Dating of Twelfth Night
Paul Crowley
out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
Shakespeare seems to have brought the name to
Tudor England, probably learning of it when he
was in Italy, in 1575. It subsequently became
quite popular among the English upper-classes.
Bob asked, and I replied:
>> Who was her Toby Belch?
>
> He was, highly probably, Henry Carey, who was
> closely related to Elizabeth, and appointed
> Lord Chamberlain of the Household in 1575
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Carey,_1st_Baron_Hunsdon
> ("a blunt, plain-spoken man with little tact").
>
> Sir Andrew Aguecheek is, of course, Philip
> Sidney, and Malvolio is Christopher Hatton.
There is much in detail in the play that
supports the identification. There are
(it seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia"
that she should marry and have an heir:
VIOLA
'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
If you will lead these graces to the grave
And leave the world no copy.
Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII
took pleasure in clowns. But Elizabeth did
not, and employed none. These attitudes
are played out in the play:
CURIO He is not here, so please your lordship that
should sing it.
DUKE ORSINO Who was it?
CURIO Feste, the jester, my lord; a fool that the
lady Olivia's father took much delight in.
He is about the house.
DUKE ORSINO Seek him out, and play the tune
the while.
However, to return to dating; one courtier,
conspicuous by his absence, is Walter Raleigh.
The play was clearly written before he arrived
on the scene in the late 1570s. Nor is there
any indication of Oxford's financial ruin. We can,
therefore, safely date the play to 1577-78.
Shakespearean studies are barely starting.
Paul.
Peter Groves
news:gnn7ek$s2p$1...@aioe.org...
> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>
> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
Here Crowley parades his Latin erudition. The crucial "O" is, of course,
entirely his own invention; "vivat" is not a second person imperative in any
case, but a third-person subjunctive: "May [he/she] live". But why should
ignorance get in the way of crackpot theorising?
--
Peter G.
sashe...@tiscali.co.uk
> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>
> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>
> Shakespeare seems to have brought the name to
> Tudor England, probably learning of it when he
> was in Italy, in 1575. It subsequently became
> quite popular among the English upper-classes.
Wrong. The name Olive was given to girls in sixteenth century England
and well before 1575. It appears to have been not uncommon. Check out
some genealogical records. I also came across one Olivia Smyth who was
born at Calehill, Kent in 1565, and I found her on what was just a
cursory look. I see no reason to suppose there weren't other Olivias
around at the time. Your theory is yet another fantasy.
SB.
ignoto
Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the Oxfordian
movement. One can only hope you keep performing for many years to come.
Ign.
>
> Paul.
>
ignoto
> On 20 Feb, 21:29, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
>> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
>> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>>
>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>>
>> Shakespeare seems to have brought the name to
>> Tudor England, probably learning of it when he
>> was in Italy, in 1575. It subsequently became
>> quite popular among the English upper-classes.
>
> Wrong.
Well, only 'wrong' from the historian's point of view. He's well within
the ambit of Oxfordian methodology.
ign.
Paul Crowley
>> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
>> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
>> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>>
>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>>
>> Shakespeare seems to have brought the name to
>> Tudor England, probably learning of it when he
>> was in Italy, in 1575. It subsequently became
>> quite popular among the English upper-classes.
>
> Wrong. The name Olive was given to girls in sixteenth
> century England and well before 1575. It appears to have
> been not uncommon. Check out some genealogical records. I
> also came across one Olivia Smyth who was born at
> Calehill, Kent in 1565, and I found her on what was just a
> cursory look. I see no reason to suppose there weren't
> other Olivias around at the time.
You're right about that. On a brief search I did
not find any 'Olivia', and came to the wrong
conclusion. 'Oliver' was common, so there was no
good reason for thinking 'Olive' wouldn't be.
> Your theory is yet another fantasy.
That about the frequency of the name hardly
qualifies as 'a fantasy' -- just a wrong
guess.
I note that, as ever, there is not a word
of substantive criticism on my dating of
"Twelfth Night". If it really was written
when the Strats say -- more than thirty
years later -- then you'd expect Strats to
have some kind of argument. Maybe not
much, but some.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:gnn7ek$s2p$1...@aioe.org...
>> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
>> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
>> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>>
>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>
> Here Crowley parades his Latin erudition.
Groves demonstrates how even a basic
knowledge (here of elementary Latin) is a
serious handicap in the absence of an ability
to think.
> The crucial "O" is, of course, entirely his own
> invention; "vivat" is not a second person imperative
> in any case, but a third-person subjunctive: "May
> [he/she] live".
The shout or cheer: "Long live . . the [ruler]"
is ancient, but has somewhat gone out of fashion.
Even the most ardent supporters don't shout
'Long live Barack Obama', or 'Long live Gordon
Brown'. But it was very common in Tudor
England. We can see this from the canon:
2Henry6
ALL [Kneeling] Long live Queen Margaret, England's happiness!
BOTH Long live our sovereign Richard, England's king!
3Henry6
WARWICK Long live King Henry! Plantagenet embrace him.
All Long live Edward the Fourth!
Cymbeline
First Senator . . . Long live Caesar!
Hamlet
BERNARDO Long live the king!
J. Caesar
ANTONY In your bad strokes, Brutus, you give good words:
Witness the hole you made in Caesar's heart,
Crying 'Long live! hail, Caesar!'
Richard 2
DUKE OF YORK . . And long live Henry, fourth of that name!
Richard 3
BUCKINGHAM Then I salute you with this kingly title:
Long live Richard, England's royal king!
Tempest
SEBASTIAN God save his majesty!
ANTONIO Long live Gonzalo!
Titus Andron.
MARCUS ANDRONICUS Long live Lord Titus, my beloved brother,
Gracious triumpher in the eyes of Rome!
TITUS ANDRONICUS . . .
Crown him and say 'Long live our emperor!'
MARCUS ANDRONICUS With voices and applause of every sort,
Patricians and plebeians, we create
Lord Saturninus Rome's great emperor,
And say 'Long live our Emperor Saturnine!'
I could, I suppose, call the shout of the
populace "a third-person subjunctive":
"May [he/she] live". But then I am not a
pompous arsehole. However, I am sure
that no sensible person would object to its
transcription into "O Live" in the context
of a close personal acquaintance joking
with the monarch.
The Latin "Vivat" is almost irrelevant --
even if it might seem to give pompous
arseholes a bad excuse to sound off in
an ignorant manner. Scholars at the
Universities translated 'Long live' into
'Vivat' when welcoming the Queen.
This was recorded, whereas few bothered
to note the thousands of occasions where
the English version was used by the
common populace.
> But why should ignorance get in the way of
> crackpot theorising?
Note that, as ever, there is not a word
of substantive criticism from the Strat.
If "Twelfth Night" really was written
when the Strats say -- more than thirty
years later -- then you'd expect them to
Paul Crowley
> Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the
> Oxfordian movement. One can only hope you keep
> performing for many years to come.
Note that, as ever, there is not a word
ignoto
Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and, although I am willing to
grant him precocious, this is an age fat too young. From what we know WS
did not start witing for the stage until 1588 or later and then
collaboratively. His first solo work appears to date from the mid-1590s.
So the very earliest date for 12th Night would be 1595 odd, but having
regard to stylistic and developmental factors this too is too early.
The probable date of 12th Night is 1601: The major source for 12th
Night, Barnabe Rich's farewell to the military profession was not
published unto c1580; 'Parismus, the Renowned Prince of Bohemi' a
probable source was not published until 1598; the dialogue between the
clown and sir Toby (2.3.102) is based on a song in Robert Jones Book of
Songs and Ayres, published 1600; allusions to 'sophy' relating to a
visit by Sir Anthony Shirely to the Sophy's court c1598-1601; the clown
remarks 'I might say element, but the word is overworn' refers to
Dekker's Satiromastrix (perf 1601 as a rejoinder to Jonson's poetaster)
where 'out of his element' is treated by Dekker as a pronounced verbal
tick possessed by Jonson; Manningham's diary refers to 12 Night as in
existence by Feb 1602;... and so on and on (see 12th Night, Arden 2).
Ign.
>
> Paul.
Peter Groves
> is"Paul Crowley" <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
> news:gnn7ek$s2p$1...@aioe.org...
>
>>> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
>>> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
>>> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>>>
>>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
>>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>>
>> Here Crowley parades his Latin erudition.
>
> Groves demonstrates how even a basic
> knowledge (here of elementary Latin)
As nothing, of course, in the face of Crowley's masterful erudition. I
would I had bestowed that time in the tongues that I have in fencing,
dancing, and bear-baiting. Oh, had I but followed the arts!
> is a
> serious handicap in the absence of an ability
> to think.
>
>> The crucial "O" is, of course, entirely his own
>> invention;
As Crowley agrees, by offering no objection.
>>"vivat" is not a second person imperative
>> in any case, but a third-person subjunctive: "May
>> [he/she] live".
>
> The shout or cheer: "Long live . . the [ruler]"
> is ancient, but has somewhat gone out of fashion.
> Even the most ardent supporters don't shout
> 'Long live Barack Obama', or 'Long live Gordon
> Brown'. But it was very common in Tudor
> England. We can see this from the canon:
>
> 2Henry6
> ALL [Kneeling] Long live Queen Margaret, England's happiness!
>
What an astonishing revelation -- Crowley should get it published.
>
>
> I could, I suppose, call the shout of the
> populace "a third-person subjunctive":
> "May [he/she] live". But then I am not a
> pompous arsehole.
On the contrary, I would say that describes Crowley rather neatly (though we
should add "ignorant"). I'm willing, BTW, to bet that *every* other reader
of this (if there are any by now) would agree.
I pause for a reply (None, Brutus, none).
> However, I am sure
> that no sensible person would object to its
> transcription into "O Live" in the context
> of a close personal acquaintance joking
> with the monarch.
So let me get this straight:
>>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
>>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
Crowley is claiming as evidence that Elizabeth was associated with olives
the following:
(1) the crowds shouted out "Long live [the queen]",
(2) this can be loosely translated into Latin as "Vivat [regina]"
(3) a thick Irish plonker imagines that this might be translated back into
English as "O live, [Queen!]" (O yeah?)
(4) De Vere, whose Latin was better, nevertheless channels the thick Irish
plonker and come up with "Olivia".
Or am I missing something?
Peter G,
Paul Crowley
>> However, I am sure
>> that no sensible person would object to its
>> transcription into "O Live" in the context
>> of a close personal acquaintance joking
>> with the monarch.
>
> So let me get this straight:
>
>>>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
>>>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>
> Crowley is claiming as evidence that Elizabeth was
> associated with olives the following:
>
> (1) the crowds shouted out "Long live [the queen]",
>
> (2) this can be loosely translated into Latin as
> "Vivat [regina]"
>
> (3) a thick Irish plonker imagines that this might be
> translated back into English as "O live, [Queen!]" (O
> yeah?)
>
> (4) De Vere, whose Latin was better, nevertheless
> channels the thick Irish plonker and come up with
> "Olivia".
>
> Or am I missing something?
I apologise. I confused you by bringing
in one word of Latin -- and one which
had only a trivial and passing relevance.
But it was more than enough to push
you into Pompous-If-Stupid-Academic
mode. Unfortunately this mode is very
easily switched on.
I am claiming:
(A) the crowds shouted out "Long live [the queen]",
(B) De Vere used the phrase "O Live" as an
echo of this routine acclamation, in lines
such as that of Sonnet 107
7. Incertenties now crowne them-selues assur'de,
8. And peace proclaimes Oliues of endlesse age,
This is further a probable source of the
name 'Olivia' in Twelfth Night.
However -- it is an exceedingly minor
argument, and one which I would happily
forget. Much more to the point are the
number of unmarried, rich, Elizabethan
woman, who ran a large households.
One name would be a start.
Maybe also throw in desire (of everyone?)
so ardently expressed by Viola:
'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
If you will lead these graces to the grave
And leave the world no copy.
To what real person would an Elizabethan
have addressed such sentiments?
Is there a Fair Youf in the house?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the
>>> Oxfordian movement. One can only hope you keep
>>> performing for many years to come.
>>
>> Note that, as ever, there is not a word
>> of substantive criticism from the Strat.
>> If "Twelfth Night" really was written
>> when the Strats say -- more than thirty
>> years later -- then you'd expect them to
>> have some kind of argument. Maybe not
>> much, but some.
>
> Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and,
> although I am willing to grant him precocious, this is
> an age fat too young.
It's important to always re-state the fundamentals
of your creed before attempting to deal with the
expression of an heretical opinion. Stratfordians
really need something like "The Lord's Prayer" or
the "Hail Mary".
The second main principle is to quote only your
own 'biblical' sources. Ignore the arguments of
the heretic -- such as his request for the name of
any other unmarried, rich, Elizabethan woman,
who ran a large household.
> The probable date of 12th Night is 1601: The major
> source for 12th Night, Barnabe Rich's farewell to the
> military profession was not published unto c1580;
The poet created quite new and distinct
characters for the roles -- whose models are
unknown to Strats. He had no need for any
further 'sources'.
> 'Parismus, the Renowned Prince of Bohemi' a probable
> source was not published until 1598;
It should be compulsory for any 'scholar' who
claims that X is a source for Y to present
clear evidence for their argument. Strangely
the idea never occurs to Strats.
> the dialogue
> between the clown and sir Toby (2.3.102) is based on a
> song in Robert Jones Book of Songs and Ayres,
> published 1600;
What is the evidence for the claimed similarity?
But, even if it could be shown (most unlikely
IMHO) who is to say which came first?
> allusions to 'sophy' relating to a
> visit by Sir Anthony Shirely to the Sophy's court
> c1598-1601;
Sir Anthony Shirley was not allowed to return
to England after his visit to Persia where, it
seems, he falsely claimed to represent the
English government. Shirley does not seem to
have published anything about his travels,
such that the Stratman (or any in a London
audience) could have learned of them before
1601:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shirley
IF these casual references to 'Sophy' were
about Shirley, then they would have had more
bite. A much better allusion is to the first
significant contacts between the English and
Persian courts, made by made by Anthony
Jenkinson, who had four expeditions to Russia.
In the second of 1561 (and maybe in others)
he went on to Persia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Jenkinson
> the clown remarks 'I might say element,
> but the word is overworn' refers to Dekker's
> Satiromastrix (perf 1601 as a rejoinder to Jonson's
> poetaster) where 'out of his element' is treated by
> Dekker as a pronounced verbal tick possessed by
> Jonson;
There are not the beginnings of an indication of
an allusion to Satiromastic in the clown's
remarks. The one reference I have found (in a
brief search) casts doubt on the assumption that
Dekker was referring to Ben Jonson.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2913434
> Manningham's diary refers to 12 Night as in
> existence by Feb 1602;... and so on and on (see 12th
> Night, Arden 2).
How is that relevant? Even IF the 'diary' is
to be trusted, Manningham did not know when
the play was written.
Paul.
ignoto
"It should be compulsory for any 'scholar' who claims that X is a source
for Y to present clear evidence for their argument."
Of course you cannot produce 'clear evidence' because an 'argument' from
personal similarity is indeterminate. There are any number of people
that could be 'represented' as characters in 12th Night - those who you
think are there are merely arbitrary selections chosen solely to
underprop your delusions.
Nor is there any evidence that Shakespeare's plays were
psychobiographical in any meanignful sense.
>> 'Parismus, the Renowned Prince of Bohemi' a probable
>> source was not published until 1598;
>
> It should be compulsory for any 'scholar' who
> claims that X is a source for Y to present
> clear evidence for their argument. Strangely
> the idea never occurs to Strats.
hahahaha, o the irony. This coming from someone who dates 12th Night
prior to 1578 because 'Raleigh is not on the scene' -without having even
established (a) the plays are (uniquely) isomorphic presentations of
reality (b) Oxenford had anything to do with their composition (c)
ignoring all the evidence that WS was the author.
>
>> the dialogue
>> between the clown and sir Toby (2.3.102) is based on a
>> song in Robert Jones Book of Songs and Ayres,
>> published 1600;
>
> What is the evidence for the claimed similarity?
> But, even if it could be shown (most unlikely
> IMHO) who is to say which came first?
So, without even reviewing the evidence you have managed to conclucde it
could not be true; or that if it is true it must be because Shakespeare
copied Jones. This merely displays how far you are gone in the thrall of
your own facile delusion.
I believe the title pages (which is always a good place to start) says
'composed by' Robert Jones. There is no good reason to think this is not
the case.
>
>> allusions to 'sophy' relating to a
>> visit by Sir Anthony Shirely to the Sophy's court
>> c1598-1601;
>
> Sir Anthony Shirley was not allowed to return
> to England after his visit to Persia where, it
> seems, he falsely claimed to represent the
> English government. Shirley does not seem to
> have published anything about his travels,
> such that the Stratman (or any in a London
> audience) could have learned of them before
> 1601:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shirley
A True Report of Sir Anthonie Shierlies Journey (1600)
A New and large Discourse of the Trvales of Sir Anthony Shirley (1601)
> IF these casual references to 'Sophy' were
> about Shirley, then they would have had more
> bite. A much better allusion
By 'much better' one can take it to mean only 'some thing you have
found, by desperate search, in order that your fragile delusion should
be underpropped'
> is to the first
> significant contacts between the English and
> Persian courts, made by made by Anthony
> Jenkinson, who had four expeditions to Russia.
