to appear this summer,
> as I am informed, and he will answer your questions,
> I hope, for he found a lot of remote material.
I look forward to reading this in translation, although I'm
rather less optimistic than you are about his being able to
answer those specific questions, there being a complete lack
of success in doing so among your fellow-Oxfordians so far.
> For the
> time being I rely on him for the historical aspects
> and carry on my hermetic work.
Well good for you Franz. Despite evidence which utterly
demolishes your theory, you trust that one day there will
be a saviour who will refute such rubbish, since as every-
one knows, your theory is right!
<snip>
As I said:
> > Any alleged "hidden meanings" like these are worthless
> > unless that meaning is grammatically correct, says
> > something which is actually meaningful, and can be
> > proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been placed
> > there deliberately.
You weren't listening, were you?
Franz Gnaedinger
I told you that I can't print out your blog, and for
your information: I tried to do so at the ETH Zurich,
Federal Technical Institute, where young Einstein
was teaching for a while, they have really good
equipment there, and the best maintenance.
When I can't print out your paper there, I can
do it nowhere. So pray tell me the first question,
the most important one, the one you believe
I absolutely can't answer. Just a plain simple
question, here, in a couple of lines. I met a lot
of kooky theories in the Usenet, and I always
tell people to give me one single idea, or, if they
think me a kook, to point out my biggest blunder.
Single questions can be handled in the Usenet,
hundred questions at once can't, and being very
tired of endless meta-discussions and meta-meta-
discussions I snipped the rest of your message.
Just one single question please. You must have
many. The most challenging one I surely can't
answer will do. I'll be happy answering it or
confessing defeat.
Panu
If you were a regular of sci.lang, you would know that complete,
utter, and astronomical ignorance of what is being discussed has
never, ever precluded Franz from pronouncing weightily upon everything
under the sun, or from brutally, terroristically, and savagely
attacking people who actually do know what they are talking about.
Franz is in fact an entirely hideous entity without a redeeming bone
in his skeleton.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 28, 3:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, so? Then, who was Anne Hathaway and who lived in the structure
> > called Shakespeare's cottage?
>
> His living hired pseudonym William Shakespeare
> and this one's wife Anne Hathaway. Greetings
> to Melanie at Lucerne, beautiful 'city of lights',
> with my plea for 'more light, more light' - a pun
> is fine but only if it turns on a light ...
Ah, so the cottage was occupied not by Shakespeare but by another gent
of the same name, eh? Ha ha.
elizabeth
<hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
> Obviously the works of "Shakespeare" were written by Christopher Marlowe
> because he is alluded to when Hamlet asks, "Do you think I meant country
> matters?" Country matters = CM = Christopher Marlowe.
>
> Even if these little treasures supposedly hidden among Shakespeare's
> works are genuine, some people ought to be introduced to the concept of
> the "shout-out".
Most Strat critics think that Hamlet is making
a bawdy pun -- "country matters" = "cuntry matters." There's another
bawdy pun . . . "It would cost you a groaning to take off my
edge" (3.2.249) and I think
there's two more. At least one of them is essentially
literal, not punned.
Franz Gnaedinger
Edward de Vere and Romeo, which, in my opinion,
is the key equation, I repeat my five messages from
February 28 till March 2 en bloc, as a demonstration
of my hermeneutic approach and how it works, relying
on intuition and what I call an organic knowledge
aquired by following my own interests and projects
(textbook wisdom alone won't do), a naive enthusiasm
and analytical skills as well, plus a good portion of
selfcriticism allowing to separate mere fancies from
valid ideas. A couple of initial errors are corrected
toward the end. Here a brief summary:
O, where is Romeo? O, Vere is Romeo!
Romeo -- Edward de Vere, playwright
Juliet -- audience personified, Muse
Paris -- William Shakespeare of the Globe
Shakespeare acting as bard, in the role of his life,
de Vere hiding behind him, out of whatever reason
------------------------------------
O, where is Romeo?
O, Vere is Romeo!
de Vere, Oxford
In the play 'Romeo and Juliet' a quarrelsome character
by the name of Tybalt seeks trouble, draws against
Romeo's friend Mercutio, this one also draws, a sword
fight ensues, Romeo intervenes, but in vain, he makes
it only worse, Mercutio falls, whereupon Romeo takes
revenge by killing Tybalt for having murdered his good
Peter Farey, himself supporting the Marlowe-
Shakespeare connection, gave me a fine advice:
Franz Gnaedinger
> I told you that I can't print out your blog, and for
> your information: I tried to do so at the ETH Zurich,
> Federal Technical Institute, where young Einstein
> was teaching for a while, they have really good
> equipment there, and the best maintenance.
> When I can't print out your paper there, I can
> do it nowhere. So pray tell me the first question,
> the most important one, the one you believe
> I absolutely can't answer. Just a plain simple
> question, here, in a couple of lines. I met a lot
> of kooky theories in the Usenet, and I always
> tell people to give me one single idea, or, if they
> think me a kook, to point out my biggest blunder.
