All that "Glisters" "Glitters" or "Glistens" ?
Shiela S
that....... is not gold"
I say GLISTERS - I've always used this
Some say GLISTENS
And some say GLITTERS
Google gives examples of all!
Can you experts tell me which is correct please?
Many thanks
Shiela S
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 14/07/03
John W. Kennedy
> Over on uk.rec.competitions we are having a bit of a disagreement regarding the phrase from the Merchant of Venice - "All
> that....... is not gold"
>
> I say GLISTERS - I've always used this
> Some say GLISTENS
> And some say GLITTERS
>
> Google gives examples of all!
>
> Can you experts tell me which is correct please?
"Glisters" is in Shakespeare. "Glitters" is the usual way it is quoted
nowadays, simply because "glisters" is old-fashioned and "glitters" is
not. "Glistens" is probably a confused memory that "glitters" is wrong,
and it should be "glis--something", but then getting it wrong.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like
That. ...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not
because it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because
it is violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Shiela S
Shiela S
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:ChBRa.10285$n95.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Peter Farey
John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
> Shiela S wrote:
>
> > Over on uk.rec.competitions we are having a bit of a
> > disagreement regarding the phrase from the Merchant of
> > Venice - "All that....... is not gold"
> >
> > I say GLISTERS - I've always used this
> > Some say GLISTENS
> > And some say GLITTERS
> >
> > Google gives examples of all!
> >
> > Can you experts tell me which is correct please?
>
> "Glisters" is in Shakespeare. "Glitters" is the usual way it
> is quoted nowadays, simply because "glisters" is old-fashioned
> and "glitters" is not. "Glistens" is probably a confused
> memory that "glitters" is wrong, and it should be "glis--
> something", but then getting it wrong.
I agree. Enjoy it, with JWK and I this does not happen often!
"All that glisters is not gold" is how it appears both in
Shakespeare's 1600 'Quarto' and in his 1623 'First Folio'.
Not having access to the Oxford English Dictionary right now,
I have to rely upon the Shorter, which gives this quotation
as the first example of the word 'glister'. This would put it
at about 1600, but there is certainly at least one earlier
example than this - and I suspect others much earlier.
Mine is contained in "The French Alphabet", by someone calling
himself G. Delamothe, which was published by Shakespeare's
printer Richard Field in 1592. This contained a huge collection
of French proverbs and sayings translated into English. Amongst
these was the French "Tout ce que luist n'est pas or" which
Delamothe translated as "All that glistreth is not gold",
Any earlier examples? I'm sure that this was not the first!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter G.
It seeems to be medieval, according to the OED: glister, v. arch. and
dial. Forms: 4 glystre, 46 glistre, (5 glistere), 47 glyster, 4
glister.
[Corresponds to MLG. glistern, MDu., Du. glisteren; f. root *glis-
(see glise v.) + suffixes -t- and -er5.]
intr. To sparkle; to glitter; to be brilliant.
The word is obsolete in ordinary colloq. use (though preserved in
dialects); by recent writers employed with reminiscence of Shaks. or
the Bible in the literal sense only.
c1380 Sir Ferumb. 4438 Ys browes were boÞe rowe and grete..ys eyene
depe, & glystryd as Þe glede.
1390 Gower Conf. II. 252 The water glistred over all.
a1420 Hoccleve De Reg. Princ. (Roxb.) 150 A croked hors never the
better is entecchede Althoughe his bridelle glistre of golde & shyne.
etc.
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
news:ChBRa.10285$n95.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> > Over on uk.rec.competitions we are having a bit of a disagreement regarding the phrase from
the Merchant of Venice - "All
> > that....... is not gold"
> >
> > I say GLISTERS - I've always used this
> > Some say GLISTENS
> > And some say GLITTERS
> >
> > Google gives examples of all!
> >
> > Can you experts tell me which is correct please?
>
> "Glisters" is in Shakespeare. "Glitters" is the usual way it is quoted
> nowadays, simply because "glisters" is old-fashioned and "glitters" is
> not. "Glistens" is probably a confused memory that "glitters" is wrong,
> and it should be "glis--something", but then getting it wrong.
All that glisters is not gold,
Often haue you heard that told;
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold;
Guilded timber doe wormes infold:
Had you beene as wise as bold,
Yong in limbs, in iudgement old,
Your answere had not beene inscrold,
Fareyouwell, your suite is cold,
It's important to remember that these words had
a profound personal significance for many in the
court and, above all, for the poet himself. We can
safely date the play to 1579 / 1580. The topic of
the Queen's marriage is still very much alive, yet
the court has recently endured the 'gold-fever'
created by the Frobisher expeditions of 1576/7/8,
in which many courtiers invested ,losing every
penny; the poet being, by far, the greatest fool
of them all.
The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
represents the £3,000 which Oxford invested.
Shylock 'is', of course, Michael Lok. He ended
1578 in jail, being 'shy' -- mainly in the sense that
he could not return large sums of money which
he had borrowed with many courtiers, Oxford
included, claiming he had defrauded them.
The poet refers to this episode several times in
the sonnets (numbers 90, 107, 110, 117 and 119);
he also alludes to the drastic effects that it had
on his fortunes in others.
(Quoted passages are from Benjamin Woolley, *The Queen's Conjurer*)
"The final list of shareholders [for the first voyage -- to get to Cathay
by the North-West Passage] was formidable and included the
most important people in the country: William Cecil, and the Earls
of Sussex, Warwick and Leicester subscribed £50 each, Francis
Walsingham and his future son-in-law the poet Philip Sidney £25.
The total came to £875, at least a million in today's terms."
(page 115)
The first expedition failed to find the route
to China, but brought back a single rock --
more by accident than design:
"Samples were rapidly sent to England's leading metallurgists or
'assayers'. Three, including William Williams, the assay master
at the Tower of London, and a 'gold refiner' called Wheeler found
nothing of interest, but an Italian alchemist called John Baptista
Agnello 'made three several proofs and showed Lok gold'. Lok
presented this glistening grain to the Queen, and at once the entire
court was gripped by gold fever. . . . . "
" . . . . A new mission was set up, much more ambitious than the
last. The list of investors included the Queen herself; and were
desperate to be involved, pressing Lok to accept their credit
(though very rarely their cash). . ." (ibid, page 123)
"The Gabriel and Michael were now to be joined by a new and
more substantial flagship, the 180-ton Aid, from the Queen's own
fleet. It was a measure of the national prestige and hopes now
attached to the venture that the Queen had made such a vessel
available. Crewing and equipping the expedition proved enormously
expensive. The indefatigable Lok needed to find £4,400, only half of
which he had managed to raise by the time the fleet was ready to
set sail. . . . . "
" . . . . . The fleet, dispersed by storms, finally made its way back to
England. The Aid reached Milford Haven on the western extremity of
Wales on 17 September 1577.