> In the second of 1561 (and maybe in others)
> he went on to Persia.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Jenkinson
In fact there is a cluster of topical references to exploration dating
from the period 1590s-1601. See: Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" -
Topicality as a Problem By Peter Grube
>> the clown remarks 'I might say element,
>> but the word is overworn' refers to Dekker's
>> Satiromastrix (perf 1601 as a rejoinder to Jonson's
>> poetaster) where 'out of his element' is treated by
>> Dekker as a pronounced verbal tick possessed by
>> Jonson;
>
> There are not the beginnings of an indication of
> an allusion to Satiromastic in the clown's
> remarks. The one reference I have found (in a
> brief search) casts doubt on the assumption that
> Dekker was referring to Ben Jonson.
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/2913434
Note the authors says:
"in light of the occurences of this expression in other dramas of the time"
So, it *still* dates the play to that period.
Of course, we should note that this article is produced by you not for
the skill and clarity of its critical exposition (no measure has been
made of its reliability), but only because it supports your 'argument'.
>
>> Manningham's diary refers to 12 Night as in
>> existence by Feb 1602;... and so on and on (see 12th
>> Night, Arden 2).
>
> How is that relevant? Even IF the 'diary' is
> to be trusted, Manningham did not know when
> the play was written.
Because the play had to be written by the date he mentions seeing it.
Ign.
>
>
> Paul.
>
ignoto
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>> ignoto wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the
>>>>> Oxfordian movement. One can only hope you keep
>>>>> performing for many years to come.
>>>> Note that, as ever, there is not a word
>>>> of substantive criticism from the Strat.
>>>> If "Twelfth Night" really was written
>>>> when the Strats say -- more than thirty
>>>> years later -- then you'd expect them to
>>>> have some kind of argument. Maybe not
>>>> much, but some.
>>> Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and,
>>> although I am willing to grant him precocious, this is
>>> an age fat too young.
>>
>> It's important to always re-state the fundamentals
>> of your creed before attempting to deal with the
>> expression of an heretical opinion.
Anti-stratfordian 'opinions' are of the type condemned by Socrates -
uninformed and unexamined: prejudice parading as knowledge.
> Stratfordians
>> really need something like "The Lord's Prayer" or
>> the "Hail Mary".
>>
>> The second main principle is to quote only your
>> own 'biblical' sources.
Oxfordian 'scholars' are notoriously unreliable, typically unable to
distinguish their own fabrications from fact or even literary theory
from historical methodology.
Orthodoxy on the other hand goes back 400 years to *primary documents*
(of which oxfordians can only dream) and includes a huge repository of
critical secondary literature (objectively critical as opposed to the
sad subjective delusions of anti-stratfordians) that has examined WS,
his contemporaries and his period of history from almost every
conceivable angle.
>> Ignore the arguments of
>> the heretic -- such as his request for the name of
>> any other unmarried, rich, Elizabethan woman,
>> who ran a large household.
"Women sometimes had the responsibility of running large estates, due to
the death of a husband (widows were permitted to hold land, and a woman
with a lot of land was just as powerful and influential as a man with
the same property). They settled local disputes and arranged estate
finances. They even took equal responsibility in defending castles or
manors from invaders.
Unmarried women holding lands were powerful and had the same rights as men."
http://www.medieval-period.com/medievalwomen.html
Ign.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> ignoto wrote:
> >>> Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the
> >>> Oxfordian movement. One can only hope you keep
> >>> performing for many years to come.
>
> >> Note that, as ever, there is not a word
> >> of substantive criticism from the Strat.
> >> If "Twelfth Night" really was written
> >> when the Strats say -- more than thirty
> >> years later -- then you'd expect them to
> >> have some kind of argument. Maybe not
> >> much, but some.
Ah, you deny that Ignoto presented arguments (however laughably poor)
for his position?
> > Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and,
> > although I am willing to grant him precocious, this is
> > an age far too young.
>
> It's important to always re-state the fundamentals
> of your creed before attempting to deal with the
> expression of an heretical opinion. Stratfordians
> really need something like "The Lord's Prayer" or
> the "Hail Mary".
> The second main principle is to quote only your
> own 'biblical' sources.
Ah, all the texts published circa 1590--1623 with Shakespeare's name
on the title pages are "biblical texts?" He date of birth in the
church records is a "biblical record?"
> Ignore the arguments of
> the heretic -- such as his request for the name of
> any other unmarried, rich, Elizabethan woman,
> who ran a large household.
I didn't ignore it. Your argument is inane because:
(1) there had to have been other unmarried rich Elizabethan women--or,
if not, women close enough.
(2) the author of Twelfth Night had an imagination; therefor the could
have written the play with NO MODEL in mind for Olivia.
(3) Or he could have based her on a MARRIED woman, but used his
imagination (however difficult it would surely have been for him) to
make her unmarried in his play (as he gave her a resolution not avoid
men while mourning for a dead brother, which you say your auther used
his imagination to do).
(4) It's absurd for you to believe anyone would have time to pore over
the relevant records of Shakespeare's female contemporaries to find
what you are asking for, if it exists, or that all relevant records
could possibly be available.
(5) the is more than sufficient evidence to establish the author of
the play as too young to have written it when you say he did.
> > The probable date of 12th Night is 1601: The major
> > source for 12th Night, Barnabe Rich's farewell to the
> > military profession was not published unto c1580;
>
> The poet created quite new and distinct
> characters for the roles -- whose models are
> unknown to Strats. He had no need for any
> further 'sources'.
>
> > 'Parismus, the Renowned Prince of Bohemi' a probable
> > source was not published until 1598;
>
> It should be compulsory for any 'scholar' who
> claims that X is a source for Y to present
> clear evidence for their argument. Strangely
> the idea never occurs to Strats.
Why don't you do the same for your argument?
> > the dialogue
> > between the clown and sir Toby (2.3.102) is based on a
> > song in Robert Jones Book of Songs and Ayres,
> > published 1600;
>
> What is the evidence for the claimed similarity?
> But, even if it could be shown (most unlikely
> IMHO) who is to say which came first?
That it MAY have come after the play does not make it non-evidence,
Paul.
> > allusions to 'sophy' relating to a
> > visit by Sir Anthony Shirely to the Sophy's court
> > c1598-1601;
>
> Sir Anthony Shirley was not allowed to return
> to England after his visit to Persia where, it
> seems, he falsely claimed to represent the
> English government. Shirley does not seem to
> have published anything about his travels,
> such that the Stratman (or any in a London
> audience) could have learned of them before
> 1601:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shirley
Right. We need a publication or we have to drop our argument.
However, you need nothing in print about Elizabeth considering herself
to be Athena or considering the olive important to her, etc.
> IF these casual references to 'Sophy' were
> about Shirley, then they would have had more
> bite. A much better allusion is to the first
> significant contacts between the English and
> Persian courts, made by made by Anthony
> Jenkinson, who had four expeditions to Russia.
> In the second of 1561 (and maybe in others)
> he went on to Persia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Jenkinson
>
> > the clown remarks 'I might say element,
> > but the word is overworn' refers to Dekker's
> > Satiromastrix (perf 1601 as a rejoinder to Jonson's
> > poetaster) where 'out of his element' is treated by
> > Dekker as a pronounced verbal tick possessed by
> > Jonson;
>
> There are not the beginnings of an indication of
> an allusion to Satiromastic in the clown's
> remarks. The one reference I have found (in a
> brief search) casts doubt on the assumption that
> Dekker was referring to Ben Jonson.http://www.jstor.org/pss/2913434
>
> > Manningham's diary refers to 12 Night as in
> > existence by Feb 1602;... and so on and on (see 12th
> > Night, Arden 2).
>
> How is that relevant? Even IF the 'diary' is
> to be trusted, Manningham did not know when
> the play was written.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
You are just saying that allusions you subjectively decree to be
present count, whereas ours don't. The sane investigator would take
all such allusions as possible--and turn to solider evidence, such as
references in print to performances, dates of publication, probable
author's age, probable place of the text in the evolution of
literature, and of its style in the evolution of its author's style.
Okay, the last two are subjective, too.
The play, by the way, is extremely Jonsonian--as though its author was
inspired by Jonson to do what Jonson had done so well--but improve on
it, especially with superior poetry and superior empathy for his
characters. But you assume Jonson was influenced by Oxford. Why, for
one thing, did it then take Jonson so long to make his best comedies
of this type?
You know, maybe you are a Benevolent Insect, Paul--knowingly
bombarding us with insanities simply to push us into thinking about
things we might not otherwise have thought about, or thought about as
thoroughly--as now, I am forced to think more about the influence of
Jonson on Shakespeare. And about how a nation's literature evolves.
(Amusingly, you are the creationist concerning England's literature:
you don't think it evolved, you think Oxford created it.)
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
> There is much in detail in the play that
> supports the identification. There are
> (it seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia"
> that she should marry and have an heir:
>
> VIOLA
> 'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> And leave the world no copy.
Take any item that has puzzled the 'scholars'
about this play, and you will probably be
able to find an Oxfordian explanation.
One example (from the Variorem edition
of H.H. Furness of 1901) can be seen at
http://tinyurl.com/dbjlxs
where Furness discusses the portrait
mentioned in Twelfth Night:
Sir Toby:
"Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like to take
dust, like mistris Mals picture? Why dost thou not goe
to Church in a Galliard, and come home in a Carranto?
My verie walke should be a Iigge: I would not so much
as make water but in a Sinke-a-pace: What dooest thou
meane? Is it a world to hide vertues in? I did thinke by
the excellent constitution of thy legge, it was form'd vn-
der the starre of a Galliard."
Furness's book is also interesting as an
example of how Shakespearean studies USED
TO BE (over 100 years ago) relatively
intelligent and rational. He discusses
the presence of this portrait (of "mistress
Mal") in Olivia's house. One of the minor
problems of Victorian scholars was that
they relied on edited versions, where the
name is shown as "Mistress Mall" -- which
they usually take as a version of
"Mistress Moll", where 'Moll' = 'Mary'.
Some of the scholars he mentions suggest
that it is of Mary Fitton -- based on a
belief that the play dated from well into
the 17th century. In any case, there is
much puzzlement why the Lady Olivia
should have a portrait of some apparently
low-status female, which is disregarded
and spoken of with little respect.
The answer is quite clear -- when the play
is seen in its proper context.
Anyone want to try to work it out?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> ignoto wrote:
>>>>> Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the
>>>>> Oxfordian movement. One can only hope you keep
>>>>> performing for many years to come.
>>>>
>>>> Note that, as ever, there is not a word
>>>> of substantive criticism from the Strat.
>>>> If "Twelfth Night" really was written
>>>> when the Strats say -- more than thirty
>>>> years later -- then you'd expect them to
>>>> have some kind of argument. Maybe not
>>>> much, but some.
>
> Ah, you deny that Ignoto presented arguments
> (however laughably poor) for his position?
If you call Nigel's two sentences (seen above)
'arguments', then you could say that he has
presented some. (You might. I wouldn't.)
>>> Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and,
>>> although I am willing to grant him precocious, this is
>>> an age far too young.
>>
>> It's important to always re-state the fundamentals
>> of your creed before attempting to deal with the
>> expression of an heretical opinion. Stratfordians
>> really need something like "The Lord's Prayer" or
>> the "Hail Mary".
>>
>> The second main principle is to quote only your
>> own 'biblical' sources.
>
> Ah, all the texts published circa 1590--1623 with
> Shakespeare's name on the title pages are "biblical
> texts?" He date of birth in the church records is a
> "biblical record?"
Yet again, you miss the point of my analogy.
Creationists (and geo-centrists) rely on
statements in the Bible as arguments against
Evolution and Copernican theories. To quote
them again and again and again, and ignore
the science, or refuse to look through a
telescope, is to present 'biblical' arguments.
Strats rely on the Stratman's birth certificate,
and his supposed name on the canonical works.
Anti-Strats never deny them -- but Strats
think that by invoking these sacred memories
and these holy texts, they somehow 'win'
their case.
>> Ignore the arguments of
>> the heretic -- such as his request for the name of
>> any other unmarried, rich, Elizabethan woman,
>> who ran a large household.
>
> I didn't ignore it. Your argument is inane because:
>
> (1) there had to have been other unmarried rich
> Elizabethan women--or, if not, women close enough.
Your understanding of Early Modern society
is sadly deficient. But, hey, you're a Strat,
and no one would expect anything better.
> (2) the author of Twelfth Night had an imagination;
> therefor the could have written the play with NO
> MODEL in mind for Olivia.
Yeah, yeah. Curiously, as you know there was
ONE real model. But, of course, to you that
must be just a pure coincidence.
> (4) It's absurd for you to believe anyone would have
> time to pore over the relevant records of
> Shakespeare's female contemporaries to find what you
> are asking for, if it exists, or that all relevant
> records could possibly be available.
Sheer nonsense. A real woman in Olivia
position would have been highly attractive
as a marriage prospect. She was clearly
noble. (Her father employed clowns. That
was virtually unknown outside royalty.)
Such a person would be prominent in the
record.
> (5) the is more than sufficient evidence to
> establish the author of the play as too young to
> have written it when you say he did.
Yeah, yeah. God is great. Allah Akbar.
[..]
>> How is that relevant? Even IF the 'diary' is
>> to be trusted, Manningham did not know when
>> the play was written.
>
> You are just saying that allusions you subjectively
> decree to be present count, whereas ours don't.
I am saying no such thing. Maybe (MAYBE)
Manningham saw the play. So what? That
does not stop it being written 32 years
earlier. Have you seen plays written
before 1976?
[..]
> And about how a nation's literature evolves.
> (Amusingly, you are the creationist concerning
> England's literature: you don't think it evolved,
> you think Oxford created it.)
This is not evolution. Culture can rapidly go
into decline. Up to about 1600, all European
culture was produced for, and supported by, the
aristocracy. In most fields that continued
for another few centuries, but, with printing,
literature became readily available to the
ignorant masses. It could only go into decline.
It almost had to start again, with the crudest
of works and a most limited sensibility. One
result was that Shakespeare's own works had to
be read as though produced by a thoroughly
ignorant person for a thoroughly ignorant
audience. Nothing a lot has changed since,
although in recent decades the tribes of
ghastly academics have set the ignorance in
concrete.
Paul.
ignoto
Absoolute nonsense.
Oxfordianism is an attack on the *methodology* of literary history,
disregarding, as it does, primary documents and historical testimony in
favour of imaginery conspirarcies and created histories.
The proper anaology here is that of scientific observation and
experiment (orthodoxy) as against astrology or phrenology (oxfordianism).
Do let me know when oxfordian psychobiography, a fallacious literary
theory, has taken the place of literary history.
>>> Ignore the arguments of
>>> the heretic -- such as his request for the name of
>>> any other unmarried, rich, Elizabethan woman,
>>> who ran a large household.
>> I didn't ignore it. Your argument is inane because:
>>
>> (1) there had to have been other unmarried rich
>> Elizabethan women--or, if not, women close enough.
>
> Your understanding of Early Modern society
> is sadly deficient. But, hey, you're a Strat,
> and no one would expect anything better.
Yes, Bob, *do* learn to make better use of your imagination. In this
brave new world fact and testimony count for naught; what counts is a
capacity to render the world consistent one's favorite delusions.
>
>> (2) the author of Twelfth Night had an imagination;
>> therefor the could have written the play with NO
>> MODEL in mind for Olivia.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Curiously, as you know there was
> ONE real model. But, of course, to you that
> must be just a pure coincidence.
Apparently Crowley believes in telepathy.
>
>> (4) It's absurd for you to believe anyone would have
>> time to pore over the relevant records of
>> Shakespeare's female contemporaries to find what you
>> are asking for, if it exists, or that all relevant
>> records could possibly be available.
>
> Sheer nonsense. A real woman in Olivia
> position would have been highly attractive
> as a marriage prospect. She was clearly
> noble. (Her father employed clowns. That
> was virtually unknown outside royalty.)
> Such a person would be prominent in the
> record.
So, rather than YOU checking to see if your delusions accord with
history you leave it to other's to discover. So much for a scientific
mindset. Not that it would help if you did go looking, for whatsoever
you discovered would be polluted by your hopeless delusion of what
counts as 'evidence'.
O, and you *still* have not offered any rational justification for the
claim that shakespeare's plays are a (uniquely) isomorphic
representation of reality - yet you continue to use this *assumption* as
if it were a scientific fact.
>
>> (5) the is more than sufficient evidence to
>> establish the author of the play as too young to
>> have written it when you say he did.
>
> Yeah, yeah. God is great. Allah Akbar.
Yes, why believe in history when you can live in a fantasy world.
Complete codswallop. Do try reading some history books.
Ign.
>
>
> Paul.
>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> ignoto wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, you are plainly the great fool and jester of the
> >>>>> Oxfordian movement. One can only hope you keep
> >>>>> performing for many years to come.
>
> >>>> Note that, as ever, there is not a word
> >>>> of substantive criticism from the Strat.
> >>>> If "Twelfth Night" really was written
> >>>> when the Strats say -- more than thirty
> >>>> years later -- then you'd expect them to
> >>>> have some kind of argument. Maybe not
> >>>> much, but some.
>
> > Ah, you deny that Ignoto presented arguments
> > (however laughably poor) for his position?
>
> If you call Nigel's two sentences (seen above)
> 'arguments', then you could say that he has
> presented some. (You might. I wouldn't.)
