Oxford as Arthur Brooke
robert...@my-deja.com
Stephanie Hughes (at Mark Alexander's website), that
Oxford wrote Romeus and Juliet. He finds it hard to
believe that, as I put it, "Shakespeare stole a whole
plot and a lot else from a writer very inferior to him."
I, of course, have no trouble at all believing that.
He has no problem with the possibility that Oxford may have been
many writers. "Unlike you," says he, "I don't believe in 'magic
writing'. That means that Shakespeare (whoever he was)
worked up to Hamlet, Lear, Richard III and Richard II, etc., with
a large number of lesser works."
Paul, I do not believe in "magic writing," as you define it. His
lesser works were some of the sonnets, Titus, the Henry VI trilogy,
the narrative poems, and other works now gone, probably because he
threw them out. (Whether these latter were good enough for
publication is not as certain as you think; in any case, he may
not have thought them good enough.) I also think Shakespeare learned
at lot of his craft working on others' plays, perhaps even completely
rewriting a few.
Paul continues: "Also many writers prefer pseudonyms, especially when
they are starting. And Oxford's extraordinary precocity and, above
all, his social status, must have strongly inclined him in that
direction."
Ah, but "Arthur Brooke" was the name of a documentedly real person,
like Shakespeare, Marlowe, Lyly, Golding, Greene, and whoever else
(Jonson?) you think Oxford used the name of when he wrote. It was
not a pseudonym. Such wholesale use of other men's names would have
been unprecedented.
> The only real problem is the extent of his precocity. But then
> 'Romeus and Juliet' is not very good. And it fits in with
> 'Lucrece' and 'V&A' and 'Hero & Leander' (a few years later) with
> 'Golding's' translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses coming in
> between.
I don't have a lot of trouble with his precocity. What I have trouble
with is one man's (secretly!) creating a literary renaissance
on the scale of the Elizabethan one--like Wordsworth creating
Romanticism without Coleridge, Blake, Shelley, Keats, etc.; or
Monet creating impressionism without Renoir, Sisley, Pissaro, Seurat,
Manet, etc.; or Einstein creating modern physics without Planck,
Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc.
--Bob G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Paul Crowley
wrote:
>Paul, I do not believe in "magic writing," as you define it. His
>lesser works were some of the sonnets, Titus, the Henry VI trilogy,
>the narrative poems, and other works now gone, probably because he
>threw them out.
The 'lesser works' we have under his name could only be a
fraction of what must have been written -- and for the plays --
acted and performed. Many of them would have been far too good
to throw out.
>(Whether these latter were good enough for
>publication is not as certain as you think; in any case, he may
>not have thought them good enough.) I also think Shakespeare learned
>at lot of his craft working on others' plays, perhaps even completely
>rewriting a few.
Which plays are those? And why should he have done that?
It would be wholly unprecedented.
>Ah, but "Arthur Brooke" was the name of a documentedly real person,
Who was that then?
>like Shakespeare, Marlowe, Lyly, Golding, Greene, and whoever else
>(Jonson?) you think Oxford used the name of when he wrote. It was
>not a pseudonym. Such wholesale use of other men's names would have
>been unprecedented.
Such a situation was unprecedented. What was such a man to do?
--a very wealthy man, of the highest social status, who was a
literary genius, barred -- by social convention and for other
reasons -- from serious publishing under his own name. Putting a
lot of high-grade stuff out as 'anonymous' or under a pure
pseudonym just wouldn't have worked for very long.
>I don't have a lot of trouble with his precocity. What I have trouble
>with is one man's (secretly!) creating a literary renaissance
>on the scale of the Elizabethan one
We know that there was one outstanding literary genius -- that is
not questionable. You want to posit the existence of numerous
others. That's not parsimonious. Such a level of genius is
exceedingly rare -- we've had no one since that approached him --
not in any country in the world. That's in spite of the fact
that his successors had him to show them the way, whereas he had
to create it from his own mind. The works are so extraordinary
that very special explanations are called for.
>--like Wordsworth creating
>Romanticism without Coleridge, Blake, Shelley, Keats, etc.; or
>Monet creating impressionism without Renoir, Sisley, Pissaro, Seurat,
>Manet, etc.; or Einstein creating modern physics without Planck,
>Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc.
There's no great mystery as to how any of that was created. They
were wonderful people working within solid, well-established
traditions (although nowhere near Shakespeare's level). Whereas
there's an enormous mystery about the English Literary
Renaissance, and especially the role of Shakespeare. No one
suggests that there was 'something special in the air' in late
19c France to explain the Impressionists, or in early 19c England
(for Romanticism) or in early 20c Europe (for the physicists).
Yet that kind of thing is commonly expressed about Elizabethan
England. No one suggests that Romanticism, Impressionism or 20c
Physics were strange unpredictable phenomena that were quite
unlikely to happen. Something was highly likely to develop at
those times, and while each might have worked out differently, I
doubt if few would say that it would have been _very_ different.
Whereas the English Literary Renaissance need not have happened
at all. Elizabethan England could have been as dull as
contemporary France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Denmark . . . etc.
Almost anything could have upset it. If Richard III had been a
bit more cautious on Bosworth field, if Edward VI had lived, if
Mary had really been pregnant, etc., etc., it almost certainly
would never have happened.
Yet while Elizabeth may have 'allowed' it to happen, we still
have to explain its creative impetus. It wasn't some low-level
odds and sods, like Sidney or Spenser coming up with a few bright
ideas.
