Even Scientists can be Stoopid
KQKnave
Here's the latest scoop from the American Association
for the Advancement of Science!
From *Science* magazine, November 13, 1998, p1255:
"In a new entry to the enduring controversy over who
exactly wrote Shakespeare's plays, a researcher has
come up with circumstantial evidence - based on
astronomical references in the plays - that favor the
leading alternative candidate, Edward de Vere, 17th
Earl of Oxford. The provocative analysis, however,
won't quell a debate likely to continue to the last
syllable of recorded time.
In a paper posted to the Los Alamos National Lab
preprint site, Eric Altschuler, a physicist-turned-medical
student at the University of California, San Diego, has
tallied references to the stars and the planets in the plays
and compared them with contemporaneous astronomical
events. He has found no reference to events after 1604,
the year Oxford - a poet and patron of the arts - died at
age 54. Shakespeare of Stratford, 14 years younger, died
in 1616.
There is abundant evidence in the plays that the author
was au courant with astronomical theories. Examples cited
include a description in Hamlet of a bright star on a November
night that could refer to a "new" star (now called supernova
SN1572A) that appeared in November 1572. The star was
described by Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, in whose
portrait a coat of arms bears the names "Rosenkrans" and
"Guldensteren". And in Troilus and Cressida, there are two
passages indicating Shakespeare's awareness of geomagnetism,
proposed in a 1600 book by William Gilbert.
In contrast, the plays contain no mention of major findings
made by Galileo with his new telescope and described in a
1610 book - such as sunspots, features on the moon, and
moons around Jupiter. There are 40 references to the sun,
15 to the moon, and 10 to Jupiter in the later plays, writes
Altschuler, but none betrays awareness of these developments.
"There are many possible explanations why Shakespeare
did not write about any of these topics," he writes. "However,
the most parsimonious is that the Bard was not alive" at the
time and that the late plays are incorrectly dated.
Another Shakespeare sleuth, political scientist Ward
Elliot of Claremont McKenna College in California, says he's
skeptical. "This evidence belongs in the the category of
'could be [Oxford]' evidence." Elliott's own research on word
usage, he says, shows the Bard "couldn't be" Oxford because
the style of the Earl's known dated poetry is incompatible
with the plays that, if he were "Shakespeare," would have to
have been written around the same time."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
[End of *Science* article]
Jim
Bloomeenee
grasping at straws. it's arguments like this that have sent me into
Marlovianism.
Nigel Davies
> preprint site, Eric Altschuler, a physicist-turned-medical
> student at the University of California, San Diego, has
> tallied references to the stars and the planets in the plays
> and compared them with contemporaneous astronomical
> events. He has found no reference to events after 1604,
Really? He needs to go back and do some more research:
In September 1605 there was an eclipse of the moon. In October, there was also
an eclipse of the sun, viewable from England. A commonly held belief (that is
still held by some to this day) was that natural events such as these were
divine signs warning of impending doom and disaster.
In February 1606, Edward Gresham published a pamphlet that told of strange
events in Croatia that included a report of a woman giving birth to a boy who
had four heads. This was seen as confirmation of the terrible things to come
after the foreboding eclipses of just 4 months earlier. Gresham's pamphlet
reads:
"The Earth's and Moon's late and horrible obscurations, the frequent
eclipsations of the fixed bodies; by the wandering, the fixed stars, I mean the
planets, within these few years more than ordinary, shall without doubt have
their effects no less admirable, than the positions unusual. Which Peucer with
many more too long to rehearse out of continual observation and the consent of
all authors noted to be, new leagues, traitorous designments, catching at
kingdoms, translation of empire, downfall of men in authority, emulations,
ambition, innovations, factious sects, schisms, and much disturbance and
troubles in religion and matters of the Church, with many other things
infallible in sequent such orbical positions and phenomenes."
On December 26, 1606, Shakespeare's King Lear was performed before James I at
Whitehall, almost certainly for the first time given that there are no
references to any earlier performances. In the play, Gloucester says:
"These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us. Though the
wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged
by the sequent effects. Love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide; in
cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond
cracked 'twixt son and father."
Act 1, Scene 2
then Edmund continues:
"I am thinking, brother, of a prediction I read this other day, what should
follow these eclipses...I promise you, the effects he writes of succeed
unhappily; as of unnaturalness between the child and the parent; death, dearth,
dissolutions of ancient amities; divisions in state, menaces and maledictions
against king and nobles; needless diffidences, banishment of friends,
dissipation of cohorts, nuptial breaches, and I know not what."
Act 1, Scene 2
It is bordering on indisputable that Gloucester's and Edmund's speeches in King
Lear were directly inspired by the recent or "late" eclipses in Autumn 1605 and
Gresham's pamphlet of February 1606. The known recent events, Gresham's words,
his account of cause and effects, his way of listing disasters that he predicts
will come about as a result of this divine sign, all correlate with these
speeches in King Lear. Shakespeare's conciser accounts are, naturally, vastly
superior, particularly in the way Gloucester's account builds forebodingly from
cooling love to high treason and the alliteration in Edmund's speech.
Shakespeare even goes one step further by augmenting the list of impending doom
with a reference to the recent Gunpowder Plot attempt to murder James I and
Parliament members at the Palace of Westminster on November 4, 1605 as real
evidence of "in palaces, treason" following these eclipses.
Immediately after the Gunpowder Plot of November 1605, various security measures
were put into effect including the closure of all ports. Unusually, the security
measures in this instance were announced by public proclamation and the incident
in general aroused intense interest in the country. In a clear utilisation of
these security measures by Shakespeare, he has Edgar saying in King Lear:
"I heard myself proclaimed, and by the happy hollow of a tree escaped the hunt.
No port is free, no place that guard and most unusual vigilance does not attend
my taking."
Act 2, Scene 2
As Oxford died in 1604, how could he have been the author of this work that
correlates with these known, dateable events and sources that occurred after he
died?
Clearly, he wasn't.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
KQKnave
In article <365670DB...@emirates.net.ae>, Nigel Davies
<nda...@emirates.net.ae> writes:
>As Oxford died in 1604, how could he have been the author of this work that
>correlates with these known, dateable events and sources that occurred after
>he died? Clearly, he wasn't.
Even without those facts, the entire premise is invalid. The idea that
some specific astronomical event has to be correlated with each mention
of astronomical objects in the plays is absurd to begin with. Eclipses
and bright stars were known to everyone, and Shakespeare doesn't
even need to have seen a bright star himself to use the idea - he may
have just picked it up from reading the bible. Here is the quote from
Hamlet, Act 1 sc.i lines 35-39:
Barnardo: Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course t'illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one -
And here later in the same scene (108-125):
Ber. I think it be no other but e'en so.
Well may it sort that this portentous figure
Comes armed through our watch, so like the King
That was and is the question of these wars.
Hor. A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye.
In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets;
As stars with trains of fire, and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
And even the like precurse of fierce events,
As harbingers preceding still the fates
And prologue to the omen coming on,
Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
Unto our climature and countrymen.
Why these remarks must correlate with a nova in 1572 is beyond me. It's
almost like claiming that a mention of a sunset would have to
correlate to a specific sunset on a specific day. I'm surprised that
*Science*, a well-respected scientific journal that publishes
peer-reviewed papers would even consider putting something like
this on it's pages.
Here is another quote from The Tempest Act 1 sc.ii lines 178-184:
PROSPERO. Know thus far forth:
By accident most strange, bountiful Fortune,
Now my dear lady, hath mine enemies
Brought to this shore; and by my prescience
I find my zenith doth depend upon
A most auspicious star, whose influence
If now I court not, but omit, my fortunes
Will ever after droop.
So is there some specific star involved with this quote as well
or is Shakespeare merely bringing in an idea that has been
around since ancient Greece, namely that bright astronomical
objects were thought to be portentous?
In addition to the article, there is a picture of the Ashbourne
portrait with the caption:
"The so-called Ashbourne portrait of Shakespeare is claimed
by some to be an altered portrait of the Earl of Oxford".
They seem to take for granted that there really is some doubt as to
the true identity of the author.
Jim
I travel for the sake of poetry,
But who can understand that?
-Charles Cantalupo
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> In article <365670DB...@emirates.net.ae>, Nigel Davies
> <nda...@emirates.net.ae> writes:
>
> >correlates with these known, dateable events and sources that occurred after
> >he died? Clearly, he wasn't.
>
then only a noble would have had the liesure to look up at the sky. As
I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
I poem for the sake of travel.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Neuendorffer
> Excellent retort, Jim, but you neglect one point: the fact that back
> then only a noble would have had the liesure to look up at the sky. As
> I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
Surely even glove makers could lie and "look up at the sky."
However, after 1604, I suspect Shakspere was far too busy
in small claims court to do much star gazing.
Art N.
ho...@ouch-sonic.net
>then only a noble would have had the liesure to look up at the sky. As
>I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
Ridiculous! You think that only the rich would have the supposed leisure to
have a look at the stars? _All_ people had a much better sense of astronomy
'back then' for several reasons, mainly due to the fact that there weren't
any city lights to wash them out, and less pollution that hide them. Step
outside in a remote area and you will see that the stars are an immediate
and obvious companion to any night traveler.
-Dan
-- Dan McLaughlin ho...@OUCH-sonic.net
-- Remove the OUCH- to email me
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Furstenau
>>Excellent retort, Jim, but you neglect one point: the fact that back
>>then only a noble would have had the liesure to look up at the sky. As
>>I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
> Ridiculous! You think that only the rich would have the supposed leisure to
> have a look at the stars? _All_ people had a much better sense of astronomy
> 'back then' for several reasons, mainly due to the fact that there weren't
> any city lights to wash them out, and less pollution that hide them. Step
> outside in a remote area and you will see that the stars are an immediate
> and obvious companion to any night traveler.
IRONY \'i-run-nee\ n. [L ironia, < Grk eironia < eiron,
dissembler] 1. the use of words to express something
other than and esp. the opposite of the literal
meaning. 2. a humorous or sardonic literary style
characterized by incongruity between the real and
perceived meaning of an item or incident. ...
