Another 18 (or so) Inferences about Shakespeare the Author
Caius Marcius
Mark Alexander recently posted Looney's 18 inferences about Shakespeare
the Author. Based on my readings of the plays, here are 18 or so
inferences about Shakespeare the Author that I've reached.........
01a - Shakespeare thought a lot about what kind of animal
he would most like to be, but never reached a final conclusion:
I had rather be a toad,
And live upon the vapour of a dungeon.....
- Othello, III,iii
I had rather be a dog, and bay the moon
- Julius Caesar, IV,iii
I had rather be a kitten and cry mew
- 1 Henry IV, III,i
01b - However, Shakespeare never wishes that he could
be a bear. A bear eats Antigonus in The Winter's Tale. The
evil Macbeth compares himself to a bear at the play's climax.
Therefore, Shakespeare was afraid of bears.
02a - Since Shakespeare portrayed psychopathology so
accurately, he must have spent time in a psychiatric facility
(either as a patient, or an attendant).
03a - Shakespeare hardly ever writes about good actors,
but is constantly referring to crummy ones. Therefore, the
quality of the Elizabethan theatre must have been exceedingly
poor, which seriously affected the ability of that era's
playwrights to produce good plays.
..... a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more
- Macbeth V,v
As an unperfect actor on the stage
Who with his fear is put besides his part,
Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage,
Whose strength's abundance weakens his own heart.
- Sonnet XXIII
Like a dull actor now,
I have forgot my part, and I am out,
Even to a full disgrace.
- Coriolanus, V,iii
04a - Shakespeare was quite careless and was always losing things.
(e.g., the handkerchief & Cassio's reputation in Othello,
the labor of love in Love's Labour Lost, Ophelia's sanity,
Hamlet's sword, etc)
05a - Because Shakespeare portrays graveyards so accurately, he
must have worked as grave digger and/or grave robber at one time.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
- Titus Andronicus, V,i
Why, sir, his hide is so tanned with his trade, that
he will keep out water a great while; and your water
is a sore decayer of your whoreson dead body.
- Hamlet V,i
05b - Shakespeare portrays fools and jesters so accurately that
at one time he must have been employed as a professional court jester.
06a - Because there are so many woman disguised as men in
his plays, Shakespeare may have been a woman in disguise (if we
grant 6a, change all pronouns in this post as needed).
06b - Because there are no instances of a man disguising himself
as a woman in Shakespeare's plays (except for Flute's performance
of Thisbe), he was not a transvestite (although he may have dressed
as Thisbe on occasions).
06c - The characters in disguise invariably reveal their true identity
-
usually, at the ending of the play; therefore Shakespeare (after a
prolonged period of disguise) also revealed his true identity just
before his life ended.
07a - Shakespeare lost his one true love under traumatic circumstances.
(e.g., Romeo & Juliet, Othello)
07b - But in time he learned to see the bright side of this traumatic
loss.
(Pyramus & Thisbe in MSD)
08a - The lovers in his romantic comedies invariably wed and
live happily ever after - therefore, after marrying Anne Hathaway,
Shakespeare lived happily ever after.
08b - The characters in his tragedies die unhappily - therefore,
Shakespeare died unhappily.
09a Shakespeare disapproved of young people:
I would there were no age between sixteen and
three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the
rest; for there is nothing in the between but
getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry,
stealing, fighting.....
- Winter's Tale, III,iii
09b Shakespeare also disapproved of old people:
.....the satirical rogue says here
that old men have grey beards, that their faces are
wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and
plum-tree gum and that they have a plentiful lack of
wit, together with most weak hams: all which, sir,
though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet
I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down.......
- Hamlet II,ii
09c - Shakespeare took an especial delight in setting young and old in
deadly hate the one against the other; e.g., the children and fathers
in Lear, or the even more savage conflict between Moth and Don Armado.
ADRIANO DE ARMADO
How canst thou part sadness and melancholy, my
tender juvenal?
MOTH
By a familiar demonstration of the working, my tough senior.
ADRIANO DE ARMADO
Why tough senior? why tough senior?
MOTH
Why tender juvenal? why tender juvenal?
ADRIANO DE ARMADO
I spoke it, tender juvenal, as a congruent epitheton
appertaining to thy young days, which we may
nominate tender.
MOTH
And I, tough senior, as an appertinent title to your
old time, which we may name tough.
- Love's Labour Lost, I,ii
10a - Shakespeare's noble characters usually speak in verse, while the
common characters talk in prose. Shakespeare (like Moliere's Monsieur
Jourdain) more than likely spoke in prose. Therefore, Shakespeare was
more than likely common.
11a - Shakespeare was intensely patriotic and proud of English heritage
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England......
- Richard II, II,i
11b - Due to his intense patriotism and pride, Shakespeare thought that
his fellow countrymen were madmen, drunkards and dupes.
HAMLET
Ay, marry, why was he sent into England?