"Frobisher immediately rode to the court, where he 'affirmed with
great oaths' that he had found 'rich ore ...precious stones, diamonds,
and rubies'. He also presented the unicorn's horn to the Queen as a
personal gift, much to the irritation of Lok, who considered it the
property of the Cathay Company.
"The ore -- over one hundred and forty tons of it -- was locked up in
Bristol Castle and a sample was taken to the Tower of London to be
tested. It was secured there with four locks: the Tower's warden, the
'workmaster' of the Royal Mint, Frobisher and Lok each being given
a key.
"Jonas Schutz, a German metallurgist, was appointed to determine
the true value of the stone. Though on the expedition, he had been
taken ill after his return. It was not until 25 November that, writing
from the home of a friend in Smithfield, he informed Sir Francis
Walsingham, the court's representative, that he was ready to 'finish
the proof'. He performed a series of trials at the Royal Mint's metal-
works on Tower Hill. But despite his hard work, all he had managed
to extract from the ore was just a grain or two of gold. The tons of
material Frobisher had brought from the opposite side of the world,
as securely stored as the Crown Jewels, were apparently worthless.
Frobisher was furious . ."
" . . . .On the 6 March 1578, John Dee was invited to Tower Hill,
to act as an expert witness for a final, definitive trial of the ore.
Schutz worked away at two hundredweight of the stone, grinding
it down, heating it up, producing great clouds of acrid smoke and,
eventually, a tiny quantity of precious metal: five shillings' worth
of silver and three shillings' worth of gold. If the rest of the ore
yielded similar quantities, that would mean it was worth £28 per
ton. To some this was a disappointment. 'Frobisher's gold is
now melted and does not turn out so valuable as he at first
boasted,' Philip Sidney wrote to his friend Languet the following
month.
" . . . . . And so, on 25 May 1578, another expedition departed, this
time with a fleet of fifteen ships . . . . "
" . . . . . The fleet returned the following September having lost a ship
and several crew members, and carried back an astonishing 1,150
tons of the black rock. As the Spanish spy noted, they had also
discovered other glistening souvenirs, such as a stone like white
sapphire, though not as hard, and another like ruby, but with a depth
of colour inferior to jacinth.'
"Despite such apparent bounty, Michael Lok was in serious financial
trouble. Two months later, totting up the totals, he arrived at a
provisional result of over £20,000, well over the initial budget, and
roughly equivalent to ten per cent of the entire Royal Exchequer . . . "
" . . . Meanwhile [ In late 1578 ], efforts continued to extract gold from
the mountain of ore that had been brought back, now stored at Dartford.
These proved fruitless. One of the final attempts was made by William
Williams, the assay master at the Tower of London who had tested
Frobisher's original sample. After weeks of hot work, he sent the
results of his efforts to Walsingham. Embedded in sealing wax was
a pinhead of silver.
(Benjamin Woolley, *The Queen's Conjurer*, pages 126/7/8)
KQKnave
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> writes:
>It's important to remember that these words had
>a profound personal significance for many in the
>court and, above all, for the poet himself. We can
>safely date the play to 1579 / 1580. The topic of
>the Queen's marriage is still very much alive, yet
>the court has recently endured the 'gold-fever'
>created by the Frobisher expeditions of 1576/7/8,
>in which many courtiers invested ,losing every
>penny; the poet being, by far, the greatest fool
>of them all.
>
>The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
>represents the £3,000 which Oxford invested.
>Shylock 'is', of course, Michael Lok. He ended
>1578 in jail, being 'shy' -- mainly in the sense that
>he could not return large sums of money which
>he had borrowed with many courtiers, Oxford
>included, claiming he had defrauded them.
>
>The poet refers to this episode several times in
>the sonnets (numbers 90, 107, 110, 117 and 119);
>he also alludes to the drastic effects that it had
>on his fortunes in others.
Where is there anything about loans or monetary loss in
these poems? There is some business/legal terminology
in some of them (107 has "lease" and "forfeit": "Can yet the lease of
my true love control,/ Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom.";
110 has "sold": "Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear";
119 has "spent": "And gain by ills thrice more than I have spent.")
and 117 has "repay", "bonds", "dear-purchased", and a reference
to "sail" ("That I have hoisted sail to all the winds/ Which should transport
me farthest from your sight."):
Accuse me thus, that I have scanted all,
Wherein I should your great deserts repay,
Forgot upon your dearest love to call,
Whereto all bonds do tie me day by day,
That I have frequent been with unknown minds,
And given to time your own dear-purchased right,
That I have hoisted sail to all the winds
Which should transport me farthest from your sight.
Book both my wilfulness and errors down,
And on just proof surmise accumulate;
Bring me within the level of your frown,
But shoot not at me in your wakened hate:
Since my appeal says I did strive to prove
The constancy and virtue of your love.
But of course you won't even consider the possible metaphorical
use of these words and phrases, will you?
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
james doyle
> The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
> represents the £3,000 which Oxford invested.
> Shylock 'is', of course, Michael Lok. He ended
> 1578 in jail, being 'shy' -- mainly in the sense that
> he could not return large sums of money which
> he had borrowed with many courtiers, Oxford
> included, claiming he had defrauded them.
So, if I understand you correctly, Shylock (who lends money)
represents Michael Lok (who borrowed money), and Antonio (who borrows
money) represents Oxford (who lent money).
Go on, convince me.
James Doyle
Paul Crowley
news:22a5cc15.0307...@posting.google.com...
Not possible, I'm afraid. The play is not
about a courtier who invested in a crazy
set of expeditions to find gold on Baffin
Island, on the basis of a few glints in
some rocks.
At least, that's not how I remember it.
So, relax, you will always have a get-out.
The poet changed a few things. Or, more
exactly, he based his story on an ancient
tale which had strong resonances to the
current political / sexual / personal /
dilemma of his Queen, and through her,
to the dominant political and religious
issues confronting his country. He
modified the story to reflect some of his
recent personal experiences -- in the way
playwrights tend to do.