Calm down ... they're just electrons ...
> -Dan
--
Dave Furstenau d...@binary.net
http://www.binary.net/df
Lincoln, Nebraska
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > Excellent retort, Jim, but you neglect one point: the fact that back
> > then only a noble would have had the liesure to look up at the sky. As
> > I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
>
>
> However, after 1604, I suspect Shakspere was far too busy
> in small claims court to do much star gazing.
>
> Art N.
>
summer 1609 when his pursuit of Philip Rogers for a debt from 1604
until that time would have been over (all the scholars agree) to 17
December 1608, when the second trial he got involved in to recover a
debt started. That trial (which established him as the leading
suer-for-debt of his time)lasted until his death, of course. So he
had over two months to look at the sky. But, as a commoner invariably
bent to some lowly task when not sleeping, he is not likely to have
done so.
Neuendorffer
>
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > > Excellent retort, Jim, but you neglect one point: the fact that back
> > > then only a noble would have had the liesure to look up at the sky. As
> > > I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
> >
> > Surely even glove makers could lie and "look up at the sky."
> >
> > However, after 1604, I suspect Shakspere was far too busy
> > in small claims court to do much star gazing.
> >
> > Art N.
> >
> Well, actually, Art, he wasn't busy in small claims court from late
> summer 1609 when his pursuit of Philip Rogers for a debt from 1604
> until that time would have been over (all the scholars agree) to 17
> December 1608, when the second trial he got involved in to recover a
> debt started. That trial (which established him as the leading
> suer-for-debt of his time)lasted until his death, of course. So he
> had over two months to look at the sky. But, as a commoner invariably
> bent to some lowly task when not sleeping, he is not likely to have
> done so.
If you say so, Bob.
(Do you suppose the Stratford Grammar School taught the hermetic concept
of the correspondence between microcosm & macrocosm from Hermes
Trismegistus' _Emerald Tablet_: "Things below are as things above"?)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
> (Do you suppose the Stratford Grammar School taught the hermetic concept
> of the correspondence between microcosm & macrocosm from Hermes
> Trismegistus' _Emerald Tablet_: "Things below are as things above"?)
I can't resist, Art -- you misspelled "leisure". You did so, howEVER,
in a VERy suggestive way: "Liesure suits" can be read as "Lie sure suits".
So you confess that you're prevaricating?
MorEoVER, "Emerald Tablet" admits the perfect anagram
Embattled Earl,
(so you admit that your candidate is on the ropes!), and "Hermes
Trismegistus" anagrams to
Mirth's merest guises.
I *knew* you were joking! How can you post all your inane conspiracy
theories with a straight face after this?
David Webb
Neuendorffer
>>> >
>>> > > Excellent retort, Jim, but you neglect one point: the fact that back
>>> > > I'm sure would have been mentioned in the Science article.
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>> > Surely even glove makers could LIE and "look up at the sky."
>>> >
>>> > However, after 1604, I suspect Shakspere was far too busy
>>> > in small claims court to do much star gazing.
>>> >
>>> Well, actually, Art, he wasn't busy in small claims court from late
>>> summer 1609 when his pursuit of Philip Rogers for a debt from 1604
>>> until that time would have been over (all the scholars agree) to 17
>>> December 1608, when the second trial he got involved in to recover a
>>> debt started. That trial (which established him as the leading
>>> suer-for-debt of his time)lasted until his death, of course. So he
>>> had over two months to look at the sky. But, as a commoner invariably
>>> bent to some lowly task when not sleeping, he is not likely to have
>>> done so.
>
>> If you say so, Bob.
>>
>> (Do you suppose the Stratford Grammar School taught the hermetic concept
>> of the correspondence between microcosm & macrocosm from Hermes
>> Trismegistus' _Emerald Tablet_: "Things below are as things above"?)
Dave Webb wrote:
> I can't resist, Art -- you misspelled "leisure". You did so, howEVER,
> in a VERy suggestive way: "Liesure suits" can be read as "Lie sure suits".
> So you confess that you're prevaricating?
I thought is was pretty funny too, Dave.
That's why I couldn't resist teasing Bob about it. :-)
Art
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
of the correspondence between microcosm & macrocosm from Hermes
Trismegistus' _Emerald Tablet_: "Things below are as things above"?)
Art Neuendorffer
Not officially, Art.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
wrong.
David L. Webb
(KQKnave) wrote:
> Here's the latest scoop from the American Association
> for the Advancement of Science!
>
> From *Science* magazine, November 13, 1998, p1255:
>
> "In a new entry to the enduring controversy over who
> exactly wrote Shakespeare's plays, a researcher has
> come up with circumstantial evidence - based on
> astronomical references in the plays - that favor the
> leading alternative candidate, Edward de Vere, 17th
> Earl of Oxford. The provocative analysis, however,
> won't quell a debate likely to continue to the last
> syllable of recorded time.
> In a paper posted to the Los Alamos National Lab
> preprint site, Eric Altschuler, a physicist-turned-medical
> student at the University of California, San Diego, has
> tallied references to the stars and the planets in the plays
> and compared them with contemporaneous astronomical
> events. He has found no reference to events after 1604,
> the year Oxford - a poet and patron of the arts - died at
> age 54. Shakespeare of Stratford, 14 years younger, died
> in 1616.
[Rest deleted]
I have an October 23, 1998 copy of the preprint, downloaded from the Los
Alamos physics server, which is even more amusing than the above extract
would suggest. Mr. Altschuler seems rather confused about some basic
points. For instance, he twice identifies Edward de Vere, the alternative
candidate for Shakespeare authorship, as "the 13th Earl of Oxford" rather
than the seventeenth Earl. There are other comical assertions, among them
"...Sobran makes perhaps the strongest case ever for Oxford as
Shakespeare." The preprint appears to have been produced in an extremely
slapdash fashion, with little regard for accuracy; apparently it wasn't
even proofread by anyone reasonably proficient in English, as it contains
comic blunders like "playwrite" for "playwright", "sonnet's" as the plural
of "sonnet", etc., schoolboy howlers that are likely to be missed by a
spellchecker but not by a literate human.
Apart from the usual Oxfordian misinformation and deductive lapses, the
paper also contains some hilarious reasoning of the author's own.
Altschuler quotes some lines from 1 Henry VI suggesting that Shakespeare
was aware of the problem of explaining the orbit of Mars prior to the
publication of Kepler's work, and evidently suspects that the absence of
any mention in Shakespeare's later plays of Kepler's solution to the
problem is best explained by Oxford's death in 1604, prior to Kepler's 1609
account:
"So, Shakespeare seems aware of the problems previous to 1609 of explaining
the orbit of Mars, but despite the current dating of five plays after 1609
[these are enumerated], Shakespeare never felt it important to mention the
resolution of the confusion over the orbit of Mars."
Why should he? Does Mr. Altschuler seriously expect Tom Stoppard, who
exhibits awareness of various contemporary mathematical and physical
theories and problems in his brilliant comedy _Arcadia_, to mention
Witten's landmark explanation of various perplexing physical and
mathematical phenomena via supersymmetry, or recent explanations of the
chaotic nonlinear dynamical systems mentioned in _Arcadia_? If such
references do not appear in Stoppard's future work, will Mr. Altschuler
infer that Stoppard's plays were actually written by someone who died prior
to the Witten discoveries? The possibilies are endless!
David Webb
Neuendorffer
>
> You're both idiots. It's the dictionaries that spell "liesure"
> wrong.
Gosh, Bob, you're right!
Leisure n. [OE. leisere, leiser, OF.leisir, F. loisir, orig.,
permission, fr. L. licere to be permitted.] 1. Freedom from occupation
or business; vacant time; time free from employment.
"The desire of leisure is much more natural than of business and care."
--Sir W. TEMPLE!!!!
And no one should know more about "Freedom from occupation or
business"
than our dedicated Stratfordians on hlas.
Art N.
Daniel Wright
KQKnave wrote:
The idea that
some specific astronomical event has to be correlated with each mention
of astronomical objects in the plays is absurd to begin with. Eclipses
and bright stars were known to everyone, and Shakespeare doesn't
even need to have seen a bright star himself to use the idea - he may
have just picked it up from reading the bible.<<
This is typical Stratfordian posturing that we always see when the
bearers of that tired
old standard of the Fraud from Avon are confronted with evidence about
the authorship
that cannot be dismissed with sound reasoning or evidence. As Dr. Eric
Altschuler (an
eminent Oxfordian [honors B.A. and M.A. from Harvard; Ph.D. from The
University
of California at Davis]) has recently pointed out, the bright "star. . .
westward from the
pole" to which appearance in the heavens the author of Hamlet makes
reference was likely the "star of the age" whose singular journey
through the heavens struck wonder in the eyes of Europe late in 1572.
This was the brilliant supernova SN1572A that filled the constellation
Cassiopeia over the skies of Denmark (and all Europe) in frosty November
1572 (when Edward de Vere was 22, and the butcher's apprentice [is that
his current trade-of-choice among Stratfordians this week?] was 8.
Moreover, the assumption that this star was SN1572A is supported by
references to its
appearance by the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who was known to
English
courtiers by a portrait (unhappily, we have little evidence that there
was much demand for this portrait's circulation in Warwickshire villages
of the sixteenth century) in which he is surrounded by the coats of arms
of his ancestors, the names of two of which are Rosenkrans and
Guldensteren. "Shakespeare" therefore likely had access to this
engraving (maybe, if he were the Stratford man, someone dropped a
reproduction of the image on his plate in the Mermaid Tavern one
afternoon while he was quaffing a few brews, making him suddenly,
coincidentally, recall this boyhood sight, linking it somehow to the
picture of this great Danish astronomer from whom he then decided to
borrow two of his ancestors' names from the family coats of arms for his
latest tragedy! Yeah, that's it!). Or--maybe this was a celestial
sight etched in the memory of a 22-year old Edward de Vere whose
guardian, Lord Burghley, had been asked to investigate this wondrous
sight in the heavens by Queen Elizabeth, and whose brother-in-law,
Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby, was an ambassador of Elizabeth to the
Court at Elsinore.