First Clown
Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his wits
there; or, if he do not, it's no great matter there.
HAMLET
Why?
First Clown
'Twill, a not be seen in him there; there the men
are as mad as he.
- Hamlet V,i
CASSIO
'Fore God, an excellent song.
IAGO
I learned it in England, where, indeed, they are
most potent in potting: your Dane, your German, and
your swag-bellied Hollander--Drink, ho!--are nothing
to your English.
CASSIO
Is your Englishman so expert in his drinking?
IAGO
Why, he drinks you, with facility, your Dane dead
drunk; he sweats not to overthrow your Almain; he
gives your Hollander a vomit, ere the next pottle
can be filled.
- Othello, II,iii
TRINCULO
..... A strange fish! Were I in England now,
as once I was, and had but this fish painted,
not a holiday fool there but would give a piece
of silver: there would this monster make a
man; any strange beast there makes a man:
when they will not give a doit to relieve a lame
beggar, they will lazy out ten to see a dead
Indian.
- Tempest II,ii
12a - Shakespeare must have been highly educated, and received at least
two degrees, because his plays are too difficult for many college
graduates (with only one degree) to understand. (This further explains
why so many college students have such difficulty with Shakespeare.)
12b - Shakespeare's knowledge of foreign locales is so amazingly
accurate that he must have pursued advanced studies in geography.
Therefore, the fact that he gave Bohemia a seacoast proves that he was
absent from class the week they studied Bohemia.
13a - All of Shakespeare's plays are divided into five acts -
therefore, Shakespeare's life must be divided into five acts.
13b - Since the number of scenes in the various acts varies from 1 to
15, therefore, each act of Shakespeare's life had from one to fifteen
scenes in it.
13c - Many scenes in Shakespeare conclude with a rhymed couplet ("Oh
cursed spite/That ever I was born to set it right!"); therefore,
whenever Shakespeare took his leave, he always delivered a rhymed
couplet as he departed.
14a - The titles of Shakespeare's tragedies always include the
protagonist's name. OTOH, the titles of his comedies never specifically
identify a protagonist; they give at best a general description
(merchant of Venice, gentlemen of Verona) . Therefore, when Shakespeare
was in a tragic mood he always addressed people by name, but when he
was in a comic mood he referred to them only in a descriptive sort of
way (e.g., he always called Ben Jonson "Ben" when he was in a tragic
mood, but addressed him as "the Poet of Westminster" when feeling
comic). This is in contrast to Jonson, who named protagonists in the
titles of both comedies (Volpone) and tragedies (Sejanus).
14b - The cities that are mentioned in Shakespeare's titles are
Windsor, Athens, Venice and Verona. Therefore, Shakespeare was
one-quarter English, one-quarter Greek, and half-Italian. Venice is
mentioned twice, therefore Venice was his favorite city.
15a - Numbers that appear in Shakespeare's titles include second,
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and twelfth. "Seventh" does not
appear. Therefore, Shakespeare was a skeptic who discounted the
symbolic significance of "7" in the Book of Revelations. He often
argued about this with the deeply religious Ben Jonson.
TOUCHSTONE
Faith, we met, and found the quarrel was upon the
seventh cause.
JAQUES
How seventh cause?
- As You Like It, V,iv
16a - Shakespeare wrote 154 sonnets and 37 plays. 154 divided by 37
equals a number somewhere between four and five (I lost my calculator).
A sonnet has 14 lines in it. 14 multiplied by a number between four
and five is somewhere between 56 and 70. I think Francis Bacon died
when he was around that age (I misplaced my encyclopedia). Therefore,
the plays were written by Francis Bacon.
17a - There are very few children in Shakespeare's plays. Therefore,
Shakespeare rarely saw children. But there are frequent references to
infants (e.g., Macbeth; "And pity, like a naked new-born babe"),
despite the fact that few infants actually appear. Therefore,
Shakespeare often heard people talking about infants.
17b - One of the few infants who actually does appear is King's infant
daughter Elizabeth at the end of Henry VIII. Therefore, Shakespeare
met Elizabeth when she was still an infant (or the plays were written
by Elizabeth in her infancy).
18a - The name Emilia (in Othello) is an anagram for "I E-Mail".
Therefore, Shakespeare predicted the rise of the Internet, and would
have applauded the creation of HLAS, the greatest newsgroup in all of
Usenet.
- CMC
Andreas Schlenger
Caius Marcius wrote:
> (...)
> 06b - Because there are no instances of a man disguising himself
> as a woman in Shakespeare's plays (except for Flute's performance
> of Thisbe), he was not a transvestite (although he may have dressed
> as Thisbe on occasions).
> (...)
CMC,
although I immensely enjoyed your posting, I must reject
this statement: Falstaff in MWW dresses as a girl, or rather
a woman, which seems to support the claim of the man from
Stratford, who apparently was drawn to more mature specimens
of the opposite sex ...