Paul.
robert...@my-deja.com
>
> >Paul, I do not believe in "magic writing," as you define it. His
> >lesser works were some of the sonnets, Titus, the Henry VI trilogy,
> >the narrative poems, and other works now gone, probably because he
> >threw them out.
>
> The 'lesser works' we have under his name could only be a
> fraction of what must have been written -- and for the plays --
> acted and performed. Many of them would have been far too good
> to throw out.
"Far too good to throw out?" Why? I'm sure Shakespeare would have
written probably a hundred or more sonnet-sized poems during whatever
poetry apprentice he had, and it could have started late--that is, he
could have written just a few bits of doggerel before he was seventeen
or so; not all great poets are child prodigies--Keats, for instance,
wasn't). I'm equally sure whatever he wrote was either bad, or bad
enough in his opinion, to discard. Anyway, where are the early writings
of Marlowe, Jonson, Spenser, etc., some of whom were not Oxford?
Do we have the juvenilia of Milton, Wordsworth, Blake? (I don't know.)
As for his apprenticeship as a playwright, we have lots of his
apprenticeworks: the Henry VI plays, King John, Richard II and Richard
III, Titus Andronicus, Two Gentlemen of Verona. Most of these have
first-rate passages in them but not very good, over-all. No reason to
believe Shakespeare would have made any effort to save them if it'd been
to him. We have them because they were marketable, not because they
were terribly good.
I see no reason to believe he wrote other plays early on that haven't
come down to us, but he may have. I would see no reason so save any
play worse that Titus and the Henry VI plays. And they may have gone
to acting companies with no connection to the Lord Chamberlain's men,
or any of the actors Shakespeare spent the bulk of his career writing
plays for. They therefore could easily have disappeared with those
companies. Another consideration is that in play-writing, many of
his plays, including very good ones, could have ORIGINALLY been
apprentice-plays that he revised, chucking the originals in the process.
In other words, by the time he was 25, he may have written four plays,
all of them different versions of Two Gentlemen of Verona, and fourteen
plays, all of them different versions of the Henry VI plays. Your
claim that his lesser works could ONLY have been a fraction of all
he wrote, in any case, is nonsense.
Which plays of others may Shakespeare not have rewritten completely?
Some scholars speculate that some of the early histories were
originally by others. I admit to not knowing (or remembering) much
about this kind of thing back then, but my impression is that plays
were not infrequently re-written from top-to-bottom. Such remakes,
of course, have been common in modern movie-making, whose first century
seems very like that of English play-making.
> It would be wholly unprecedented.
No, it would only be something you are not familiar with. It seems to
me that Comedy of Errors is such a play, but we don't know whether he
used an English translation available in manuscript only when he wrote
his version or whether he used his own or some other translation of
the Roman play it was a rewrite of. It's possible that Hamlet was
a re-write of someone else's play, but it may have been a re-write of
his own play.
I believe Henslowe notes in his journal having paid writers for
rewriting entire plays, but
I'm not sure.
> >Ah, but "Arthur Brooke" was the name of a documentedly real person,
>
> Who was that then?
Boyce, Shakespeare A to Z, says about all that is known of him is that
he drowned while on a military expedition as a young man. Of course,
he also thinks (the imbecile) that because his name is on the title-
page of Romeus and Juliet, that he wrote it.
A digression now to try to show you why your notion that great
writers rarely steal from lesser writers. The Romeo and Juliet story
was popular throughout Europe long before Shakespeare's play. It
probably goes back to a 1530 work of the Italian Da Porto, although
other versions pre-date that. In any case, Shakespeare stole it
from SOMEone. By the way, George Gascoigne did a Romeo and Juliet
masque back in 1574, so Shakespeare could be said, at least in a way,
to have re-written that particular stagework.
If Shakespeare was not Brooke, then he took a LOT of it from
Brooke. How could he deign to do so? Not sane literary historian
would ask such a question. They would take it for granted that he
used so much of Brooke because he found its plot admirably rich
in archetypal resonance. And because by the time the tale reached
Brooke, it was well organized and full of interesting characters and
situations, and therefore worth taking as constructed and populated.
And no doubt because he also liked the point of view expressed by
Brooke, the dominant role of fate in the lives of men. (Perhaps
even you would agree that lesser minds can sometime share a point of
view with greater minds.) Also, although you throw this out as a
possible motive, because he knew the tale would sell as a play, since
it already had in other forms.
> >like Shakespeare, Marlowe, Lyly, Golding, Greene, and whoever else
> >(Jonson?) you think Oxford used the name of when he wrote. It was
> >not a pseudonym. Such wholesale use of other men's names would have
> >been unprecedented.
>
> Such a situation was unprecedented. What was such a man to do?
Write poems under his own name as he and other nobles of the time did?
Write novels under his own name as Sidney did? Write court dramas
under his own name as other nobles--and himself apparently--did? Write
what he felt like writing for the public stage brazenly, as he
he brazenly left the country, and got a lady in waiting pregnant
against Elizabeth's commands? (It is interesting that we have not a
hint of Oxford's ever writing anything that displeased anyone in a
high political position in England. Why not, considering his
personality, and the fact that it would be human nature to test the
limits at some point? I, at any rate, would think that the pseudonym
would have come about because Oxford wrote something in his own name
that caused grief. Yeah, I know: he did but we have no record of it.)