> Single questions can be handled in the Usenet,
> hundred questions at once can't, and being very
> tired of endless meta-discussions and meta-meta-
> discussions I snipped the rest of your message.
> Just one single question please. You must have
> many. The most challenging one I surely can't
> answer will do. I'll be happy answering it or
> confessing defeat.
Must I say it in every thread? I am being followed
around since four years now this early spring by
my second longtime online stalker, Panu Petteri
Höglund alias John Bulkington alias Patrick Karl
alias craoibhin66 alias he himself as his own
good friend and pupil Sean Connor soconn1 alias
he himself as his own brother in arms and stalking
aide John Hobart Kyle jhobartkyle johnk alias he
himself as his own bride Annina Kaartinen alias a
Rumanian professor who claims to have discovered
the origin of language alias he himself as his own
bride Maria Kupari, a virtual octopus of one head
and eight long arms of many suckers, punishing
panushing me for his barren mind, only that a real
octopus is brighter than him who attended three
universities to no avail and now suffers from the
illusion that he can make himself a name by
perpetually molesting and harassing me, he also
led the massive killrating campaign against me,
as a selfmultiplying autoreplicating mob of his own
having more than one voice and vote.
Franz Gnaedinger
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, so the cottage was occupied not by Shakespeare but by another gent
> of the same name, eh? Ha ha.
The cottage was occupied by William Shakespeare,
director of the Globe and main actor who excelled in
the role of his life and still does, far beyond his life
on earth, namely in the role of the bard who wrote
all those amazing plays and poems, while the actual
bard and poet and playwright was Edward de Vere,
Earl of Oxford, who once lived on Avon street, by
the way. Here a short version of my interpretation:
O, where is Romeo? O, Vere is Romeo!
Romeo -- Edward de Vere, playwright
Juliet -- audience personified, Muse
Paris -- William Shakespeare of the Globe
Shakespeare acting as bard, in the role of his life,
de Vere hiding behind him, out of whatever reason.
Yes, William Shakespeare was a real human being,
he had a wife, and he lived in a cottage, and now,
with the new connection of Edward de Vere and
Romeo, we finally can get some real information
about the former half-god in the clouds: William
Shakespeare eagerly adopted the bard's plays
and made them bloom on the stage, so that the bard
praised him as "valiant" and "a flower; in faith, a real
flower." Moreover a false accusation dissolves,
the one that says the bard lived in a threesome,
inspired by sonnet 83, where a lady of two poets
is addressed: this lady is the Muse, and her two poets
are de Vere, playwright, and Shakespeare, director
of the Globe and main actor, both of them 'making'
the play in the sense of Greek poieo poiesis poietes,
wooing the same lady, the audience personified,
Juliet in the play, and this only on one level of a play
of many levels, namely the level of the bard reflecting
on his fate as poet ...
Until last week I believed in the bard from Stratford
on Avon, as almost everybody does, loving the language
but understanding little, the plays and poems being
crammed full of remarks that elude me completely, so last
week I tried a new approach, de Vere, first reading Hamlet,
then Romeo and Juliet, and bingo, there is a pun easily
plucked the first time Romeo is mentioned. This happened
last Friday, not yet one week ago, and already it makes
the play resound. It's this what I expect from a good theory
of literature: to make the obscure passages of a work
speak again.
Melanie Sands
Look guys, if you don't like Shakespeare, then don't post at
humanitites.lit.authors.shakespeare,
also known at HLAS.
If you haven't actual READ a play by Shakespeare, don't post at HLAS.
If you are so truly delusional as to believe that the "public"
respects Shakespeare
only because they were "taught to do so at school", then you have no
effing
idea about what school life and students are like, and you shouldn't
post
at HLAS.
If you don't like plays in general, don't post at HLAS.
If you don't like the theatre, don't post at HLAS.
If you don't like actors, puhleeeeeeze go away and don't post at HLAS.
If you don't like playwrights, don't post at HLAS.
Panu, you are SO talking outa your ass, it's painful.
We "did" Shakespearean plays such as Julius Caesar and Hamlet at
school,
and were forced to watch all the gloomy Hamlet movies around at the
time,
and I wasn't bowled over by Shakespeare.
Then I read R&J and loved it,
and then I saw the Zefirelli movie - eight times - and then
I read Comedy of Errors and adored it,
and then....
I realised I really liked Shakepeare.
Reading Shakespeare aloud is the nicest thing you can do for your
lungs and voice, by the way, especially if you have asthma like I do.
Maybe you should try it, Panu - that way you could actually get to
READ some of Shakespeare's plays...woah, wouldn't that be something,
you might end up actually knowing what you're talking about.
Melanie
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Mar 3, 12:05 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, so the cottage was occupied not by Shakespeare but by another gent
> > of the same name, eh? Ha ha.