Lok was the manager of the Company
(of Kathai). Investors paid him cash, or
promised credit. He used that to pay for
ships and supplies. As Wooley remarks
"Enthusiasm swept the City. 'Frobisher. . has given it as his
decided opinion, that the island is so productive in metals,
as to seem very far to surpass the country of Peru, at least
as it now is. There are also six other islands near to this,
which seem very little inferior,' Philip Sidney wrote to Hubert
Languet. A new mission was set up, much more ambitious
than the last. The list of investors included the Queen herself;
and were desperate to be involved, pressing Lok to accept
their credit (though very rarely their cash). . ." (page 123).
Oxford's investment was £3,000 --
all, I understand, in the form of bonds
-- remarkably, just as in the Merchant
of Venice. What a coincidence!
Paul.
James Doyle
Why is it remarkable? And I repeat my question - you are saying there is a
direct relationship between the characters in the play and some real
people - but it is quite a distortion to reverse the direction of the loan.
You predicate a theory that Oxford wrote the play on this allegedly
biographical detail - but say you can't convince me of the connection. Not
impressive so far.
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
Paul Crowley
news:R_sSa.56$rl1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > Oxford's investment was £3,000 --
> > all, I understand, in the form of bonds
> > -- remarkably, just as in the Merchant
> > of Venice. What a coincidence!
>
> Why is it remarkable?
The villain's name is 'Shylock'. The name of the
villain in Oxford's life just prior to the composition
was 'Lok'. (I think we can all get the 'shy' part.)
The hero of the play was in bond to the villain for
3,000 ducats. The author of the play was in bond
to his villain for 3,000 pounds.
Remarkable? Nah. It could all have readily
occurred by chance. The odds against it
happening must be only about 10,000 to one.
What's a small factor like that, when questions
of faith are involved?
> And I repeat my question - you are saying there is a
> direct relationship between the characters in the play and some real
> people - but it is quite a distortion to reverse the direction of the loan.
You've got something seriously wrong about
the 'direction of the loan'.
> You predicate a theory that Oxford wrote the play on this allegedly
> biographical detail
Not really. This is but one of around ten thousand
items of evidence. Far stronger -- in this play -- is
the identification of Portia with Queen Elizabeth,
and with her 'play-acting' in relation to her various
suitors.
> - but say you can't convince me of the connection. Not
> impressive so far.
There are dozens of issues about which I am
certain of the truth, where I know that I'd be quite
incapable of convincing sceptics brought up in an
older or different tradition. For example, I'd get
nowhere with Luther or with any 15th-, or 16th-
century astronomer on heliocentrism, or with
most modern Americans on evolution.
So you'll have to remain 'unimpressed'.
Paul.
James Doyle
Why is it remarkable? And I repeat my question - you are saying there is a
direct relationship between the characters in the play and some real
people - but it is quite a distortion to reverse the direction of the loan.
You predicate a theory that Oxford wrote the play on this allegedly
biographical detail - but say you can't convince me of the connection. Not
impressive so far.
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
James Doyle
> "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:R_sSa.56$rl1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> > > Oxford's investment was £3,000 --
> > > all, I understand, in the form of bonds
> > > -- remarkably, just as in the Merchant
> > > of Venice. What a coincidence!
> >
> > Why is it remarkable?
>
> The villain's name is 'Shylock'. The name of the
> villain in Oxford's life just prior to the composition
> was 'Lok'. (I think we can all get the 'shy' part.)
Why can we all get it? My SOED gives the following definitions for 'shy':
1. Easily frightened or startled
2., Easily frightened away
3. Fearful of committing onesaelf to a particular course of action
4. Cautiously reserved.
5. Shrinking from self-assertion.
Which of these do you think applies to Michael Lok, and why?
Incidentally, why is it Shylock, and not Shylok?
> The hero of the play was in bond to the villain for
> 3,000 ducats. The author of the play was in bond
> to his villain for 3,000 pounds.
>
No, the 'villain' was in bond to your authorial candidate (or author, if you
prefer) for £3000.
> Remarkable? Nah. It could all have readily
> occurred by chance. The odds against it
> happening must be only about 10,000 to one.
> What's a small factor like that, when questions
> of faith are involved?
>
> > And I repeat my question - you are saying there is a
> > direct relationship between the characters in the play and some real
> > people - but it is quite a distortion to reverse the direction of the
loan.
>
> You've got something seriously wrong about
> the 'direction of the loan'.
No, you have. Read the sources you quote.
>
> > You predicate a theory that Oxford wrote the play on this allegedly
> > biographical detail
>
> Not really. This is but one of around ten thousand
> items of evidence.
Les we confuse a theory that Oxford wrote *this* play (as in my statement,
quoted by you) with a theory that Oxford wrote *all* the plays (your basic
hypothesis) - can I presume these 10,000 pieces of evidence cover the whole
canon, not just this play - that would be an unfeasibly high number in a
2600-line play :).
Is there a list I can see on a website somewhere, or can you provide me with
one?
> Far stronger -- in this play -- is
> the identification of Portia with Queen Elizabeth,
> and with her 'play-acting' in relation to her various
> suitors.
This sounds like an interesting line of thought? Can you expand on it for
me, please?
>
> > - but say you can't convince me of the connection. Not
> > impressive so far.
>
> There are dozens of issues about which I am
> certain of the truth, where I know that I'd be quite
> incapable of convincing sceptics brought up in an
> older or different tradition.
If you're referring to me, I'm not brought up in any tradition (as far as
Shakespeare is concerned), other than the application of the scientific
method.
> For example, I'd get
> nowhere with Luther or with any 15th-, or 16th-
> century astronomer on heliocentrism, or with
> most modern Americans on evolution.
>
> So you'll have to remain 'unimpressed'.
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
Thanks
James Doyle
Paul Crowley
news:20030719150624...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >the sonnets (numbers 90, 107, 110, 117 and 119);
> >he also alludes to the drastic effects that it had
> >on his fortunes in others.
>
> Where is there anything about loans or monetary loss in
> these poems?