Take his money and go into exile and write plays for the public stage
under his own name? Find a way to write his plays normally without
antoagonizing anyone--for instance, write only plays like Romeo and
Juliet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, that I doubt even you could
have thought could offend The QUEEN, for performance on the public
stage, and keep the ones that would cause the overthrow of the
government of England if they were performed on the public stage and
known to have been penned by OXFORD in the closet for posthumous
release (as you seem to believe he kept all the plays first performed
after his death).
Of course, I don't believe for a moment that any of his plays were
more than peripherally concerned with the politics of his own time.
> --a very wealthy man, of the highest social status, who was a
> literary genius, barred -- by social convention and for other
> reasons -- from serious publishing under his own name. Putting a
> lot of high-grade stuff out as 'anonymous' or under a pure
> pseudonym just wouldn't have worked for very long.
On the other hand, putting his stuff out under the names of four to
ten living men, the main one illiterate, WOULD have worked out? Don't
you understand that every extra front would MULTIPLY the chances of
being found out? One suspicious front might not amount to much, but
even two would risk causing (innocent) investigation--especially if
the two questionable fronts were supposedly both writing similar
stuff, HIGH-LEVEL stuff. Shakespeare the great writer although
illiterate arouses no suspicion, okay. But Shakespeare the great
illiterate writer during a period when the obscure Marlowe is also
writing similarly great plays? And both Marlowe and Shakespeare
have so much in common with Golding, who wrote a great translation of
Ovid (like Marlowe) in spite of being too stuffy (it is so obvious
to all Oxfordians and surely would have been to Ed's contemporaries) to
have written such a thing? And Golding is Oxford's uncle, and Lyly,
another front man, is his secretary! But no one suspects The Truth.
Giveth unto me an break.
Anyway, I thought you Oxfordians consider Oxford-as-Shakespeare an
open secret. So why wouldn't a simple pseudonym work?
> >I don't have a lot of trouble with his precocity. What I have
> >trouble with is one man's (secretly!) creating a literary
> >renaissance on the scale of the Elizabethan one
>
> We know that there was one outstanding literary genius -- that is
> not questionable. You want to posit the existence of numerous
> others. That's not parsimonious.
Yeah, Paul, and it's parsimonious to decide that Montgomery alone
was responsible for all the allied victories in World War II,
MacArthur, Eisenhower and the rest were just fronts for him (so the
Germans and Japanese wouldn't realize that all they needed to do to
win the war was assassinate Montgomery).
> Such a level of genius is
> exceedingly rare -- we've had no one since that approached him --
> not in any country in the world. That's in spite of the fact
> that his successors had him to show them the way, whereas he had
> to create it from his own mind. The works are so extraordinary
> that very special explanations are called for.
So you say. Not being familiar with everything that's been written
since Shakespeare, I could not be as sure as you of this, even if I
didn't think that we've had plenty of writers that were more or less
at his level. Besides, there are plenty of simple explanations for
Shakespeare that you ignore, like the early, still fluid state of the
English language which made it especially fun to work with, and the
fact that the English Playhouse and professional actors, etc., were
new, and the whole field not yet strangled by mediocrities. So a
talented fellow could get in young, have time to develop because
actors could use ANYthing, and there wasn't competition from established
dunces, and establish a reputation which allowed him to be daring once
he was into his best years as a writer. Also Shakespeare lucked into
the perfect background for a playwright: acting. That gave him
experience and connections. That England was becoming rich and
cosmopolitan helped a lot, too. And the New World was providing all
kinds of stimulation. Lots of other stuff I'm not scholar enough to
get into. Conclusion: Shakespeare was a major but not once-in-fifty-
millennia mind who had the good luck to be at the right place at the
right time to become the first super-artist in his field, play-making.
> >--like Wordsworth creating
> >Romanticism without Coleridge, Blake, Shelley, Keats, etc.; or
> >Monet creating impressionism without Renoir, Sisley, Pissaro, Seurat,
> >Manet, etc.; or Einstein creating modern physics without Planck,
> >Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc.
>
> There's no great mystery as to how any of that was created. They
> were wonderful people working within solid, well-established
> traditions (although nowhere near Shakespeare's level).
Nowhere near. Right, Paul.
> Whereas there's an enormous mystery about the English Literary
> Renaissance, and especially the role of Shakespeare.
No mystery at all to me.
> No one
> suggests that there was 'something special in the air' in late
> 19c France to explain the Impressionists, or in early 19c England
> (for Romanticism) or in early 20c Europe (for the physicists).
Blah. There WAS something special in the air to explain impressionism:
something called the industrial revolution become the technological
revolution. This resulted in the camera, the main cause of
impressionism, in my view. But there were many other factors "in the
air," like urbanization that was causing a return to Nature.
Political revolution was one of the things in the air that helped
bring about English romanticism. But also the usual thing in art:
boredom with received forms and techniques and subject matter, etc.
All kinds of things were in the air in early 20c Europe that haven't
been unraveled yet but certainly have to do with what was in the air
when Newton wrote the Principia.
> Yet that kind of thing is commonly expressed about Elizabethan
> England.
No, it isn't, the way you mean--that is, that something inexplicable
was in the air then.
> No one suggests that Romanticism, Impressionism or 20c
> Physics were strange unpredictable phenomena that were quite
> unlikely to happen. Something was highly likely to develop at
> those times, and while each might have worked out differently, I
> doubt if few would say that it would have been _very_ different.
> Whereas the English Literary Renaissance need not have happened
> at all. Elizabethan England could have been as dull as
> contemporary France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Denmark . . . etc.
This is completely insane, Paul. Renaissances happened in all those
countries, but at different times and with different arts emphasized.