>
> 18a - The name Emilia (in Othello) is an anagram for "I E-Mail".
> Therefore, Shakespeare predicted the rise of the Internet, and would
> have applauded the creation of HLAS, the greatest newsgroup in all of
> Usenet.
This statement, OTOH, has my full support ...
Andreas.
>
> - CMC
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Caius Marcius truly comes close to the genius of Looney in his list
of inferences about Shakespeare. He made just one small error (Falstaff
was disguised as an old woman in The Merry Wives of Windsor) and left
out only one major inference that ANYBODY with sense would HAVE to make:
that is, that Shakespeare was not a playwright; otherwise, how explain
the absence of a single character in all his plays who ever wrote a
full-length play?
Oh, Shakespeare was also a fairy changeling: no one not raised by
fairies could have written A Midsummer Night's Dream.
--Bob G.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Neuendorffer
Very GOOD, Caius, quite creative! An A minus.
-----------------------------------------------
How about ONE GRAND inference for: Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Lewis
Carroll, L. Frank Baum and many, many other classic writers:
Based upon their works, these authors believed that human beings
(ESPECIALLY those in position of importance) were, by and large, a
bumbling, narrow minded, selfish lot who generally couldn't see beyond
the end of their noses.
>From this we might infere that this situation was, in fact, quite true
for the societies in which these men lived.
Fortunately, this doesn't apply for societies in general. :-)
Art Neuendorffer
KQKnave
Good one, Caius.
Jim
Julia
In a message darkly encrypted Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> doth say:
>Very GOOD, Caius, quite creative! An A minus.
>-----------------------------------------------
>How about ONE GRAND inference for: Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Lewis
>Carroll, L. Frank Baum and many, many other classic writers:
>
Twain on this ng. He seems to be considered a 'great writer'. When I
was about 10 years old I read and enjoyed 'Tom Sawyer'. I've always
considered him a writer of children's books. Have I missed something?
What, of his, should I read?
As for L Frank Baum, didn't he write 'Wizard of Oz'? You're not
seriously suggesting he was a great writer are you? Dickens had depth,
Lewis Carroll was amusing in a schoolmasterish way. I don't think any
of them can be bracketed with Shakespeare.
>Based upon their works, these authors believed that human beings
>(ESPECIALLY those in position of importance) were, by and large, a
>bumbling, narrow minded, selfish lot who generally couldn't see beyond
>the end of their noses.
>
>>From this we might infere that this situation was, in fact, quite true
>for the societies in which these men lived.
>
>Fortunately, this doesn't apply for societies in general. :-)
>
>Art Neuendorffer
>
--
Julia
Neuendorffer
> >How about ONE GRAND inference for: Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Lewis
> >Carroll, L. Frank Baum and many, many other classic writers:
> >
> I'm growing more and more bemused by the frequent references to Mark
> Twain on this ng. He seems to be considered a 'great writer'. When I
> was about 10 years old I read and enjoyed 'Tom Sawyer'. I've always
> considered him a writer of children's books. Have I missed something?
> What, of his, should I read?
Yes, Julia, you definitely HAVE missed something? Twain's masterpiece
_Huckleberry Finn_ would certainly be on any list of 'great american
novels';(second only to _Moby Dick_, perhaps). I suggest you buy an
Annotated edition of _Huckleberry Finn_ that points out the many
references to Shakespeare.
> As for L Frank Baum, didn't he write 'Wizard of Oz'? You're not
> seriously suggesting he was a great writer are you? Dickens had depth,
> Lewis Carroll was amusing in a schoolmasterish way. I don't think any
> of them can be bracketed with Shakespeare.
Absolutely NO ONE can compare with Shakespeare when he was at his
BEST. But even Shakespeare had lapses into mediocrity and he certainly
was incapable of writing realistically about 'the common man'. Dickens,
Twain, Lewis, Carroll, L. Frank Baum all wrote timeless classics and
must, therefore, be considered 'classic writers' BY DEFINITION. Millions
of people, like myself, consider them 'great writers' as well (even
though they were incapable of writing realistically about 'nobility'.)
Art Neuendorffer
Andreas Schlenger
Neuendorffer wrote:
> (...)
> Absolutely NO ONE can compare with Shakespeare when he was at his
> BEST. But even Shakespeare had lapses into mediocrity
I couldn't agree more ...
> and he certainly
> was incapable of writing realistically about 'the common man'.
> (...)
???
The plays weren't MEANT to be read / performed / digested /
whatever-you-will "realistically". They are art, Art. But
even if we were trying to understand them as realistic
writing - how can we judge, how "realistically" the "common
man" is described? Unfortunately I never met a common
Elizabethan. I never met an Elizabethan nobleman either, nor
did I attend an Elizabethan court of justice, which is why I
have problems with those anti-Stratfordian arguments that
claim that Shakespeare's works prove the author had an
intimate knowledge of everything.
Andreas.