Actually, Paul, I was referring to all the evidence Nigel presented in
support of his contention that Twelfth Night was written around 1600,
not when you think it was.
> >>> Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and,
> >>> although I am willing to grant him precocious, this is
> >>> an age far too young.
>
> >> It's important to always re-state the fundamentals
> >> of your creed before attempting to deal with the
> >> expression of an heretical opinion. Stratfordians
> >> really need something like "The Lord's Prayer" or
> >> the "Hail Mary".
>
> >> The second main principle is to quote only your
> >> own 'biblical' sources.
>
> > Ah, all the texts published circa 1590--1623 with
> > Shakespeare's name on the title pages are "biblical
> > texts?" HIS date of birth in the church records is a
> > "biblical record?"
>
> Yet again, you miss the point of my analogy.
> Creationists (and geo-centrists) rely on
> statements in the Bible as arguments against
> Evolution and Copernican theories. To quote
> them again and again and again, and ignore
> the science, or refuse to look through a
> telescope, is to present 'biblical' arguments.
> Strats rely on the Stratman's birth certificate,
> and his supposed name on the canonical works.
Which are pieces of direct, primary evidence, NOT--as you claim--
biblical texts.
> Anti-Strats never deny them -- but Strats
> think that by invoking these sacred memories
> and these holy texts, they somehow 'win'
> their case.
No, Paul, what we think is that we present very good evidence for our
case.
> >> Ignore the arguments of
> >> the heretic -- such as his request for the name of
> >> any other unmarried, rich, Elizabethan woman,
> >> who ran a large household.
>
> > I didn't ignore it. Your argument is inSane because:
>
> > (1) there had to have been other unmarried rich
> > Elizabethan women--or, if not, women close enough.
>
> Your understanding of Early Modern society
> is sadly deficient. But, hey, you're a Strat,
> and no one would expect anything better.
Nigel presented evidence for this. Your assertion that he, I and the
one he cited are wrong somehow is unconvincing, in spite of your
widely praised accomplishments as a historian.
> > (2) the author of Twelfth Night had an imagination;
> > therefor the could have written the play with NO
> > MODEL in mind for Olivia.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Curiously, as you know there was
> ONE real model.
I know no such thing, Paul
>
> > (4) It's absurd for you to believe anyone would have
> > time to pore over the relevant records of
> > Shakespeare's female contemporaries to find what you
> > are asking for, if it exists, or that all relevant
> > records could possibly be available.
>
> Sheer nonsense. A real woman in Olivia's
> position would have been highly attractive
> as a marriage prospect. She was clearly
> noble. (Her father employed clowns. That
> was virtually unknown outside royalty.)
> Such a person would be prominent in the
> record.
Ah, so there was not a single single woman in England (or elsewhere)
running a household. No young noblewoman who had become widowed. Or
any rich non-noble woman with property. I guess I have to accept that
if you say so, but it seems odd to me.
By the way, Olivia was Italian. Elizabeth wasn't. As for clowns,
guess what, Paul: comedies then had clowns.
> > (5) theRE is more than sufficient evidence to
> > establish the author of the play as too young to
> > have written it when you say he did.
>
> Yeah, yeah. God is great. Allah Akbar.
This isn't biblical quotation, Paul. It relies on direct evidence.
> [..]
>
> >> How is that relevant? Even IF the 'diary' is
> >> to be trusted, Manningham did not know when
> >> the play was written.
>
> > You are just saying that allusions you subjectively
> > decree to be present count, whereas ours don't.
>
> I am saying no such thing. Maybe (MAYBE)
> Manningham saw the play.
He names it, and describes the Malvolio plot very accurately, It's
absurd to claim he did not see Twelffh Night.
>So what? That
> does not stop it being written 32 years
> earlier. Have you seen plays written
> before 1976?
> [..]
Ah, it could indeed have been written 32 years earlier. So we can--
what? Throw out the testimony of Manningham as irrelevant? The
problem with that is that we then have to explain several things.
Why, for instance, did no one mention this now highly esteemed play
until Manningham did? Why was it apparently new to Manningham, who
saw a lot of plays? Why does it fit into the evolution of English
plays according to almost all the authorities?
>
> > And about how a nation's literature evolves.
> > (Amusingly, you are the creationist concerning
> > England's literature: you don't think it evolved,
> > you think Oxford created it.)
>
> This is not evolution. Culture can rapidly go
> into decline.
Evolution isn't nothing but improvements. But my point is that, as I
said, you believe Oxford created Elizabethan poetry and drama while my
side believes it evolved and that poems and plays by others preceded
and led to Shakespeare's. You are therefore a literary creationist:
your God did everything. We are Darwinians who believe in several
species leading to a new species that included Shakespeare, Spencer,
Lyly, Marlowe and Jonson.
> Up to about 1600, all European
> culture was produced for, and supported by, the
> aristocracy.
Not so. Haven't you ever heard of folk art? What about church art?
What about plays put on by trade guilds?
The Theatre was constructed in 1576. Prior to that, inns were used
for plays put on for the general public.
> In most fields that continued
> for another few centuries, but, with printing,
> literature became readily available to the
> ignorant masses. It could only go into decline.
> It almost had to start again, with the crudest
> of works and a most limited sensibility. One
> result was that Shakespeare's own works had to
> be read as though produced by a thoroughly
> ignorant person for a thoroughly ignorant
> audience. Nothing a lot has changed since,
> although in recent decades the tribes of
> ghastly academics have set the ignorance in
> concrete.
Why do you not write a book explaining all this to everyone? You can
cheaply publish it on the Internet. Don't you feel you owe it to the
world to enlighten them?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>> If you call Nigel's two sentences (seen above)
>> 'arguments', then you could say that he has
>> presented some. (You might. I wouldn't.)
>
> Actually, Paul, I was referring to all the evidence
> Nigel presented in support of his contention that
> Twelfth Night was written around 1600, not when you
> think it was.
His 'evidence' consists of (a) re-affirmations
of his faith in the Stratman as Bard, and
(b) various utterly useless academics
expressing opinions agreeing with each other.
As you can see here:
>>>>> Shakespeare was only 13-14 in 1577-1578 - and,
>>>>> although I am willing to grant him precocious,
>> Yet again, you miss the point of my analogy.
>> Creationists (and geo-centrists) rely on
>> statements in the Bible as arguments against
>> Evolution and Copernican theories. To quote
>> them again and again and again, and ignore
>> the science, or refuse to look through a
>> telescope, is to present 'biblical' arguments.
>> Strats rely on the Stratman's birth certificate,
>> and his supposed name on the canonical works.
>
> Which are pieces of direct, primary evidence, NOT--as
> you claim--biblical texts.
The question is how they are invoked.
When the same idiotic item is brought up
dozens or hundreds of times -- as though
it had never been contested or argued
against, when it fact it has on numerous
occasions -- then it is a prayer, and
NOT an argument. Your invocation of your
(imaginary) 'prick' in Sonnet 20 and
your endless recitations of 'maiden
gardens' are of exactly the same nature.
No matter how many times I point out the
defects in these items, you still regard
such phrases as your uncontested and
incontestable trump cards.
>>> (1) there had to have been other unmarried rich
>>> Elizabethan women--or, if not, women close enough.
>>
>> Your understanding of Early Modern society
>> is sadly deficient. But, hey, you're a Strat,
>> and no one would expect anything better.
>
> Nigel presented evidence for this.
He presented nothing -- other than some
unattributable quote he literally "found
on the internet".
>> Sheer nonsense. A real woman in Olivia's
>> position would have been highly attractive
>> as a marriage prospect. She was clearly
>> noble. (Her father employed clowns. That
>> was virtually unknown outside royalty.)
>> Such a person would be prominent in the
>> record.
>
> Ah, so there was not a single single woman in England
> (or elsewhere) running a household.
She has to own it. She has to be rich
in her own name. In the play Olivia
inherited the property from her father,
through her brother.
> No young noblewoman who had become widowed.
There were plenty of rich noble widows.
Bess of Hardwick is one of the most famous.
BUT we are NOT talking about widows,
but about never-married single women.
> Or any rich non-noble woman with property. I guess I
> have to accept that if you say so, but it seems odd to
> me.
Early Modern society often seems odd to
us -- especially as regards the position
of women. Clearly there _must_ have been
plenty of wealthy fathers who, on their
deaths, had only one living child, who
was sometimes female. The Stratman, for
example, died leaving two daughters. But
both of his were married, and their property
became that of their husbands. If a sole
daughter was single, presumably the property
was placed in care of another -- and male --
relative, or was otherwise 'protected'.
> By the way, Olivia was Italian. Elizabeth wasn't.
Sure, and her name was 'Olivia', whereas that
of Elizabeth's was 'Elizabeth'. Therefore,
one cannot possibly have been a representation
of the other. QED.
> As for clowns, guess what, Paul: comedies then had
> clowns.
There was no need for the remark that her
father had clowns, whereas she didn't.
[..]
>> I am saying no such thing. Maybe (MAYBE)
>> Manningham saw the play.
>
> He names it, and describes the Malvolio plot very
> accurately, It's absurd to claim he did not see
> Twelffh Night.
The diary was 'found' by John Payne Collier.
It is hard to trust any of it.
> The problem with that is that we then have to explain
> several things. Why, for instance, did no one mention
> this now highly esteemed play until Manningham did?
Why should they? Do we know what plays
were written and produced for (say) the French
court of Francis I, or that of Henri III?
No one mentioned "All's Well" until it
appeared in the First Folio.
> Why was it apparently new to Manningham, who saw a lot
> of plays?
Why should Manningham have heard of it
before? Or know its performance history?
Would you have expected detailed programme
notes?
> Why does it fit into the evolution of
> English plays according to almost all the authorities?
If they were told that come classical Greek
tragedy (say, 'Antigone') was written around
1600, they'd have no difficulty 'fitting it in'.
Paul.
ignoto
"The one area in which English singlewomen [in early modern England]
seem to have benefited compared to their contintental counterparts was
the law. English common law divided women into femes soles and femes
converts, women alone and women covered by their husbands' legal
identity. As femes soles, English singlewomen enjoyed certain legal
rights and the ability to represent themsevles once they were of age...
The ability to make one's own legal and economic decisions may have
contributed to the number of English singlewomen, making marriage less
appealing to a never-married woman who controlled her own business or
property. Singlewomen were also able to bequeath their wealth to
whomever they chose because of the individual nature of English property
rights."
'Never Married' By Amy M. Froide at 220
Ign.
ignoto
O, and just to clarify the truly independent nature of these women:
"[Middling single women] played an important role in urban communities
as property holders, as private and public creditors, as householders,
as tax- and ratepayers, and as philanthropists". Never Married By Amy M.
Froide Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 at 117
Preview:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=WTJFRXON_L8C&client=firefox-a
Review:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11839
Ign.
[snip]
Paul Crowley
>> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
>> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
>> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
> One example (from the Variorem edition
> of H.H. Furness of 1901) can be seen at
> http://tinyurl.com/dbjlxs
> where Furness discusses the portrait
> mentioned in Twelfth Night:
>
> Sir Toby:
> "Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
> these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like to take
> dust, like mistris Mals picture? Why dost thou not goe
> to Church in a Galliard, and come home in a Carranto?
> My verie walke should be a Iigge: I would not so much
> as make water but in a Sinke-a-pace: What dooest thou
> meane? Is it a world to hide vertues in? I did thinke by
> the excellent constitution of thy legge, it was form'd vn-
> der the starre of a Galliard."
>
> Furness . . . discusses
> the presence of this portrait (of "mistress
> Mal") in Olivia's house. [..]
>
> Some of the scholars he mentions suggest
> that it is of Mary Fitton -- based on a
> belief that the play dated from well into
> the 17th century. In any case, there is
> much puzzlement why the Lady Olivia
> should have a portrait of some apparently
> low-status female, which is disregarded
> and spoken of with little respect.
>
> The answer is quite clear -- when the play
> is seen in its proper context.
>
> Anyone want to try to work it out?
No one did -- of course. When revolutions
in knowledge happen, those in the wrong
side simply cannot cope with the idea-
systems of the new -- even after they have
accepted its full validity.
The answer here is that the portrait was
that of Mary, QS. It still hung in the
Royal apartments, but it was an object of
contempt. It seems to have been allowed
to gather dust. That is, the cleaning
staff avoided it, and they were not
instructed that they should clean it.
It is called (in the play) "mistris Mals
picture". The 'Mal' is meant to echo
'Moll' (i.e. 'Mary') but mainly it is the
word for 'evil'. ('Honi soit qui mal y
pense').
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> Early Modern society often seems odd to
>> us -- especially as regards the position
>> of women. Clearly there _must_ have been
>> plenty of wealthy fathers who, on their
>> deaths, had only one living child, who
>> was sometimes female. The Stratman, for
>> example, died leaving two daughters. But
>> both of his were married, and their property
>> became that of their husbands. If a sole
>> daughter was single, presumably the property
>> was placed in care of another -- and male --
>> relative, or was otherwise 'protected'.
>
> "The one area in which English singlewomen [in early
> modern England] seem to have benefited compared to
> their contintental counterparts was the law.
[..]
> 'Never Married' By Amy M. Froide at 220
The law (or custom or whatever) also
barred women from every office in the
land. They were not allowed into
universities, not elected to Parliament,
had no vote of any kind, could enter no
professions, and could not be members of
guilds.
Whatever the law may have said about property,
females were not left it by their father,
except on very rare occasions. That is why
you can find no mention of any rich unmarried
woman -- with the striking exception of the
monarch herself. Whereas, it is very easy to
find rich young men -- the two Stratfordian
candidates for the 'Fair Youf' qualify:
Southampton and Pembroke.
Btw, I see in Manningham's diary (page 14,
para 18) that he saw a skull, where he was
shown "the seame in the middle over the head
that was the place which the midwife useth
shutt in women children before the wit can
enter, and that is a reason that women by
such fooles ever after"
Paul.
Peter Groves
news:J9ednYX4fcW5Rj7U...@netspace.net.au...
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but since this contradicts Crowley it
must be a pack of lies based on forged documents (it's easy to fool those
ghastly academics).
Petert G.
Dominic Hughes
Just out of curiosity, could you supply a citation to the evidence
that supports the claim that a portrait of Mary QS "still hung in the
Royal apartments, but it was an object of contempt"?
> It seems to have been allowed
> to gather dust. That is, the cleaning
> staff avoided it, and they were not
> instructed that they should clean it.
Could you supply a citation to the evidence that supports the claim
that the cleaning staff avoided the portrait, "and they were not
instructed that they should clean it."
Dom
sashe...@tiscali.co.uk
Virtually unknown? In his play 'The Woman Captain' of 1680, Thomas
Shadwell had a character say: "I'll keep no Fool, 'tis out of fashion
for great Men to keep Fools." In a sermon given on his 80th birthday,
Bishop Joseph Hall told an anecdote which began: "There was a certain
lord who kept a fool in his house. as many great lords did in those
days, for their amusement.......". Joseph Hall was born in 1574, so
'those days' were within his living memory.
Grantley FitzHardinge Berkeley writing in 1865 about his ancestral
home, Berkeley Castle, said that: "Such persons [i.e. fools] were
members of every nobleman's household, but got out of fashion and were
discontinued in the seventeenth century. The last of them, called
Dickey Pierce, was kept by Lord Suffolk, but often lent to Lord
Berkeley. He died at Berkeley, and was buried in the churchyard [in
1728]." G.H. Berkeley also mentions another 'fool' who was at the
Castle in 1620.
John Whitgift certainly had a 'fool' in the 1590s. Will Kempe was at
one time employed by the Earl of Leicester and was referred to as
"Will, my Lord of Lester's jesting player" by Sir Philip Sidney, I
believe. The 16th century account books of the Earls of Derby mention
a 'Henry the Fool' in their household. I expect other noble families
employed clowns or 'fools', too. I would therefore say that it was not
'virtually unknown' to do so.
SB.
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> 'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> And leave the world no copy.
>
> To what real person would an Elizabethan
> have addressed such sentiments?
>
> Is there a Fair Youf in the house?
>
Paul, you should understand that not everyone in Elizabethan would
have been as insanely obsessed with Elizabeth as you are. Two or
three male poets, at least, might have been thinking of some other
woman than their queen when writing lines like those you quote. It is
pretty well established, for instance, that the subject of Sidney's
famous sonnet sequence was not his queen, unbelievable as it may
seem.
--Bob G.
sashe...@tiscali.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I would like to know all that, given that Mr.Crowley believes
that the play was written in the late 1570s. I would also like to know
which specific portrait of Mary he thinks this is so that we can check
its provenance.
SB.
ignoto
I'm not sure how 'contesting' or 'arguing against' something makes it
invalid as an argument. If you had an argument that showed that
Shakespeare was not born in 1564 in Stratford then, and only then could
you complain about its repeated use. You *have not* produced such an
argument, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to use it for a relevant
purpose.
Of course you might *think* you have demolished the Stratfordian
'paradigm', but all this shows is that you really don't know what on
earth you are talking about.
Ign.
Paul Crowley
>> The answer here is that the portrait was
>> that of Mary, QS. It still hung in the
>> Royal apartments, but it was an object of
>> contempt.
>
> Just out of curiosity, could you supply a citation
> to the evidence that supports the claim that a
> portrait of Mary QS "still hung in the Royal
> apartments, but it was an object of contempt"?