Most of these countries had outbursts equal to England's. What happened
in England was nothing at all amazing. Italy finally reached England,
that's all, really. And trade was causing transmission of ideas,
etc. But we've been through all this before, and I tire quickly
of bs, which is all either of us is spewing. I ask you again, if
you are really serious about all this, to write a book on it.
Seriously, I think that if you stopped making ad hoc bullshit
assertions and tried to write even a short formal essay on behalf of
one of your beliefs, you might start learning to distinguish bullshit
from scholarship. It's hard work, though--as I'm finding out yet again
as I try to make a readable essay on my interpretation of Greene's
Groatsworth, now up to 6500 words, and, I hope, almost there. (Peter
Farey, are you listening? If you still think your brand of anti
Stratfordianism worth defending, let me know. I'm ready for our debate
whenever you give the go-ahead. Do let me know if you're permanently
out, though, so I can post my essay as just an essay instead of as my
opening statement for our debate.)
> Almost anything could have upset it. If Richard III had been a
> bit more cautious on Bosworth field, if Edward VI had lived, if
> Mary had really been pregnant, etc., etc., it almost certainly
> would never have happened.
Thanks for the "almost." But few would endorse your view that
without Elizabeth, the English renaissance would never have happened.
> Yet while Elizabeth may have 'allowed' it to happen, we still
> have to explain its creative impetus. It wasn't some low-level
> odds and sods, like Sidney or Spenser coming up with a few bright
> ideas.
Or Wyatt and Surrey and Gascoigne and Sackville and Greene and Lyly
and Kyd and Marlowe and Daniel and Peele, etc., etc. Glad to be
reminded of this, Paul.
John W. Kennedy
> Such a situation was unprecedented. What was such a man to do?
> --a very wealthy man, of the highest social status, who was a
> literary genius, barred -- by social convention
Rubbish.
> and for other
> reasons
For which we have no evidence, just Oxfordian wishful thinking.
> -- from serious publishing under his own name. Putting a
> lot of high-grade stuff out as 'anonymous' or under a pure
> pseudonym just wouldn't have worked for very long.
It worked for the _real_ pseudonymous authors of the period.
> >I don't have a lot of trouble with his precocity. What I have trouble
> >with is one man's (secretly!) creating a literary renaissance
> >on the scale of the Elizabethan one
>
> We know that there was one outstanding literary genius -- that is
> not questionable. You want to posit the existence of numerous
> others. That's not parsimonious. Such a level of genius is
> exceedingly rare -- we've had no one since that approached him --
> not in any country in the world.
Don't be ridiculous -- we've had plenty who have approached him, and
some who have surpassed him in their own ways, even some (such as
Webster) in his lifetime.
> That's in spite of the fact
> that his successors had him to show them the way, whereas he had
> to create it from his own mind.
And what "way", pray, would it be? And how does it differ from the
"way" of Aeschylus or the "way" of Racine or the "way" of Ibsen?
And have you really no realization that as soon as an artistic
phenomenon becomes dominant, it becomes sterile? How, for example, the
English-speaking stage was shackled for decades by worship of the shades
of Ibsen and Chekov (as "artistic" television still is)? How, for most
of the century, it was choked by slavish imitators of the Restoration
and of the Restoration's idea of Shakespeare? What could be more
worthless than the modern Regency romance novel? -- yet Jane Austen
wrote some of the most brilliant and delightful works in the history of
English.
> The works are so extraordinary
> that very special explanations are called for.
No they are not. They are, indeed, extraordinary, but not as
extraordinary as all that.
> No one suggests that Romanticism, Impressionism or 20c
> Physics were strange unpredictable phenomena that were quite
> unlikely to happen.
What about the Troubadour love-cult of 11th-centry Languedoc, or the
Nature-cult of Wordsworth, et al.?
> Yet while Elizabeth may have 'allowed' it to happen, we still
> have to explain its creative impetus. It wasn't some low-level
> odds and sods, like Sidney or Spenser coming up with a few bright
> ideas.
"Low-level odds and sods"? Sidney and Spenser?
Go to your room!
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Eric Ingman
>Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>> Such a situation was unprecedented. What was such a man to do?
>> --a very wealthy man, of the highest social status, who was a
>> literary genius, barred -- by social convention
>
>Rubbish.
>
>> and for other
>> reasons
>
>For which we have no evidence, just Oxfordian wishful thinking.
John, Puttenham says that Oxford was #1 of the nobles who refrained from
publishing.
>> ...
>> We know that there was one outstanding literary genius -- that is
>> not questionable. You want to posit the existence of numerous
>> others. That's not parsimonious. Such a level of genius is
>> exceedingly rare -- we've had no one since that approached him --
>> not in any country in the world.
>
>Don't be ridiculous -- we've had plenty who have approached him, and
>some who have surpassed him in their own ways, even some (such as
>Webster) in his lifetime.
I am inclined to agree with you that a lot of work needs to be done to
assert that Shakespeare worked under multiple pseudonyms. It's
counter-intuitive, but then many writers have found reasons to do such
things.
Eric Ingman
Stephanie Caruana
Eric Ingman wrote in message <7q6flc$rdo$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>John W. Kennedy wrote in message <37C4556B...@ibm.net>...
>>Paul Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> Such a situation was unprecedented. What was such a man to do?
>>> --a very wealthy man, of the highest social status, who was a
>>> literary genius, barred -- by social convention
>>
>>Rubbish.
>>
>>> and for other
>>> reasons
>>
>>For which we have no evidence, just Oxfordian wishful thinking.