KQKnave also wrote:
Why these remarks must correlate with a nova in 1572 is beyond me. It's
almost like claiming that a mention of a sunset would have to
correlate to a specific sunset on a specific day. I'm surprised that
*Science*, a well-respected scientific journal that publishes
peer-reviewed papers would even consider putting something like
this on it's pages.<<
I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone who
obviously doesn't
know the difference between "it's" and "its."
Prof. Daniel Wright, Ph.D.
Department of English
Concordia University
Portland, OR 97211-6099
Nigel Davies
> This is typical Stratfordian posturing that we always see when the
> bearers of that tired old standard of the Fraud from Avon are
> confronted with evidence about the authorship that cannot be dismissed
> with sound reasoning or evidence.
What "evidence" is this that you are claiming? An astrological event happened in
Shakespeare's lifetime and lasted 18 months that caused a great stir in Europe.
Why wouldn't it get a mention? Tycho was very famous across Europe. He published
detailed accounts of his findings in 1573 in which he used this event to prove
that the
heavens weren't immutable, which was very radical. Everyone knew all about it.
How does this "prove" that de Vere was the author as opposed to everyone else
writing literature during that time? It wasn't privileged information. It does
nothing atall to identify de Vere in any way.
> As Dr. Eric Altschuler (an eminent Oxfordian [honors B.A. and
> M.A. from Harvard; Ph.D. from The University of California at Davis])
Another title-toter.
> has recently pointed out, the bright "star. . .westward from the
> pole" to which appearance in the heavens the author of Hamlet makes
> reference was likely the "star of the age" whose singular journey
> through the heavens struck wonder in the eyes of Europe late in 1572.
"Likely" is not very high on the evidence scale. But so what? If he has
correctly identified it then well done, but how does that identify de Vere? This
one line to an event that just about everyone in Europe observed is getting an
exceptional amount of attention considering its trivial significance.
> Moreover, the assumption that this star was SN1572A is supported by
> references to its
> appearance by the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who was known to
> English
> courtiers by a portrait (unhappily, we have little evidence that there
> was much demand for this portrait's circulation in Warwickshire villages
> of the sixteenth century) in which he is surrounded by the coats of arms
> of his ancestors, the names of two of which are Rosenkrans and
> Guldensteren.
It's worth noting that Rosenkrantz and Guilderstern were, and are, very common
names in Denmark. There are even places with those names.
> "Shakespeare" therefore likely had access to this engraving
Two "likely"s don't make a solid case.
Nigel Davies, BSc., BBC, MI5, Do-re-me
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Nigel Davies
> Moreover, the assumption that this star was SN1572A is supported by
> references to its
> appearance by the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who was known to
> English
> courtiers by a portrait (unhappily, we have little evidence that there
> was much demand for this portrait's circulation in Warwickshire villages
> of the sixteenth century) in which he is surrounded by the coats of arms
> of his ancestors, the names of two of which are Rosenkrans and
> Guldensteren.
Which of the many portraits of Brahe are you referring to here?
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
KQKnave
In article <365A5CDE...@tleport.com>, Daniel Wright
<dlwr...@tleport.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Even Scientists can be Stoopid
>From: Daniel Wright <dlwr...@tleport.com>
>Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:14:38 -0800
>
>Only scientists?
>
>KQKnave wrote:
>
>The idea that
> some specific astronomical event has to be correlated with each mention
>
> of astronomical objects in the plays is absurd to begin with. Eclipses
> and bright stars were known to everyone, and Shakespeare doesn't
> even need to have seen a bright star himself to use the idea - he may
> have just picked it up from reading the bible.<<
>
>This is typical Stratfordian posturing that we always see when the
>bearers of that tired
>old standard of the Fraud from Avon are confronted with evidence about
>the authorship
>that cannot be dismissed with sound reasoning or evidence. As Dr. Eric
>Altschuler (an
>eminent Oxfordian [honors B.A. and M.A. from Harvard; Ph.D. from The
>University
>of California at Davis])
I don't care how many degrees he has. He should know better.
He can start by reading Hamlet. The listing of degrees is
typical of the posturing adopted by academic (and other) snobs
who can't believe that a man with no (known) higher degrees
wrote the works of Shakespeare. And snobbery, is after all,
the entire basis of the Oxfordian 'argument', since they have
no evidence that the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays.
>has recently pointed out, the bright "star. . .westward from the
>pole"
There is no "bright" star mentioned in Hamlet. Please read
the play, or at least the excerpt I provide below.
>to which appearance in the heavens the author of Hamlet makes
>reference was likely the "star of the age" whose singular journey
>through the heavens struck wonder in the eyes of Europe late in 1572.
Yeah, we know he pointed it out, Einstein. The question is, why?
I'll bring the relevant text from Hamlet in again, because you conveniently
left it out of your post, and I assume you did that because the text
of Hamlet itself is the strongest case against Altschuler's ideas:
>This was the brilliant supernova SN1572A that filled the constellation
>Cassiopeia over the skies of Denmark (and all Europe) in frosty November
>1572 (when Edward de Vere was 22, and the butcher's apprentice [is that
>his current trade-of-choice among Stratfordians this week?] was 8.
No, he was the son of a middle class landowner, much like Chaucer,
Donne, and Milton. Your dismissal of him as butcher's apprentice is an
invention of your own mind, and a rather transparent rhetorical ploy.
>Moreover, the assumption that this star was SN1572A is supported by
>references to its
>appearance by the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who was known to
>English
>courtiers by a portrait (unhappily, we have little evidence that there
>was much demand for this portrait's circulation in Warwickshire villages
>of the sixteenth century) in which he is surrounded by the coats of arms
>of his ancestors, the names of two of which are Rosenkrans and
>Guldensteren. "Shakespeare" therefore likely had access to this
>engraving (maybe, if he were the Stratford man, someone dropped a
>reproduction of the image on his plate in the Mermaid Tavern one
>afternoon while he was quaffing a few brews, making him suddenly,
>coincidentally, recall this boyhood sight, linking it somehow to the
>picture of this great Danish astronomer from whom he then decided to
>borrow two of his ancestors' names from the family coats of arms for his
>latest tragedy! Yeah, that's it!). Or--maybe this was a celestial
>sight etched in the memory of a 22-year old Edward de Vere whose
>guardian, Lord Burghley, had been asked to investigate this wondrous
>sight in the heavens by Queen Elizabeth, and whose brother-in-law,
>Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby, was an ambassador of Elizabeth to the
>Court at Elsinore.
Maybe Shakespeare got the idea of a star that portends grave events
from reading the Bible, which he surely knew from childhood. That would
seem to be the most 'parsimonious' explanation, since to bring in
Oxford neccessarily (did I spell that right?) requires the invention of a
vast conspiracy to hide his authorship. And perhaps Mr. Altschuler
can explain why the thousands of other events that were contemporay
with Galileo's sighting of the moons of Jupiter were also not included
in Shakespeare's later plays?. Or better yet, why, of the thousands
of events that occurred in England or in the rest of the world between
the birth of Oxford and the death of Shakespeare, so few were incorp-
orated into the plays? Is he willing to suggest on the basis of that
fact that neither Shakespeare of Stratford nor Edward de Vere
wrote the plays? That would seem to be neccessary (check my
spelling, would you?) if we use Altschuler's 'reasoning'.
>
>KQKnave also wrote:
>
>Why these remarks must correlate with a nova in 1572 is beyond me. It's
> almost like claiming that a mention of a sunset would have to
> correlate to a specific sunset on a specific day. I'm surprised that
> *Science*, a well-respected scientific journal that publishes
> peer-reviewed papers would even consider putting something like
> this on it's pages.<<
>
>I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone who
>obviously doesn't know the difference between "it's" and "its."
I *do* know the difference, but I often mistype it when I am in a hurry.
I also quite frequently mispell words with double letters and words
that have "ie" or "ei" in them. So what? I scored in the 98th percentile
on the verbal part of the SAT and the 96th percentile on the verbal
part of the GRE, and I'm not intimidated at all by your rhetorical nonsense.
By the way, if you want to see some seriously bad spelling, check
out Shakepeare's additions to the manuscript of "Sir Thomas More".
Jim, B.S., M.S., and with a special built-in model
XJ-square-root-of-three-dash-5 bullshit detector.
Tom Reedy
discernment more than literary history does.
In article <365A5CDE...@tleport.com>,
Daniel Wright <dlwr...@tleport.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone who
> obviously doesn't
> know the difference between "it's" and "its."
>
> Prof. Daniel Wright, Ph.D.
> Department of English
> Concordia University
> Portland, OR 97211-6099
>
> dwr...@cu-portland.edu
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"Moreover, the assumption that this star was SN1572A is supported
by references to its appearance by the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe,
who was known to English courtiers by a portrait (unhappily, we have
little evidence that there was much demand for this portrait's
circulation in Warwickshire villages of the sixteenth century) in which
he is surrounded by the coats of arms of his ancestors, the names of two
of which are Rosenkrans and Guldensteren. 'Shakespeare' therefore
likely had access to this engraving (maybe, if he were the Stratford man,
someone dropped a reproduction of the image on his plate in the Mermaid
Tavern one afternoon while he was quaffing a few brews, making him
suddenly, coincidentally, recall this boyhood sight, linking it somehow
to the picture of this great Danish astronomer from whom he then decided
to borrow two of his ancestors' names from the family coats of arms for
his latest tragedy! Yeah, that's it!). Or--maybe this was a celestial
sight etched in the memory of a 22-year old Edward de Vere whose
guardian, Lord Burghley, had been asked to investigate this wondrous
sight in the heavens by Queen Elizabeth, and whose brother-in-law,
Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby, was an ambassador of Elizabeth to the
Court at Elsinore."