Mary had sent the portrait from France in 1560,
while she was still also Queen of France.
"We know what Mary looked like at this time, because she was first drawn
and then painted in her 'deuil blanc'. The drawing is the work of
François Clouet, who also perhaps did the accompanying panel portrait.
The sittings were completed in or around August 1560, when Throckmorton
met Mary at Fontainebleau and the period of official court mourning for
her mother had just expired. The portrait shows her as she was
approaching the age of eighteen.
It was Mary's idea to send her portrait to England. She was impatient,
she said, to find out more about her 'sister Queen', and hoped to make a
fresh start in their relations after the disasters of recent months.
Mary wanted to appeal directly to Elizabeth at the level of Queen to
Queen. She had already realized the importance of personal relations in
her diplomacy, and offered to send her the portrait if she would
reciprocate. It was a generous gesture, even if Mary's obvious curiosity
about her cousin's true height and appearance partly lies behind it. In
the easy, almost bantering style she was beginning to adopt with people
when she wanted to get her own way, she made Throckmorton promise
Elizabeth would comply, 'for I assure you,' said Mary, 'if I thought she
would not send me hers she should not have mine'.
When Throckmorton had given the appropriate undertakings, Mary said, 'I
perceive you like me better when I look sadly than when I look merrily,
for it is told me that you desired to have me pictured when I wore the
deuil.' There is no evidence Throckmorton ever said anything of the
sort. The impulse for the exchange of portraits was Mary's, but the
ambassador knew what was expected of him."
(Guy, Mary QS, page 114)
Mary became a prisoner in England in 1567.
Her behaviour as Queen, especially her
marriage to Bothwell, the Rebellion of the
Northern Earls in late 1569, the Pope's
excommunication of Elizabeth, the
Bartholomew Day's massacres, the Ridolfi
plot, the execution of the Duke of
Norfolk, and much else during the ten
years of her imprisonment, had created
great unpopularity with the English
people, Parliament and Court.
>> It seems to have been allowed
>> to gather dust. That is, the cleaning
>> staff avoided it, and they were not
>> instructed that they should clean it.
>
> Could you supply a citation to the evidence that
> supports the claim that the cleaning staff avoided
> the portrait, "and they were not instructed that they
> should clean it."
Sure, I have here a manuscript instruction
from the Lord Chamberlain of the Household
addressed to the illiterate cleaning ladies.
(In other words, is there any greater fool
in the world than you?)
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> 'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
>> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
>> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
>> If you will lead these graces to the grave
>> And leave the world no copy.
>>
>> To what real person would an Elizabethan
>> have addressed such sentiments?
>>
>> Is there a Fair Youf in the house?
>
> Paul, you should understand that not everyone in
> Elizabethan would have been as insanely obsessed
> with Elizabeth as you are.
This must be one of the silliest statements
about history ever made. It is virtually
impossible for us to comprehend the depth
and extent of the interest in, and fascination
with, Elizabeth, during her reign. Any time
we look at any detailed aspect, we will be
surprised again.
> Two or three male poets, at least, might have been
> thinking of some other woman than their queen when
> writing lines like those you quote.
Utter nonsense. If the woman was married,
it would have been very rude. Perhaps
they were trying, but one or the other
was infertile. If she was single, then
the first (and only) thing to suggest
would be that she should marry. But that
would have been almost as inappropriate,
since usually it was not a decision for
a single woman; it was rare that she had
any say at all.
> It is pretty well established, for instance, that
> the subject of Sidney's famous sonnet sequence was
> not his queen, unbelievable as it may seem.
You will not find anything in Sidney's work
(nor in that of ANY other poet of those
times, or of any other times) saying such
things, or suggesting them in any way.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
Yes. You are the greater fool. You make claims for which there is no
evidence. You obviously have no evidence that a portrait was still
hanging "in the Royal apartments, but it was an object of contempt."
You also have no evidence for your insipid claim that the cleaning
staff avoided the portrait and "they were not instructed that they
should clean it."
You are such a great fool that you have no idea what qualifies as
evidence.
Dom
Paul Crowley
> Yes. You are the greater fool. You make claims for
> which there is no evidence. You obviously have no
> evidence that a portrait was still hanging "in the Royal
> apartments, but it was an object of contempt."
We know that Queen Elizabeth had received
a portrait of Mary QS in 1560 (around 18
years before this play was written). We know
that it remained in the royal collection. We
know that Mary QS was regarded with much
contempt by the English court.
> You also
> have no evidence for your insipid claim that the
> cleaning staff avoided the portrait and "they were not
> instructed that they should clean it."
I'm sure you meant to write 'inspired
claim'. However, while I was not there,
it does make sense.
No Strat (and certainly not you) has
attempted to provide a remotely sensible
explanation of the words in the play, and
why a noble, rich, unmarried woman (whom
everyone wants to have an heir, presumably
after marrying someone -- anyone -- first)
. . as to why this woman would have, in
her private apartments, a portrait of a
person called "mistris Mal" which
gathered dust in a manner visible to all
who saw it.
Sir Toby:
"Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like
to take dust, like mistris Mals picture? . . "
Will you try to provide an remotely
plausible explanation now? Will any
Strat?
. . . . Not a chance.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> A real woman in Olivia
>> position would have been highly attractive
>> as a marriage prospect. She was clearly
>> noble. (Her father employed clowns. That
>> was virtually unknown outside royalty.)
>> Such a person would be prominent in the
>> record.
>
> Virtually unknown? In his play 'The Woman
> Captain' of 1680, Thomas Shadwell had a
> character say: "I'll keep no Fool, 'tis out of
> fashion for great Men to keep Fools."
This is hardly a statement that they usually
did. And even if it was, what authority
did Shadwell have?
> In a sermon given on his 80th birthday, Bishop
> Joseph Hall told an anecdote which began: "There
> was a certain lord who kept a fool in his house.
> as many great lords did in those days, for their
> amusement.......". Joseph Hall was born in 1574,
> so 'those days' were within his living memory.
It was a story. And 'those days' could have
referred to centuries earlier.
> Grantley FitzHardinge Berkeley writing in 1865
> about his ancestral home, Berkeley Castle, said
> that: "Such persons [i.e. fools] were members of
> every nobleman's household, but got out of
> fashion and were discontinued in the seventeenth
> century. The last of them, called Dickey Pierce,
> was kept by Lord Suffolk, but often lent to Lord
> Berkeley. He died at Berkeley, and was buried in
> the churchyard [in 1728]." G.H. Berkeley also
> mentions another 'fool' who was at the Castle in
> 1620.
At least, this mentions names and dates,
but what was his authority -- given he
was writing in 1865?
> John Whitgift certainly had a 'fool' in the
> 1590s.
Really? That sounds unlikely. What is
your source?
> Will Kempe was at one time employed by
> the Earl of Leicester and was referred to as
> "Will, my Lord of Lester's jesting player" by
> Sir Philip Sidney, I believe. The 16th century
> account books of the Earls of Derby mention a
> 'Henry the Fool' in their household. I expect
> other noble families employed clowns or 'fools',
> too. I would therefore say that it was not
> 'virtually unknown' to do so.
OK. 'Virtually unknown' was too strong.
But, in any case, fools or clowns were
ONLY in the houses of 'great men' --
nobles and the very rich.
So which unmarried, rich female of the
high nobility, owned and ran a large
household, potentially suitable for
fools, in Elizabethan England?
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> > Yes. You are the greater fool. You make claims for
> > which there is no evidence. You obviously have no
> > evidence that a portrait was still hanging "in the Royal
> > apartments, but it was an object of contempt."
>
> We know that Queen Elizabeth had received
> a portrait of Mary QS in 1560 (around 18
> years before this play was written). We know
> that it remained in the royal collection. We
> know that Mary QS was regarded with much
> contempt by the English court.
None of which shows that any portrait of Mary was "still" hanging in
the Royal apartments in 1578 (or even shows that it was ever hung
anywhere, for that matter). You are still engaging in speculation and
calling it fact.
> > You also
> > have no evidence for your insipid claim that the
> > cleaning staff avoided the portrait and "they were not
> > instructed that they should clean it."
>
> I'm sure you meant to write 'inspired
> claim'. However, while I was not there,
> it does make sense.
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Your claim is insipid and there is
still no evidence to support it.
I'm sure that you do believe that your speculations are
"inspired" (just as Christians believe that the Biblical texts they
hold as true are the inspired works of God). And, just as some of
those sects believe that they, and they alone, are able to divine the
true meaning of the texts, you believe that you are like the authors
of the Gospels, the divinely influenced author of the scripture of
the one true Shakespeare.
Even if your speculation did make sense, which it does not, making
sense would not turn it into evidence that justifies your speculative
claims.
> No Strat (and certainly not you) has
> attempted to provide a remotely sensible
> explanation of the words in the play, and
> why a noble, rich, unmarried woman (whom
> everyone wants to have an heir, presumably
> after marrying someone -- anyone -- first)
> . . as to why this woman would have, in
> her private apartments, a portrait of a
> person called "mistris Mal" which
> gathered dust in a manner visible to all
> who saw it.
>
This isn't written very clearly (maybe you are indulging in some of
that ambiguity you cherish). Are you contending that there is an
actual portrait of "mistris Mal" in the play, hanging in Lady Olivia's
house, and that Sir Toby is referring to such a portrait in his
speech? I have not read the play in ages but I don't recall any other
reference to such a portrait other than that contained in the lines
you have cited.
Sir Andrew is bragging about his gifts for dancing and fencing.
Sir Toby answers: 'Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore have
these gifts a curtain before them? Are they like to take dust like
mistris Mal's picture? Why dost thou not go to church in a galliard,
and come home in a coranto? My very walk should be a jig! I would not
so much as make water but in a cinque- pace. What dost thou mean? Is
this a world to hide virtues in? I did think by the excellent
constitution of thy leg, it was framed under the star of a galliard!
The gifts that are hidden behind the curtain, the gifts that are
gathering dust like the picture, are Aguecheek's supposed talents for
dancing and fencing. There is no indication in that speech that any
noble, rich woman had a portrait of "mistris Mal" hanging in her
private chambers, gathering dust for all to see.
> Sir Toby:
> "Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
> these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like
> to take dust, like mistris Mals picture? . . "
>
> Will you try to provide an remotely
> plausible explanation now? Will any
> Strat?
>
Nice dodge. It isn't up to me to offer an interpretation. We're
discussing your speculative claims and the fact that they are pulled
out of the ether with no evidentiary support to establish them as
factual. If I offered no interpretation, it would do nothing to
render your speculation correct.
That being said, it is entirely possible that "mistris Mal" is a
reference to Mary ("Mal") Fitton, who became a maid of honor to Queen
Elizabeth around 1595, and who was rather foolishly pursued by the
much older, and highly infatuated, Sir William Knollys (who was the
subject of mockery at court for his actions). Does that situation
resemble any similar situation in the play itself. It certainly has
more topical reference to the play than some irrelevant reference to
Mary QS. Fitton later engaged in an affair with William Herbert
(WH...???), and there has been speculation that she might have been
the Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
> . . . . Not a chance.
More of a chance than anyone ever taking your speculations seriously.
Dom
nordicskiv2
> "Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gnq8qp$3ip$3...@aioe.org...
>
> > is"Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
> >news:gnn7ek$s2p$1...@aioe.org...
>
> >>> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
> >>> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
> >>> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>
> >>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
> >> Here Crowley parades his Latin erudition.
It's astonishing how he parades his "erudition" in virtually every
discipline, with comparable results -- his only peer in all-
encompassing ignorance is Elizabeth.
> > Groves demonstrates how even a basic
> > knowledge (here of elementary Latin)
> As nothing, of course, in the face of Crowley's masterful erudition. I
> would I had bestowed that time in the tongues that I have in fencing,
> dancing, and bear-baiting. Oh, had I but followed the arts!
Absolutely -- Crowley has plainly been following the Arts, the
Weirs, and the Bakers for years.
> > is a
> > serious handicap in the absence of an ability
> > to think.
> >> The crucial "O" is, of course, entirely his own
> >> invention;
> As Crowley agrees, by offering no objection.
Of course.
> >>"vivat" is not a second person imperative
> >> in any case, but a third-person subjunctive: "May
> >> [he/she] live".
> > The shout or cheer: "Long live . . the [ruler]"
> > is ancient, but has somewhat gone out of fashion.
> > Even the most ardent supporters don't shout
> > 'Long live Barack Obama', or 'Long live Gordon
> > Brown'. But it was very common in Tudor
> > England. We can see this from the canon:
>
> > 2Henry6
> > ALL [Kneeling] Long live Queen Margaret, England's happiness!
> What an astonishing revelation -- Crowley should get it published.
> > I could, I suppose, call the shout of the
> > populace "a third-person subjunctive":
> > "May [he/she] live". But then I am not a
> > pompous arsehole.
> On the contrary, I would say that describes Crowley rather neatly (though we
> should add "ignorant"). I'm willing, BTW, to bet that *every* other reader
> of this (if there are any by now) would agree.
If you're taking a poll concerning the clotpoll, I certainly
agree.
> I pause for a reply (None, Brutus, none).
>
> > However, I am sure
> > that no sensible person would object to its
> > transcription into "O Live" in the context
> > of a close personal acquaintance joking
> > with the monarch.
>
> So let me get this straight:
>
> >>> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
> >>> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>
> Crowley is claiming as evidence that Elizabeth was associated with olives
> the following:
> (1) the crowds shouted out "Long live [the queen]",
>
> (2) this can be loosely translated into Latin as "Vivat [regina]"
>
> (3) a thick Irish plonker imagines that this might be translated back into
> English as "O live, [Queen!]" (O yeah?)
>
> (4) De Vere, whose Latin was better, nevertheless channels the thick Irish
> plonker and come up with "Olivia".
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> Peter G,
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
and don't have time to go through the play page by page.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
--Bob
John W Kennedy
> Where in the play are these lines? I tried to find them but couldn't,
> and don't have time to go through the play page by page.
I. iii.
Google is your friend.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On 2/25/09 8:43 PM, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> > Where in the play are these lines? I tried to find them but couldn't,
> > and don't have time to go through the play page by page.
>
> I. iii.
>
> Google is your friend.
Sometimes. But I should have tried it. Thanks for doing that for me.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>> Yes. You are the greater fool. You make claims for
>>> which there is no evidence. You obviously have no
>>> evidence that a portrait was still hanging "in the Royal
>>> apartments, but it was an object of contempt."
>>
>> We know that Queen Elizabeth had received
>> a portrait of Mary QS in 1560 (around 18
>> years before this play was written). We know
>> that it remained in the royal collection. We
>> know that Mary QS was regarded with much
>> contempt by the English court.
>
> None of which shows that any portrait of Mary was
> "still" hanging in the Royal apartments in 1578 (or even
> shows that it was ever hung anywhere, for that matter).
It may not prove the case beyond all doubt,
but it certainly strongly indicates it. It is
better than most evidence for minor events
in history.
> You are still engaging in speculation and calling it
> fact.
I am doing no such thing.
>>> You also
>>> have no evidence for your insipid claim that the
>>> cleaning staff avoided the portrait and "they were not
>>> instructed that they should clean it."
>> I'm sure you meant to write 'inspired
>> claim'. However, while I was not there,
>> it does make sense.
>
> No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Your claim is insipid
English is clearly not your native language.
> and there is still no evidence to support it.
'No evidence' -- what a laugh!
> Even if your speculation did make sense, which it does
> not,
Naturally, you 'forgot' to say how and
where it does not make sense.
> making sense would not turn it into evidence that
> justifies your speculative claims.
Sure -- the only 'evidence' that you would
accept would be empty meaningless crap,
your criteria being that it be written in
textbooks by 'experts' and be told to you
before you were fifteen.
>> Sir Toby:
>> "Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
>> these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like
>> to take dust, like mistris Mals picture? . . "
>>
>> Will you try to provide an remotely
>> plausible explanation now? Will any
>> Strat?
>>
>
> Nice dodge. It isn't up to me to offer an
> interpretation.
No -- of course not. You don't have to
pretend to engage what you sometimes
(foolishly) call your 'mind'. You would
never have looked through Galileo's
telescope. If he made the absurd claim
that there were mountains on the moon,
then it was up to him to bring them to
you. You don't claim to be human, nor
have an open mind, nor have any interest
in anything beyond your arsehole.
> We're discussing your speculative
> claims and the fact that they are pulled out of the
> ether with no evidentiary support to establish them as
> factual. If I offered no interpretation, it would do
> nothing to render your speculation correct.
All that matters is that there should be no
possibility that anyone should be thought
to challenge anything you regard as
'doctrine'.
> That being said, it is entirely possible that "mistris
> Mal" is a reference to Mary ("Mal") Fitton, who became a
> maid of honor to Queen Elizabeth around 1595
So, under THIS theory, Lady Olivia IS
Queen Elizabeth?
How come no Strat has pointed this
out before?
> , and who
> was rather foolishly pursued by the much older, and
> highly infatuated, Sir William Knollys (who was the
> subject of mockery at court for his actions). Does that
> situation resemble any similar situation in the play
> itself. It certainly has more topical reference to the
> play
Why should Mary Fitton's portrait have
been hanging in Queen Elizabeth's rooms?
Why should it have been allowed to gather
dust? Who could possibly have picked up
the fleeting reference in the play?