There are a few, but the wordplays are more
on mining and on 'gold-fever'. Sonnet 110
probably has the most:
1. Alas 'tis true, I have gone here and there,
2. And made my self a motley to the view,
3. Gored mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is most dear,
4. Made old offences of affections new.
5. Most true it is, that I have looked on truth
6. Askance and strangely: But by all above,
7. These blenches gave my heart an other youth,
8. And worse essays proved thee my best of love,
9. Now all is done, have what shall have no end,
10. Mine appetite I never more will grind
11. On newer proof, to try an older friend,
12. A God in love, to whom I am confined.
13. Then give me welcome, next my heaven the best,
14. Even to thy pure and most most loving breast.
It is full of puns on the refining of the ores of
precious metals:
line 2: 'motley'
line 3: 'gored', 'g-ore-d', 'mine'
line 6: 'askance and strangely'
line 7: 'blench / blanch'
line 8: 'essays' = 'assays', 'proved'
line 9: 'all is done', 'no end'
line 10: 'grind'
line 11: 'newer proof', 'try'
line 14: 'pure'
These date the sonnet to the period following the
intense and angry controversies arising from the
refining of the 'ore' brought back by Frobisher on
his three trips to the frozen north of the New World
(Baffin Island in NW Canada) in 1576, 1577 and
1578 . Many courtiers (and especially the poet)
invested heavily in this enterprise, and lost every
penny. The tone of the sonnet is more one of
regret and contrition rather than of anger; the
poet has recovered his sense of proportion --
and his confidence in his art, so it was clearly
written some time after those events.
The puns which refer most obviously to the
refining of the ore come later in the sonnet,
particularly in line 8: with 'assays' and 'proved';
in line 10 with 'grind'; in line 11 with 'newer
proof' and 'try'; and in line 14 with 'pure'. Note
how those words appear in the passages
before from Woolley. 'Gored', 'motley' and
'blench' are also indicative.
None of this is to deny the 'superficial' senses
seen by traditional commentators. The first two
lines also probably play on Oxford's role as a
'master of ceremonies' when mounting plays or
other entertainments for the Queen.
1. Alas 'tis true, I have gone here and there,
2. And made my self a motley to the view,
There would have been no shame in this for a
common actor; that would have been his job.
But little could be more demeaning for a
nobleman born into an ancient house than to
parade as a fool before the vulgar mob.
'Gone here and there' is partly a reference to
Frobisher's long voyages to and fro. It may also
refer to the scurrying around the city to arrange
finance, in which Oxford was active.
Oxford's investment in the early stages was
small. But he put an astounding £1,000 bond
into the last voyage; and then, as though that
was not enough, he bought up another £2,000
worth of stock from Lok, making him by far the
biggest investor. (Well, who ever heard of a
poet with a good head for business?)
'Motley' is, of course, a reference to the dress
of a clown or fool, but the OED suggests a
further sense in a comparison with:
" . . 'speckled' . . with which in some early
examples 'motley' seems nearly synonymous"
and sense (1c) "mottled in appearance".
The poet is referring to the characteristics of
the ore which fooled them all -- although him
more than any. A fool's garb was his only wear.
All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
The 'Merchant of Venice' was almost certainly
written at this time. The 3,000 ducats for which
Antonio is in bond represents the £3,000 which
Oxford invested. Shylock 'is' Michael Lok.
Some foreign suitors for the Queen's hand
(the Alencon party) were present in London at
the time. Fortunately, hardly any would have
understood English.
3. Gored mine own thoughts
Rita's sense of the strangeness of 'gored' in this
context is sound. In fact, it comes from OED (1b):
" . . to dig or scoop (out of) ." ; the assonance
with 'ore' also helps.
'Ore' may well have its origins in 'gore', vice-
versa (the OED finds both words of obscure or
uncertain etymology)
The pun on 'mine' (in 'mine own') is obvious;
primitive miners used horns to 'gore' their rocks
from their mines. The sense of 'own thoughts'
could be that the poet had foolishly let himself be
taken in by 'gold fever'; although there may be
more to it.
Other senses may also apply, such as being
contaminated with dirt. Heraldic shields can be
'gored' (at least in theory) indicating dishonour.
The image was particularly appropriate for a
De Vere; his heraldic emblem was a boar.
3. . . . . . . . . . . . sold cheap what is most dear,
The poet was most likely referring to the forced
sale of his lands to pay for his debts and the
bonds in which he entered in connection with
the "fool's gold". Those inherited properties
were 'most dear' to him.
4. Made old offences of affections new
He had probably started his affair with Anne
Vavasour by the time of this sonnet. The 'offence'
committed there was of an ancient nature.
'Offence': OED (1) In Biblical use: striking the
foot against; stumbling. (Obsolete and rare).
This is the first sense in the OED; it is (or was)
also the sense in Latin and Italian. It is the
oldest sense; that is one reason why the poet
says 'old offences'.
'Affection': OED (11) of substances: "a temporary
or non-essential state or relation of anything: a
mode of being."
(In this sense it is not unlike 'affect' (the noun)).
The poet is saying that he was responsible for
turning rocks into new and different kinds of
substances.
5. Most true it is, that I have looked on truth
Oxford had indeed looked on those rocks in a
strange way. He must have believed only those
who wanted his money and disregarded all the
doubting voices.
In another sense, 'truth' here is, I believe, a
mixture of the poet himself and the House of
Vere. He had been, in many ways, remiss in
his care for his own name and that of his house.
But (and what a 'but'!) he knew that in the long
term both names would be in the stars.
6. Askance and strangely:
These words also probably refer to the manner
in which those who looked sideways at the
glistening rocks saw glints of gold, and to the
strange methods of the assayers and
alchemists, as they (hopefully) extracted metal
from the ore.
6. . . . . . . . But by all above,
7. These blenches gave my heart an other youth,
The poet is punning on 'blench/blanch' = OED
(1b) to make metals white, as in alchemy;
His strange way of behaving as regards many
of the traditional virtues enabled him to devote
his life to literature; that had given him much
delight -- it made his heart feel young. In this
sense 'by all above' is taken as a kind of oath
-- 'by the will of God'.
The words 'an other' can be read as 'another'
giving the meaning that he gave his heart to
someone else. Here we take 'blenches' as
tricks or stratagems (OED (1)) and take 'by all
above' as a reference to those above Oxford in
the hierarchy -- mainly the Queen; the tricks
are then those of the Queen (mainly) and he
is blaming her for his playing around.
8. And worse essays proved thee my best of love,
There is at least a three-way pun on 'essays'
a) OED 1. = 'assay' -- the association with
'proved' assures us that this was intended;
b) OED 5 or 6 = attempts (possibly hostile);
the poet is referring to the attempts to win his
beloved's heart by Alencon and his
ambassador, and by other courtiers.
c) OED 8 = a composition, as in Montaigne's
'Essays'; the poet is probably referring
disparagingly to written work praising her,
which was far inferior to his own.