Surely the servants of the courtiers to whom the portrait of Brahe was
known were allowed to see it, too? In any case, there were many ways
Shakespeare of Stratford could have picked up the names of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern and used them when he wanted a couple of Danish names
for Hamlet. A quite plausible one is that he saw a painting of
Brahe owned by Thomas Digges that had the two names on it. Thomas
Digges's wife married Thomas Russell, a friend of Shakespeare's (or
so we can be pretty sure since he was named overseer of Shakespeare's
will). Digges's son Leonard later wrote 2 elegies to Shakespeare.
The Diggeses owned property near Stratford.
I admit to not having any explanation for the star in Hamlet; a commoner
like Shakespeare would not have had had the (Okay, I'll go by the
stupid dictionary) leisure to have looked at the sky and seen the
nova or whatever, or the strength of mind to have remembered it if
he had. Perhaps a friendly noble told him about it, mistaking him
for a fellow courtier during a temporary fit of insanity when he'd
come across him when Shakespeare was at court (and there IS a recorded
instance of the Stratford man's having been at court at least once).
--Bob G.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
> I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone who
> obviously doesn't
> know the difference between "it's" and "its."
>
> Prof. Daniel Wright, Ph.D.
> Department of English
> Concordia University
> Portland, OR 97211-6099
>
> dwr...@cu-portland.edu
Usenet is an informal forum, and typos abound; few if any of us even
proofread text that we post here, so I don't see that your inference that
KQKnave doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's" is warranted.
Your remark looks more like a cheap shot.
However, Mr. Altschuler's preprint, submitted to the physics preprint
server and hence to a forum much more formal than a Usenet newsgroup,
contains several such howlers, including "playwrite" for "playwright"
("playwrite" is a verb, not a noun; the nominal form is "playwright" or
occasionally "playwriter") and "sonnet's" as the plural of "sonnet" (there
may well be others -- these I noticed in a very cursory perusal; stylistic
infelicities abound in the article). Moreover, Mr. Altschuler twice
identifies Edward de Vere as "13th Earl of Oxford," a blunder rather more
serious than a mere typo, and far more suggestive of unfamiliarity with the
material than KQKnave's trivial misspelling. If you are willing to assume
that KQKnave is incapable of understanding the pertinent issues because of
a mere misspelling, why are you not willing to infer that Mr. Altschuler is
incapable of understanding the issues? After all, his transgressions are
both more abundant and more serious than KQKnave's.
I've also pointed out in a previous post some pretty ludicrous reasoning
in the Altschuler preprint:
---------
Altschuler quotes some lines from 1 Henry VI suggesting that Shakespeare
was aware of the problem of explaining the orbit of Mars prior to the
publication of Kepler's work, and evidently suspects that the absence of
any mention in Shakespeare's later plays of Kepler's solution to the
problem is best explained by Oxford's death in 1604, prior to Kepler's 1609
account:
"So, Shakespeare seems aware of the problems previous to 1609 of explaining
the orbit of Mars, but despite the current dating of five plays after 1609
[these are enumerated], Shakespeare never felt it important to mention the
resolution of the confusion over the orbit of Mars."
Why should he? Does Mr. Altschuler seriously expect Tom Stoppard, who
exhibits awareness of various contemporary mathematical and physical
theories and problems in his brilliant comedy _Arcadia_, to mention
Witten's landmark explanation of various perplexing physical and
mathematical phenomena via supersymmetry, or recent explanations of the
chaotic nonlinear dynamical systems mentioned in _Arcadia_? If such
references do not appear in Stoppard's future work, will Mr. Altschuler
infer that Stoppard's plays were actually written by someone who died prior
to the Witten discoveries?
---------
In view of your dismissive attitude toward someone whom you evidently
assume, on the basis of very scant evidence, is confused about "its" and
"it's", why do not dismiss Mr. Altschuler, who confuses the 13th Earl with
the 17th Earl, just as peremptorily?
David Webb
Terry Ross
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9810042
Altschuler calls the star mentioned in the first scene of *Hamlet* a
"bright" star and says it appeared in November. In the play itself,
however, as Jim noted, the star is not called "bright." Moreover, the
word "November" never occurs in any of Shakespeare's works, so it's not
clear to me that the opening scene can be assigned to that month at all.
Those who think the *Hamlet* star must be the 1572 supernova would have a
better case if a character had said that the star had shone when Hamlet
was a child, or that it had been an omen at his birth. The audience would
then have understood the reference as pointing to something that had
happened decades before, but in the play the star's movement is a recent
event.
It might also strengthen the case for the supernova if the *Hamlet* star
had been described as so bright that it was visible during the day, as the
1572 supernova evidently had been -- yet the star in *Hamlet* is only seen
at night. It would also help if the *Hamlet* star had first appeared
"westward from the pole" and had remained in that part of the sky, but we
are told that it "Had made his course t'illume that part of heaven where
now it burns": this suggests that the star traveled across the sky both
nights to its position "westward from the pole," and this movement
suggests that it was not a "fixed star" as Altschuler believes, but a
planet. It is the movement of the "star," not its brightness that is so
striking to Bernardo. The 1572 supernova, however, did not wander each
night from some other part of the sky to take its place in Cassiopeia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
volker multhopp
> Altschuler's essay is available in postscript format at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9810042
Thanks, I haven't seen it yet.
>
> Altschuler calls the star mentioned in the first scene of *Hamlet* a
> "bright" star and says it appeared in November. In the play itself,
> however, as Jim noted, the star is not called "bright."
However, it "illumes part of heaven"-- that might be hyperbole, or it
might be bright.
> Those who think the *Hamlet* star must be the 1572 supernova would have a
> better case if a character had said that the star had shone when Hamlet
> was a child, or that it had been an omen at his birth. The audience would
> then have understood the reference as pointing to something that had
> happened decades before, but in the play the star's movement is a recent
> event.
But the critical event is not Ham Jr's birth, it's Ham Sr's death, ie
"now".
> It would also help if the *Hamlet* star had first appeared
> "westward from the pole" and had remained in that part of the sky, but we
> are told that it "Had made his course t'illume that part of heaven where
> now it burns": this suggests that the star traveled across the sky both
> nights to its position "westward from the pole," and this movement
> suggests that it was not a "fixed star" as Altschuler believes, but a
> planet. It is the movement of the "star," not its brightness that is so
> striking to Bernardo. The 1572 supernova, however, did not wander each
> night from some other part of the sky to take its place in Cassiopeia.
I think you're seriously misunderstanding this passage:
Ber. Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course t' illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns,
"Westward from the pole" indicates it's now in the western celestial
hemisphere. *All* stars move, make their course, everynight; everything
moves from the east to the west-- just like the sun. "Made his course
to ... where now it burns" indicates it's returned to place it was at
the time it was when they saw the ghost on the previous night; iow, it's
the same time-- tiem for the ghost to appear. This does not mean it's a
planet.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
> Apart from the usual Oxfordian misinformation and deductive lapses, the
> paper also contains some hilarious reasoning of the author's own.
> was aware of the problem of explaining the orbit of Mars prior to the
> publication of Kepler's work, and evidently suspects that the absence of
> any mention in Shakespeare's later plays of Kepler's solution to the
> problem is best explained by Oxford's death in 1604, prior to Kepler's 1609
> account:
Not to mention that the author of the plays doesn't even known of the
precession of the Equinoxes (there _was_ no "Northern Star" in Caesar's
time), which was worked out centuries before Christ, and that he
understands each fixed star to be in its own individual sphere, which is
bad Ptolemaism. But I gather the Oxfordian answer to that is, "It's a
joke."
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W Kennedy
>
> Daniel Wright wrote:
>
> > Moreover, the assumption that this star was SN1572A is supported by
> > references to its
> > appearance by the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who was known to
> > English
> > courtiers by a portrait (unhappily, we have little evidence that there
> > was much demand for this portrait's circulation in Warwickshire villages
> > of the sixteenth century) in which he is surrounded by the coats of arms
> > of his ancestors, the names of two of which are Rosenkrans and
> > Guldensteren.
>
Well, if Brahe was "known to English astronomers" by this portrait, I
suppose it must be the frontispiece to "Ye Englishe Boye's 1st Booke of
Astrologie".
John W Kennedy
> >has recently pointed out, the bright "star. . .westward from the
> >pole"
>
> There is no "bright" star mentioned in Hamlet. Please read
> the play, or at least the excerpt I provide below.
Come to think of it, how the Hell is a star supposed to be "westward
from the pole" in the first place? What knowledgeable astronomer could
ever deliver himself of such an absurdity?
Caius Marcius
(KQKnave) writes:
>
>
>Even without those facts, the entire premise is invalid. The idea
that
>some specific astronomical event has to be correlated with each
mention
>of astronomical objects in the plays is absurd to begin with. Eclipses
>and bright stars were known to everyone, and Shakespeare doesn't
>even need to have seen a bright star himself to use the idea - he may
>Hamlet, Act 1 sc.i lines 108-125:
>
>Ber. I think it be no other but e'en so.
> Well may it sort that this portentous figure
> Comes armed through our watch, so like the King
> That was and is the question of these wars.
> Hor. A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye.
> In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
> A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
> The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead
> Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets;
> As stars with trains of fire, and dews of blood,
> Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
> Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
> Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
> And even the like precurse of fierce events,
> As harbingers preceding still the fates
> And prologue to the omen coming on,
> Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
> Unto our climature and countrymen.
>
>
It's
>almost like claiming that a mention of a sunset would have to
>correlate to a specific sunset on a specific day. I'm surprised that
>*Science*, a well-respected scientific journal that publishes
>peer-reviewed papers would even consider putting something like
>this on it's pages.