>
>John, Puttenham says that Oxford was #1 of the nobles who refrained from
>publishing.
>
>>> ...
>>> We know that there was one outstanding literary genius -- that is
>>> not questionable. You want to posit the existence of numerous
>>> others. That's not parsimonious. Such a level of genius is
>>> exceedingly rare -- we've had no one since that approached him --
>>> not in any country in the world.
>>
>>Don't be ridiculous -- we've had plenty who have approached him, and
>>some who have surpassed him in their own ways, even some (such as
>>Webster) in his lifetime.
>
>
>I am inclined to agree with you that
*** a lot of work needs to be done to
>assert that Shakespeare worked under multiple pseudonyms. It's
>counter-intuitive, but then many writers have found reasons to do such
>things.
An excellent modern example that comes to mind is Stephen King, one of our
very best and most prolific current writers, who simply pours it out. He
has written countless books, but early in his career, for reasons which I'm
sure had nothing to do with an ultimate desire for "secrecy" but probably
everything to do with wanting to find another publisher who would bring out
a few extra books at a time when publisher #1 was already up to his ears in
King manuscripts, he had a few books published under a pen name which I do
not recall; but one of them was a novel called "Thinner."
Carter Dickson was also J. Dickson Carr and a whole Carr-load of other guys
as well.
>
>Eric Ingman
>
>
Now watch Kennedy the know-nothing expert on nothing whatsoever except
pointless, idiotic abuse which proves nothing whatsoever except that he
probably has the lowest IQ and the biggest need for self-assertion among the
posters on hlas, dump a shit-load of Kennedy-stamped sugliardo in my
direction. Not to worry, I came prepared with my gas mask and manure
spreader. I have sown golden wheat on the west forty, and I will require
quite a bit of sugliardo to reap this golden harvest.
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
http://dmoz.org/arts/humanities/english literature/shakespeare/authorship
John W. Kennedy
> John, Puttenham says that Oxford was #1 of the nobles who refrained from
> publishing.
No he doesn't. Not at all. It's a direct lie.
robert...@my-deja.com
refrained from publishing."
This has been discussed a great deal at HLAS. You might want to do a
search on Puttenham, or go to the Kathman/Ross site, to enlarge your
view of this. Meanwhile, you might consider the oddness of Puttenham's
saying Oxford refrained from having it known that he wrote poetry,
which is more exactly what he said as I recall, when there were poems
out with his name on them. And the possibility that Puttenham named
Oxford as first in rank among those who were not concealing their
authorship (as, that is, "among the rest," whose authorship was
known). Finally, do remember that Puttenham nowhere says anyone used
a pseudonym much less that Oxford ever did.
Eric is "inclined to agree . . . that a lot of work needs to be done
to assert that Shakespeare worked under multiple pseudonyms."
Sorry, Eric, but Oxford, if he was Shakespeare, did not work under a
lot of Psuedonyms, he worked under the names of a lot of living men.
Clark
>Paul Crowley wrote:
>> The works are so extraordinary
>> that very special explanations are called for.
>
>No they are not. They are, indeed, extraordinary, but not as
>extraordinary as all that.
Maybe they were written by space aliens.
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare website at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm
volker multhopp
> Eric Ingman wrote:
> > John, Puttenham says that Oxford was #1 of the nobles who refrained from
> > publishing.
> No he doesn't. Not at all. It's a direct lie.
It is not a "direct lie" at all, it's the truth, though honest and
reasonable (that might exclude you) people are free to have other
opinions. Puttenham said:
And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong vp an other
crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties
owne seruantes, who haue written excellently well as it would
appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke
with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman
Edward Earle of Oxford.
The statement is clear enough on its own face. A further exploration of
this matter is at http://users.erols.com/volker/Shakes/Putt.htm.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> > Eric Ingman wrote:
>
> > > John, Puttenham says that Oxford was #1 of the nobles who refrained from
> > > publishing.
>
> > No he doesn't. Not at all. It's a direct lie.
>
> It is not a "direct lie" at all, it's the truth, though honest and
> reasonable (that might exclude you) people are free to have other
> opinions. Puttenham said:
>
> And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong vp an other
> crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties
> owne seruantes, who haue written excellently well as it would
> appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke
> with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman
> Edward Earle of Oxford.
And how is this not "found out and made publicke?"
Puttenham would be ending whatever hoax/scam/authorship-conspiracy that there
was with these words. SO it seems that Puttenham was impressed with the earle's
work, yes, all right, what of it? Where is your connection to the Great One?
Why translate this any further than it reads? Why add a link to Shakespeare?
Why bring Shakespeare into it? What in the world does this have to do with
Shakespeare? Stop, stop stepping on Shakespeare.
Greg Reynolds
Terry Ross
> Eric said, "Puttenham says that Oxford was #1 of the nobles who
> refrained from publishing."
>
> This has been discussed a great deal at HLAS. You might want to do a
> search on Puttenham, or go to the Kathman/Ross site, to enlarge your
> view of this. Meanwhile, you might consider the oddness of Puttenham's
> saying Oxford refrained from having it known that he wrote poetry,
> which is more exactly what he said as I recall, when there were poems
> out with his name on them.
This is NOT exactly or even remotely what Puttenham said. Among other
things, he himself quoted a lengthy excerpt from one of Oxford's poems.
There was nothing pseudonymous in Puttenham's quoting "Edward Earle of
Oxford a most noble and learned Gentleman" whose poem Puttenham cited both
as an example of a particular trope and "for its excellencie and wit."