> than some irrelevant reference to Mary QS. Fitton
> later engaged in an affair with William Herbert
> (WH...???), and there has been speculation that she
> might have been the Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
Nothing ever begins to make a scrap of
sense within the Stratfordian scenario.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> But, Paul--Elizabeth kept no fool!!!! How could she be
> Olivia?
You are missing the most obvious difference.
One was called 'Olivia' and the other
'Elizabeth'. How could they possibly have
anything to do with each other?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> Take any item that has puzzled the 'scholars'
> about this play, and you will probably be
> able to find an Oxfordian explanation.
>
> One example (from the Variorem edition
> of H.H. Furness of 1901) can be seen at
> http://tinyurl.com/dbjlxs
> where Furness discusses the portrait
> mentioned in Twelfth Night:
For those who have not bothered to follow
my tinyurl pointer above, here is the bulk
of the discussion in Furness. While the
scholars of the time suffered from huge
defects, the level of discussion is still far
higher than nearly all of what is seen
today:
The incurious reader will doubtless find the foregoing extracts from
Steevens and Malone quite ample, more especially as the drift of modern
opinion is tending greatly to doubt that Sir Toby's 'mistris Mal' has
any reference at all to Moll Cutpurse. SINGER (ed. ii) was the earliest
to mistrust this reference. 'It has been supposed,' he says in his note
ad loc., 'that the allusion here is to Mall Cutpurse. But " Mitress
Mall'' is no doubt a mere impersonation, like "my lady's eldest son'' in
Much Ado about Nothing. She is merely a type of a lady solicitous for
the preservation of her charms even when transferred to canvas.' In the
following year, R. G. WHITE observed that Mistress Moll's picture
'appears to be named merely as a type of female portraits which were
carefully preserved from dust,-Mary being the commonest of all names for
women. . . . . It is possible that Moll Cutpurse is referred to though
there appears to be no necessity for supposing this to be the case and
her portrait would hardly be painted in a style to require the
protection of a curtain, or she he referred to as 'Mistress Moll' DYCE
next hinted a doubt. At the conclusion of his note (Gloss.) on the
present passage, wherein he quotes at length the notes of Steevens and
Malone, he asks, 'After all, can it be that "Mistress Mall's picture''
means merely 'a lady's picture'? So we still say ''master Tom'' or
"Master Jack" to designate no particular individual, but of young
gentlemen generally.' SCHMIDT (Lex.) finds an objection to Moll Cutpurse
on grounds more substantial than any hitherto urged, namely, on the
score of her youth at the time this present play was written. He says
that she was born in 1589, which would make her but twelve or thirteen
years old when Sir Toby was speaking. Malone's date, however, of Moll's
birth, 1584, is more likely to be correct, inasmuch as she died in 1659,
and all accounts agree in stating that this was in the seventy-fifth
year of her age. Yet this hardly weakens Schmidt's argument; were five
years added to twelve or thirteen, her precocity and notoriety would be
still incredible. Moll herself says in her .Life that it was for her
first putting on of man's clothes that she was forced to do penance at
Paul's Cross; and this we know was in 1611-12, and it may well have been
the beginning of her wide-spread notoriety. Wherefore, I think,
Schmidt's argument is well founded. Had the Lexicographer stopped there,
his note would be entirely satisfactory; unfortunately, be proceeds to
say 'Perhaps Sir Toby only means to say like a picture intended for a
beauty, but in fact representing Mall the kitchen-wench.' What possible
connection this meaning can have with the modest concealment of Sir
Andrews accomplishments I cannot, try as I may, discover. .ROLFE,
influenced by this same fact of Moll's youth at the time Twelfth Night
was written, 'inclines to agree' with Singer. W. A. WRIGHT believes that
the date of John Day's book in the entry in the Stationers' Registers,
August, 1610 indicates the period when 'the virago appears to have
flourished'; so that he goes on to say, 'I an inclined to think the
Mistress .Mall of the present passage was some notoriety other than Mary
Frith' In N &' Q. (1878, 5th, x, 3) J. F. MARSH notes an entirely new
allusion. He believes that Mistress Mall's portrait is not that of Molt
Cutpurse, but of Maria ' Pictures in general, or any picture in
particular, would have served Sir Toby's turn, hut he gives force to the
expression by specifying the portrait of Olivia's gentlewoman, Maria,
with whom Sir Andrew and he have just been having a wit combat, and who
was therefore present to his thoughts, if her picture was not hanging
before his eyes.' B. NICHOLSON (Ib. p. 182) finds three objections to
this interpretation of Marsh: First, Maria is never called Mal or
Mistress Mal, or Moll elsewhere in the play. Secondly, it cannot be
shown that Maria ever had her portrait taken, or, if she had, is tot all
probable that Olivia would have permitted her chambermaid's portrait to
be hung up in her public rooms. Thirdly, if the passage be looked into
it will show that Mistress Mal's picture had no curtain, 'Why,' says Sir
Toby, 'have these gifts a curtain before them? [when exposed] are they
likely to take dust, like Mistress Mat's [exposed] picture?' Nicholson
then refers to his own quotation from The Malcontent (in the foregoing
note on 'like to take dust') as likely to show that Shakespeare and
Marston and Webster all refer to the same story. Of course Marsh replied
(Ib. p. 423) and, to his own satisfaction, swept clean aside all three
of these objections, and concluded his note with the emphatic assertion
that, 'if the name in Marston's play had been Mall, or even if the
exposure of a picture of Moll Cutpurse in a broker's window had been an
ascertained fact instead of a conjecture, it would not have shaken my
opinion that Shakespeare's text is plain and intelligible with reference
to Maria, and that all applications of it to courtesans or otters
outside of the play are mischievous excescences. Marsh seems fixed in
the belief that picture was hanging on the walls in Sir Toby's very
presence. I can find nothing to warrant it. BARNETT thinks That the
allusion is, 'probably, to Mary Ambree, who fought at the Siege of
Ghent, in 1584,' and refers to Hudibras 'A bold virago. stout, and tall,
As Joan of France, or English Mall.' (Pad I, canto ii, line 367, where
GREY asserts that this refers to 'Mary Carleton, or, as she was more
commonly distinguished, Kentish Moll or the German Princess.' This
RlTSON denies and says the reference is to Moll Cutpurse.) Possibly,
Barnett was misled by a note which first appeared, according to
Furnivall, in the fourth edition of Percy's Reliques, edited by Percy's
nephew. Lastly, VERITY inclines to think that Moll Cutpurse is referred
to, because 'a casual allusion like this may well have been inserted
some time after the first production of the play'; of course, this door
of escape stands always open, hut we should be wary of using it.
Steevens, in spite of the express reason given by Sir Toby why the
picture should he curtained, suggested another, drawn from his own
prurient imagination. I have but small belief that any particular
Mistres Mall is here referred to, and none at all, that, if there be
one, it is Mary Frith, against whose claim chronology is fatal. It is
almost inconceivable that, in 'the fierce light that beats' upon that
period, a Mistress Moll, familiarly enough known to be recognised in a
passing allusion, could have escaped detection. When now-a-days we say
'Jack Robinson,' do we refer to any particular John of that family? -Ed]
Dominic Hughes
> Dominic Hughes wrote:
> >>> Yes. You are the greater fool. You make claims for
> >>> which there is no evidence. You obviously have no
> >>> evidence that a portrait was still hanging "in the Royal
> >>> apartments, but it was an object of contempt."
>
> >> We know that Queen Elizabeth had received
> >> a portrait of Mary QS in 1560 (around 18
> >> years before this play was written). We know
> >> that it remained in the royal collection. We
> >> know that Mary QS was regarded with much
> >> contempt by the English court.
>
> > None of which shows that any portrait of Mary was
> > "still" hanging in the Royal apartments in 1578 (or even
> > shows that it was ever hung anywhere, for that matter).
>
> It may not prove the case beyond all doubt,
> but it certainly strongly indicates it. It is
> better than most evidence for minor events
> in history.
>
No, it doesn't strongly indicate anything to anyone who is rational,
and certainly doesn't tend to prove the specific claims that you made
as to the portrait. It is not evidence at all for the proposition
that a portrait of Mary QS was hanging in Queen Elizabeth's private
quarters and was an object of scorn, neglected by the cleaning staff.
> > You are still engaging in speculation and calling it
> > fact.
>
> I am doing no such thing.
>
Sure you are. You offered two speculative claims as fact. I asked
you to provide the evidence for them and the best you have come up
with so far is that a portrait was offered to the Queen by Mary QS.
Your attempt to stretch that simple fact into proof for your
speculations is risible.
> >>> You also
> >>> have no evidence for your insipid claim that the
> >>> cleaning staff avoided the portrait and "they were not
> >>> instructed that they should clean it."
> >> I'm sure you meant to write 'inspired
> >> claim'. However, while I was not there,
> >> it does make sense.
>
> > No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Your claim is insipid
>
> English is clearly not your native language.
How so? This is just nother idiotic claim from you which is easily
shown to be false. You snipped the proof of that.
Here it is again:
I'm sure that you do believe that your speculations are
"inspired" (just as Christians believe that the Biblical texts they
hold as true are the inspired works of God). And, just as some of
those sects believe that they, and they alone, are able to divine the
true meaning of the texts, you believe that you are like the authors
of the Gospels, the divinely influenced author of the scripture of
the one true Shakespeare.
I quite obviously know the difference between "inspired" and
"insipid". Your claims are insipid.
> > and there is still no evidence to support it.
>
> 'No evidence' -- what a laugh!
If it is so laughable, you ought to be able to supple thy evidence for
your claims -- funny that you are incapable of doing so.
> > Even if your speculation did make sense, which it does
> > not,
>
> Naturally, you 'forgot' to say how and
> where it does not make sense.
>
I didn't forget. I did so later in the post. Why did you snip what I
said, you insufferable twit?
Here it is again:
This isn't written very clearly (maybe you are indulging in some of
that ambiguity you cherish). Are you contending that there is an
actual portrait of "mistris Mal" in the play, hanging in Lady
Olivia's
house, and that Sir Toby is referring to such a portrait in his
speech? I have not read the play in ages but I don't recall any
other
reference to such a portrait other than that contained in the lines
you have cited.
Sir Andrew is bragging about his gifts for dancing and fencing.
Sir Toby answers: 'Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore have
these gifts a curtain before them? Are they like to take dust like
mistris Mal's picture? Why dost thou not go to church in a galliard,
and come home in a coranto? My very walk should be a jig! I would not
so much as make water but in a cinque- pace. What dost thou mean? Is
this a world to hide virtues in? I did think by the excellent
constitution of thy leg, it was framed under the star of a galliard!
The gifts that are hidden behind the curtain, the gifts that are
gathering dust like the picture, are Aguecheek's supposed talents for
dancing and fencing. There is no indication in that speech that any
noble, rich woman had a portrait of "mistris Mal" hanging in her
private chambers, gathering dust for all to see.
> > making sense would not turn it into evidence that
> > justifies your speculative claims.
>
> Sure -- the only 'evidence' that you would
> accept would be empty meaningless crap,
> your criteria being that it be written in
> textbooks by 'experts' and be told to you
> before you were fifteen.
No. What you think qualifies as evidence is "empty meaningless
crap". It is merely speculation with no basis in any source
whatsoever.
What I would accept is a primary source showing that the portrait of
Mary QS was actually hanging in the Queens private apartments and was
an object of scorn, gathering dust because the cleaning staff
intentionally neglected it and had not been told to clean it (your
claims, if you will recall). I don't care what any textbooks might
say on the subject (unless they cite relevant sources) and what I was
told at fifteen has nothing to do with this argument. Your ad hominem
attacks do not qualify as evidence for your insipid claims.
> >> Sir Toby:
> >> "Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
> >> these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like
> >> to take dust, like mistris Mals picture? . . "
>
> >> Will you try to provide an remotely
> >> plausible explanation now? Will any
> >> Strat?
>
> > Nice dodge. It isn't up to me to offer an
> > interpretation.
>
> No -- of course not. You don't have to
> pretend to engage what you sometimes
> (foolishly) call your 'mind'. You would
> never have looked through Galileo's
> telescope. If he made the absurd claim
> that there were mountains on the moon,
> then it was up to him to bring them to
> you. You don't claim to be human, nor
> have an open mind, nor have any interest
> in anything beyond your arsehole.
I have an interest in you, so that must make you my arsehole.
You're getting ahead of yourself, and your constant reliance on ad
hominem attacks is more evidence, if any were needed, that you are
unable to provide any evidence for your claims, causing you to resort
to impotent bluster. I do provide an interpretation, one that is at
least as plausible as yours, if not more so.
> > We're discussing your speculative
> > claims and the fact that they are pulled out of the
> > ether with no evidentiary support to establish them as
> > factual. If I offered no interpretation, it would do
> > nothing to render your speculation correct.
>
> All that matters is that there should be no
> possibility that anyone should be thought
> to challenge anything you regard as
> 'doctrine'.
This statement is simply idiotic. I have no doctrine as to whether or
not "mistris Mal" is based on a real person. You are the one who is
doctrinaire in your beliefs (it must be a reference to Mary QS,
because Oxenforde wrote the play), as I pointed out above (in the part
that you cowardly snipped).
> > That being said, it is entirely possible that "mistris
> > Mal" is a reference to Mary ("Mal") Fitton, who became a
> > maid of honor to Queen Elizabeth around 1595
>
> So, under THIS theory, Lady Olivia IS
> Queen Elizabeth?
Not at all...what makes you think that? One throwaway line in a play
doesn't necessarily mean that the entire play is a roman a clef.
> How come no Strat has pointed this
> out before?
>
> > , and who
> > was rather foolishly pursued by the much older, and
> > highly infatuated, Sir William Knollys (who was the
> > subject of mockery at court for his actions). Does that
> > situation resemble any similar situation in the play
> > itself. It certainly has more topical reference to the
> > play
>
> Why should Mary Fitton's portrait have
> been hanging in Queen Elizabeth's rooms?
Who says it was? Why did it have to be? When are you going to prove
your claim that there was a portrait of Mary QS hanging in Elizabeth's
rooms? Do you still believe that, in the play, Sir Toby is referring
to an actual portrait that is hanging in Olivia's room? Can you
supply the textual reference from the play that suggests such an
interpretation? Do all objects that appear in the plays of
Shakespeare have a corresponding object that existed outside of the
theatre? Are you insane?
> Why should it have been allowed to gather
> dust? Who could possibly have picked up
> the fleeting reference in the play?
Have you never heard of authors putting inside jokes into their
works? Your whole insipid theory is based on the notion of an inside
joke.
> > than some irrelevant reference to Mary QS. Fitton
> > later engaged in an affair with William Herbert
> > (WH...???), and there has been speculation that she
> > might have been the Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
>
> Nothing ever begins to make a scrap of
> sense within the Stratfordian scenario.
Naturally, you 'forgot' to say how and where it does not make sense.
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dom
Dominic Hughes
Naturally, you always 'forget' to say how and where it does not make
sense (of course, outside of your factually unfounded cries of "Joke!,
Forgery!, Fake!, Conspiracy!. Illiteracy!, Biblical Texts!, Galileo!,
etc.!"
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Run away, just like you always do. You are the typical schoolyard
bully (complete with redneck schoolyard taunts) -- when confronted
you
turn your tail and dash away.
You can dish it out, but you just can't take it. Your theories are
imitation pearls and you are a genune swine.
Dom
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
It makes as much sense to take one difference to show that Olivia was
not Elizabeth as it does to take one similarity to show that she was.
You cherry pick three or four similarities (that the narrative makes
unavoidable) and three or four qualities you consider similarities,
and claim it makes Olivia a rendering of Elizabeth. You ignore all
the many differences between the two. How come Brughley isn't in the
play, by the way? Or is he. He certainly isn't for me.
Out of curiosity, do you think any major characters in Shakespeare's
plays were . . . invented? Any characters in his plays, at all? Do
you even believe it possible for a major playwright to . . . invent
characters?
--Bob G.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I would agree that the experts have not solved it. But you haven't,
either. We have insufficient data to solve it. You can't accept it
because you're a rigidnik. You need every detail explained: hence
your rigidniplex, which fills all gaps.
One question against your interpretation: what would the Italian
woman, Olivia, be doing with a portrait of Queen Mary? What would
anyone in the play be doing with such a portrait. Why would any of
them even know who she was? Moreover, if a reference to Mary was
intended, why make it oblique? Because one wasn't to speak of her?
Why, then, speak of her even obliquely?
It makes most sense to me to interpret Toby as saying to Andrew: "Why
are you putting a curtain in front of your gifts? Are you afraid
they'll get dusty, like the uncurtained portrait of old Mrs.
Anybody?" Old Mrs. Anybody being the lady of some unimportant non-
aristocratic house who might have a portrait hanging but wouldn't have
a costly curtain for it. But this is a speculation. As I say, we
lack sufficient data for anything but speculations. "Mistress Mal"
might have been the heroine of some popular ballad now lost and
forgotten, or part of a colloquial expression.
Even if the portrait was of Queen Mary, it doesn't make it the one you
think was hanging in one of Elizabeth's homes.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> mI think the identity of "Mistress Mal" an interesting
> problem, Paul. I would agree that the experts have not
> solved it. But you haven't, either. We have
> insufficient data to solve it. You can't accept it
> because you're a rigidnik. You need every detail
> explained: hence your rigidniplex, which fills all
> gaps.