Shakespeare may or may not have known Tycho Brahe, but it's
indisputable that he knew Plutarch - his account of the fearsome
prodigies associated with Caesar assassination were more likely
inspired by the following passage from Plutarch's biography of Caesar
than by perusing the latest issues of Sky and Telescope:
[begin quote] Fate, however, is to all appearance more unavoidable than
unexpected. For many strange prodigies and apparitions are said to have
been observed shortly before this event. As to the lights in the
heavens, the noises heard in the night, and the wild birds which
perched in the forum, these are not perhaps worth taking notice of in
so great a case as this. Strabo, the philosopher, tells us that a
number of men were seen, looking as if they were heated through with
fire, contending with each other; that a quantity of flame issued from
the hand of a soldier's servant, so that they who saw it thought he
must be burnt, but that after all he had no hurt. As Caesar was
sacrificing, the victim's heart was missing, a very bad omen, because
no living creature can subsist without a heart. One finds it also
related by many that a soothsayer bade him prepare for some great
danger on the Ides of March. When this day was come, Caesar, as he went
to the senate, met this soothsayer, and said to him by way of raillery,
"The Ides of March are come," who answered him calmly, "Yes, they are
come, but they are not past." (from the Dryden translation)
- CMC
Richard Nathan
(snip)
>"Shakespeare" therefore likely had access to this
>engraving (maybe, if he were the Stratford man, someone dropped a
>reproduction of the image on his plate in the Mermaid Tavern one
>afternoon while he was quaffing a few brews, making him suddenly,
>coincidentally, recall this boyhood sight, linking it somehow to the
>picture of this great Danish astronomer from whom he then decided to
>borrow two of his ancestors' names from the family coats of arms for his
>latest tragedy! Yeah, that's it!).
I can't claim to be an English professor, but your punctuation sucks.
Shouldn't you have put a period after "engraving" and have treated the
sentences within the parentheses as separate sentences (i.e., by starting
"maybe" with an upper case M)?
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"'Westward from the pole' indicates it's now in the western celestial
hemisphere. *All* stars move, make their course, everynight; everything
moves from the east to the west-- just like the sun. 'Made his course
to ... where now it burns,' indicates it's returned to place it was at
the time it was when they saw the ghost on the previous night; iow, it's
the same time-- time for the ghost to appear. This does not mean it's a
planet."
Right. It also strongly suggests that it's just a star--the star
that Bernardo is using to tell the time by. There's nothing about
Bernardo's lines that indicates the star is anything but an ordinary
star--and it would seem that there would have been if it was supposed
to have been something eerie and connected with a ghost's appearance.
Something like, "Yon star which first turned darksome West almost/
to day two nights ago didst glister forth/ a fearsome ghost . . ."
In this scene the ghost is the portent, nothing else. The star is just
a star.
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > Altschuler's essay is available in postscript format at
>
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9810042
>
> Thanks, I haven't seen it yet.
>
> >
> > Altschuler calls the star mentioned in the first scene of *Hamlet* a
> > "bright" star and says it appeared in November. In the play itself,
> > however, as Jim noted, the star is not called "bright."
>
> However, it "illumes part of heaven"-- that might be hyperbole, or it
> might be bright.
To repeat, the star is not called "bright." One of the outstanding
features of the 1572 supernova was its extraordinary brightness -- it was
visible even during the day. The *Hamlet* star is not described as being
extraordinarily bright or as being visible during the day. Remember who
has the burden of proof here" it's Altschuler who must demonstrate that
the *Hamlet* star is described so distinctively that it could only be a
reference to the 1572 supernova. Altschuler, of course, wishes both to
refuse the burden (he says it is "likely" that the *Hamlet* star is the
1572 supernova) and then to assume that he has met it.
>
> > Those who think the *Hamlet* star must be the 1572 supernova would have a
> > better case if a character had said that the star had shone when Hamlet
> > was a child, or that it had been an omen at his birth. The audience would
> > then have understood the reference as pointing to something that had
> > happened decades before, but in the play the star's movement is a recent
> > event.
>
> But the critical event is not Ham Jr's birth, it's Ham Sr's death, ie
> "now".
That's why a reference to a 1572 event is unlikely; the "now" for the
audience is decades removed from the time of the supernova.
>
> > It would also help if the *Hamlet* star had first appeared
> > "westward from the pole" and had remained in that part of the sky, but we
> > are told that it "Had made his course t'illume that part of heaven where
> > now it burns": this suggests that the star traveled across the sky both
> > nights to its position "westward from the pole," and this movement
> > suggests that it was not a "fixed star" as Altschuler believes, but a
> > planet. It is the movement of the "star," not its brightness that is so
> > striking to Bernardo. The 1572 supernova, however, did not wander each
> > night from some other part of the sky to take its place in Cassiopeia.
>
> I think you're seriously misunderstanding this passage:
>
> Ber. Last night of all,
> When yond same star that's westward from the pole
> Had made his course t' illume that part of heaven
> Where now it burns,
>
> "Westward from the pole" indicates it's now in the western celestial
> hemisphere. *All* stars move, make their course, everynight; everything
> moves from the east to the west-- just like the sun. "Made his course
> to ... where now it burns" indicates it's returned to place it was at
> the time it was when they saw the ghost on the previous night; iow, it's
> the same time-- tiem for the ghost to appear. This does not mean it's a
> planet.
>
With repspect to its place in Cassiopeia it would not and did not move.
Bernardo is singling out this particular celestial object because it has
moved in a distinctive fashion, not because it and every other celestial
object has moved. Altschuler describes the supernova as a "particularly
bright fixed star" -- the distinctive movement of the *Hamlet* star
suggests that it is a planet.
Neuendorffer
Hamlet:
>
> hemisphere. *All* stars move, make their course, everynight; everything
> moves from the east to the west-- just like the sun. 'Made his course
> the time it was when they saw the ghost on the previous night; iow, it's
> planet."
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
> Right. It also strongly suggests that it's just a star--the star
> that Bernardo is using to tell the time by. There's nothing about
> Bernardo's lines that indicates the star is anything but an ordinary
> star--and it would seem that there would have been if it was supposed
> to have been something eerie and connected with a ghost's appearance.
> Something like, "Yon star which first turned darksome West almost/
> to day two nights ago didst glister forth/ a fearsome ghost . . ."
>
> In this scene the ghost is the portent, nothing else. The star is just
> a star.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Surely it must have been a very prominent bright star that "burns" and
"illumens its part of heaven." Since Stratfordians require a *specific*
alternative authorship candidate - I think it ONLY fair that they
provide a specific near polar candidate star here:
1. Dubhe?
2. Kochab?
3. Caph?
4. Alderamin?
5. other?
-------------------------------------------------------
Crab?
-------------------------------------------------------
Now when Tycho discovered his Supernova in Nov. of 1572
it WAS due west of the Pole Star at around 1:OOam.
However, the original Hamlet is much older than this for he lived
circa 1050 (according to Isaac Asimov) around the time of a much
brighter Supernova.
HAMLET:
I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down, for
yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a CRAB
you could go backward.
The Supernova of 1054 (which created the CRAB Nebula in Taurus) would
have been due South of Polaris at 1:OO a.m. in November but by February
would "anon falleth like a crab on the face of terra" to be directly to
the West at 1:00 a.m.
LOVE'S LABOURS LOST Act 4, Scene 2
HOLOFERNES:
The deer was, as you know, sanguis, in blood; ripe
as the pomewater, who now hangeth like a jewel in
the ear of caelo, the sky, the welkin, the heaven;
and anon falleth like a CRAB on the face of terra,
the soil, the land, the earth.
I recommend that Stratfordians simply adopt the Supernova of 1054
and place the start of Hamlet in February.
THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA Act 4, Scene 4
LAUNCE: I, having been acquainted with the smell before,
knew it was CRAB,
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
have been a very prominent bright star that 'burns' and 'illumens
written by poets; they also illuminate their parts of the sky--
and would be described as Shakespeare describes this one whenever
a verse-dramatist needed to fill out a line and sound poetic.
Art wants us to name what star it was if it was not the super-nova
mentioned by Brahe. It's Bernardo's star, Art. It doesn't have to have
a name. It's any old star--but some star that would have been visible
in the night sky of England during Shakespeare's life.
Paul Crowley
<rri...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Come to think of it, how the Hell is a star supposed to be "westward
>from the pole" in the first place? What knowledgeable astronomer could
>ever deliver himself of such an absurdity?
It's the words of Barnardo who does not claim to be an
astronomer. He's saying that _at_this_point there's a star not
far to the west of the Pole star. Which may not be strictly
correct but it good enough to locate it. The next clause is
much stranger: " . . had made his course t'illume that part of
heaven where now it burns . ." Stars don't move about
different parts of the heavens of an evening!
Barnardo: Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course t'illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns,
Paul.
Neuendorffer
Quarto 1 (1603)
Hor. Tut, t'will not appeare.
Ber. Sit downe I pray, and let vs once againe
Assaile your eares that are so fortified,
What we haue two nights seene.
Hor. Wel, sit we downe, and let vs heare
Bernardo speake of this.
Ber. Last night of al, when yonder starre that's west-
ward from the pole, had made his course to
Illumine that part of heauen. Where now it burnes,
The bell then towling one.
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> Art says: "Surely (the star pointed to by Bernardo in Hamlet) must
> have been a very prominent bright star that 'burns' and 'illumens
> its part of heaven.'" Nah. All stars burn,
Sirius => Greek: scorching
Bern => burn
ardo => Latin: I burn
> especially in lines
> written by poets; they also illuminate their parts of the sky--
> and would be described as Shakespeare describes this one whenever
> a verse-dramatist needed to fill out a line and sound poetic.
>
> Art wants us to name what star it was if it was not the super-nova
> mentioned by Brahe. It's Bernardo's star, Art.
If it's "Barnard's star" why doesn't he mention how swift it is?
http://user.mc.net/arf/barnard.htm
> It doesn't have to have
> a name. It's any old star-
Old stars MUST shine dimly (i.e., burn slowly) so they can last.
(Barnard's star is old but it's certainly not any old star.)
Perhaps "yonder starre" is any young ster - like Hamlet himself.
>-but some star that would have been visible
> in the night sky of England during Shakespeare's life.
Why not Tycho's nova then?
I can picture young Will now - gazing up at Tycho's nova,
Wishing that some day that he might "become a REAL PLAYWRIGHT"
When suddenly the blue fairy appears and grants Will his wish.