Oxford was one of the many Elizabethan notables Puttenham praised as a
publicly known and acknowledged poet. Poetry by Oxford had appeared in
print under his name (or such transparent signatures as "L.Ox" and
"E.O."), and Puttenham was also familiar with works that had not yet been
printed (Puttenham does not use the term "publish" to mean "have printed";
for him, works that circulated in manuscript were also "published," as
long as they came his way). The real mystery with Puttenham is Henry,
Lord Paget. Puttenham names him on the same list where Oxford, Buckhurst,
Sidney and others are named (the list lifted by Peacham some three decades
later), yet not one line has come down to us that we know to be Paget's.
Perhaps some of Paget's verse exists, though attributed to somebody else;
perhaps a yet unpublished manuscript of his poems has survived, as Arthur
Gorges's poems survived.
There is, needless to say, no reason to suspect that Paget was
Shakespeare, although he has been named by some "groupists."
> And the possibility that Puttenham named Oxford as first in rank among
> those who were not concealing their authorship (as, that is, "among
> the rest," whose authorship was known).
This list of Puttenham's is indeed in strict order of social rank, as was
the Peacham version of the same list in 1622. Oxford as an earl comes
before the lesser lords, who come before knights, who come before
gentlemen, who come before regular guys. Above them all Oxford would put
Queen Elizabeth herself.
> Finally, do remember that Puttenham nowhere says anyone used a
> pseudonym much less that Oxford ever did.
Puttenham does, however, refer to at least one author who was unknown to
him, but who is known to us: "that other Gentleman who wrate the late
*Shepheardes Calender*." Puttenham did not know who "Ignoto" (the name
used by Spenser) was, but he knew the name was a pseudonym. There is no
record of anybody ever suggesting that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym. Nor
is there any record of anybody ever suggesting that Oxford did use any
pseudonym, let alone "Shakespeare." Although there are many confusing and
mistaken attributions in books and manuscripts of the day, not one line
now thought to be by Shakespeare was ever attributed to Oxford, even by
mistake, and not one line of Oxford's was ever attributed to Shakespeare.
> Eric is "inclined to agree . . . that a lot of work needs to be done
> to assert that Shakespeare worked under multiple pseudonyms."
>
> Sorry, Eric, but Oxford, if he was Shakespeare, did not work under a
> lot of Psuedonyms, he worked under the names of a lot of living men.
Oxford, if he were Shakespeare, also learned to write after he was dead,
which is an even better trick than using a pseudonym. If he were
Shakespeare, then he was also born 14 years after he was born, which may
be yet a better trick. If Oxford were Milton, then he was born after he
had died, which tops them all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Kennedy
Peacham was listing only gentlemen in his list of poets wherein he
included Oxford but left off Shakespeare. Peacham didn't say
anything of the kind. He made no distinction at all about his listing,
whether they be gentlemen or not. Ross invented it entirely, and
he can't deny that. He was in a position where he had to invent
something to answer that lack of Shakespeare in Peacham's
1622 list of the great poets of the age, so he fabricated this
"gentleman" business. Pure invention by Ross. An evasion. If
I'm wrong about this, let Ross show us all where I'm wrong. Let
him give us Peacham's words that his list was intended to rank
gentlemen poets only. It can't be done.
Terry Ross wrote:
--
MZ
Terry Ross
> Somewhere in the past Ross brought up his own invention that
> Peacham was listing only gentlemen in his list of poets wherein he
> included Oxford but left off Shakespeare.
Not my invention at all -- look at the posts (or, better yet, read Peacham
for yourself). His 1622 section on English poetry is plagiarized from
Puttenham. When he lists Elizabethan poets, he excises every poet who was
not at least a gentleman in Puttenham's list, and he adds two that he
clearly admired and also considered gentlemen (Spenser and Sidney).
> Peacham didn't say anything of the kind. He made no distinction at
> all about his listing, whether they be gentlemen or not.
Puttenham's list was in strict order of social rank. Oxford, an earl,
came first. Then came lesser lords; then knights; then gentlemen; then
poets who were not given the honorific "Master" that marked a gentleman.
Both of Peacham's additions were gentlemen (he refers to both Spenser and
Daniel as "M[aster]" both in this list and elsewhere). He added no names
of poets below the rank of gentleman. He dropped all those named by
Puttenham who were of lower rank. The book, which (obviously) you have
never read, is a courtesy book, a book for fashioning young English
gentlemen: hence the title, *The Compleat Gentleman*. The target audience
is gentlemen (or would-be gentlemen). When he addresses his readers he
takes them to be gentlemen. When he discusses exercise, he distinguishes
those activities that are fit for gentlemen (such as hunting and swimming)
and those that are not (such as wrestling). The entire book is based on
social distinctions, and his hope is that those who are gentlemen (or
higher) will pick up the skills and learning that a gentleman should have.
There are some people who, in Peacham's view, can never be gentlemen, and
among them are "stage-players." Moreover, Peacham says that the mere
awarding of arms to a base and undeserving man will not make that man a
true gentleman in his view.
All this you would know, if you had read Peacham, or even my posts on the
matter.
> Ross invented it entirely, and he can't deny that. He was in a
> position where he had to invent something to answer that lack of
> Shakespeare in Peacham's 1622 list of the great poets of the age,
Peacham did not say that the names he listed constituted all and only "the
great poets of the age" or even of the Elizabethan period. This you would
know if you had read Peacham or even my posts.