Neuendorffer
> Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Absolutely NO ONE can compare with Shakespeare when he was at his
> > BEST. But even Shakespeare had lapses into mediocrity
Andreas Schlenger wrote:
>
> I couldn't agree more ...
>
> > and he certainly
> > was incapable of writing realistically about 'the common man'.
>
> ???
>
> The plays weren't MEANT to be read / performed / digested /
> whatever-you-will "realistically". They are art, Art.
And here all this time I thought they were simply entertainment and
amusement for the burgeoning London middle class.
>But
> even if we were trying to understand them as realistic
> writing - how can we judge, how "realistically" the "common
> man" is described? Unfortunately I never met a common
> Elizabethan.
Well a few did keep diaries.
But if you really want to experience true everyday Elizabethan life I
suggest that you visit Stratford-upon-Avon. :-)
> I never met an Elizabethan nobleman either, nor
> did I attend an Elizabethan court of justice,
Then you have AT LEAST two things in common with Shakspere of
Stratford.
I'm sure neither of you would really want to "attend an Elizabethan
court of justice".
<<The Privy Council authorised torture to obtain informaion. The cruelty
of Norton, the Queen's "rack-master", incited public revulsion so
Elizabeth licensed her most effective agent Topcliffe to torture "in
private". The rack caused such dislocation and damage that Topcliffe
chose to hang men, by their hands , so their feet could not touch the
ground. It was a fortunate man who was sentenced to be hanged by the
neck until dead. Otherwise he could suffer quartering, and
disembowelment while still just alive following hanging.>>
(p.18 _William Shakespeare, the EXTRAORDINARY life of the most
successful writer of all time_ by Andrew Gurr (HarperCollins, 1995))
> which is why I
> have problems with those anti-Stratfordian arguments that
> claim that Shakespeare's works prove the author had an
> intimate knowledge of everything.
Shake-speare DIDN'T have an intimate knowledge of everything - I doubt
that he could have made a decent pair of gloves if his life had depended
upon it.
Art Neuendorffer
Wolfgang Preiss
Julia <J...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In a message darkly encrypted Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> doth say:
>>Very GOOD, Caius, quite creative! An A minus.
>I second that. I'd even make it A plus! :-)
I won't give out grades, but I enjoyed this posting a lot.
But now for something completely different (or is it? When I think of
it, CMC's list has a certain Twainesque quality - reminiscent in a way
of "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses"):
>I'm growing more and more bemused by the frequent references to Mark
>Twain on this ng. He seems to be considered a 'great writer'. When I
>was about 10 years old I read and enjoyed 'Tom Sawyer'. I've always
>considered him a writer of children's books. Have I missed something?
>What, of his, should I read?
_The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ is Twain's best novel-length
fiction, IMHO. (It's not really a 'novel', at least not in the Jane
Austen sense of the word.) Although, in my experience, the book works
best for an adolescent male audience, I think you might find it
enjoyable too. Especially the episodes around the "dauphin" and the
"duke" are very entertaining for readers of Shakespeare.
Twain's travelogues (especially _A Tramp Abroad_) and his shorter
stories are also well worth reading if you like his kind of humor.
Post 1900 Twain is much less funny (_The Man That Corrupted
Hadleyburg_ and _The Mysterious Stranger_), but also an interesting
read.
I would avoid _A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court_ (although
hilarious at times, its belief in the all-conquering power of American
technological civilization is hard to swallow) and _The Prince and the
Pauper_, which I found unbearably sentimental - exactly the kind of
romantic trash Twain usually fought against.
Once a time machine has been invented, the second mission should be to
tape Twain's lectures. He must have been a terrific lecturer and I
would give a lot to be able to hear and see him deliver those
lectures. Oh, the first misson of the time machine should be to settle
the Authorship Question, of course. :)
--
Wolfgang Preiss \ E-mail copies of replies to this posting are welcome.
wo...@stud.uni-sb.de \ Spam (UCE) is not welcome and prohibited by German
Uni des Saarlands \ and U.S. law. You have been warned.
Richard Nathan
Julia <J...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm growing more and more bemused by the frequent references to Mark
>Twain on this ng. He seems to be considered a 'great writer'. When I
>was about 10 years old I read and enjoyed 'Tom Sawyer'. I've always
>considered him a writer of children's books. Have I missed something?
>What, of his, should I read?
I believe Hemingway once called "HUCKLEBERRY FINN" the great American
novel. It's widely regarded as Twain's best.
I've always been very fond of "A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S
COURT." It's always been filmed as a light-hearted comedy, but it's also
got some very black moments, dealing with human cruelty, the ignorance of
religious beliefs, and the inhumanity of the class system.
You might be interested in "THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER," -- although in
many ways it is a book suitable for children. But I was fascinated at how
well Twain wrote convincing dialogue for Tudor aristocrats. He must have
been channeling Oxford, because clearly a 19th Century American Author
could never write convincingly about the Tudor Court.