(HowEVER, EVERy time he denies that he works for the Trust
his nose grows another inch longer.)
At least you are consistent, Bob:
Shake-speare is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It was the sit-com of its day.
Art Neuendorffer
volker multhopp
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, volker multhopp wrote:
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> > But the critical event is not Ham Jr's birth, it's Ham Sr's death, ie
> > "now".
> That's why a reference to a 1572 event is unlikely; the "now" for the
> audience is decades removed from the time of the supernova.
The star reference was supposed to be evocative, not current. That the
star is "west of the pole", ie blandly situated, suggests that this was
a remembrance of a real event by the author, rather than a pure fiction,
in which case he could have had the star occulting Jupiter or similar
astrological stuff (and Shakespeare did not stint on astrology
otherwise).
> > Ber. Last night of all,
> > When yond same star that's westward from the pole
> > Had made his course t' illume that part of heaven
> > Where now it burns,
> > "Westward from the pole" indicates it's now in the western celestial
> > hemisphere. *All* stars move, make their course, everynight; everything
> > moves from the east to the west-- just like the sun. "Made his course
> > to ... where now it burns" indicates it's returned to place it was at
> > the time it was when they saw the ghost on the previous night; iow, it's
> > the same time-- time for the ghost to appear. This does not mean it's a
> > planet.
> With repspect to its place in Cassiopeia it would not and did not move.
Agreed!
> Bernardo is singling out this particular celestial object because it has
> moved in a distinctive fashion, not because it and every other celestial
> object has moved.
He does not say it's moved in a distincive fashion. As I said, *all
stars make their courses*. "That part of heaven" is ambiguous-- it
could be a reference wrt the fixed stars, eg Casiopeia; or a reference
wrt the observer, eg the west. I say it's the latter, but if anyone
thinks the former, they should make their case.
I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it simply isn't
clear to me. Please explain to us in clear language the astronomical
picture Shakespeare is painting here, so we have have a firm picture to
criticize or agree with. I believe I have stated my position simply
enough, but will elaborate, if requested.
--Volker
David L. Webb
> > Art wants us to name what star it was if it was not the super-nova
> > mentioned by Brahe. It's Bernardo's star, Art.
>
> If it's "Barnard's star" why doesn't he mention how swift it is?
I'm really surprised, Art. Bob has brought up what should be to you a
very reasonable possibility -- after all, in your view, Lt. Hammond must
be a fake because Hamlet/Hammond *cannot* be a coincidence and hence must
be a Masonic joke instead; why don't you also assume that Bernardo/Barnard
*cannot* be a coincidence and hence must be another Masonic joke? It's
true that Barnard's star wasn't discovered until this century -- but it
didn't bother you that "moniment" in the sense of "laughingstock" does not
appear until the nineteenth century, nor does it bother you there is no
evidence that the Templars existed as late as the 16th century, so why
should a detail like the date of discovery of Barnard's star bother you
either? But then, it could be "barnyard's star" -- I knew it was crap.
Speaking of that, Art, here's some evidence for your Masonic conspiracy
theory. The dynasty that supplanted the House of Stuart on the British
throne was, as even you are probably aware, the House of Hanover. Some
Masonic organizations -- those of the so-called Strict Observance rite,
purported to be a restoration of the Order of the Temple by fugitive
Templars in Scotland -- were suspected of conspiring deeply with the
exiled Stuarts in their various ill-fated Jacobite uprisings to recover
the throne (see, e.g., _The Temple and the Lodge_ by Baigent and Leigh).
Strict Observance Masonry was supposedly shrouded in secrecy; indeed, it
was said that the identity of the "unknown superiors" was not even
disclosed to the initiates. One well-known 18th-century Freemason, Karl
Gottleib von Hund, even suspected that the Grand Master who initiated him
into the Strict Observance was none other than Bonnie Prince Charlie
himself! Have you EVER noticed that "Hanover" can be read, without even
shuffling the letters, as "Ha! No Ver!"? This suggests that the
Hanoverians were Stratfordians, while the Masons who conspired with the
Stuarts were custodians of the Oxfordian authorship secret. Maybe the
Hanover/Stuart warfare, from Killiecrankie to Culloden, was not about the
throne of England or about Catholicism versus Protestantism, but about the
authorship controversy! When John Grahame of Claverhouse, Viscount of
Dundee, fell at the battle of Killiecrankie, with a fatal wound through
the LEFT EYE (remember Marlowe's death?), a Templar Cross was said to have
been found upon his body! Note that name: GraHAMe of ClaVERhouse! A
clever house, indeed! (Incidentally, Killiecrankie is near the Perthshire
region where the use of "moniment" as "laughingstock" is first recorded.)
Have you noticed that "Strict Observance" is an anagram of "Bacon, Ver
sect stir"? And that "Stewart" can be read, without resorting to
anagrams, as "Stew, Art!"? And that Dartmouth College, where I work, is
situated in HANOVER, New Hampshire? Even the student designation of the
town as "Hangover" suggests "O, hang Ver!". These coincidences are *far*
more abundant and vastly more compelling than the random coincidences you
routinely post, Art; I really think that you should look into this! If
masked and cloaked figures shows up at your domicile on a dark night
offering to initiate you into the Strict Observance, don't worry, Art --
it will be me and some of my fellow Scottish expatriates who still
preserve the old clan traditions; that will happen when the Unknown
Superiors deem that you know too much to remain among the uninitiated.
All will be revealed to you then.
> Why not Tycho's nova then?
An excellent suggestion, Art! Some anagrams of "Tycho Brahe's
supernova" include:
Ban "E. Ver author" psychos.
-- devoutly to be wished, but unlikely.
Ver has no cyphers about.
So much for your amateur cryptography, Art.
Ver hocus? Phantasy, bore.
Bunch o' Ver's poesy, Art? Ha!
Ver, Bacon authors' hypes.
Abhor, staunch Ver poesy.
Oh, cryst -- Sobran upheave.
(Since you seem to eschew dictionaries unless you have online access, Art,
let me explain this for you: the OED glosses "upheave" as "To toss or
throw up with violence.")
Hey, Sobran havoc erupts.
Finally, since you insist idiotically that an anagram cannot conceal
anything of importance other than proper names, although neither the
ridiculous "OM" anagram nor your cruciform Brincknell pseudo-anagram meets
that criterion, let me end with one that you'll like:
Ver, Southey, Bach aprons.
-- if they were attired in aprons, they must all have been Masons!
> Shake-speare is a tale told by an idiot,
> full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The absurd canard that the hyphen means anything does indeed seem to be
"...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I knew it was crap...
David Webb
KQKnave
In article <365EB3EC...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
> The star reference was supposed to be evocative, not current. That the
>star is "west of the pole", ie blandly situated, suggests that this was
>a remembrance of a real event by the author, rather than a pure fiction,
Why does it have to be real event? If Shakespeare describes a hat,
and doesn't just say "hat" but "red hat", does that mean it must have
been a real hat that he came across during his lifetime?
>in which case he could have had the star occulting Jupiter or similar
>astrological stuff (and Shakespeare did not stint on astrology
>otherwise).
Woodah, coodah, shoodah (spelling?). Or he might have just said
"yon star" or he might have said "that star" or "the star that's not
too high in the sky" or a million other things.
KQKnave
In article <365da2c2...@news.indigo.ie>, crow...@hxtmail.cxm (Paul
Crowley) writes:
> Stars don't move about
>different parts of the heavens of an evening!
Yes they do. They rise, transit and set like every
other astronomical object.
volker multhopp
> In article <365EB3EC...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
> writes:
> > The star reference was supposed to be evocative, not current. That the
> >star is "west of the pole", ie blandly situated, suggests that this was
> >a remembrance of a real event by the author, rather than a pure fiction,
> Why does it have to be real event? If Shakespeare describes a hat,
> and doesn't just say "hat" but "red hat", does that mean it must have
> been a real hat that he came across during his lifetime?
this is supernatural stuff. He could have dressed it up, but didn't.
> >in which case he could have had the star occulting Jupiter or similar
> >astrological stuff (and Shakespeare did not stint on astrology
> >otherwise).
> Woodah, coodah, shoodah (spelling?).
What relevance this crap? Are you having a fit?
>Or he might have just said
> "yon star" or he might have said "that star" or "the star that's not
> too high in the sky" or a million other things.
Right. Or he could have made a big deal of it.
--Volker
KQKnave
In article <365FD23E...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>This isn't head covering. This star apparition announces the ghost--
>this is supernatural stuff.
Just like the in the Bible.
>He could have dressed it up, but didn't.
And your point is?....
>>Or he might have just said
>>"yon star" or he might have said "that star" or "the star that's not
>> too high in the sky" or a million other things.
>Right. Or he could have made a big deal of it.
What is your point? In your previous post you said:
>The star reference was supposed to be evocative, not current. That the
>star is "west of the pole", ie blandly situated, suggests that this was
>a remembrance of a real event by the author, rather than a pure fiction,
>in which case he could have had the star occulting Jupiter or similar
>astrological stuff (and Shakespeare did not stint on astrology
>otherwise).
I guess that what you are saying is that if Sh. doesn't make a big
point out of the star, then it must refer to a real event, whereas
if he had gussied it up a bit, then we would know it was fiction.
And that makes zero sense to me.
volker multhopp
> In article <365FD23E...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
> writes:
> >This isn't head covering. This star apparition announces the ghost--
> >this is supernatural stuff.
> Just like the in the Bible.
> >He could have dressed it up, but didn't.
> And your point is?....
If he was entirely making up the star story, he could have esaily made
it more portentous.
> I guess that what you are saying is that if Sh. doesn't make a big
> point out of the star, then it must refer to a real event, whereas
> if he had gussied it up a bit, then we would know it was fiction.
> And that makes zero sense to me.
You can't blame me for your not being able to complete a thought
process. If the star had no meaning, why is it in the text? If it does
have meaning, what is it?
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
meaning, why is it in the text? If it does have meaning, what is it?"