> so he fabricated this "gentleman" business. Pure invention by Ross.
Yes, and I tied up Peacham and threatened to kill his family unless he
called his book *The Compleat Gentleman*. It was entirely my invention,
and Peacham was a helpless victim in my scheme.
> An evasion. If I'm wrong about this, let Ross show us all where I'm
> wrong. Let him give us Peacham's words that his list was intended to
> rank gentlemen poets only. It can't be done.
I have done more than that. I have given a great many reasons why the
absence of Shakespeare's name on Peacham's list is no surprise. First, he
was plagiarizing from Puttenham. All but two of the names on his list
were on Puttenham's (and Spenser is actually referred to by Puttenham).
Second, he lists only gentlemen (or higher), and Shakespeare wrote no
non-dramatic work as an English gentleman. Third, he explicitly stated
that no stage-player could ever be a true gentleman in his eyes. He had
something of the antitheatrical prejudice of his time, and he cautioned
his gentleman readers against going to the public theaters, which he
considered little better than brothels. Fourth, he does not seem to have
been particularly interested in or fond of Shakespeare or his works. With
the possible exception of the *Titus* sketch (which may well NOT have
anything to do with *Titus Andronicus*), he never refers to Shakespeare or
any of his writings in any of his many works. Fifth, while we all today
would list Shakespeare first, not everybody at the time would have. I
listed fifteen other lists of great poets that appeared between 1595 and
1622 that included BOTH Spenser and Daniel but not Shakespeare. Sixth,
Peacham declares that the list is incomplete, and does not suggest that
the writers he listed were superior writers to those he omitted.
Kennedy, once again, know not whereof he speaks. I prescribe reading
Peacham's book (it's only a couple of hundred pages, and the margins are
fairly wide). Would it kill him? Would it actually kill him once in his
life to read a work before pontificating about what the author must have
been up to?
Richard Kennedy
at all does Peacham say that he is ranking only gentlemen as the
great poets in his passage where he includes Oxford but leaves off
Shakespeare? Ross "supposes" that he is ranking only poets who
are gentleman, but Peacham says nothing of the kind. This is the
invention of Ross, and it can't be more clearly said.
Terry Ross wrote:
--
MZ
volker multhopp
> Puttenham's list was in strict order of social rank. Oxford, an earl,
> came first. Then came lesser lords; then knights; then gentlemen; then
> poets who were not given the honorific "Master" that marked a gentleman.
Once again you roll out your all-pervasive smoke and mirrors. We've
danced this number before. Once again, Puttenham's statement is:
And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong vp an other
crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties
owne seruantes, who haue written excellently well as it would
appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke
with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman
Edward Earle of Oxford.
You're insisting that the "rest" refers to subsequent list, which is
contrary English usage period. The "rest" refers to a group which
include the *earlier crew* in Henry8's time, which Puttenham previously
discussed. I've offered this challenge before, and, of course, no one
successfully took it up--
*Rest* (remainder) always begs the question "*Rest* of what?".
Either 1) the answer is provided immediately by following with
the preposition "of" and an object ("rest of the pack", "rest of
his days", "rest of my money"); or 2) or the whole of which
*rest* we are dealing with has already been introduced, ie, the
whole is antecedent. "Some of the passengers were greeted by
loved ones, the rest went straight to baggage claim." "Many
said 'Yes', the rest stayed silent (*people* is implicitly
created by *many*)." "I had one slice of the roast, the dog
snatched the rest."
More than one reader here fancies himself at least a passing
fair writer also. I challenge you to construct a natural
sounding example where *rest* (remainder) is not used in one of
the 2 manners above, and, instead, refers to a subsequent list,
as our Stratfordian contortionists would have.
So c'mon Terry, c'mon Strats, show us your stuff!
--Volker
robert...@my-deja.com
> And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong vp an other
> crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties
> owne seruantes, who haue written excellently well as it would
> appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke
> with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman
> Edward Earle of Oxford.
Volretin just grabs onto the one oddity about Puttenham's expression
in the above to try to make his point, but ignores all kinds of other
considerations. One of them is why Puttenham used the phrase "with
the rest" if he hadn't intended to tell us who the rest were. His
statement would make MUCH better sense if he'd just said, "There is a
crew of nobles who can really write, as everyone would know if their
stuff was published, which include in their number that noble
Gentleman, Edward Earl of Oxford." Still an awkward sentence, but
sentences tended to be awkward, by our standards, back then.
Of course, that Puttenham speaks of writers whose works would show
what good writers they were if those works were published, and then
presents a list of published writers, one should be excused for
not automatically taking the list to be of the first set of writers
mentioned. And also for suspecting, as Greg pointed out, that a
nice fellow like Puttenham would not too likely have listed the names
of a crew of writers who didn't want it known that they were writers.
Terry Ross
tenacity to advance their views against opposition, Volker keeps plugging
away. Where other Oxfordians treat any refutation as a personal attack,
Volker has on several occasions admitted that some points he has raised
were in fact wrong, and he has even been willing to modify material on his
website when he has been convinced that he was mistaken. Volker is
genuinely interested in Shakespeare's works, and many of his posts on the
sonnets have been of considerable interest. The newsgroup is a much
better and more interesting place thanks to his presence. Volker is,
moreover, a birder.
So much for praise.
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > Puttenham's list was in strict order of social rank. Oxford, an earl,
> > came first. Then came lesser lords; then knights; then gentlemen; then
> > poets who were not given the honorific "Master" that marked a gentleman.