>
> The cottage was occupied by William Shakespeare,
> director of the Globe and main actor who excelled in
> the role of his life and still does, far beyond his life
> on earth, namely in the role of the bard who wrote
> all those amazing plays and poems, while the actual
> bard and poet and playwright was Edward de Vere,
> Earl of Oxford, who once lived on Avon street,
where beautiful purple swans tapdanced and gurgled
in the light of of the silvery sun.
--Bob, sirect descendant of one of those swans
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
without the wacks? And, while--as you well know--
I have more than a trace of sympathy for your
position, you should remember that HLAS was
founded primarily to allow both sides of the
authorship debate to be expressed.
PS, they've inspired a lot of Very Funny posts
out of you. For that alone, they should be
allowed to stay!
--Sir Bobber
Peter T. Daniels
Oh, dear -- has our Franzl been posting to you in threads _not_
crossposted over here? For Melanie has made but two postings in this
thread (the other a macaronic account of the Bard's name in Franz's
own language).
Panu
>
>
> Reading Shakespeare aloud is the nicest thing you can do for your
> lungs and voice, by the way, especially if you have asthma like I do.
This is a neat illustration of cultism and entirely comparable with
the Hindutva suggestion that learning or reading Sanskrit is good for
your health. I refuse to take this cult superstition seriously.
>
> Maybe you should try it, Panu - that way you could actually get to
> READ some of Shakespeare's plays...woah, wouldn't that be something,
> you might end up actually knowing what you're talking about.
I have read his sonnets both in the original and (a couple of them) in
Irish translations. I have read Hamlet in Stanislaw Baranczak's Polish
translation, and Macbeth in Irish. I have also read Jan Kott's
"Szekspir wspólczesny", and we read extensive fragments of "Julius
Caesar" at school. I staunchly refuse to lose any more of my precious
time to Shakespeare. Learning Georgian and Albanian is much more
interesting.
> Melanie
Panu
> Must I say it in every thread?
No, you mustn't. In fact, you mustn't say anything.
I am being followed
> around since four years now this early spring by
> my second longtime online stalker, Panu Petteri
> Höglund
I have as much right to post in this thread as you have. You don't own
the place. There are other people here.
Panu
> If rating had been possible in the Elizabethean Age
> we wouldn't know of 'Shakespeare' today: also he
> would have been killrated.
Come on, you are no Shakespeare. Shakespeare was, I understand, an
esteemed dramaticist in his own age, which was probably quite merited.
You aren't esteemed even in your own time, for obvious reasons. Well,
of course those guys who wrote the book about Pi did mention Franz
Gnädinger in passing. The day that accursed book was printed was a
black day in the history of mathematics, science, and learned enquiry,
and may the Swiss for ever and ever be branded with the eternal shame
of actually taking Franz seriously.
Emungo
You seem unaware that bardolatry (in Britain, at any rate) has always
been shadowed by a healthy strain of misobardia - just as Rome knew
more than one Virgiliomastix. So you're not the amazing iconoclast you
seem to think you are.
Furthermore I just don't see how you can pronounce 'Shakespeare is
rubbish' in a group whose name begins with 'sci', as if it were an
assertion capable of proof or disproof. I am a BrEng L1 speaker,
educated to a fairly high level in that language but also fluent in
one other and familiar with several more. I was put through the
Shakespeare mill at school and I agree with an earlier poster that for
the uncommitted and uninterested schoolchild here the natural effect
is far more likely to be alienation than adoration. I am also far from
enamoured of the plays as dramas - many of the plots are trivial and
hardly more captivating than Terence or Plautus; venerable generic
ancestry doesn't make them easier to watch. So I don't understand the
thespians who declare the bard to be a great ambassador for the
relevance and timelessness of drama. Maybe the reality is that I don't
like drama very much. But what I, like many anglophones, find
fantastic about Shakespeare is his use of language. The regularity
with which he uses what seem to me precisely the right words in
precisely the right way in precisely the right context delights me.
Some parts of some of the plays just hit you with fantastic language
selection and deployment time after time, unrelentingly, just as a
great stand-up comedian can leave you reeling with gag after gag. I
realise that my response will be conditioned by the fact that my whole
linguistic heritage is to a degree shaped by Shakespeare, and so there
is an extent to which he will automatically seem the distilled essence
of what others present in diluted form. But I have read and seen
enough other drama of his age, and indeed earlier material in
classical languages, to be able to judge what he does for me against
what others - some of whom were perhaps direct or indirect models for
him - achieve, and I feel he consistently surpasses them.
These pronouncements, like yours, are just my opinions. I could never
demonstrate them by logical argumentation. They are admittedly the
considered, honestly held views of an L1 BrEng speaker and therefore
partly falsify your suggestion that anglophones who love Shakespeare
are victims or perpetrators of a fraud or a cult. Beyond that fact,
however, I am aware that as the opinions of a layman in these matters
they deserve no more respect than anyone else's, and I would be very
careful not to shout them out with the rather extraordinary vehemence
and ferocity you use for yours. Doing so can really make one look like
an loud-mouthed, egocentric ignoramus.