>
> One question against your interpretation: what would
> the Italian woman, Olivia, be doing with a portrait of
> Queen Mary?
This is ridiculous. An English house is being
portrayed. The characters are English. They are
only nominally moved to 'Illyria' -- and not Italy.
> Moreover, if a reference to Mary was intended, why
> make it oblique?
The whole point of the story is that it is
'fictional' -- a roman a clef. Nothing can
be other than oblique.
> It makes most sense to me to interpret Toby as saying
> to Andrew: "Why are you putting a curtain in front of
> your gifts? Are you afraid they'll get dusty, like
> the uncurtained portrait of old Mrs. Anybody?" Old
> Mrs. Anybody being the lady of some unimportant non-
> aristocratic house who might have a portrait hanging
> but wouldn't have a costly curtain for it. But this
> is a speculation.
The point is that THIS particular portrait
gathers dust. Other portraits in the house
don't as -- in every well-run household --
they are regularly dusted, even if the person
in them is obscure, or even an ancient villain.
> As I say, we lack sufficient data
> for anything but speculations. "Mistress Mal" might
> have been the heroine of some popular ballad now lost
> and forgotten, or part of a colloquial expression.
I give you the explanation. This was a
well-done expensive portrait, which was
originally honourably displayed. There
has not yet been any firm reason to take
it down. At a minimum, Mary QS was the
mother of the King of Scotland, who was a
closely associated monarch, and expected
to succeed to the English throne.
Yet the portrait was, as we all can reasonably
expect, disregarded. For very obvious reasons,
it was allowed to gather dust. This perfectly
represents the state of affairs between
Elizabeth and Mary QS around 1578.
Coming up to her trial and execution in 1587,
and afterwards, it would not have been
allowed to hang, in a public or private place.
The relationship in 1579 was not hostile,
even if unfriendly.
> Even if the portrait was of Queen Mary, it doesn't
> make it the one you think was hanging in one of
> Elizabeth's homes.
What are you rambling on about?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> It makes as much sense to take one difference to
> show that Olivia was not Elizabeth as it does to
> take one similarity to show that she was. You
> cherry pick three or four similarities (that the
> narrative makes unavoidable) and three or four
> qualities you consider similarities, and claim it
> makes Olivia a rendering of Elizabeth. You ignore
> all the many differences between the two.
With Strats, I routinely feel like I am
talking to someone who has never read a
book -- other than perhaps an instruction
manual. (And, after all, what other use
would a Strat have for literacy, other
than as a way of making money?)
How can you tell that Jack Stanton in
'Primary Colors' represents Bill Clinton?
Do you weigh the differences and then the
similarities? Is Willie Stark in "All the
King's Men" a portrait of Huey Long?
You take the extraordinary or unique traits
and behaviours of the fictional and the
real characters; then the extraordinary or
unique circumstances. If a few match,
you don't need to look further.
In this case, you have yet to point out
another rich, noble, unmarried, independent
young woman, who owned and controlled a
large household in Elizabethan times --
who was being urged to have an heir --
presumably after marrying someone, or
anyone.
> How come Brughley isn't in the play, by the way?
> Or is he. He certainly isn't for me.
Burghley is often a boring old fart, if a
useful ally. He may well not be interesting
enough for the play.
> Out of curiosity, do you think any major characters
> in Shakespeare's plays were . . . invented? Any
> characters in his plays, at all? Do you even
> believe it possible for a major playwright to . . .
> invent characters?
Read some books sometime, and see the
general pattern. Shake-speare was no different.
He certainly was not the wild exception to
everything, in the manner in which Strats
are obliged to conceive.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
> Run away, just like you always do. You are the
> typical schoolyard bully (complete with redneck
> schoolyard taunts) -- when confronted you turn your
> tail and dash away.
>
> You can dish it out, but you just can't take it. Your
> theories are imitation pearls and you are a genune
> swine.
There is no sense in pretending to have
a sensible discussion with a drunk in a
rough bar.
The last time you got into this position,
I asked you to quote your BEST argument
-- one containing some element of fact or
logic. Naturally you ducked, since none
of your 'arguments' ever have any facts
or logic.
So, of course, if I were to ask you this
time, you'd duck again.
Paul.
sashe...@tiscali.co.uk
Her trial was in 1586. The Earl of Oxford was there. You should know
that.
> and afterwards, it would not have been
> allowed to hang, in a public or private place.
> The relationship in 1579 was not hostile,
> even if unfriendly.
>
> > Even if the portrait was of Queen Mary, it doesn't
> > make it the one you think was hanging in one of
> > Elizabeth's homes.
>
> What are you rambling on about?
>
> Paul.
It makes it very difficult not to ramble when one is not conversant
with the Alan Partridge School of Shakespearean Studies. However,
I'll try one - how come it isn't a portrait of Mary Tudor, you know,
the one who burned all those Proddies years before? "Don't dust the
blood-thirsty old cow, but leave her up there to remind you all you
never had it so good under me."
SB.
Paul Crowley
> However, I'll try one - how come it isn't a
> portrait of Mary Tudor, you know, the one who
> burned all those Proddies years before?
> "Don't dust the blood-thirsty old cow, but
> leave her up there to remind you all you never
> had it so good under me."
Mary Tudor was safely dead, and no
threat to anyone. There was no agitation
in Parliament, nor anywhere else in the
country, about her -- whereas that about
Mary QS was intense. The funeral of
Queen Mary had been conducted entirely
properly, with full honours. Any portrait
or other memorial of her would likewise
have been treated properly. Mary QS,
on the other hand, was constantly in the
news, and the enquiry into the Casket
Letters would have firmly set her
reputation in the mud in London.
The initiative for this would IMHO have
come from the cleaning staff. The Queen
(or other high official) was hardly going
to bother issuing detailed instructions
on such a matter. But when they noticed
what the cleaning were doing -- or not
doing -- they didn't interfere.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> talking to someone who has never read a
> book -- other than perhaps an instruction
> manual. (And, after all, what other use
> would a Strat have for literacy, other
> than as a way of making money?)
Well, Paul, as I've told you more than once, I've used my literacy to
write two books concerning poetry as well as one on the authorship
controversy, and a number of published essays on poetry, a few of them
in reference books. What have you done with your literacy besides
sound off here and at other newsgroups, or whatever these gatherings
are called?
> How can you tell that Jack Stanton in
> 'Primary Colors' represents Bill Clinton?
> Do you weigh the differences and then the
> similarities? Is Willie Stark in "All the
> King's Men" a portrait of Huey Long?
Do you really not see the difference between those two novels and
Twelfth Night? Do you know of anyone at all knowledgeable of
American politics at the time those books were published who didn't
know who they were about? Where is there any record of anyone's
taking Twelfth Night to be about Queen Elizabeth before you or some
other wack decided The True Author was obsessed with his queen?
> You take the extraordinary or unique traits
> and behaviours of the fictional and the
> real characters; then the extraordinary or
> unique circumstances. If a few match,
> you don't need to look further.
> In this case, you have yet to point out
> another rich, noble, unmarried, independent
> young woman, who owned and controlled a
> large household in Elizabethan times --
> who was being urged to have an heir --
> presumably after marrying someone, or
> anyone.
In other words, a woman unlike any other ever appearing in literature
before her.
> > How come BURghley isn't in the play, by the way?
> > Or is he. He certainly isn't for me.
>
> Burghley is often a boring old fart, if a
> useful ally. He may well not be interesting
> enough for the play.
Worth satirizing in Hamlet but left out of this play, right. A
dissimilarity but dissimilarities don't count.
> > Out of curiosity, do you think any major characters
> > in Shakespeare's plays were . . . invented? Any
> > characters in his plays, at all? Do you even
> > believe it possible for a major playwright to . . .
> > invent characters?
>
> Read some books sometime, and see the
> general pattern.
It wouldn't help me, Paul. I can't see general patterns, or remember
what little I read more than five minutes after I read it. So please
tell me what the pattern is. Also if Shakespeare invented any
characters. If he didn't, we need to let writers know this, because
he would have invented some if inventing characters was worth doing.
> Shake-speare was no different.
> He certainly was not the wild exception to
> everything, in the manner in which Strats
> are obliged to conceive.
>
> Paul.
Ah, now you're saying he wasn't exceptional. How interesting.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>> How can you tell that Jack Stanton in
>> 'Primary Colors' represents Bill Clinton?
>> Do you weigh the differences and then the
>> similarities? Is Willie Stark in "All the
>> King's Men" a portrait of Huey Long?
>
> Do you really not see the difference between those
> two novels and Twelfth Night? Do you know of
> anyone at all knowledgeable of American politics at
> the time those books were published who didn't know
> who they were about?
Maybe. But there are plenty of less obvious
examples. How many read "Gulliver's Travels"
today, knowing little of the personalities
satirised? How many read Pope's 'Rape of
the Lock' fully appreciating the parallels
thought integral by its first readership?
Many, especially children, read Orwell's
'Animal Farm', with no sense that Snowball
is a representation of Trotsky, and so on
for the other animals.
> Where is there any record of
> anyone's taking Twelfth Night to be about Queen
> Elizabeth before you or some other wack decided The
> True Author was obsessed with his queen?
Are you really claiming that THIS is
an argument?
>> In this case, you have yet to point out
>> another rich, noble, unmarried, independent
>> young woman, who owned and controlled a
>> large household in Elizabethan times --
>> who was being urged to have an heir --
>> presumably after marrying someone, or
>> anyone.
>
> In other words, a woman unlike any other ever appearing
> in literature before her.
Exactly. In the same way as Jack Stanton
was "a [man] unlike any other ever appearing
in literature before [him]", and as Snowball
was "a [pig] unlike any other ever appearing
in literature before [him]", and as Willie
Stark was "a [man] unlike any other ever
appearing in literature before [him]",
[..]
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
Nice dodge. All of my arguments rely on facts and logic, and I have
never ducked posting the evidence. Your arguments rely on spin and
logic, and you are still running away from the claims you have made in
this thread.
My best argument is all of the contemporaneous documents that exist
that identify William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the
plays and show his connection to the theatre where the plays were
performed and to the acting company that performed them. These are
the selfsame documents that you speculate to be fakes and forgeries,
part of a conspiracy to hide the true author. Your theory is that the
documents identify the Stratfordian as a frontman for Oxenforde. You
have no evidence for that claim -- only speculation. In order to
attempt to rebut the prima facie case established by those documents
you resort to a conspiracy. When asked for evidence of the
conspiracy, you contend that no such evidence would exist. In all of
the times that we have discussed the various documents you have never
once offered a shred of factual information that would serve to cast
doubt on the authenticity or relevance of the contents of those
documents.
As for who is acting like a drunk in a bar in this discussion it is
you. You probably even slur and weave as you type.
Dom
Peter Farey
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > The answer here is that the portrait was
> > Royal apartments, but it was an object of
> > contempt.
>
> "still hung in the Royal apartments, but it was an object
> of contempt"?
>
> > It seems to have been allowed
> > to gather dust. That is, the cleaning
> > instructed that they should clean it.
>
>
No of course he can't.
The 'real' identity of the 'Mistress Mal' referred to in
*Twelfth Night* is nevertheless an interesting question,
not necessarily having anything to do with the 'authorship'.
Wherefore are these things hid? Wherefore haue
these gifts a Curtaine before 'em? Are they like
to take dust, like mistris Mals picture?
(*Twelfth Night* 1.3)
Here is what The Arden Shakespeare 2nd series says:
'Undoubtedly a topical allusion' (Wilson).
Various Marys have been put forward: Mary Frith
*alias* Moll Cutpurse (Steevens), Mary Ambree
(Barnett), Mary Carlton (Grey)... Moll Newberry
(Wilson), Mary Fitton (Hotson), Maria in this
play (Luce).
But maybe it's not a 'Mary' at all. Perhaps we should
start by looking for the dusty picture rather than the
name?
The only contemporary poet/dramatist that Shakespeare
ever refers to directly (as "Dead Shepherd") is Chris-
topher Marlowe, whom he also quotes (and misquotes):
Who euer lov'd, that lou'd not at first sight?
(*As You Like It*)
...hollow-pamper'd Iades of Asia, which can-
not goe but thirtie miles a day,
(*2 Henry IV*)
To shallow Riuers to whose falls: melodious Birds
sings Madrigalls:
(*Merry Wives*)
And whose death is generally thought to be meant by:
...it strikes a man more dead then a great
reckoning in a little roome:
(*As You Like It*)
I wonder whether Shakespeare had Marlowe in mind in
this case too?
The putative portrait of Marlowe in Corpus Christi,
Cambridge, was painted in 1585 and after his depart-
ure in 1587 may well have been retained on display
in that part of the College given over to the Matthew
Parker scholars - of which Marlowe had been one.
His undoubted fame and known "good service" for
the Queen would have presumably overridden any
distaste there may have been at his having given up
the ecclesiastical life towards which his education
had been directed.
Following his apparent death and disgrace in 1593,
however, it is very probable that, if not actually
destroyed, any such portrait would indeed have been
hidden away gathering dust. The fact that the two
planks of wood it was painted on were found in 1952
being used as a support for a gas fire in the former
'Parker' wing clearly suggests some such history.
'Mal' could of course have easily been an abbreviat-
ed form of Marlowe or Marley, with a touch of some-
thing 'bad' too perhaps, but why on earth 'mistris'?
My best guess would be that it had something to do
with his play *Dido Queen of Carthage* which he is
generally believed to have written - possibly with
the help of Thomas Nashe - while he was at Cambridge.
Assuming that it was played there too, it is quite
possible that he also took the part of the eponymous
queen. So, given a particularly convincing perform-
ance in such a feminine role, one can quite easily
see how he could have got the nickname 'Mistress
Mal', and how it may well have stuck long afterwards
among those who knew him.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Dominic Hughes
> In a recent exchange with Bob Grumman I pointed
> out how the Lady Olivia in Twelfth Night was
> undoubtedly a portrayal of Queen Elizabeth.
>
> The name 'Olivia' clearly plays on cheers made to
> the monarch: "Long live . . . " or "Vivat" = "O Live".
>
> Tudor England, probably learning of it when he
> was in Italy, in 1575. It subsequently became
> quite popular among the English upper-classes.
>
> Bob asked, and I replied:
>
> >> Who was her Toby Belch?
> >
> > He was, highly probably, Henry Carey, who was
> > closely related to Elizabeth, and appointed
> > Lord Chamberlain of the Household in 1575
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Carey,_1st_Baron_Hunsdon
> > ("a blunt, plain-spoken man with little tact").
> >
> > Sir Andrew Aguecheek is, of course, Philip
> > Sidney, and Malvolio is Christopher Hatton.
>
> There is much in detail in the play that
> supports the identification. There are
> (it seems) constant pleas to "Lady Olivia"
> that she should marry and have an heir:
>
> VIOLA
> 'Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
> Nature's own sweet and cunning hand laid on:
> Lady, you are the cruell'st she alive,
> If you will lead these graces to the grave
> And leave the world no copy.
>
> Like most monarchs of the day, Henry VIII
> took pleasure in clowns. But Elizabeth did
> not, and employed none. These attitudes
> are played out in the play:
>
> CURIO He is not here, so please your lordship that
> should sing it.
> DUKE ORSINO Who was it?
> CURIO Feste, the jester, my lord; a fool that the
> lady Olivia's father took much delight in.
> He is about the house.
> DUKE ORSINO Seek him out, and play the tune
> the while.
>
>
> However, to return to dating; one courtier,
> conspicuous by his absence, is Walter Raleigh.
> The play was clearly written before he arrived
> on the scene in the late 1570s. Nor is there
> any indication of Oxford's financial ruin. We can,
> therefore, safely date the play to 1577-78.
>
> Shakespearean studies are barely starting.
>
>
> Paul.
>> MJ: Nonsense. Caricatures must be accurate enough for the audience of the satire to be able to identify the target intended by the author.
> PC: I see from the thread in HLAS (where you tried to show that Gullio represented Southampton) that you have some notion of what a satire is. However, your grasp is weak. 'Accuracy' is not the appropriate word. There must be some correspondence between the fictional characters and the real ones, but it can be in an infinite variety of forms, and any regard for 'accuracy' would invariably be mistaken.
MJ: Yes, actually, accuracy is the appropriate word, as the
correspondences between character and historical person, and the parallels between the action of the play and the real-life events involving the target of the satire, must be accurate enough for the intended audience to grasp who the author is targeting in the caricature. The identification isn't based on nebulous, airy notions like the ones you propose, but on uniquely specific characteristics and occurrences, just as was shown in the discussion identifying Gullio as Southampton. No author of any worth writes a satire in which the target is unidentifiable to the audience; in fact, the author must consider the intended audience and the state of their knowledge in order to be able to provide the necessary identifying traits and events.
>> MJ: While the author will not achieve 100% accuracy, probably for the purpose of plausible deniability if nothing else
> PC: The author necessarily intends very much less than 100% accuracy. He is not writing a police report.
MJ: I never said he was...but, as indicated above, the author does need to consider the audience which will be viewing the play and construct the character and the action of the play so that the intended audience will make the connection.
>> MJ: A while back at HLAS there was a fantastic discussion of actual satiric works from the period, the *Parnassus* plays. Along with a number of other participants I was able to provide real-life correspondences to the character of Gullio in RFP2 to solidly identify him as a caricature of Southampton.