>
> Once again you roll out your all-pervasive smoke and mirrors.
Not at all; it is a perfectly apt description. It is 100% smoke-free, and
as for mirrors: never had 'em, never will.
> We've danced this number before.
Geez, I musta been drunker than I thought that night.
> Once again, Puttenham's statement is:
>
> And in her Maiesties time that now is are sprong vp an other
> crew of Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Maiesties
> owne seruantes, who haue written excellently well as it would
> appeare if their doings could be found out and made publicke
> with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman
> Edward Earle of Oxford.
Hmm, I seem to remember that there was more to what Puttenham said (the
spelling but not the punctuation has been modernized):
"And in her Majesties time that now is are sprung up an other crew of
Courtly makers Noble men and Gentlemen of her Majesty's own servants, who
have written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be
found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that
noble Gentleman Edward Earl of Oxford. Thomas Lord of Buckhurst, when he
was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Walter Raleigh, Master
Edward Dyer Master Fulke Greville, Gascoigne, Breton, Turberville and a
great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for envy,
but to avoid tediousness, and who have deserved no little commendation."
Note how Volker shamelessly deletes all the other Elizabethan poets on
Puttenham's list. While it is true that "Oxford" is followed by a period,
there are numerous other examples in Puttenham of medial periods appearing
in lists. The problem is that Volker is trying to apply the grammar
lessons he learned in grade school to a work that was published in 1589.
> You're insisting that the "rest" refers to subsequent list,
> which is contrary English usage period.
While there is disagreement about the meaning of the passage, virtually
all readers except Volker understand that Edward Earl of Oxford is the
first name on a list of which Thomas Lord of Buckhurst is the second.
The disagreement is about just what Puttenham is saying about this list.
Anybody who is interested can do a dejanews search for my and Volker's
earlier posts. For now, let me note that the reader of this passage
closest in time to Puttenham, Henry Peacham, read Puttenham exactly the
way I and practically all other readers do. Peacham takes Oxford,
Buckhurst, and the other names as a list of highly regarded Elizabethan
poets. Now, I wouldn't have put the matter the way Puttenham did, and
Volker wouldn't have, but I agree with Peacham about what Puttenham meant.
Volker is at a disadvantage talking about what English usage must be when
he hasn't even read all of Puttenham's work (to see what Puttenham's usage
elsewhere is) let alone enough other Sixteenth-Century prose to be able to
make such a sweeping pronouncement.
> The "rest" refers to a group which include the *earlier crew* in
> Henry8's time, which Puttenham previously discussed. I've offered
> this challenge before, and, of course, no one successfully took it
> up--
I have dealt with it in numerous earlier posts, which readers are free to
look up. That I did not succeed in convincing Volker is really beside the
point, as his reading is so idiosyncratic that I don't even know of
another Oxfordian who reads Puttenham his way.
> *Rest* (remainder) always begs the question "*Rest* of what?".
> Either 1) the answer is provided immediately by following with
> the preposition "of" and an object ("rest of the pack", "rest of
> his days", "rest of my money"); or 2) or the whole of which
> *rest* we are dealing with has already been introduced, ie, the
> whole is antecedent. "Some of the passengers were greeted by
> loved ones, the rest went straight to baggage claim." "Many
> said 'Yes', the rest stayed silent (*people* is implicitly
> created by *many*)." "I had one slice of the roast, the dog
> snatched the rest."
>
> More than one reader here fancies himself at least a passing
> fair writer also. I challenge you to construct a natural
> sounding example where *rest* (remainder) is not used in one of
> the 2 manners above, and, instead, refers to a subsequent list,
> as our Stratfordian contortionists would have.
>
> So c'mon Terry, c'mon Strats, show us your stuff!
Been there, done that. Unfortunately for Volker, Puttenham wasn't trying
to write prose that would sound "natural" to readers 400 years later.
What he said was clear enough for Peacham, who came along mere decades,
rather than centuries, later, and even many Oxfordians who have discussed
Puttenham recognize that Oxford is the first name on a list of which
Buckhurst is the second.
Greg Reynolds
Terry Ross wrote:
> Let us now praise Volker Multhopp.
Hail Volker!
> Where other Oxfordians lack the
> tenacity to advance their views against opposition, Volker keeps plugging
> away.
He is the best.
> Where other Oxfordians treat any refutation as a personal attack,
When you knock his theories silly, he places them back on the tee.
> Volker has on several occasions admitted that some points he has raised
> were in fact wrong, and he has even been willing to modify material on his
> website when he has been convinced that he was mistaken.
He is only honest, and the least delusional Oxfordian ever.
> Volker is
> genuinely interested in Shakespeare's works, and many of his posts on the
> sonnets have been of considerable interest.
He is valuable to my learning, both material and the periphery. Volker's views
are not available elsewhere. And once in a blue moon, he votes for the POTM, so
he can't be all bad. A year ago, he was frustrating to me, but Dogbrain assured
me he was responsible and worthwhile. Glad I listened.
> The newsgroup is a much better and more interesting place thanks to his
> presence.
If Volker leaves or turns Stratfordian by the year 2000, as he should, having
no case, I'm gone myself.
> Volker is, moreover, a birder.
And everybody knows that the bird is The Word.
> So much for praise.
Hail Volker!
He withstands a lot of stupid lies and contortions by wannabe oxfordians, and I
cringe for him when he reads some of the sallies sallied here.
<snipped Terry's tribute/demo of Volker>
Greg Reynolds