Peter T. Daniels
Never mind all that -- did you notice that in the above, he admits
that he has never read anything by Shakespeare beyond some excerpts
from Julius Caesar?
(He doesn't say whether he's ever seen any on stage or screen, which
is the way to properly appreciate it.)
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mar 2, 3:06 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > If rating had been possible in the Elizabethean Age
> > we wouldn't know of 'Shakespeare' today: also he
> > would have been killrated.
>
> Come on, you are no Shakespeare. Shakespeare was, I understand, an
> esteemed dramaticist in his own age,
Whence such an "understanding"? What evidence do you have that he was
valued above all other dramatists of his time?
> which was probably quite merited.
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself."
Panu
> On 3 Mar, 19:53, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 2:50 pm, Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Reading Shakespeare aloud is the nicest thing you can do for your
> > > lungs and voice, by the way, especially if you have asthma like I do.
>
> > This is a neat illustration of cultism and entirely comparable with
> > the Hindutva suggestion that learning or reading Sanskrit is good for
> > your health. I refuse to take this cult superstition seriously.
>
> > > Maybe you should try it, Panu - that way you could actually get to
> > > READ some of Shakespeare's plays...woah, wouldn't that be something,
> > > you might end up actually knowing what you're talking about.
>
> > I have read his sonnets both in the original and (a couple of them) in
> > Irish translations. I have read Hamlet in Stanislaw Baranczak's Polish
> > translation, and Macbeth in Irish. I have also read Jan Kott's
> > "Szekspir wspólczesny", and we read extensive fragments of "Julius
> > Caesar" at school. I staunchly refuse to lose any more of my precious
> > time to Shakespeare. Learning Georgian and Albanian is much more
> > interesting.
>
> > > Melanie
>
> You seem unaware that bardolatry (in Britain, at any rate) has always
> been shadowed by a healthy strain of misobardia - just as Rome knew
> more than one Virgiliomastix. So you're not the amazing iconoclast you
> seem to think you are.
I don't think I am an amazing iconoclast. I think Shakespeare was
probably a decent scribbler of his own time. But this Cthulhu cult is
simply lunatic. In fact,
>
> Furthermore I just don't see how you can pronounce 'Shakespeare is
> rubbish' in a group whose name begins with 'sci', as if it were an
> assertion capable of proof or disproof.
I don't really think Shakespeare is rubbish. I think Shakespeare
probably was superior to his fellow scribblers, but he was definitely
not the god cultists want him to be.
I am also far from
> enamoured of the plays as dramas - many of the plots are trivial and
> hardly more captivating than Terence or Plautus; venerable generic
> ancestry doesn't make them easier to watch.
Now we are getting somewhere. Plots are trivial, language is old-
fashioned and only partly intelligible. Probably a professional
routine writer of decent formulaic entertainment, but a genius?
Really?
So I don't understand the
> thespians who declare the bard to be a great ambassador for the
> relevance and timelessness of drama. Maybe the reality is that I don't
> like drama very much. But what I, like many anglophones, find
> fantastic about Shakespeare is his use of language. The regularity
> with which he uses what seem to me precisely the right words in
> precisely the right way in precisely the right context delights me.
This is what I find problematic. The fact is, that Shakespeare's
language is only partly intelligible to a modern reader. Thus, in
order to appreciate his "mot juste" you basically depend on cribs and
guidebooks and commentaries, on a whole interpretative tradition -
which is basically the theology of the Shakespeare cult.
> I
> realise that my response will be conditioned by the fact that my whole
> linguistic heritage is to a degree shaped by Shakespeare,
Indeed.
>
> These pronouncements, like yours, are just my opinions. I could never
> demonstrate them by logical argumentation. They are admittedly the
> considered, honestly held views of an L1 BrEng speaker and therefore
> partly falsify your suggestion that anglophones who love Shakespeare
> are victims or perpetrators of a fraud or a cult.
If you dislike the word "cult", let's call it a perfectly legitimate
religion, then. It sure has all the hallmarks of a religion:
theologians, high church, temples, ecstatic mystics.
Brian M. Scott
> On Mar 3, 11:03 pm, Emungo <pyti...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> Maybe the reality is that I don't like drama very much.
I know that I don't.
>> But what I, like many anglophones, find fantastic about
>> Shakespeare is his use of language. The regularity with
>> which he uses what seem to me precisely the right words
>> in precisely the right way in precisely the right
>> context delights me.
> This is what I find problematic. The fact is, that
> Shakespeare's language is only partly intelligible to a
> modern reader. Thus, in order to appreciate his "mot
> juste" you basically depend on cribs and guidebooks and
> commentaries, on a whole interpretative tradition -
Perhaps you do; I find the great majority of his language
entirely readable. That was true when I first encountered
him ~50 years ago, too. Note that one can appreciate the
language without necessarily catching all of the wordplay
('her C's, her U's, and her T's').
[...]
> If you dislike the word "cult", let's call it a perfectly
> legitimate religion, then. [...]