> PC: I have very little interest in that discussion, but IMHO your case was much weaker. The core issue, barely mentioned by any participant, must always be "What is the purpose of this proposed caricature?". Since we have little idea who the author was, or the nature of the audience, there is no likely answer, and the whole discussion appears pointless.
MJ: Actually, although we don't know who authored the 'Parnassus' plays, we certainly do know their purpose and we know who the audience was for the plays. Interestingly enough, the plays provide material for a good argument against your Lord.
The identification of Gullio as Southampton was, and remains, quite strong [imho], and, in fact, the strength of that case, based on the numerous factual correspondences that were discovered in the text itself, serves to show just how weak your purported scenario actually is. Your characters don't resemble the historical persons and you can demonstrate no parallels between the action of the play and the historical events involving the actual persons...other than your claim that it was advising Elizabeth to have a child - which is one
throw-away line in the play.
With that being said, I certainly realize that the identification of
Gullio as Southampton is speculative opinion. If only you could do the same and realize that your speculative opinion that '12th Night' is a roman a clef of court life in 1579-1580 is just that - speculative and opinion. Instead, you treat your own interpretations as if they are facts, and then use these opinions masquerading as facts to date the play and identify an author.
>> MJ: Crowley believes that Aguecheek being "quarrelsome"
justifies his assertion that the character represents Sidney, even when numerous dissimilarities are pointed out. Crowley's so-called scenario is a joke.
> PC: Again, the context is all-important. Sidney certainly issued challenges (for a duel) against Oxford, after the tennis-court quarrel.
MJ: This is circular argument and illogical. You have contended that the play is circumstantial evidence that Oxford wrote the plays. In this instance, your premise is the same as your conclusion. Oxford wrote the play; therefore, Aguecheek could be Sidney; therefore, Oxford wrote the play. Even you should be able to grasp how illogical this is. Your notion that Oxford wrote the play is not factual context.
> PC: He _may_ have behaved like that earlier. The Queen had to instruct him to withdraw it. So a ribbing about it from Oxford -- along the lines seen in the play -- was entirely fitting.
MJ: More circular reasoning, this time with a dash of speculation thrown into the mix. What you think may or may not have happened doesn't support your interpretation as to the identification of a character in a satirical work of fiction. The identification of Gullio as Southampton is not built upon speculation, but upon actual parallels between the character and the person, and between the action of the play and
the actual events in the life of that person. There are numerous pieces of historical evidence demonstrating the correspondences in character and action with the text of the play. You don't have any of that.
> PC: Likewise, criticisms of his ignorance of languages, of his weak vocabulary in English, his tendency to steal words and phrases from others, his clumsiness in dancing, his cowardliness, and much else, could only have come from a social (and more knowledgeable) person of superior status, who (a) knew him well, and (b) has some animus against him, and (c) had the implicit protection of the Queen.
MJ: And just how do any of these characteristics have anything whatsoever to do with Sidney - ignorance of languages, a weak vocabulary in English [seriously???], a tendency to steal words and phrases from others, clumsiness in dancing, cowardliness...? Where are the real-life correspondences between these character traits and the real
Phillip Sidney? Can you show any factual parallels or not?
> PC: If Aguecheek is Sidney, then the playwright must be Oxford.
MJ: Sorry, but if does not follow as a logical necessity that Oxford is the author if Sidney is Aguecheek. Your lack of logic is continually astounding. Not to mention that you have yet to establish that Aguecheek is a caricature of Sidney.
> PC: I have stated the tests before. And Johnson has ducked them every time. Let's try once again. When the poet was writing Twelfth Night either (a) he had in mind Queen Elizabeth and some prominent members of her court -- OR (b) he did not. Stratfordians have never conceived that he did. A play written around 1600 could not sensibly caricature
people of 20 years earlier, and include a plea to the Queen to bear children. So, for Stratfordians, his fictional characters bear no similarity to any real people; and the story and its circumstances present no remotely likely match. Olivia is no more be Queen Elizabeth than she is Helen of Troy or Joan of Arc.
MJ: I did not doge this insipid test. I just though it was so
meaningless and illogical that no answer was necessary, But, if you insist....Olivia is more like Queen Elizabeth than she is like Helen of Troy, but that does nothing to establish that Olivia is a caricature of Elizabeth. As usual, your logic fails:
Crowley Logic: Olivia is more like Queen Elizabeth than she is like Helen of Troy. Therefore, Olivia represents Elizabeth. Do you sincerely fail to see how ridiculous this argument of yours actually is? Is there a step missing in your test.
As for Joan of Arc she is probably more like Elizabeth than Olivia is like her. They were both females who led their countries in times of war, both were icons of their religious factions, both remained unmarried, both were called whores by their enemies, etc. Of course, even if Olivia was more like Elizabeth than Joan of Arc, that would not mean that the author of the play intended Olivia to be a representation of Queen Elizabeth.
> PC: Viola is no more be Raleigh than she/he is Genghis Khan or Henry VIII. Likewise for all the others characters.
MJ: There is still no logic or relevance in your meaningless test. Viola is not like Raleigh as Viola is merely a woman who dresses like a man for the purposes of a comedy. You have yet to offer any evidence whatsoever that Raleigh was viewed as a man-woman-man, whatever you might mean by that. Genghis Khan and Henry III have absolutely no place in the discussion and only serve to point out how mixed up you
are to propose such an absurd test as if it has any logical validity at all.
>> MJ: . . pointing out major discrepancies between the characters and the real-life persons
> PC: 'Discrepancies' aren't the problem. Is Olivia as close (or closer) to Joan of Arc as she is to Queen Elizabeth? Is Viola as close (or closer) to Genghis Khan as she/he is to Raleigh? And so on,for every character.
MJ: Sorry, but this is bordering on insane, and, if you truly believe that this test serves to establish your speculative identifications as being factually true, then you are demented.
>> MJ: Crowley simply invented a joke out of thin air to try to cover your tracks.
> PC: I see that in the 'Gullio' thread on HLAS, Johnson proposes 'jokes' when the fictional character does not exactly match the real one.
MJ: Wrong. What you and I do is universes apart. You have attempted to impose a joke from outside of the text where there is no textual evidence that a joke is intended. You have done this in an attempt to get around a major discrepancy between the character and the historic person.
What I did with the 'Parnassus' play was to show how the joke worked in the text of the play itself. I didn't invent a joke out of thin air, as you did, but demonstrated it in the play. Here is one example I recall from the discussion:
Gullio This rapier I boughte when I soiourned in the vniversitie of Padua; by the heauens its a pure tolledo, it was the death of a Pollonian, a Germaine, & a Duche man, because the[y] would not pledge the health of England.
Ingenioso He was neuer anie further than Flushinge, and then he came home sicke of the scurueys. - Surely Sr a notable exploit worthy to be cronicled; but had you anie witness of your valiancie?
Ingenioso, who is a thinly veiled representation of Thomas Nashe, makes a joke about Gullio's travels, using a classic comedic effect known as a "comic aside", in which the character breaks the fourth wall and talks directly to the audience. It was contended by one individual in the discussion at HLAS that Ingenioso's remark MUST be considered as being factually true with regard to the person being satirized [and then claimed that the target was Will Shakespeare]. This is an obvious joke in the play and there is no indication whatsoever that it should be taken as setting forth one of the correspondences between character and historical person. This is absolutely nothing like what you have done in manufacturing a joke outside of the text of the play itself and then claiming that it is a correspondence between the
character and the person, all done in an attempt to avoid a major discrepancy.
> PC: That's a perfectly acceptable step IF (a) the proposed
identification gets off the ground at all; (b) that the proposed
playwright would be likely to make such a joke; (c) it can be shown that the joke would be understood by, and would entertain, the proposed audience, and (d) it would be tolerated by the subject and other authorities.
MJ: None of that has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not there is an actual joke in the play, but it does describe your method in which you feel free to invent whatever is necessary to support your speculations. The main, perhaps only, question is whether or not the actual text of the play supports the presence of a joke therein.
>> PC: In the Gullio case, none of these can be demonstrated. (In each case the opposite is more likely).
You obviously know nothing about the 'Parnassus' plays.
>> PC: But for Twelfth Night, the motivation for each joke (and there are many in the play) can be shown. The play was a private entertainment for the court -- full of personal jokes, aimed at various courtiers -- and if the Queen found
each amusing, or otherwise tolerable, then it would be left in the play.
MJ: You never tire of treating your speculations as if they are facts. Or indulging in circular argument.
>> PC: Of course, in Twelfth Night, only a few jokes are aimed at the Queen -- especially that of her falling in love with a man-woman-man; but, it seems, she did not object to that being implied.
MJ: Are you able to produce any evidence at all that anyone at the time thought of Raleigh as a man-woman-man [whatever it is you might mean by that]? Evidence...not speculation, circular argument, or [im]pure invention.
>> PC: The first condition I list -- getting off the ground -- requires more than the stab in the dark we see in the Gullio case. Ideally, it should be possible to frame a question like that I pose for Olivia/ Elizabeth -- " . . name another person who has these apparently unique attributes . . ".
MJ: We've provided you with scholarship showing that they are apparently not unique attributes. Of course, you will deny the scholarship.
>> MJ: A play written in 1579, when the Queen was 46 years of age, would hardly be " a plea to the Queen to bear children," but that doesn't matter to Crowley. [this should be changed to 1580-81]
> PC: All Johnson demonstrates here is his massive ignorance of history. As far-fetched as we might see it now (or as most adults inmost times would see it) the Queen's marriage (to Alencon) was very much on the cards up to December 1581 -- with (amazingly) a hope for an heir of her body. William of Orange caused church bells to be rung
in November on a false report that it was going ahead. Stubbs had his hand cut off on 3rd November 1579 for writing that the Queen was too old to bear an heir.
MJ: I am well aware of the history, but thanks for pointing out that it was known by many at the time that the Queen was too old to bear an heir. That you think that a play was written at some point around 1580-81 [we have to wait for Raleigh] where this subject was treated as one big joke and presented to the Queen as a laughing matter is a joke in itself. The Queen was highly irate with Leicester and being publicly reminded of her "disgrace" in a character who is made to look foolish would hardly have been fitting.
>>> PC: 1) Is there ANY significant similarity (i.e. more than that which might arise by chance) between Olivia and Queen Elizabeth?
>. PC: Note how Johnson does NOT answer the question.
MJ: I certainly did answer the question, and I have been answering it all along. There is nothing in the character of Olivia which uniquely indicates that she is so similar to Elizabeth that she must be a caricature or representation of her. And dissimilarities do matter in the discussion no matter how much you would like to summarily dismiss their relevance to the question.
>> MJ: here are some similarities but there are just as many, if not more, dissimilarities.
> PC: Even this answer is enough to lose the argument. Remember, IF the Stratfordian case is true, the Stratman was not (around 1600) thinking of ANY member of the Elizabethan court around 1580, and the Lady Olivia will be as similar to Joan of Arc or Helen of Troy as she will to Queen Elizabeth. There should be NO similarities, except for the tiny number that might arise by chance.
MJ: Your contentions here are absurd, and your test is ridiculous. The fact that Olivia is female and gets to decide who, or if, she marries, is not the great peculiarity that you contend it is. The fact is that the action of the play does not mach the events involving the historical persons you propose as the players.
>> PC: Major dissimilarities might matter -- if they cannot be
explained. But, in fact, most can readily be explained simply as theatrical necessities. The country of Illyria cannot be identical to England, nor ruled by an unmarried queen.
MJ: You are constantly having to explain away differences, which is something that should cause a person of normal sense to consider if maybe they are on the wrong path.
>> MJ: Olivia is not necessarily a caricature of Queen Elizabeth, especially when the action of the play is considered. In that, there is no resemblance between actual events involving the Queen in 1579.
> PC: Wrong. The circumstances of Olivia are close to those of Queen Elizabeth in 1579 -- at least before August when she was told about Leicester's marriage to Letttice Knollys. She had a very long-standing suitor for her hand, whom she (mostly) disdained. She had recently fallen in love with a hopelessly-unsuitable upstart from the lower classes (in the view of every other courtier).
MJ: "On 21 September 1578 Leicester secretly married Lady Essex at his country house at Wanstead, with only a handful of relatives and friends present. He did not dare to tell the Queen of his marriage; nine months later Leicester's
enemies at court acquainted her with the situation, causing a furious outburst.
She already had been aware of his marriage plans a year earlier, though.
The marriage of her favourite hurt the Queen deeply. She never accepted it, humiliating Leicester in public: "my open and great disgraces delivered from her Majesty's mouth".
In 1583 she informed ambassadors that Lettice Dudley was "a
she-wolf" and her husband a "traitor" and "a cuckold"."
There is no doubt that by May of 1579, Elizabeth was aware of the fact that Leicester was married. Any play written after that depicting him as courting her would not be at all close to the circumstances of Elizabeth in 1579-80, and such a depiction would be more than offensive to the Queen. Your scenario is speculative garbage.
>> PC: Claiming that a man was really a woman is (and was) an ancient upper-class derogatory device.
MJ: Right. You have zero evidence that Raleigh was ever referred to in such a fashion, but you are going to magically transform this nebulous speculation into a fact and then treat it as if it establishes a correspondence between Raleigh and Viola. This is so pathetically weak I'm surprised that even you will resort to such a trick.
>>> PC: 4) Can you name -- from the whole of Early Modern Europe, another rich, noble, never-married woman who could decide who she would marry?
>> MJ: Not off the top of my head...
> PC: The top of your head should be more than good enough. I have asked this question of Strats dozens (and maybe hundreds) of times. No answer is ever forthcoming.
MJ: It is your argument...why should I do your research for you? But wait, some research was done and presented to you, and you simply deny it.
> > MJ: There were plenty of rich, never-married women who could decide who, or even if, they would marry.
> PC: Simply not true. There may have been a few -- a tiny, tiny percentage. I don't know what agenda was being followed in those academic books Nat Whilk mentioned. But it's likely as daft of most of that ilk.
MJ: And there is the denial, with a touch of ad hominem thrown in for good measure. Do you ever realize just how transparent you are?
>> MJ: The only question remaining is if any of them were members of the nobility. Of course, Elizabeth wasn't...she was royalty.
> PC: This is nonsense. No informed person would say that the royalty was not part of the nobility.
MJ: Except, of course, for royalty. You think Henry VIII thought he was just another member of the nobility? And the nobility if they wanted to keep their heads.
>>> MJ: There is, and was, a difference. Olivia was not royalty. Just one more dissimilarity for you to ignore.
> PC: So the playwright could readily have portrayed Olivia as royal -- and no one (inside or outide the court) would have seen her as a version of Elizabeth . . .?
MJ: You argue all over the place just to suit your needs at the time. I thought your argument was that the audience was supposed to see Olivia as a version of Elizabeth. Making her a Queen of Illyria would have been an actual correspondence, unlike anything you have been able to produce so far.
> PC: You don't seem to have any idea as to what a 'fictionalised story' is, nor of how or why it would be created. It's the kind of disability that makes you a fully-qualified Strat.
MJ: I have a much better idea than you do, and I can actually use the text of a work to demonstrate actual parallels and correspondences, something you are unable to accomplish.
>> PC: Olivia is the central character of the play, as Elizabeth was the central one of the court. Everything depends on her decisions (or whims) -- how she treats (or mistreats) Orsino / Leicester; how she decides to see Viola/ Raleigh, and then fall in love with him/her. How she pursues him /her. (Btw, Viola calls her 'Princess' at one point -- a quite unfitting term for the daughter of a count.) The Malvolio sub-plot also has her as the focus. Malvolio/ Hatton dreams of being master-of-the-house/ king'. The famous line 'Some have greatness thrust upon 'em" makes no sense if we are talking merely becoming the husband of the daughter of a count. Leicester, Hatton, Heanage, Raleigh, and many others dreamt of the possibility
of being King of England. Here the poet picks on Hatton, as one sorry example of overweaning ambition. Likewise, in Malvolio/ Hatton's monologue " . . let thy tongue tang arguments of state; put thyself into the trick of singularity . . " makes sense only for a monarch, not for a mere husband of the daughter of a count.
MJ: Are these supposed to be correspondences? And I can't believe you missed the bawdy implications.
>>> PC: Between Orsino and Robert Dudley?
>> MJ: No. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and make your case.
>> PC: To defeat the Stratfordian argument, I just have to show that, taken as a whole, Orsino is closer to Robert Dudley than he is to Martin Luther or Amerigo Vespucci.
MJ: This is so illogical as to be borederline insane.
>> PC: Firstly, while called 'a duke' and ruler of Illyria, he is
subservient to Olivia.
MJ: No, he isn't anything of the kind. He "governs" the country.
>> PC: She never refers to him as ruler, but as 'your lord' or as 'count' (NOT 'duke') and never shows him the respect a genuine ruler could (and would) insist upon. She spurns his missives and his messengers.
MJ: Now you are arguing all sides again. Isn't your scenario that Leicester is still in the Queen's good graces in 1579 with still a chance of marrying her? As for how she refers to him that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he is the ruler of Illyria, including Olivia, or with the relationship between Dudley and Elizabeth.
Do you have any actual, historical correspondences you can provide?
>> PC: He employs Viola/Caesario, as Leicester employed Raleigh.
MJ: Really...when did Leicester employ Raleigh to plead his case for marriage with the Queen?
>> PC: He has also taken over the fool, who formerly was in the service of Olivia/Elizabeth's father.