8. . . . . . . . my best of love,
The pun on 'best' = 'Bess' is repeated below in
line 13.
9. Now all is done, have what shall have no end,
This line IMO probably mainly refers to the poet's
financial state: he was finished. It may also refer
to the completion of the assay work. It also IMO
refers to his literary achievements. In each of
these ways (taking the first two sarcastically) the
Queen would have 'what shall have no end'.
The 'pinhead of silver' (embedded in sealing
wax) which she had received from all the 'ore'
had no 'end' -- neither physically nor in the sense
of having any financial purpose.
The 'have what shall have no end' may also be
a bawdy reference to her desire to mate with
Alencon -- with a slighting reference to his
probable virility (or his interest in women).
It may also be a ring -- something with no 'end' --
a wedding one from Alencon. It may well be
that the poet full expected the marriage to go
ahead at this point.
10. Mine appetite I never more will grind
'Grind' applies to the treatment of rocks that
hopefully contained metallic ore. ("Schutz
worked away at two hundredweight of the stone,
grinding it down . . "). By 'appetite' Oxford meant
his greed. He claims to have learnt his lesson.
He again exploits the pun on 'mine';
'mine appetite' = 'appetite for mines';
he says he will never more grind that appetite.
'Grind' also has an obvious bawdy sense (wholly
inappropriate to the 'fair youth' whereas perfectly
fitting an Oxford / Queen scenario).
11. On newer proof, to try an older friend,
'Proof' in this line, along with 'try' backs up the
previous line. 'Newer proof' is a painful recall
of how each 'new proof' from the 'assayers'
reversed their earlier verdicts. On each new
positive 'proof' the poet undoubtedly urged the
Queen to invest more in the enterprise. No
doubt, he was a 'trial' to her in the matter. As
usual, she showed she had much more
sense.
12. A God in love, to whom I am confined.
These lines (like so many others) are wildly
inappropriate for any 'noble youth'. How could
'he' be 'an older friend' -- as well as a 'God in
love'? How could the poet be 'confined' to such
a person? Or be 'next my heaven the best'?
Or be a 'most most loving breast'?
Whereas (as always) they perfectly fit the poet
addressing his Queen in over-grand courtly
style, where the superficial sense is not to be
taken seriously. She was older; she was 'a
friend'; she was a 'God in love' (the name
'Elizabeth' means 'God an oath', and she was
conventionally addressed by poets as 'Diana',
'Astraea', 'Gloriana', 'Cynthia', 'Belphoebe',
'Oriana' and, perhaps above all, Pallas Athena
-- the virgin goddess, wise, powerful, all-seeing,
guardian of the city, patron of the arts.
In this case the 'in love' part refers to her constant
pose, and possibly to some particular infatuation
such as with Alencon, Simier, Hatton or Ralegh.
It was conventional for courtiers to claim that their
love was confined to the Queen.
'Confined' also suggests the poet's period of
imprisonment and house arrest. But that is
probably too late for this sonnet, being over
two years after the episode of the "fool's gold" .
There is little in the sonnet indicating the kind
of disgrace he fell into later.
Here, the poet may be punning on 'con-fined'.
Most had been taken in by supposed 're-fining'.
After his enormous losses, and with his long-
standing debts to her, Oxford was now, more
than ever, financially 'confined' to the Queen.
There is an obvious biblical reference here to
1 John 4, 16. "God is love; and he that dwelleth in
love dwelleth in God and God [dwelleth] in him."
In Line 13, the references to "the abode of
'a God' would be 'next my heaven'. And 'the
best' plays on 'the Bess' . . "
The name 'Elizabeth' means 'God an oath'.
Further, 'Beth' is the second letter of the
Hebrew alphabet and means 'a dwelling'
13. Then give me welcome, next my heaven the best,
The 'give me welcome' plays on her name in the
line: 'beth' means 'abode', where a 'welcome'
would be appropriate. The abode of 'a God'
would be 'next my heaven'. 'The best' plays on
'the Bess'. Also, of course, there is a bawdy
sense: 'heaven' is her vagina which in some
senses is 'next [her] . . loving breast', and he
pretends to seek to 'well come' in it.
14. Even to thy pure and most most loving breast.
Stonehouse's Rule requires different senses for
the words 'most most . . loving breast. It is in the
OED (1e) " . with reference to (a) power, authority;
(b) importance, consequence. 'Most master' =
ruler, commander . . ". (Obsolete).
It is the same sense as the 'more' / 'less'
designation for social classes, which we have
seen several times in the sonnets. No one
could be more 'most' than the Queen.
Paul Crowley
>
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:FfCSa.23990$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:R_sSa.56$rl1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > > > Oxford's investment was £3,000 --
> > > > all, I understand, in the form of bonds
> > > > -- remarkably, just as in the Merchant
> > > > of Venice. What a coincidence!
> > >
> > > Why is it remarkable?
> >
> > The villain's name is 'Shylock'. The name of the
> > villain in Oxford's life just prior to the composition
> > was 'Lok'. (I think we can all get the 'shy' part.)
>
> Why can we all get it? My SOED gives the following definitions for 'shy':
> 1. Easily frightened or startled
> 2., Easily frightened away
> 3. Fearful of committing onesaelf to a particular course of action
> 4. Cautiously reserved.
> 5. Shrinking from self-assertion.
I was taking 'shy' in OED sense 7: " . . of
questionable character, disreputable, 'shady'.
It calls it colloquial or slang and reports the
first record as 1849. The OED is notoriously
weak on the records of such terms, so I have
no problem believing that it was probably in
use in Elizabethan times.
There is also sense 6b 'short of' or 'lacking'
which it reports as US slang and dates the
first record to 1895. Again, that could easily
go back to Elizabethan times -- and fail to
get in the works used by the OED.
Both of these senses derive from an ironical
application of the standard one. They may
well have come in, and gone out, of fashion
more than once in the previous 300 years.
> Which of these do you think applies to Michael Lok, and why?
> Incidentally, why is it Shylock, and not Shylok?
IMO it means little or nothing. Elizabethan spelling
was highly variable. The Folio shows 'Shylocke'
20 times, 'Shylock' once and 'Shylok' once.