Your view is no more reasonable for being couched in
slightly less objectionable language.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> Panu wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 11:03 pm, Emungo <pyti...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Maybe the reality is that I don't like drama very much.
>
> I know that I don't.
>
> >> But what I, like many anglophones, find fantastic about
> >> Shakespeare is his use of language. The regularity with
> >> which he uses what seem to me precisely the right words
> >> in precisely the right way in precisely the right
> >> context delights me.
> > This is what I find problematic. The fact is, that
> > Shakespeare's language is only partly intelligible to a
> > modern reader. Thus, in order to appreciate his "mot
> > juste" you basically depend on cribs and guidebooks and
> > commentaries, on a whole interpretative tradition -
>
> Perhaps you do; I find the great majority of his language
> entirely readable. That was true when I first encountered
> him ~50 years ago, too. Note that one can appreciate the
> language without necessarily catching all of the wordplay
> ('her C's, her U's, and her T's').
And "thus makes she her great P's", apparently attesting to the
existence of "pee" more than a century before its first occurrence
elsewhere.
When I noticed this a few years ago, I thought I'd (improbably)
discovered something that OED had missed. But they have the quote;
it's just tucked away in the etymology.
Ross Clark
Panu
> > Shakespeare's language is only partly intelligible to a
> > modern reader. Thus, in order to appreciate his "mot
> > juste" you basically depend on cribs and guidebooks and
> > commentaries, on a whole interpretative tradition -
>
> Perhaps you do; I find the great majority of his language
> entirely readable. That was true when I first encountered
> him ~50 years ago, too. Note that one can appreciate the
> language without necessarily catching all of the wordplay
> ('her C's, her U's, and her T's').
I don't want to be nasty, but this sounds to me as if you would be
trying to please your inner cultist.
>
> [...]
>
> > If you dislike the word "cult", let's call it a perfectly
> > legitimate religion, then. [...]
>
> Your view is no more reasonable for being couched in
> slightly less objectionable language.
I don't think it is exaggerated to see parallels between Melanie
Sands's cult of Shakespeare and the Hindutva contingent's cult of that
ridiculous, dead, artificial lingo, the name of which I do not
condescend to mention.
Panu
> On Mar 3, 3:08 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 3:06 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > > If rating had been possible in the Elizabethean Age
> > > we wouldn't know of 'Shakespeare' today: also he
> > > would have been killrated.
>
> > Come on, you are no Shakespeare. Shakespeare was, I understand, an
> > esteemed dramaticist in his own age,
>
> Whence such an "understanding"? What evidence do you have that he was
> valued above all other dramatists of his time?
I don't. I merely extrapolate from the fact that there is the cult. I
take it that he played his dramas back when he lived, and that some
people came and watched.
>
> > which was probably quite merited.
>
> "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself."
Merited in the sense that Star Trek, for example, merits to be watched
by people who are bored enough to watch it. That does not make Star
Trek great art, but it does make it comparable with what Shakespeare's
plays were for contemporary public - decent entertainment to kill your
boredom with.
Edward A. Falk
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Ignoto
Yes, some of the plots are trivial and most are derivative, but this
misses the point - his genius lay in his language and development of
character.
> language is old-
> fashioned and only partly intelligible.
Where did you get this from? The back of a box of cereal?
In fact Shakespeare's english is not very different from our own. The
main thing that makes him, for a modern audience, 'hard to understand'
is the complexity of his thought.
> Probably a professional
> routine writer of decent formulaic entertainment, but a genius?
> Really?
Again, you completely miss the point.
>
> So I don't understand the
>> thespians who declare the bard to be a great ambassador for the
>> relevance and timelessness of drama. Maybe the reality is that I don't
>> like drama very much. But what I, like many anglophones, find
>> fantastic about Shakespeare is his use of language. The regularity
>> with which he uses what seem to me precisely the right words in
>> precisely the right way in precisely the right context delights me.
>
> This is what I find problematic. The fact is, that Shakespeare's
> language is only partly intelligible to a modern reader. Thus, in
> order to appreciate his "mot juste" you basically depend on cribs and
> guidebooks and commentaries,
So, you think the following is only 'partly intelligible':
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.
> on a whole interpretative tradition -
> which is basically the theology of the Shakespeare cult.
>
>> I
>> realise that my response will be conditioned by the fact that my whole
>> linguistic heritage is to a degree shaped by Shakespeare,
>
> Indeed.
>
>> These pronouncements, like yours, are just my opinions. I could never
>> demonstrate them by logical argumentation. They are admittedly the
>> considered, honestly held views of an L1 BrEng speaker and therefore
>> partly falsify your suggestion that anglophones who love Shakespeare
>> are victims or perpetrators of a fraud or a cult.
>
> If you dislike the word "cult", let's call it a perfectly legitimate
> religion, then. It sure has all the hallmarks of a religion:
> theologians, high church, temples, ecstatic mystics.
Let's recap your knowledge of Shakespeare:
-sonnets both in the original and (a couple of them) in Irish translations.