It's a clock, just as the sun would have been in daylight. Bernardo's
use of it is like saying, "Two days ago, when the sun was where it is
right now in the sky, X happened." Since Shakespeare says nothing to
identify it as a particular star or as a star with unusual qualities,
it makes sense to take it for JUST SOME STAR. If it were a super-nova,
it seems to me he would have done something with that fact, as I noted
in another post--something like: "Two nights ago when yonder brilliant
star/ didst first unquiet all the western sky/ as though to warn us Hell
itself had yawned . . ." and so on.
Note to Art: this is my answer, too, to your post asking why the star
wasn't the super-nova.
volker multhopp
> Volker, about Bernardo's reference to a star, "If the star had no
> meaning, why is it in the text? If it does have meaning, what is it?"
> It's a clock, just as the sun would have been in daylight. Bernardo's
> use of it is like saying, "Two days ago, when the sun was where it is
> right now in the sky, X happened." Since Shakespeare says nothing to
> identify it as a particular star or as a star with unusual qualities,
> it makes sense to take it for JUST SOME STAR.
That's possible. However, they don't really need it for a timepiece,
since they also have the tolling bell.
>If it were a super-nova,
> it seems to me he would have done something with that fact, as I noted
> in another post--something like: "Two nights ago when yonder brilliant
> star/ didst first unquiet all the western sky/ as though to warn us Hell
> itself had yawned . . ." and so on.
I don't know. I'm agnostic. It could be it's an underdeveloped
element. Perhaps the playwright just wanted to inject some nightly
atmosphere into the scene. Even if it's a *new star*, it's not
necessarily a nova-- it might be a tailless comet, for instance. But
I'm eager to see how Terry makes this a planet coursing into position.
--Volker
Dave Furstenau
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>>
>> It's a clock, just as the sun would have been in daylight. Bernardo's
>> use of it is like saying, "Two days ago, when the sun was where it is
>> right now in the sky, X happened."
> That's possible. However, they don't really need it for a timepiece,
> since they also have the tolling bell.
HORATIO
Indeed? I heard it not ... (I.iv.6)
[ ... ]
> I don't know. I'm agnostic. It could be it's an underdeveloped
> element. Perhaps the playwright just wanted to inject some nightly
> atmosphere into the scene. Even if it's a *new star*, it's not
> necessarily a nova-- it might be a tailless comet, for instance. But
> I'm eager to see how Terry makes this a planet coursing into position.
Now we're getting somewhere. The line in question is some
30-lines into the piece. Beyond the glut of expository data that
Shakespeare must relate as quickly as possible (and in a manner so as
not to bore the audience), he is also burdened with the task of
signaling an audience who is most likely watching the play by daylight
(in any event, bereft of special effects we consider de rigueur) that
they are indeed on the dank, misty and *dark* parapets of Elsinor.
> --Volker
Dave Furstenau d...@binary.net
http://www.binary.net/df
Lincoln, Nebraska
KQKnave
In article <366099E9...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
> You can't blame me for your not being able to complete a thought
>process. If the star had no meaning, why is it in the text? If it does
>have meaning, what is it?
>
> --Volker
>
You can't blame me for your incomprehensible theories. The function
of the star is to herald the coming supernatural events involving the
ghost, and to supply atmosphere relevant to the state of affairs in
Denmark (where there is something rotten, remember?)
Did you read the play? The function of the star is the same as
it's function in many other stories, at least as far back as the
ancient Greeks. If I recall correctly, *Agamemnon*, by Aeschylus,
begins with a scene of a guard standing in front of the walls of
Troy, and the guard remarks about the bright star in the sky and
how it portends bad things to come.
Neuendorffer
Quarto 1 (1603)
Ber. Last night of al, when yonder starre that's west-
ward from the pole, had made his course to
Illumine that part of heauen. Where now it burnes,
The bell then towling one.
-----------------------------------------------------------
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> Volker, about Bernardo's reference to a star, "If the star had no
> meaning, why is it in the text? If it does have meaning, what is it?"
>
> It's a clock, just as the sun would have been in daylight. Bernardo's
> use of it is like saying, "Two days ago, when the sun was where it is
> right now in the sky, X happened." Since Shakespeare says nothing to
> identify it as a particular star or as a star with unusual qualities,
> it makes sense to take it for JUST SOME STAR. If it were a super-nova,
> it seems to me he would have done something with that fact, as I noted
> in another post--something like: "Two nights ago when yonder brilliant
> star/ didst first unquiet all the western sky/ as though to warn us Hell
> itself had yawned . . ." and so on.
>
> Note to Art: this is my answer, too, to your post asking why the star
> wasn't the super-nova.
-----------------------------------------------------------
You mean the Nova-ember of 1572.
Europeans didn't take much notice of the 1054 event so it's unlikely
that they would have waxed so poetically: "Two nights ago when yonder
brilliant star/ didst first unquiet all the western sky/ as though to
warn us Hell itself had yawned . . ."
(I like it though => Are you the "mystery poet?")
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the Danes were not wise enough to use the Big Dipper
(i.e., Charlemagne's Wain/wagon) as the counter clock of choice:
1 KING HENRY IV Act 2, Scene 1
Enter a Carrier with a lantern in his hand
First Carrier
Heigh-ho! an it be not four by the day, I'll be
hanged: Charles' wain is over the new chimney, and
yet our horse not packed. What, ostler!
Ostler
[Within] Anon, anon.
---------------------------------------------------------
In England even theatrical ostlers like William Shakspere
knew the official way to tell time by the stars.
If the Danes couldn't even recognize the Big Dipper
they might as well have waited for the bell to "towl one."
---------------------------------------------------------
"Edmund Shakspeare, a player,
buried in the Church with a forenoone (A.M.) knell
of the great bell, xx s."
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
>
> The function of the star is the same as
> it's function in many other stories, at least as far back as the
> ancient Greeks. If I recall correctly, *Agamemnon*, by Aeschylus,
> begins with a scene of a guard standing in front of the walls of
> Troy, and the guard remarks about the bright star in the sky and
> how it portends bad things to come.
450 BC (1500 years before Hamlet lived!)
|AGAM|** AGAMEMNON
|AGAM|** by Aeschylus
|AGAM|** translated by E.D.A. Morshead
|AGAM|** AGAMEMNON
|AGAM|** (SCENE:-Before the palace of AGAMEMNON in Argos. In front
of the
|AGAM|** palace there are statues of the gods, and altars
prepared for
|AGAM|** sacrifice. It is night. On the roof of the palace can
be
|AGAM|** discerned a WATCHMAN.)
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** WATCHMAN
|AGAM|** I pray the gods to quit me of my toils,
|AGAM|** To close the watch I keep, this livelong year;
|AGAM|** For as a watch-dog lying, not at rest,
|AGAM|** Propped on one arm, upon the palace-roof
|AGAM|** Of Atreus' race, too long, too well I know
|AGAM|** The starry conclave of the midnight sky,
|AGAM|** Too well, the splendours of the firmament,
|AGAM|** The lords of light, whose kingly aspect shows-
|AGAM|** What time they set or climb the sky in turn-
|AGAM|** The year's divisions, bringing frost or fire.
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** And now, as EVER, am I set to mark
|AGAM|** When shall stream up the glow of signal-flame,
|AGAM|** The bale-fire bright, and tell its Trojan tale-
|AGAM|** Troy town is ta'en: such issue holds in hope
|AGAM|** She in whose woman's breast beats heart of man.
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** Thus upon mine unrestful couch I lie,
|AGAM|** Bathed with the dews of night, unvisited
|AGAM|** By dreams-ah me!-for in the place of sleep
|AGAM|** Stands Fear as my familiar, and repels
|AGAM|** The soft repose that would mine eyelids seal.
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** And if at whiles, for the lost balm of sleep,
|AGAM|** I medicine my soul with melody
|AGAM|** Of trill or song-anon to tears I turn,
|AGAM|** Wailing the woe that broods upon this home,
|AGAM|** Not now by honour guided as of old-
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** But now at last fair fall the welcome hour
|AGAM|** That sets me free, whene'er the thick night glow
|AGAM|** With beacon-fire of hope deferred no more.
|AGAM|** All hail!
|AGAM|** (A beacon-light is seen reddening the distant sky.)
|AGAM|** Fire of the night, that brings my spirit day,
|AGAM|** Shedding on Argos light, and dance, and song,
|AGAM|** Greetings to fortune, hail!
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** Let my loud summons ring within the ears
|AGAM|** Of Agamemnon's queen, that she anon
|AGAM|** Start from her couch and with a shrill voice cry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tycho's nova of 1572 appeared next to couch-queen Cassiopeia
five months after Queen Elizabeth had executed
Oxford's beloved cousin (and king want-a-be) the Duke of Norfolk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|AGAM|** A joyous welcome to the beacon-blaze,
|AGAM|** For Ilion's fall; such fiery message gleams
|AGAM|** From yon high flame; and I, before the rest,
|AGAM|** Will foot the lightsome measure of our joy;
|AGAM|** For I can say, My master's dice fell fair-
|AGAM|** Behold! the triple sice, the lucky flame!
|AGAM|** Now be my lot to clasp, in loyal love,
|AGAM|** The hand of him restored, who rules our home:
|AGAM|** Home-but I say no more: upon my tongue
|AGAM|** Treads hard the OX o' the adage.
|AGAM|**
|AGAM|** Had it voice,
|AGAM|** The home itself might soothliest tell its tale;
|AGAM|** I, of set will, speak words the wise may learn,
|AGAM|** To others, nought remember nor discern.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier (when the war on) Homer emphasised
the two STARS on the field of battle:
<<Hector's round shield showed in the front rank, and as some baneful
STAR that shines for a moment through a rent in the clouds and is
again hidden beneath them; even so was Hector now seen in the front
ranks and now again in the hindermost, and his bronze armour gleamed
like the lightning of aegis-bearing Jove.>>
---------------------------------------------------
Next to the Freemasonic pyramid on a $1 bill
and above the US eagle are 13 STARS in the form of
a "Seal of Solomon" breaking through a cloud.