> > The hero of the play was in bond to the villain for
> > 3,000 ducats. The author of the play was in bond
> > to his villain for 3,000 pounds.
> >
>
> No, the 'villain' was in bond to your authorial candidate (or author, if you
> prefer) for £3000.
I don't know how you have got this twisted.
Oxford owed £3,000 to Michael Lok -- or,
more precisely to the Cathay Company.
He was THE major investor in it. Lok, in
turn (or the Company) owed large sums to
all manner of others for wages, ship hire,
supplies, etc.
> Les we confuse a theory that Oxford wrote *this* play (as in my statement,
> quoted by you) with a theory that Oxford wrote *all* the plays (your basic
> hypothesis) - can I presume these 10,000 pieces of evidence cover the whole
> canon, not just this play - that would be an unfeasibly high number in a
> 2600-line play :).
> Is there a list I can see on a website somewhere, or can you provide me with
> one?
There are plenty of Oxfordian books and websites.
> > Far stronger -- in this play -- is
> > the identification of Portia with Queen Elizabeth,
> > and with her 'play-acting' in relation to her various
> > suitors.
>
> This sounds like an interesting line of thought? Can you expand on it for
> me, please?
Nope, sorry. Life is too short. If you can't
see the analogies, then you have not read
much history of the reign.
> > There are dozens of issues about which I am
> > certain of the truth, where I know that I'd be quite
> > incapable of convincing sceptics brought up in an
> > older or different tradition.
>
> If you're referring to me, I'm not brought up in any tradition (as far as
> Shakespeare is concerned), other than the application of the scientific
> method.
We are all brought up in a variety of
traditions, with masses of beliefs resting
on little but supposition. Only a total fool
would claim to exist in one consisting of the
pure "application of the scientific method".
(Btw, there are a few in HLAS of that nature
-- generally boneheaded academics. David
Webb is AFAIR one such.)
Paul.
James Doyle
So, in our other conversation thread, you accept thr OED's authority that
'coach' is only known from 1556, and hence that there couldn't have been
such vehicles prior to that, and here you deny the authority of the OED to
use a meaning dated 250 years after what you want?
> There is also sense 6b 'short of' or 'lacking'
> which it reports as US slang and dates the
> first record to 1895. Again, that could easily
> go back to Elizabethan times -- and fail to
> get in the works used by the OED.
>
> Both of these senses derive from an ironical
> application of the standard one. They may
> well have come in, and gone out, of fashion
> more than once in the previous 300 years.
>
> > Which of these do you think applies to Michael Lok, and why?
> > Incidentally, why is it Shylock, and not Shylok?
>
> IMO it means little or nothing. Elizabethan spelling
> was highly variable. The Folio shows 'Shylocke'
> 20 times, 'Shylock' once and 'Shylok' once.
>
> > > The hero of the play was in bond to the villain for
> > > 3,000 ducats. The author of the play was in bond
> > > to his villain for 3,000 pounds.
> > >
> >
> > No, the 'villain' was in bond to your authorial candidate (or author, if
you
> > prefer) for £3000.
>
> I don't know how you have got this twisted.
> Oxford owed £3,000 to Michael Lok -- or,
> more precisely to the Cathay Company.
NO, I DON'T THINK OXFORD OWED £3000. That's what I'm saying - he was OWED
£3000 by Lok. In other words, the polar opposite to the Antonio-Shylock
debt.
1. Antonio owes Shylock.
2. Lok owes Oxford.
It's the wrong way around!
You say, above: The author of the play was in bond to his villain for 3,000
pounds. That means The author of the play OWED his villain for 3,000
pounds. You have things reversed from your own source.
> He was THE major investor in it. Lok, in
> turn (or the Company) owed large sums to
> all manner of others for wages, ship hire,
> supplies, etc.
>
> > Les we confuse a theory that Oxford wrote *this* play (as in my
statement,
> > quoted by you) with a theory that Oxford wrote *all* the plays (your
basic
> > hypothesis) - can I presume these 10,000 pieces of evidence cover the
whole
> > canon, not just this play - that would be an unfeasibly high number in a
> > 2600-line play :).
> > Is there a list I can see on a website somewhere, or can you provide me
with
> > one?
>
> There are plenty of Oxfordian books and websites.
Can you point me to any you'd recommend which have a list of these points?
10,000 items of evidence would implye 250-300 in Merchant. I'd settle for
that list.
>
> > > Far stronger -- in this play -- is
> > > the identification of Portia with Queen Elizabeth,
> > > and with her 'play-acting' in relation to her various
> > > suitors.
> >
> > This sounds like an interesting line of thought? Can you expand on it
for
> > me, please?
>
> Nope, sorry. Life is too short. If you can't
> see the analogies, then you have not read
> much history of the reign.
So, you can't offer me your major line of proof?
Spam Scone
> There are dozens of issues about which I am
> certain of the truth, where I know that I'd be quite
> incapable of convincing sceptics brought up in an
> older or different tradition. For example, I'd get
> nowhere with Luther or with any 15th-, or 16th-
> century astronomer on heliocentrism, or with
> most modern Americans on evolution.
Still harking back to "aquatic apes".
Paul Crowley
> > > > The villain's name is 'Shylock'. The name of the
> > > > villain in Oxford's life just prior to the composition
> > > > was 'Lok'. (I think we can all get the 'shy' part.)
> > >
> > > Why can we all get it? My SOED gives the following definitions for
> 'shy':
> > > 1. Easily frightened or startled
> > > 2., Easily frightened away
> > > 3. Fearful of committing onesaelf to a particular course of action
> > > 4. Cautiously reserved.
> > > 5. Shrinking from self-assertion.
> >
> > I was taking 'shy' in OED sense 7: " . . of
> > questionable character, disreputable, 'shady'.
> > It calls it colloquial or slang and reports the
> > first record as 1849. The OED is notoriously
> > weak on the records of such terms, so I have
> > no problem believing that it was probably in
> > use in Elizabethan times.
>
> So, in our other conversation thread, you accept thr OED's authority that
> 'coach' is only known from 1556, and hence that there couldn't have been
> such vehicles prior to that, and here you deny the authority of the OED to
> use a meaning dated 250 years after what you want?
It depends on the type of word. We can expect
many words to be reported -- in the sources used
by the OED -- soon after they come into common
use. If they describe the possessions of the wealthy
or powerful, and if those are meant for conspicuous
public and fashionable use, then they'll probably be
mentioned in nearly contemporary publications.