-Hamlet in Polish by Stanislaw Baranczak
(Some comments on the quality of that translation: "Recently, Stanisław
Barańczak has translated some of Shakespeare's works. They are usually
praised by the actors but criticised by Shakespeare scholars. Anna
Cetera classifies his translations as a theatre-oriented rewriting,
marked by a deliberate intervention in reinterpreting the texts (1999:
116-127). Barańczak's works demonstrate an unusual sense of
dramaturgical space and movement, but they are often far from the
original text. In addition, the translator adjusts the texts to modern
modes of stagings often enough for the price of dispensing with
time-bound rhetoric and obscure references to Elizabethan reality. He
also purges the text of stylistic features, which could undermine the
emotional authenticity of stage elocution. The policy results in the
creation of a text of remarkable coherence and clarity, but marked by
strong interpretative bias."
http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/Criticism/shakespearein/poland12.html
-Macbeth in Irish.
-Fragments of "Julius Caesar"
IOW you have basically no knowledge of Shakespeare, having not even
bothered to read ONE of his PLAYS in FULL in ENGLISH. Yet despite your
obvious ignorance (which you appear to be quite proud of) you presume to
tell others who have read and/or seen his works in FULL in ENGLISH that
he was an average dramatist - anyone who believes otherwise is a
'cultist'.
Troll.
Ign.
>
Franz Gnaedinger
defends her beloved William Shakespeare
Paris, in the play Romeo and Juliet, is introduced as
valiant Paris
offering the alliteration
valiant William
William Shakespeare, director of the Globe and main
actor
a flower; in faith, a real flower
In sonnet 83, addressing the Muse, Edward de Vere
speaks of
both your poets
placing the actor on the same level as the playwright,
for both are making the play, in the sense of Greek
poieo poiesis poietes. From "valiant Paris" read as
valiant William we may infer that William Shakespeare
was a congenial director and actor, easily adopting
the plays and acting out all intentions. He also may have
stood the ground and ensured the performances under
the pressure mentioned in sonnet 66
And Art made tongue-tied by authority
while other directors yielded to the pressure, consider
Peter Quince in the play A Midsummer Night's Dream,
the shape of the fruit evoked by his name suggesting
puffed cheeks and a small brain. Quince's actor Bottom,
in order not to freighten the ladies of the court among
the audience, and risking that all the actors be hung,
proposes to make his lion roar like a nightingale -
taking all strentgth out of the play, that is. Happened
also to de Vere's plays, but not when valiant William
was around. Paris, the prince of Troy, was rather
a coward, or, one may say, he understood how to keep
out of trouble, which may be a further characterization
of William Shakespeare - valiant by being gentle
good gentle youth
By heaven, I love thee better than myself
The cooperation between the two congenial collaborators
was far from being free of conflicts, however, the bard
confesses his sin - whatever the reason was that obliged
him to keep silent about his authorship in the plays -, and
de Vere solved the conflict in the way of the mild, gentle
and sly Ulysses in his poem Lucrece (as explained earlier).
The final and fatal conflict of the play must be a metaphor
on the rivalry between playwright and actor, won in the
end by the former whose lines live on while the equally
ingenious performing is forgotten when the actor passed
away. Paris provokes Romeo, this one shows him,
Paris dies, and Romeo exclaims
Noble County Paris!
the Earl of Oxford elevating William Shakespeare of
humble origin into the rank of an earl or count
I'll bury thee in a triumphant grave
namely in his work - the bard honors the actor, telling
us that valiant William, a real flower, a gentle youth,
his equal as poet in the original sense of the Greek
word, contributed as much to their common work as
he did himself, so that a next edition of the plays may
justly be called: The Complete Works of Edward de Vere
and William Shakespeare ... While conceiving and writing
a play, Edward de Vere may have had William on his
mind, and thus the play wrote itself on its own, carried,
and carried far, by the spirit of the young collaborator,
so that also William Shakespeare is present in the
written form of the plays, way beyond his playacting.
And Juliet? She symbolizes the audience that also
contributed to the plays, in the way explained earlier.
She is first mentioned in a call
What, Juliet!
offering another pun
Watch, Juliet!
Watching a play is what an audience does - listen and
watch.
Peter T. Daniels
> One more message, for Melanie Sands who bravely
> defends her beloved William Shakespeare
>
> Paris, in the play Romeo and Juliet, is introduced as
>
> valiant Paris
>
> offering the alliteration
>
> valiant William
In the English language, /v/ and /w/ are very different sounds. They
do not alliterate together.
Given the faulty premiss, all that derives from it is illegitimate.
johnk
> On Mar 4, 3:50 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > One more message, for Melanie Sands who bravely
> > defends her beloved William Shakespeare
>
> > Paris, in the play Romeo and Juliet, is introduced as
>
> > valiant Paris
>
> > offering the alliteration
>
> > valiant William
>
> In the English language, /v/ and /w/ are very different sounds. They
> do not alliterate together.
Where did he come up with Paris=William?