Richard Nathan
wo...@stud.uni-sb.de (Wolfgang Preiss) wrote:
>I would avoid _A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court_ (although
>hilarious at times, its belief in the all-conquering power of American
>technological civilization is hard to swallow) and _The Prince and the
>Pauper_, which I found unbearably sentimental - exactly the kind of
>romantic trash Twain usually fought against.
>
I don't believe Twain showed a belief int the all-conquering power of
American technological civilization. The novel ends with 19th Century
weapons killing a tremendous number of people and effectively destroying
Camelot. If I remember correctly, Sir Boss is worried that so many dead
bodies are exposed, that it will cause a plague.
I agree that THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER is way to sentimental, but what did
you think of Twain's ability to write Tudor era dialogue? Do you think he
must have been channeling Oxford?
Neuendorffer
Richard Nathan wrote:
> I believe Hemingway once called "HUCKLEBERRY FINN" the great American
> novel. It's widely regarded as Twain's best.
>
> many ways it is a book suitable for children. But I was fascinated at how
> well Twain wrote convincing dialogue for Tudor aristocrats. He must have
> been channeling Oxford, because clearly a 19th Century American Author
> could never write convincingly about the Tudor Court.
The easy way to "channel Oxford", of course, is to read Shake-speare.
Art N.
Emma Harper
In article <3513E0...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
writes
>> Neuendorffer wrote:
>>But
>> even if we were trying to understand them as realistic
>> writing - how can we judge, how "realistically" the "common
>> man" is described? Unfortunately I never met a common
>> Elizabethan.
>
> Well a few did keep diaries.
> But if you really want to experience true everyday Elizabethan life I
>suggest that you visit Stratford-upon-Avon. :-)
Errrrr.....the inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon are living in the 20th century
with you guys. We even have internet access! Unless you're referring to the
Second Elizabethan age.
>
>> which is why I
>> have problems with those anti-Stratfordian arguments that
>> claim that Shakespeare's works prove the author had an
>> intimate knowledge of everything.
>
> Shake-speare DIDN'T have an intimate knowledge of everything - I doubt
>that he could have made a decent pair of gloves if his life had depended
>upon it.
More than once, Shakespeare draws an analogy between cheveril leather (used
to make good-quality gloves) and flexibility. Taking up CMC's method of
inferring the author from the plays, maybe he could have made a pair of
gloves.
Mercutio: O, here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an inch narrow
to an ell broad! (R&J)
CLOWN. You have said, sir. To see this age! A sentence is but a chev'ril
glove to a good wit. How quickly the wrong side may be turn'd outward!
(Twelfth Night)
Old Lady: ....Saving your mincing, the capacity
Of your soft cheveril conscience would receive
If you might please to stretch it
(Henry VIII)
>
>Art Neuendorffer
>
--
Emma Harper
Neuendorffer
Art N. wrote:
> > Shake-speare DIDN'T have an intimate knowledge of everything - I doubt
> >that he could have made a decent pair of gloves if his life had depended
> >upon it.
Emma Harper wrote:
> More than once, Shakespeare draws an analogy between cheveril leather (used
> to make good-quality gloves) and flexibility. Taking up CMC's method of
> inferring the author from the plays, maybe he could have made a pair of
> gloves.
>
> Mercutio: O, here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an inch narrow
> to an ell broad! (R&J)
>
> CLOWN. You have said, sir. To see this age! A sentence is but a chev'ril
> glove to a good wit. How quickly the wrong side may be turn'd outward!
> (Twelfth Night)
>
> Old Lady: ....Saving your mincing, the capacity
> Of your soft cheveril conscience would receive
> If you might please to stretch it
> (Henry VIII)
------------------------------------------------------------------
We every good courtier knows how to USE gloves.
But few people really know how to USE a tanner:
------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET Act 5, Scene 1:
----------------------------------------------------
Hamlet: How long will a man lie i'the earth ere he rot?
First Clown: I'faith, if he be not rotten before he die as we have many
pocky corses now-a-days, that will scarce hold the laying in--he will
last you some eight year or nine year: a tanner will last you nine year.
Hamlet: Why he more than another?
First Clown: Why, sir, his hide is so tanned with his trade, that he
will keep out water a great while; and your water is a sore decayer of
your whoreson dead body. Here's a skull now, this skull has lain in the
earth three and twenty years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A tanner is a wonderful preservative, you see. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
A blind man points the way to BURIED TREASURE
------------------------------------------------
The great blind poet John Milton wrote a Shakespeare
dedication to the Second Folio (1632):
(http://www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/bartlett/173.html
--- #326)
"What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd BONES,--
The labour of an age in piled STONES?
Or that his hallow'd relics should be hid
Under a STar-Y-pointing pyramid?
Dear Son of meMOry, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?"
(John Milton, 1632)
this clearly refers to Shakespeare's
silly little epitaph curse:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/positive.html#grave
"Blested be (him) that spares these STONES.