That certainly applies to 'coach' and the introduction
of a similar word into all European languages around
1550 can readily be traced.
Whereas words like 'pee' or 'piss' will not be shown
in 'respectable' works for a long time after they have
been in use. That applies to slang words, or to
meanings which depend on tone or a sense of irony
-- as in the case of 'shy' in the sense of 'short of
money' or 'in hiding'. The OED reports a similar case
for sense 4 of 'Mock': " . . To ridicule by imitation of
speech or action (The current colloquial use, and
presumably as old as the 16th century, but not
evidenced in literature.) . . cf. Mocking-bird . . "
In other words, they know the use is old from
'mocking-bird' but they have no instances in
literature.
> NO, I DON'T THINK OXFORD OWED £3000. That's what I'm saying - he was OWED
> £3000 by Lok. In other words, the polar opposite to the Antonio-Shylock
> debt.
You have this completely wrong. There was no
conceivable reason why Lok should owe Oxford
money. The facts are fully recorded in the history
books. No one disputes them.
Paul.
James Doyle
> "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:8mMSa.13$%D3.3...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> > NO, I DON'T THINK OXFORD OWED Ł3000. That's what I'm saying - he was
OWED
> > Ł3000 by Lok. In other words, the polar opposite to the Antonio-Shylock
> > debt.
>
> You have this completely wrong. There was no
> conceivable reason why Lok should owe Oxford
> money. The facts are fully recorded in the history
> books. No one disputes them.
>
OK, Paul, here is what you posted on 19 July 2003 17:56
> The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
> represents the Ł3,000 which Oxford invested.
> Shylock 'is', of course, Michael Lok. He ended
> 1578 in jail, being 'shy' -- mainly in the sense that
> he could not return large sums of money which
> he had borrowed with many courtiers, Oxford
> included, claiming he had defrauded them.
Oxford invested money - i.e. he lent it. Lok could not return money he had
borrowed. So he owed it. To Oxford.
It's your post!
Here's what you posted on 20 July 2003 09:02
> Oxford's investment was Ł3,000
Oxford invested money - i.e. he lent it.
Here's what you posted on 20 July 2003 20:37
> The hero of the play was in bond to the villain for
> 3,000 ducats. The author of the play was in bond
> to his villain for 3,000 pounds.
Am I right to assume in the above that:
a) hero of the play = Antonio
b) the villain [of the play] = Shylock
c) author of the play = Oxford
d) his villain = Michael Lok
?
If so, your post reads:
[Antonio] was in bond to [Shylock] for 3,000 ducats. [Oxford] was in bond
to [Michael Lok] for 3,000 pounds.
Have I understood you correctly?
James
John W. Kennedy
> I was taking 'shy' in OED sense 7: " . . of
> questionable character, disreputable, 'shady'.
> It calls it colloquial or slang and reports the
> first record as 1849. The OED is notoriously
> weak on the records of such terms, so I have
> no problem believing that it was probably in
> use in Elizabethan times.
I'm sure _you_ have no problem believing it, but the sane require evidence.
Paul Crowley
>
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:3rQSa.24078$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:8mMSa.13$%D3.3...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> <snip>
>
> OWED
> > > £3000 by Lok. In other words, the polar opposite to the Antonio-Shylock
> > > debt.
> >
> > You have this completely wrong. There was no
> > conceivable reason why Lok should owe Oxford
> > money. The facts are fully recorded in the history
> > books. No one disputes them.
> >
>
> OK, Paul, here is what you posted on 19 July 2003 17:56
>
> > The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
> > Shylock 'is', of course, Michael Lok. He ended
> > 1578 in jail, being 'shy' -- mainly in the sense that
> > he could not return large sums of money which
> > he had borrowed with many courtiers, Oxford
> > included, claiming he had defrauded them.
>
> Oxford invested money - i.e. he lent it.
There is a world of difference between investing
money and lending it. Oxford bought shares in
the Company. If the 'ore' had really contained
gold, then he would have made a fortune. But
since it was worthless, he lost all his money.
> Lok could not return money he had
> borrowed. So he owed it. To Oxford.
No. He owed nothing to Oxford. Although Oxford
(and other courtiers) claimed that Lok had told
them lies -- but it was a weak excuse.
Around the same time, many courtiers financed
Drake's 1577-80 expedition. (Oxford didn't --
regarding it as dangerous piracy.) They all made
money from it -- getting a return of 4700% on what
they had put in. (They got 47 (forty-seven) pounds
back for every one they had invested.) If Drake had
not returned, they would have lost it all.
All this is basic capitalism. Are you from Cuba or
North Korea?
Paul.
John W. Kennedy
> "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:VOSSa.1817$D67....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
>>"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
>>news:3rQSa.24078$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>>
>>>"James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:8mMSa.13$%D3.3...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>NO, I DON'T THINK OXFORD OWED ?0. That's what I'm saying - he was
>>
>>OWED
>>
>>>>?0 by Lok. In other words, the polar opposite to the Antonio-Shylock
>>>>debt.
>>>
>>>You have this completely wrong. There was no
>>>conceivable reason why Lok should owe Oxford
>>>money. The facts are fully recorded in the history
>>>books. No one disputes them.
>>>
>>
>>OK, Paul, here is what you posted on 19 July 2003 17:56
>>
>>
>>>The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
>>>represents the ?00 which Oxford invested.
Anybody else smelling an unpleasant odor?
James Doyle
> "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:VOSSa.1817$D67....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> > news:3rQSa.24078$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
> > > "James Doyle" <act...@republicofheaven.org.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:8mMSa.13$%D3.3...@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
was
> > OWED
> > > > Ł3000 by Lok. In other words, the polar opposite to the
Antonio-Shylock
> > > > debt.
> > >
> > > You have this completely wrong. There was no
> > > conceivable reason why Lok should owe Oxford
> > > money. The facts are fully recorded in the history
> > > books. No one disputes them.
> > >
> >
> > OK, Paul, here is what you posted on 19 July 2003 17:56
> >
> > > The 3,000 ducats for which Antonio is in bond
> > > Shylock 'is', of course, Michael Lok. He ended
> > > 1578 in jail, being 'shy' -- mainly in the sense that
> > > he could not return large sums of money which
> > > he had borrowed with many courtiers, Oxford
> > > included, claiming he had defrauded them.
> >
> > Oxford invested money - i.e. he lent it.