>
> Given the faulty premiss, all that derives from it is illegitimate.
This can be said of most of Franz's posts.
Brian M. Scott
<craoi...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:a20f9b95-0f8f-413d...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:
> On Mar 4, 12:06�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> Panu wrote:
>>> This is what I find problematic. The fact is, that
>>> Shakespeare's language is only partly intelligible to a
>>> modern reader. Thus, in order to appreciate his "mot
>>> juste" you basically depend on cribs and guidebooks and
>>> commentaries, on a whole interpretative tradition -
>> Perhaps you do; I find the great majority of his language
>> entirely readable. �That was true when I first encountered
>> him ~50 years ago, too. �Note that one can appreciate the
>> language without necessarily catching all of the wordplay
>> ('her C's, her U's, and her T's').
> I don't want to be nasty, but this sounds to me as if you
> would be trying to please your inner cultist.
Then clean out your ears. I'm telling you the plain facts
of the matter. Shakespeare's English is not particularly
difficult. And by your own admission you're not qualified
to judge.
>> [...]
>>> If you dislike the word "cult", let's call it a perfectly
>>> legitimate religion, then. �[...]
>> Your view is no more reasonable for being couched in
>> slightly less objectionable language.
> I don't think it is exaggerated to see parallels between
> Melanie Sands's cult of Shakespeare and the Hindutva
> contingent's cult of that ridiculous, dead, artificial
> lingo, the name of which I do not condescend to mention.
Nothing that she's posted in sci.lang suggests a cult. You,
on the other hand, clearly have a burr under your saddle.
Peter T. Daniels
(Even in German, of course, <v> /f/ and <w> /v/ cannot be confused or
alliterated.)
Nathan Sanders
<b4bfb254-8286-48eb...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
johnk <jhoba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only "most"?
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Melanie Sands
No they shouldn't! Out out, I say, cast them out -
not the wacks, the loons and the mad hatters, we
lurrrve the mad ones, they make our own
excentricity fade into nothingness, I'm talking about the
haters of Shakespeare!
Melanie's Eleventh Commandment:
Thou must love Shakespeare's writings,
for if thou lovest not his scriblings, thou must needs
leave HLAs and darken it's portals no more.
No matter WHO they think was the author (I mean,
we enlightened ones know the truth, after all, and
the truth sets us free) they must LOVE his
work.
And like plays.
And like actors (which many HLASian anti-strats
really don't!!!)
And like playwrights.
And have read at least ONE Shakespearean play.
That's all. Dat's de rules. Follow them or be
banned.
Melanie
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> In the English language, /v/ and /w/ are very different sounds. They
> do not alliterate together.
>
> Given the faulty premiss, all that derives from it is illegitimate.
The association of valiant and William is not
my premise but a late confirmation of my very
early insight that Paris must represent William
Shakespeare as director and main actor of
the Globe. If I can't call 'valiant' and 'William'
an alliteration, I can use another term, a free
but meaningful association, a free form of
a Stabreim, whatever. Bob Dylan uses much
freer rhymes and alliterations than this one,
often consisting of a vowel sequence only,
and we have here a vowel rhyme as well:
(a) ia -- (i) ia, plus the similar begin: v -- W,
the v originally an u, as in loue (love as written
in the First Folio), and the W a double u. These
two consonants are linked to each other,
whatever you tell me. And, by the way, did Prof.
Dr. Nathan Sanders read my interpretation,
or is he just masterbating on your comment?
Peter T. Daniels
<loue> was pronounced with exactly the same consonants it (<love>) is
pronounced with today.
Peter Groves
> On Mar 4, 2:42 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the English language, /v/ and /w/ are very different sounds. They
> > do not alliterate together.
>
> > Given the faulty premiss, all that derives from it is illegitimate.
>
> The association of valiant and William is not
> my premise but a late confirmation of my very
> early insight that Paris must represent William
> Shakespeare as director and main actor of
> the Globe. If I can't call 'valiant' and 'William'
> an alliteration, I can use another term, a free
> but meaningful association, a free form of
> a Stabreim, whatever. Bob Dylan uses much
> freer rhymes and alliterations than this one,
> often consisting of a vowel sequence only,
> and we have here a vowel rhyme as well:
> (a) ia -- (i) ia, plus the similar begin: v -- W,
> the v originally an u, as in loue (love as written
> in the First Folio), and the W a double u.
This is imbecilic. You are confusing letters and sounds in a manner
that would disgrace a schoolboy.
These
> two consonants are linked to each other,
> whatever you tell me.
That is, you are not merely ignorantly opinionated, but ineducable to
boot. Makes sense you'd be an Oxfordian.
Peter G.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> <loue> was pronounced with exactly the same consonants it (<love>) is
> pronounced with today.
I hear it pronounced differently, most singers give
a slightly aspirated 'v', and some rare singers,
trying to be real soft, pronounce 'u' - the difference
being the distance between the upper front teeth
and the lower lip, the closer together the more of
a 'v', the farther apart the more an 'u', while in the
case of the 'w' the upper lip takes over the role
of the upper front teeth. I prefer the phyisological
aspect to phonemes.