Cursed be (him) that moves my BONES."
Milton's verse is less respectful of
Shakespeare's bones & stones. WHY???
--------------------------------------------------
What if Milton's mysterious line: "STar-Y-pointing"
is read: "S,T are Y-pointing"
Shakespeare's grave inscription
( http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/positive.html#grave )
includes a PECULIAR vertical line that reads:
S
T
Y
T
Y
So, in fact, "S,T are Y-pointing"
But Y-pointing at WHAT???
-----------------------------------------------------
The MONUMENT, itself, also has some:
S T
Y Y
symbols that may be "Y-pointing."
( http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/pennl/pennl13.html )
Either these SY/TY Y-point to the grave itself or
the STYTY & SY/TY Y-pointing lines
CROSS each other:
-------------------------------------------------------
Stratford Holy Trinity Church Treasure Map
---------------------------------
(Monument)
S T
Y Y
I
I
V
Here lies
(Grave) I the grave of deVere
STYTY-----------> [[[] <<< Shaksper, the OM people
I & deVere's manuscripts!!!
----------------------------------------------------------
What lies underneath the crossing point
is hinted at on the gravestone:
"Blested be (him) that spa RE S these stones
Cursed be (him) that MO VE S MY bones"
This would indicate a CROSS shape tomb containing:
deVERE, the OM people and possibly deVere's original
OM manuscripts. (Plus the man who was sacrificed for
this project: ShakSpere.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is also hinted at by the "Read if thou canst"
monument plaque:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/pennl/pennl13.html :
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latin translation:
judicium (P)ylium, genio (S)ocratem, arte (M)aronem
Nestor Socrates Vergil
(Telemachus) (Xenophon) (Ver/gil)
Tell make us Oxenphord Vere/Will
Or: Make us tell (of) Oxenford's genius (&) Vere/Will's art
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also:
Terra tegit, populus maeret , Olympus
the earth coVERs him, the people MOurn , OlyMpus
the earth coVERs him, the urn of the OM people, plus my OM MS
(manuscripts)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Theresa Ann Wymer
Julia (J...@mistylaw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I'm growing more and more bemused by the frequent references to Mark
: Twain on this ng. He seems to be considered a 'great writer'. When I
: was about 10 years old I read and enjoyed 'Tom Sawyer'. I've always
: considered him a writer of children's books. Have I missed something?
: What, of his, should I read?
I feel by no means qualified to write properly about Mark Twain, except
as an enthusiastic reader. However, I can say that he is considered one
of the major contributors to the canon, at least in the United States.
He is not thought of as a "children's writer" here (which is not to
belittle children's authors--they tend to produce the best stuff, IMHO).
Twain's writing is taken *very* seriously by a number of academics.
Me, I never got through _Huckleberry Finn_, though my high school English
teacher felt it was essential reading. I love his short stories and
essays, also his travel writing. For all the amazing humor, Twain can be
very dark and intense, certainly biting. He likes to knife you under the
ribs just when you're laughing hardest.
: As for L Frank Baum, didn't he write 'Wizard of Oz'? You're not
: seriously suggesting he was a great writer are you? Dickens had depth,
: Lewis Carroll was amusing in a schoolmasterish way. I don't think any
: of them can be bracketed with Shakespeare.
L. Frank Baum did indeed write the first twelve Oz books, including
_Wizard_. Much as I am a devotee of Ozania, I would not classify Baum as
a great stylist. His gift was in finding new twists on old
fantasy/fairy tale themes and expressing them in clear and intriguing ways.
Can any writer be bracketed with another? After awhile, you end up with
oranges, apples, and grapes. Tasty, nourishing, and from a common
source; different experiences.
: --
: Julia
--
Theresa Ann Wymer twy...@efn.org
Richard J Kennedy
Emma, I've heard that there's an Oxfordian or Anti-Stratfordian
sort of book store, or gathering place, in Stratford. Is that
true?
--
Wolfgang Preiss
Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>wo...@stud.uni-sb.de (Wolfgang Preiss) wrote:
>
>>I would avoid _A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's Court_ (although
>>hilarious at times, its belief in the all-conquering power of American
>>technological civilization is hard to swallow) and _The Prince and the
>>Pauper_, which I found unbearably sentimental - exactly the kind of
>>romantic trash Twain usually fought against.
>>
>
>I don't believe Twain showed a belief int the all-conquering power of
>American technological civilization. The novel ends with 19th Century
>weapons killing a tremendous number of people and effectively destroying
>Camelot. If I remember correctly, Sir Boss is worried that so many dead
>bodies are exposed, that it will cause a plague.
It's been some time since I read the _Connecticut Yankee_. Maybe I
should freshen my impressions.
>I agree that THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER is way to sentimental, but what did
>you think of Twain's ability to write Tudor era dialogue? Do you think he
>must have been channeling Oxford?