>
> There is a world of difference between investing
> money and lending it. Oxford bought shares in
> the Company. If the 'ore' had really contained
> gold, then he would have made a fortune. But
> since it was worthless, he lost all his money.
>
> > Lok could not return money he had
> > borrowed. So he owed it. To Oxford.
>
> No. He owed nothing to Oxford. Although Oxford
> (and other courtiers) claimed that Lok had told
> them lies -- but it was a weak excuse.
>
> Around the same time, many courtiers financed
> Drake's 1577-80 expedition. (Oxford didn't --
> regarding it as dangerous piracy.) They all made
> money from it -- getting a return of 4700% on what
> they had put in. (They got 47 (forty-seven) pounds
> back for every one they had invested.) If Drake had
> not returned, they would have lost it all.
Paul, either you're saying there is an analogy between the Oxford-Lok
relationship and the Antonio-Shylock relationship, or you're not. Make up
your mind.
You can argue over the precise definition of words as much as you like, but
the direction the money goes is Oxford >>> Lok in the one case, and Shylock
>>> Antonio in the other. You don't seem to be able to grasp this basic
fact - which negates the relationship.
So, what youi're saying now is that there's no analogy at all between
Shylock'
>
> All this is basic capitalism. Are you from Cuba or
> North Korea?
Earth, unlike you, apparently :)
When you land, let me know and we'll continue the debate.
Peter Groves
You've got to admit it: Paul is consistently the most entertaining poster
currently on HLAS.
Peter G.
Peter Groves
HAMLET ... You could, for a need,
study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines, which
I would set down and insert in't, could you not?
First Player: Ay, my lord.
HAMLET: Very well. Follow that lord [Polonius]; and look you mock him
not.
Peter G.
David Kathman
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
He is, when my amusement isn't overwhelmed by raw pity.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Paul Crowley
news:0Y_Sa.7633$OM3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > The OED reports a similar case
> > for sense 4 of 'Mock': " . . To ridicule by imitation of
> > speech or action (The current colloquial use, and
> > presumably as old as the 16th century, but not
> > evidenced in literature.) . . cf. Mocking-bird . . "
> > In other words, they know the use is old from
> > 'mocking-bird' but they have no instances in
> > literature.
> >
>
> HAMLET ... You could, for a need,
> study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines, which
> I would set down and insert in't, could you not?
>
> First Player: Ay, my lord.
>
> HAMLET: Very well. Follow that lord [Polonius]; and look you mock him
> not.
Maybe the OED regards Hamlet as being 17th century.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > I was taking 'shy' in OED sense 7: " . . of
> > questionable character, disreputable, 'shady'.
> > It calls it colloquial or slang and reports the
> > first record as 1849. The OED is notoriously
> > weak on the records of such terms, so I have
> > no problem believing that it was probably in
> > use in Elizabethan times.
>
> I'm sure _you_ have no problem believing it, but the sane require evidence.
I'm not sure why you require specific evidence
for something that is common sense. We have
two principal types of meaning for the word 'shy'
at present. One is standard, the other is derived
and sarcastic or ironical. We know the historical
pattern. Elizabethans loved sarcasm and irony;
the great middle-class / puritanical surge over the
last 400 years went a long way to suppress it --
or suppress the reporting of such occurrences
in 'common' speech; the OED was produced
towards the end of the most intense part of that
surge.
The evidence is that Shakespeare made up a
name to represent a person of "questionable
character, disreputable, 'shady' . " incorporating
'shy'. Shakespeare, in particular, loved sarcasm
and irony.
Even IF the use of 'shy' in the present sarcastic
form was not in common speech, it is quite
likely that Shakespeare intended such a sense.
But IMO it is very likely that sense was in
common use.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:bfi5gc$2ma$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <ZH_Sa.7622$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Peter Groves"
> <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> >> I was taking 'shy' in OED sense 7: " . . of
> >> questionable character, disreputable, 'shady'.
> >> It calls it colloquial or slang and reports the
> >> first record as 1849. The OED is notoriously
> >> weak on the records of such terms, so I have
> >> no problem believing that it was probably in
> >> use in Elizabethan times.
> >
> >You've got to admit it: Paul is consistently the most entertaining poster
> >currently on HLAS.
I do my best to please -- and to stimulate discussion.
I trail my coat as clearly as possible. Yet I rarely seem
to provoke a hunt. I find that I can say almost
anything around here with fear of serious criticism.
Why is that?
As always, I have to conclude y'all know how sensitive
I am, and respect my gentleness.
> He is, when my amusement isn't overwhelmed by raw pity.
But Dave -- I'm in your kill-file. So how do you see me?
Some mysteries never go away.
Paul.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:KyUSa.48554$ye5.10...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
>
>>Paul Crowley wrote:
>>
>>>I was taking 'shy' in OED sense 7: " . . of
>>>questionable character, disreputable, 'shady'.
>>>It calls it colloquial or slang and reports the
>>>first record as 1849. The OED is notoriously
>>>weak on the records of such terms, so I have
>>>no problem believing that it was probably in
>>>use in Elizabethan times.
>>
>>I'm sure _you_ have no problem believing it, but the sane require evidence.
>
>
> I'm not sure why you require specific evidence
> for something that is common sense.
You mean like the young person who, given:
Is Brutus sick? and is it physical
To walk unbracèd and suck up the humours
Of the dank morning?
came to the perfectly common-sensical conclusion that "physical" here
denotes "sane", because "'physical' is the opposite of 'mental'"?
--
John W. Kennedy
Don't use a knife to teethe the baby.
Don't use a dagger with the tot.
Your intentions may be dental,
But they'll think that you've gone "mental".
It's a general rule that shouldn't be forgot.
Don't train the infant with a _main_ _gauche_;
I'm sure it isn't going to work.
For the truth of it is, I find the whole idea ridiculous,
And the family-welfare people will kick up an awful fuss,
And the county park commissioners will have to punish us,
So don't teeth the baby with a dirk!
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Paul Crowley" slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com
>Date: 7/23/2003
>Even IF the use of 'shy' in the present sarcastic
>form was not in common speech, it is quite
>likely that Shakespeare intended such a sense.
>But IMO it is very likely that sense was in
>common use.
My shyster lawyer says you can be sued for this kind of vocabularial
defamation.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Spam Scone
> But Dave -- I'm in your kill-file. So how do you see me?
He is responding to another's quotation of your lunacy.