Valiant and William are as good as a rhyme. De Vere
uses all sorts of rhymes, in sonnet 66 for example
strumpeted / disabled
and the same for Bob Dylan, in Hey Mister Tambourin
Man he sings of "skipped reels of rhyme" then goes
mind / time
and in Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues
anything else / myself
I have seen hundreds of correctly rhymed poems that
had nothing else to offer, didn't make the soul and mind
resound, missing the 'rhyme' between poem and reader,
while de Vere and Dylan, with their often imperfect rhymes
achieve that most important rhyme between their lines
and the mind and soul of the reader and listener.
Valiant / William is as good a rhyme as the examples
given above, and the alliteration is even of a genetic sort,
for William German Wilhelm is composed of will and helmet,
will akin to German wollen and to Latin velle 'wish', volo
'I wish', in a further meaning 'I decide, order', and valiant
comes from valere 'to be strong', in a further meaning
'to have influence, power, importance'
volo 'I wish', also 'I decide, order'
valeo 'I am strong', also 'I have influence, power, importance'
Over here
Our dear
One and only
Young and gentle
Real flower
Videlicet :
Valiant
William
Shakespeare
(Rhymed not by Vere
Es isch vo mier
Franz Gnaedinger)
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> This is imbecilic. You are confusing letters and sounds in a manner
> that would disgrace a schoolboy.
>
> boot. Makes sense you'd be an Oxfordian.
'Letter' also meant phoneme until the end of the 19th
century. The Roman letters were conceived as phonemes.
And as for the connection between 'valiant' and 'William'
I quote from the reply I just wrote for Peter:
* Valiant / William is as good a rhyme as the examples
* given above, and the alliteration is even of a genetic sort,
* for William German Wilhelm is composed of will and helmet,
* will akin to German wollen and Latin velle 'wish', volo 'I wish',
* in a further meaning 'I decide, order', and valiant coming
* from valere 'to be strong', in a further meaning 'to have
* influence, power, importance'
*
* volo 'I wish', also 'I decide, order'
*
* valeo 'I am strong', also 'I have influence, power, importance'
Your reply is typical for a strutting Strat : reproaches and
ad hominems instead of answers to questions. You can't
make all those obscure remarks unveil their meaning,
you worship a demi-god veiled in fog and cloaked in clouds,
preferring him to an actual and apparently loveworthy human
being of great merit, as the real William Shakespeare
emerging from the play Romeo and Juliet in my reading
that is now one week old, since I found the telling pun
O, where is Romeo? O, Vere is Romeo!
last Friday, followed yesterday by
What, Juliet! Watch, Juliet!
and the alliteration
valiant Paris valiant William
Romeo -- Edward de Vere, playwright
Juliet -- audience personified, Muse
Paris -- William Shakespeare of the Globe
Franz Gnaedinger
The serious play Romeo and Juliet was followed
by a poetical farce, A Midsummer Night's Dream,
where Romeo turned into jealous Oberon, and Juliet
into proud Titania, king and queen of the fairies,
Titania symbolizing the general audience that prefers
popular plays of a mechanical sort Edward de Vere
apparently despised, and so he gives a parody of
that sort of playwrighting and acting: the mechanicals
Peter Quince and his actors stage a classical tragedy,
interfere unknowingly with the fairies, turn things upside
down, doing harm and well at the same time, bringing
one true couple of lovers apart, another together,
and, to the big delight of Oberon, his wife Titania falls
in love with an ass, Peter Qunice's main actor Bottom
wearing the head of an ass, of which Titania will soon
be ashamed and return to her husband Oberon, as
audience personified realizing that those popular
mechanical plays are not the real thing. Edward de
Vere gives the audience a pedagogical lesson in form
of a funny, highly poetical and phantastic play, without
any pedagogy at all.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mar 4, 7:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <loue> was pronounced with exactly the same consonants it (<love>) is
> > pronounced with today.
>
> I hear it pronounced differently, most singers give
Where did you find a recording of a 17th-century singer?
> a slightly aspirated 'v', and some rare singers,
> trying to be real soft, pronounce 'u' - the difference
> being the distance between the upper front teeth
> and the lower lip, the closer together the more of
> a 'v', the farther apart the more an 'u', while in the
> case of the 'w' the upper lip takes over the role
> of the upper front teeth. I prefer the phyisological
> aspect to phonemes.
You are extremely confused.
Phonemes don't have "physiological aspects."
> Valiant and William are as good as a rhyme. De Vere
Not in English, they're not.
> uses all sorts of rhymes, in sonnet 66 for example
>
> strumpeted / disabled
Your definition of "rhyme" is even more bizarre than your definition
of "language."
> and the same for Bob Dylan, in Hey Mister Tambourin
> Man he sings of "skipped reels of rhyme" then goes
>
> mind / time
Do you really not see how "mind / time" differs from "strumpeted /
disabled"?