I left the authorship debate half a year ago and do not intend to
re-enter that arena. ;)
William Ryan
Julia:
For a good, general sampling of Twain's works, get "The Portable Mark
Twain," edited by Bernard DeVoto, and published by the Viking Press. It's
still in print and available in the States for about $12.50, but your
library probably has a copy. Twain's fiction is fine, especially when you
consider that a lot of his writing was serialized in newspapers and
magazines, and intended for a very general audience. His essays and
numerous articles, though, are priceless -- funny, even sardonic (you'd
love his essay on the French), but always humane and generally very wise.
For over forty years the actor Hal Holbrook has made a fine living doing
one-man shows based on excerpts from Twain's writing. He still fills civic
centers and college auditoriums with his "Twain" evenings. If you can
locate his recording, "Mark Twain Tonight" (I believe that was the title)
which may have been re-done in CD, it's worth listening-to. Holbrook's
gravelly voice and perfect timing provide an appreciation of the Twain idiom
that mere reading can't do.
By the way, my favorite Twain book is "The Innocents Abroad," but from the
responses I see here, I doubt anyone would agree with me.
Will
Julia wrote:
> In a message darkly encrypted Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> doth say:
> >Very GOOD, Caius, quite creative! An A minus.
> I second that. I'd even make it A plus! :-)
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >How about ONE GRAND inference for: Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Lewis
> >Carroll, L. Frank Baum and many, many other classic writers:
> >
> I'm growing more and more bemused by the frequent references to Mark
> Twain on this ng. He seems to be considered a 'great writer'. When I
> was about 10 years old I read and enjoyed 'Tom Sawyer'. I've always
> considered him a writer of children's books. Have I missed something?
> What, of his, should I read?
>
> As for L Frank Baum, didn't he write 'Wizard of Oz'? You're not
> seriously suggesting he was a great writer are you? Dickens had depth,
> Lewis Carroll was amusing in a schoolmasterish way. I don't think any
> of them can be bracketed with Shakespeare.
>
Larry Hammer
Quoth William Ryan <wr...@mindspring.com>:
> By the way, my favorite Twain book is "The Innocents Abroad," but from the
> responses I see here, I doubt anyone would agree with me.
Oh, I'm quite willing to agree that it's your favorite of Twain's
books.
That it is mine as well has no affect on my respons, of course. ;-)
---L.
where's alt.usage.english when you need it...
--
Larry Hammer \
l...@primenet.com \ No one is free from uttering stupidities.
SFRT and Chaos sysop \ The harm lies in doing it meticulously.
at http://www.dm.net \ -- Montaigne
Caius Marcius
Anyone operating under the misapprehension that Twain is but an author
for children or a quaint humorist should consult his posthumous Letters
From the Earth. Anticipating CS Lewis' Screwtape (in structure, but
certainly not in content), The Letters are the Archangel Satan's
extensive observations upon the inhabitants of our planet (to which the
fallen correspondent has been exiled). "Savage" doesn't even begin to
describe it.
- CMC
William Ryan
Larry:
I admit the sentence was ill-formed and ambiguous. Sister Regina Celeste, my
fourth-grade teacher, had she seen it, would have cracked my knuckles with a
ruler. I think everyone got the meaning, however, even without your learned
comment.
I dislike bad grammar, too, but I dislike rudeness even more. As poor as it
was, at least my posting wasn't mean-spirited, pompous and nauseatingly
pedantic, prickish hostility thinly disguised as puckish humor. Now that you've
taken your cheap shot, do you have anything left to contribute to the discussion?
By the way, the word "response" is usually spelled with an "e" at the end, and
the rest of your posting is a garbage heap of sentence fragments and bad
punctuation. You should clean up your act before you start criticizing other
people's prose.
Will
Andreas Schlenger
Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> Andreas Schlenger wrote:
> > (...)
> > The plays weren't MEANT to be read / performed / digested /
> > whatever-you-will "realistically". They are art, Art.
>
> And here all this time I thought they were simply entertainment and
> amusement for the burgeoning London middle class.
Hmmm, ... can't it be both? Art AND entertainment? My
reference was meant to point towards the fictional character
of dramatic writing. It's not meant to be a presentation of
real life (at least not in the 16th/17th century), but an
artistically shaped and structured re-presenatation.
And as far as the audience is concerned: I thought it
included members from all social classes. Not always at the
same time (nobility mostly at the court and the indoor
theatres, middle and lower class in the open air theatres).
> >But
> > even if we were trying to understand them as realistic
> > writing - how can we judge, how "realistically" the "common
> > man" is described? Unfortunately I never met a common
> > Elizabethan.
>
> Well a few did keep diaries.
That's the problem: it's WRITTEN evidence. Written evidence
about a society that was much more influenced by orality (is
that the word?) than ours is. I can judge, whether the
presentation of either a nobleman or a common man in any
play is convincing (i.e. meets to a certain extent my
expectations about such a persons behaviour), but I would be
VERY careful measuring it against a true-to-real-life scale.