MJ: You should probably avoid bringing up courtly fools again, after you blew that argument so badly at HLAS. "Elizabeth never "employed" fools, I meant she "had" no fools, better just to forget it..."
>> PC: Orsino's name comes from bear-like, reflecting the bear on the Dudley escutcheon.
MJ: The name means "Little bear". That is hardly the type of correlation upon which to base an identification.
>> PC: Orsino/ Leicester has long been single, as he pursued Olivia/ Elizabeth. Orsino opens with a speech mentioning 'a dying fall' -- a devastating accident (or murder) which blighted Dudley's hopes for a royal marriage.
MJ: Dudley had not been long single. In fact, he had carried on with other women, including Knollys, for some time, and was married in September, 1578. You are right about one thing...the death of his first wife made it highly unlikely he would ever marry Elizabeth, and he and everybody else knew that quite well. The "dying fall" has to do with music, and there is no indication in the text itself that it has anything to do with the death of Dudley's first wife. It is just you mangling the text to try to establish some correspondence that doesn't actually exist.
>> PC: How much of that would apply to Martin Luther? Or to Amerigo Verspucci? Or to any other theoretical candidate (for Orsino) you care to propose?
MJ: Your statement is utter lunacy.
>>> PC: Between Aguecheek and Philip Sidney?
>> MJ: No. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and make your case.
> PC: In many ways, Aguecheek represents the whole body of minor courtiers who were routinely in attendance, waiting on Queen Elizabeth.
MJ:
Crowley can't make the case so he changes his story.
> PC: They were far too many to be represented in a play, and neither would they fit the 'court' of this fictitious daughter of a count. However, he matches Sidney too well, with his pretensions of learning
and claims to know a lot of languages, and in his idiotic challenges, when he feels his honour impugned.
MJ: Do you have any actual evidence from Sidney's life to support these alleged correspondences, other than the tennis court dispute? What is truly incredible is how much better at satire the author of the
'Parnassus' plays is than Shakespeare - at least if your scenario is to be accepted. The 'Parnassus' author is able to develop correspondences which not only convey character traits but actually mirror real-life events from the biography of the target. In the '12th Night' satire according to Crowley, Shakespeare is
unable to match this ability in any similar fashion. The 'Parnassus' author depicts Gullio avoiding marriage to an Earl's daughter, and the circumstances mirror those involving Southampton's evasion of marriage to Oxenford's daughter, down to the specifics of having to pay a fine. The '12th Night' author, at least as posited by Crowley, is unable to even work in a recognizable reference to the tennis court dispute, and we are left with vague generalities about quarrelsomeness and stupid challenges. Pathetically weak.
>> PC: (Of course, in real life, he may have had a genuine grievance and been quite outrageously insulted, but Oxford is not going to portray that in his play.) The play can presumably be dated to after the
tennis-court affair, which would also date it to after the Queen leans of Leicester's (Orsino's) marriage. But that is not a good reason for it not to be presented in the form we see. In that respect, the play harked back to (maybe) happier, if quite recent, times.
MJ:
Nonsense. And more circular argument.
>>> PC: Between Sir Toby and Hunsdon?
>> MJ: No. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and make your case.
> PC: Sir Toby is the uncle of Olivia, and in normal circumstances would be the 'man of the house' and would be able to instruct his neice in all matters, including whom she should marry. But he is far
from that.
MJ: More nonsense. He is a drunk and a leech... a parasite...and there is no indication that Carey was any such thing. This is a comedy...you do realize that, right, because it sounds like you are trying to make
it into a police report.
> PC: The best match for him is Henry Carey, who was an older cousin (the son of Mary Boleyn) and very likely a son of Henry VIII. If this true, he would have been more than a half-brother of Elizabeth. He
was appointed Lord Chamberlain of the Household in July 1585. While this was six years after the play was written, he succeeded the Earl of Sussex, who died in 1583 and may have been ill for some time
before. So he may well have been occupying the role in effect, if not in name. He was a bluff, outspoken soldier, and otherwise fits the character of Sir Toby.
MJ:
Rampant speculation and your suspicions do not serve as the basis of an actual correspondence. What you think "may have been" or "may well have been" does not furnish an actual correspondence which the
author would have utilized to inform the expected audience of who was intended to be Sir Toby. Pathetically weak. And time travel is out of bounds.
>.> PC: Between Malvolio and Christorpher Hatton?
>>> MJ: No. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and make your case.
>> PC: The case for Hatton being Malvolio has been made by Oxfordians many decades ago. You can read Ogburn's "Mystery of William Shakespeare" for a full account. One strong item mentioned is
that in the play the forged letter read by Malvolio is signed "The Fortunate-Unhappy', which was Hatton's posy.
MJ: That's an interesting coincidence but it certainly doesn't establish the types of correspondences necessary to make a positive identification.
>>> PC: Between Viola and Raleigh?
>> MJ: No. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and make your case.
> PC: Who was the hopelessly unsuitable person with whom Elizabeth fell in love?
MJ: I know of no evidence that Elizabeth ever "fell in love" with Raleigh.
My understanding is that starting around December of 1581, after Raleigh returned to England from fighting the rebellions in Ireland, that he began to take part in court life and became a favorite of the Queen. But I know of nothing that indicated that the thought of marrying him ever even crossed her mind. Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
>>
PC: Who, in the play, was the hopelessly unsuitable person with whom Olivia fell in love?
MJ: She fell in love with a woman who was disguised as a man. Are you contending that Raleigh was a woman disguised as a man? Do you even have any evidence that Elizabeth ever considered, even remotely, the possibility of marrying Raleigh, and required warning against such a possibility?
>> PC: That should be more than enough, unless there are factors that would rule Raleigh out -- and there are none.
> MJ: Right...other than the fact that Viola is a female who is courting Olivia for someone else, has a twin brother, was shipwrecked, marries the Duke, etc. Other than all of those factors ruling her out, there are none.
>> PC: The minor details match: the high-pitched voice, the appearance from 'nowhere', the lack of education, with the claim "I have studied"; the instruction from Olivia: "There lies your way, due west."; and the references to sailing and marine matters;.
MJ: Sir Toby and Malvolio use marine terms in the very first act...are they also representations of Raleigh? What lines in the play refer to a "high-pitched voice" like Raleigh's and where do you find no education?
>>> PC: 3) If you are denying any such similarity, can you point to any other real court (or 'court' -- some assemblage of aristocratic males and females) which is closer (or as close) to the fictional one portrayed?
>> MJ: It isn't close to any court.
> PC: Note the dodge.
MJ:
Where? I don't have to find any other court. It is your job to prove the correlation and correspondence. Saying that there aren't any other courts which resemble Olivia's home doesn't prove your case. How you are unable to understand this is a wonderment.
>> PC: I even suggested you read 'court' as an assemblage of aristocratic persons. And the reason for the dodge is that you CAN'T point to any other group -- at any time in history -- that resembled the 'court' of Olivia better than the real court of Elizabeth.
MJ: I don't need to point to any other group at any time in history that resembles Olivia's home [it isn't a court]. All I have to do is show that you have failed to demonstrate that Olivia's home resembles Elizabeth's court in any manner such as to prove that Elizabeth's court is the intended subject of the author. I've done that. Your alleged correspondences are dust on an imaginary portrait in a fantasy castle.
>> MJ: The play doesn't have to be about a specific court
> PC: The dodge continues -- with the creation of a strawman. No one asserts that the play HAS to be about a court. We merely point out the resemblance, and draw the appropriate conclusions. Galileo did not begine by asserting that the Venus HAD to be a satellite of the sun. He merely observed that it has phases, and sought for an explanation.
MJ: The dodge does continue but you are the one dodging. You very much are asserting that the play has to be about the court of Elizabeth. In fact, you have asserted that the play qualifies as circumstantial evidence that your Lord wrote it and that he wrote it some time around 1580 or so. Your task, then, is to make your case, showing actual correspondences and parallels demonstrating that the intended target of the satire is Elizabeth's court. You haven't pointed out any valid resemblances other than some superficial trivialities, and you have offered up speculation and fantasy for factual parallels. If you now wish to claim that your scenario is just a speculative explanation, that's fine...but a speculative explanation does not qualify as circumstantial evidence.
Jim F.
. . .
> MJ: The dodge does continue but you are the one dodging.
You never dodge like Tom Reedy?
crow...@eircom.net
correspondences between character and historical person, and the parallels between the action of the play and the real-life events involving the target of the satire, must be accurate enough for the intended audience to grasp who the author is targeting in the caricature.</i>
It is ridiculous to talk of 'accuracy' in many (and probably most) cases. In 'Animal Farm' the pig 'Napoleon' represents Stalin, but there's not much 'accuracy' in the portrayal. There's enough guidance in the story as a whole to enable an informed reader to see and enjoy the parallels. But it can be read simply as a children's story without any sense of the satire. That's pretty much how Strats see all the plays. Only Oxfordians see Olivia as Queen Elizabeth and few of them see Viola as a caricature of Raleigh.
<i> > MJ: The identification isn't based on nebulous, airy notions like the ones you propose</i>
There is nothing nebulous about the very-well-known characters of Queen Elizabeth, Christopher Hatton, Leicester or Raleigh. And their caricatures are well drawn by a famously capable playwright.
<i> > MJ: No author of any worth writes a satire in which the target is unidentifiable to the audience;</i>
Can you read (or have you read) "Gulliver's travels" as densely woven satire on the politics of the author's day?
<i> > MJ: the author does need to consider the audience which will be viewing the play and construct the character and the action of the play so that the intended audience will make the connection.</i>
Shakespeare had two principal audiences in mind -- the very small court one which would pick up on all (or most of) the jokes and caricatures, and a non-courtier one which would miss the great bulk
<i> > MJ: Your characters don't resemble the historical persons and you can demonstrate no parallels between the action of the play and the historical events involving the actual persons</i>
That is nonsense. The principal female -- who is beautiful, wise, noble, witty, articulate, etc., falls in love with a hopelessly inappropriate person. She has long been pursued by a nobleman who is portrayed as intelligent, educated, art-loving, and more-or-less honourable (there are hints that his sexual conduct might be on the "less" side). And so on . . . . (I've set this all out several times -- and it is a mirror of the court of Queen Elizabethan around 1580).
<i> > MJ: With that being said, I certainly realize that the identification of Gullio as Southampton is speculative opinion. If only you could do the same and realize that your speculative opinion that '12th Night' is a roman a clef of court life in 1579-1580 is just that - speculative and opinion. </i>
You have almost nothing to back your identification of Gullio. There are as many arguments against it as you can make for it. At best, it's a 50/50 case. I'm sure that numerous other candidates could be suggested (and probably have been) and better cases have been made than yours. (As I said, I have almost no interest in the matter.) BUT can you suggest ONE other court (or 'court') that fits the play as well as that of Elizabeth? The answer is that you can't -- not at any time in history, nor from any culture. One key problem is finding that noble, rich, virginal, never-married Early-modern woman who could decide whom she would marry.
<i> >>> PC: Again, the context is all-important. Sidney certainly issued challenges (for a duel) against Oxford, after the tennis-court quarrel.
MJ: This is circular argument and illogical.</i>
Not so. It is an indisputable historical fact that Sidney was quarrelsome and issued intemperate challenges for duels. Since this was well-known, in theory almost anyone could have written this aspect of the play (after about 1579). But those who were more closely involved, and had a personal interest are better candidates than others
<i> > MJ: You have contended that the play is circumstantial evidence that Oxford wrote the plays. In this instance, your premise is the same as your conclusion. Oxford wrote the play; therefore, Aguecheek could be Sidney; therefore, Oxford wrote the play.</i>
If this was all that I was relying upon, you might have the beginnings of an argument. But, even considering the 'Aguecheek = Sidney' theory in isolation (insofar as that is possible), the known historical facts break the circularity. Imagine that Strats had such a 'coincidence' -- a canonical play which highlighted a well-recorded episode known to be of intense personal interest to the postulated playwright. Would we hear anything about 'circularity' then? Or would it be regarded as categorical proof? It is the total absence of ALL such matters that prompts the initial scepticism about the Stratman.
[..]
<i> > > PC: I have stated the tests before. And Johnson has ducked them every time. Let's try once again. When the poet was writing Twelfth Night either (a) he had in mind Queen Elizabeth and some prominent members of her court -- OR (b) he did not. Stratfordians have never conceived that he did. A play written around 1600 could not sensibly caricature people of 20 years earlier, and include a plea to the Queen to bear children. So, for Stratfordians, his fictional characters bear no similarity to any real people; and the story and its circumstances present no remotely likely match. Olivia is no more be Queen Elizabeth than she is Helen of Troy or Joan of Arc.
MJ: I did not doge this insipid test. I just though it was so
Try a little honesty for a change. There are NO similarities between Olivia and Helen of Troy. Obviously, I picked her name at random to make the point that you could pick ANY early-modern woman (or from an earlier age) and you would find no match. Olivia is as close as can be got to Elizabeth, while still presenting her as a fictional character.
<i> > MJ: but that does nothing to establish that Olivia is a caricature of Elizabeth. As usual, your logic fails: </i>
You duck the logic. You cannot find ANY real woman (early-modern, or earlier or later) who is a better match.
<i> > MJ: Crowley Logic: Olivia is more like Queen Elizabeth than she is like Helen of Troy. Therefore, Olivia represents Elizabeth.</i>
First you ignore my preamble: It is necessary to the Strat belief to hold that Olivia is no more a representation of Queen Elizabeth than she is one of Helen of Troy or Joan of Arc. Second, you miss the extremely obvious condition -- "Helen of Troy" is a random name, and you are free to substitute ANY other you prefer.
<i> > MJ: As for Joan of Arc she is probably more like Elizabeth than Olivia is like her.</i>
You've twisted the question (Is it from being a lawyer? Or being stupid? Or both?) There is no point to comparing Elizabeth with Joan of Arc. The fictional character here is Olivia, and the question is "Does she fit her ANY real person in history as well, or better than Queen Elizabeth?"
<i> > MJ: They were both females who led their countries in times of war, both were icons of their religious factions, both remained unmarried, both were called whores by their enemies, etc. </i>
No one could sensibly suggest that Olivia is a portrayal of Joan of Arc (OR of Helen of Troy OR of ANY woman other than Elizabeth).
<i> > MJ: Of course, even if Olivia was more like Elizabeth than Joan of Arc, that would not mean that the author of the play intended Olivia to be a representation of Queen Elizabeth.</i>
Sure -- when you are a Strat, you are perfectly happy living with odds against every one of your so-called 'arguments' of a million to one. Logic is irrelevant. It's entirely a matter of Faith.
<i> >>> PC: Viola is no more be Raleigh than she/he is Genghis Khan or Henry VIII. Likewise for all the others characters.
MJ: There is still no logic or relevance in your meaningless test. Viola is not like Raleigh as Viola is merely a woman who dresses like a man for the purposes of a comedy.</i>
You ignore my preamble -- so that you can appear mystified. To repeat, it is necessary to the Strat belief to hold that Viola is no more a caricature of Raleigh than she/he is of Henry VIII or Genghis Khan.
BUT no one would propose that Viola is a caricature of Henry VIII or of Genghis Khan. Both ideas are insane. However, the proposal that Viola is a caricature of Raleigh is NOT insane. It is exactly what a playwright like Shakespeare would do, if he were trying to tease Raleigh and amuse the Queen and the rest of the court. Theoretically, that could be said of anyone who was in a position to write a play around 1580. But, in practice, there was only one such person, and he had a particular animus against Raliegh.
<i> > MJ: You have yet to offer any evidence whatsoever that Raleigh was viewed as a man-woman-man, whatever you might mean by that.</i>
The crucial indicator is that the Queen fell in love with him -- as in the play Olivia falls in love with a woman pretending to be a man. Further, the insult fits. He was lower-class, and that is (mostly) an upper-class insult. He also was the leader in the new fashions, for long-hair, perfume, earrings, and colourful (and expensive) clothes, thing that Oxford could not afford at the time.
<i> > MJ: Genghis Khan and Henry III have absolutely no place in the discussion and only serve to point out how mixed up you are to propose such an absurd test as if it has any logical validity at all.</i>
I have explained their relevance numerous times.
<i> >>> MJ: . . pointing out major discrepancies between the characters and the real-life persons
>> PC: 'Discrepancies' aren't the problem. Is Olivia as close (or closer) to Joan of Arc as she is to Queen Elizabeth? Is Viola as close (or closer) to Genghis Khan as she/he is to Raleigh? And so on,for every character.
We are talking about what was in the mind of the poet when he created those characters. It's very very simple. Were they (to him) (a) purely fictional? Or (b) was he basing his characters on individuals that he knew (and which we can identify)?
If they were purely fictional, then my 'insane' argument above holds. Olivia will be as close to Joan of Arc (or any other person you care to name) as she is to Queen Elizabeth.
If the poet was basing Olivia on people known to him, then we should be able to state their names (rich, noble, never-married females being rare).
What's hard about that?
The tests are pretty obvious. What is the likelihood that Olivia is based on Queen Elizabeth? To prove that there little or no such likelihood, your first step should be to present other possible females of the era. Then you might be able to show that Mistress X or Mistress Y could fit as well.
But you have made no such effort. You are not interested in making any such effort. You have no interest in truth. Your Faith is more important and cannot be questioned.
This post has got long enough already. I may (or I may not) deal with the rest of your post some time later.