> But if you really want to experience true everyday Elizabethan life I
> suggest that you visit Stratford-upon-Avon. :-)
Oh I've been there quite often. I like the place but -
really - I don't think it reflects "everyday Elizabethan
life". BTW: Where do anti-Stratfordians go, when they want
to religiously worship their idol?
>
> > I never met an Elizabethan nobleman either, nor
> > did I attend an Elizabethan court of justice,
>
> Then you have AT LEAST two things in common with Shakspere of
> Stratford.
Wait. So the Shakespeare living with the Mountjoys and
bearing wittness in their family quarrel was NOT the man
from Stratford?
> I'm sure neither of you would really want to "attend an Elizabethan
> court of justice".
Why? From what you write below I conclude it might have been
great fun. At least I understand that Elizabathan people
thought it was.
>
> <<The Privy Council authorised torture to obtain informaion. (...)>>
> (p.18 _William Shakespeare, the EXTRAORDINARY life of the most
> successful writer of all time_ by Andrew Gurr (HarperCollins, 1995))
>
> > which is why I
> > have problems with those anti-Stratfordian arguments that
> > claim that Shakespeare's works prove the author had an
> > intimate knowledge of everything.
>
> Shake-speare DIDN'T have an intimate knowledge of everything - I doubt
> that he could have made a decent pair of gloves if his life had depended
> upon it.
I suppose you mean Shakspere (the man from Stratford) and
not Shake-speare (the author of the plays and poems).
>
> Art Neuendorffer
Andreas.
Emma Harper
In article <6f1uuj$s...@ednet2.orednet.org>, Richard J Kennedy
<rken...@orednet.org> writes
>
>Emma, I've heard that there's an Oxfordian or Anti-Stratfordian
>sort of book store, or gathering place, in Stratford. Is that
>true?
I've never heard of it, Richard, but if I find it out, I'll let you know. But I
know most of the book shops here pretty well. <G>
>
--
Emma Harper
Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer wrote:
> > But if you really want to experience true everyday Elizabethan life I
> > suggest that you visit Stratford-upon-Avon. :-)
Andreas Schlenger wrote:
> Oh I've been there quite often. I like the place but -
> really - I don't think it reflects "everyday Elizabethan
> life". BTW: Where do anti-Stratfordians go, when they want
> to religiously worship their idol?
Some go to Bacon's Gorhambury Manor, some to the de Vere ancestrial
home Castle Hedingham, but I, personally, just read the plays.
> > > I never met an Elizabethan nobleman either, nor
> > > did I attend an Elizabethan court of justice,
> >
> > Then you have AT LEAST two things in common with Shakspere of
> > Stratford.
>
> Wait. So the Shakespeare living with the Mountjoys and
> bearing wittness in their family quarrel was NOT the man
> from Stratford?
1) I, personally, think that the whole Mountjoy thing was part of the
"coverup".
2) I don't equate all the Stratford small claims court with "an
Elizabethan court of justice".
3) AT LEAST ONE addition thing you have in common with Shakspere of
Stratford is that you haven't written any great plays (at least, that I
am aware of).
> > I'm sure neither of you would really want to "attend an Elizabethan
> > court of justice".
>
> Why? From what you write below I conclude it might have been
> great fun. At least I understand that Elizabathan people
> thought it was.
<<The Privy Council authorised torture to obtain informaion. The cruelty
of Norton, the Queen's "rack-master", incited public revulsion so
Elizabeth licensed her most effective agent Topcliffe to torture "in
private". The rack caused such dislocation and damage that Topcliffe
chose to hang men, by their hands , so their feet could not touch the
ground. It was a fortunate man who was sentenced to be hanged by the
neck until dead. Otherwise he could suffer quartering, and
disembowelment while still just alive following hanging.>>
(p.18 _William Shakespeare, the EXTRAORDINARY life of the most
successful writer of all time_ by Andrew Gurr (HarperCollins, 1995))
> > > which is why I
> > > have problems with those anti-Stratfordian arguments that
> > > claim that Shakespeare's works prove the author had an
> > > intimate knowledge of everything.
> >
> > Shake-speare DIDN'T have an intimate knowledge of everything - I doubt
> > that he could have made a decent pair of gloves if his life had depended
> > upon it.
>
> I suppose you mean Shakspere (the man from Stratford) and
> not Shake-speare (the author of the plays and poems).
NO, NO! - Shakspere KNEW how to make a decent pair of gloves
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> <rken...@orednet.org> writes
> >
> >Emma, I've heard that there's an Oxfordian or Anti-Stratfordian
> >sort of book store, or gathering place, in Stratford. Is that
> >true?
Emma Harper wrote:
> I've never heard of it, Richard, but if I find it out, I'll let you know. But I
> know most of the book shops here pretty well. <G>
If Emma finds out she'll let "Norton" know. :-)
Art Neuendorffer