---------------------------------------------------
<<As the light seen by sailors from out at sea, when men
have lit a fire in their homestead high up among the mountains, but
the sailors are carried out to sea by wind and storm far from the
haven where they would be--even so did the gleam of Achilles' wondrous
shield strike up into the heavens. He lifted the redoubtable helmet,
and set it upon his head, from whence it shone like a STAR, and the
golden plumes which Vulcan had set thick about the ridge of the
helmet, waved all around it.>>
<<King Priam was first to note him as he scoured the plain,
all radiant as the STAR (Sirius/scorching) which men call Orion's
Hound, and whose beams blaze forth in time of harvest more brilliantly
than those of any other that shines by night; brightest of them all
though he be, he yet bodes ill for mortals, for he brings fire and
fever in his train--even so did Achilles' armour gleam on his breast
as he sped onwards.>>
<<The thick tresses of gold with which Vulcan had crested
the helmet floated round it, and as the evening STAR (Venus)
that shines brighter than all others through the stillness of
night, even such was the gleam of the SPEAR which Achilles poised
in his right hand, fraught with the death of noble Hector.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, volker multhopp wrote:
>
> > > Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > > But the critical event is not Ham Jr's birth, it's Ham Sr's death, ie
> > > "now".
>
> > That's why a reference to a 1572 event is unlikely; the "now" for the
> > audience is decades removed from the time of the supernova.
>
> The star reference was supposed to be evocative, not current. That the
> star is "west of the pole", ie blandly situated, suggests that this was
> a remembrance of a real event by the author, rather than a pure fiction,
> in which case he could have had the star occulting Jupiter or similar
> astrological stuff (and Shakespeare did not stint on astrology
> otherwise).
Volker, I don't deny that such a thing (a remembrance of a real event) is
possible, but there simply isn't enought detail for us to connect the
*Hamlet* star with any particular real event. Certainly there is very
little to suggest the 1572 supernova -- yet Altschuler's argument depends
on the identification's being secure. If Shakespeare had recalled the
supernova, then we would expect him to remark on the features that made it
different from every other object in the heavens, and we would expect that
there would be some indication that a similar "real event" had occurred
three decades earlier. That the star is "blandly situated" suggests that
if some "real event" were being recalled, it was an event that didn't make
much of an impression -- yet we are told that the 1572 supernova was a
dazzling sight for at least some observers.
>
> > > Ber. Last night of all,
> > > When yond same star that's westward from the pole
> > > Had made his course t' illume that part of heaven
> > > Where now it burns,
>
> > > "Westward from the pole" indicates it's now in the western celestial
> > > hemisphere. *All* stars move, make their course, everynight; everything
> > > moves from the east to the west-- just like the sun. "Made his course
> > > to ... where now it burns" indicates it's returned to place it was at
> > > the time it was when they saw the ghost on the previous night; iow, it's
> > > the same time-- time for the ghost to appear. This does not mean it's a
> > > planet.
>
> > With repspect to its place in Cassiopeia it would not and did not move.
>
> Agreed!
That's the 1572 supernova, not necessarily the star in *Hamlet*.
>
> > Bernardo is singling out this particular celestial object because it has
> > moved in a distinctive fashion, not because it and every other celestial
> > object has moved.
>
> He does not say it's moved in a distincive fashion. As I said, *all
> stars make their courses*. "That part of heaven" is ambiguous-- it
> could be a reference wrt the fixed stars, eg Casiopeia; or a reference
> wrt the observer, eg the west. I say it's the latter, but if anyone
> thinks the former, they should make their case.
I agree with you that "that part of heaven" is ambiguous. I took it to
mean that the "star" had moved with respect to the fixed stars; you take
it to mean that it is moving in its own sphere (for Shakespeare each fixed
star has its own peculiar sphere -- cf. *Ham.* 4.7.15). Shakespeare uses
"star" for both stars and planets: cf. *Ham.* 5.1.254-56 --
What is he whose grief
Bears such an emphasis, whose phrase of sorrow
Conjures the wand'ring stars and makes them stand
Like wonder-wounded hearers?
If Shakespeare had referred to the sphere of the star in scene 1, then we
would know it was a fixed star (though there would still be no reason to
identify it with the 1572 supernova); if its movement had been described
as "wandering" then we would know that it was a planet. I believe that
when Shakespeare draws attention to "stars" that change position, he
generally is referring to planets or meteors rather than fixed stars.
Since this star is appearing for a second night, it couldn't be a shooting
star.
Altschuler's claim also requires that the first scene occur in November
and that the "star" be in Cassiopeia. There are a number of
constellations that could appear west of the pole at 1:00 AM in November
-- not just Cassiopeia but Cepheus (between Cassiopeia and the pole) and
Andromeda, etc. But how do we even know that the play begins in November?
> I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it simply isn't
> clear to me. Please explain to us in clear language the astronomical
> picture Shakespeare is painting here, so we have have a firm picture to
> criticize or agree with. I believe I have stated my position simply
> enough, but will elaborate, if requested.
If you think the *Hamlet* star is an unmistakable reference to the 1572
supernova then you have a great deal more to elaborate. Perhaps the
"star" is fixed, perhaps it is wandering. I am inclined to think the
latter is more likely because of the stress on its movement and because
there is no reference to its sphere, but I agree that the description is
ambiguous. In any event, I haven't seen any reason to associate the star
with the 1572 supernova.
Neuendorffer
William/Helmet/Hamlet Shakes-speare
and _The Wrath of Achilles_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the court of Elizabeth I (July, 1578)
Gabriel Harvey addressed Edward deVere:
<<O great-hearted one, strong in thy mind and thy fiery WILL, thou wilt
conquer thyself, thou wilt conquer others; thy glory will spread out in
all directions beyond the Arctic Ocean; and England will put thee to the
test and prove thee to be a native-born ACHILLES
...Thine eyes flash fire,
thy countenence SHAKES SPEARES;
who would not swear that ACHILLES had come to life again?>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> <<As the light seen by sailors from out at sea, when men
> have lit a fire in their homestead high up among the mountains, but
> the sailors are carried out to sea by wind and storm far from the
> haven where they would be--even so did the gleam of ACHILLES' wondrous
> shield strike up into the heavens. He lifted the redoubtable HELMET,
> and set it upon his head, from whence it shone like a STAR, and the
> golden plumes which Vulcan had set thick about the ridge of the
> HELMET, waved all around it.>>
>
> <<King Priam was first to note him as he scoured the plain,
> all radiant as the STAR (Sirius/scorching) which men call Orion's
> Hound, and whose beams blaze forth in time of harvest more brilliantly
> than those of any other that shines by night; brightest of them all
> though he be, he yet bodes ill for mortals, for he brings fire and
> fever in his train--even so did ACHILLES' armour gleam on his breast
> as he sped onwards.>>
>
> <<The thick tresses of gold with which Vulcan had crested
> the HELMET floated round it, and as the evening STAR (Venus)
> that shines brighter than all others through the stillness of
> night, even such was the gleam of the SPEAR which ACHILLES poised
> in his right hand, fraught with the death of noble Hector.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
In the court of Elizabeth I (July, 1578)
<<O great-hearted one, strong in thy mind and thy fiery WILL, thou wilt
conquer thyself, thou wilt conquer others; thy glory will spread out
-------------------------------------------------------------------
North by NorthWest
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford was certainly "mad north-north-west" when he went into bond
for 3000 pounds to London Merchant Michael (Shy)Lok in order to back
Martin Frobisher's Arctic search for a NorthWest Passage. Even Queen
Elizabeth invested in "The Company of Cathay" (inspired by Sir Humphrey
GILBERT's 1576 _A Discourse of a Discoverie for a New Passage to CATAIA_
and Frobisher's first attempts on his ship GABRIEL).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR Act 2, Scene 1
PAGE
I will not believe such a CATAIAN, though the priest
o' the town commended him for a TRUE man.
TWELFTH NIGHT Act 2, Scene 3
SIR TOBY BELCH
My LADY's a CATAIAN, we are politicians, Malvolio's
a Peg-a-Ramsey, and 'THREE MERRY MEN BE WE.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1633, Ben Jonson wrote _A Tale of a Tub_
In 1632, Ben Jonson wrote _The Magnetic Lady_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GILBERT - The Magnetic Man
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>In 1600 in a landmark book British physician and naturalist WILLIAM
>GILBERT proposed the idea that the earth may have a magnetic field.
>Shakespeare seemed aware of this theory: in Troilus and Cressida
>(1601-1602) he writes, (III.2.184-186) "as TRUE as steel, as plantage to
>the moon/As sun to day, as turtle to her mate/ As iron to adamant, as
>earth to the centre." In the same play, (IV.2.109-111) "But the strong
>>base and building of my love/Is as the very centre of the earth/Drawing
>>all things to it."< -- _Shakespeare In The Stars_ Altschuler
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMPASS SQUARE
-----------------------------------------------------------
All the quartere that they know I' the shipman's CARD. --Shak.
CARD, n. A paper on which the points of the compass are marked;
the dial or face of the mariner's compass:
N. E. W. S.
---------------------------------------------------------
A never writer to an ever reader: news
[ An E.Ver writer to an E.Ver reader: N.E.W.S.]
Original 1609 preface to _Troilus & Cressida_
---------------------------------------------------------
G(a)briel Harvey
GILBER(T) & HARVEY
Physicians to James I
---------------------------------------------------------
William GILBERT (1544-1603) was the first physician to serve James I.
William HARVEY (April 1,1578 - 1657) was James' last physician.
Eminent antiquary JOHN AUBREY informs us that Harvey was the son of a
prosperous businessman and leading citizen of a small town (would Aubrey
lie?). Though little is known of Harvey's boyhood he did attend King's
School, Canterbury, a decade after Marlowe (from 1588 to 1593).
----------------------------------------------------------------
BURNS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Both Will Shakspere & Robert BURNS had brothers named GILBERT.
William Shakspere's letters & manuscripts probably burned up
in the Ben Jonson fire of 1623.
However, William Harvey's letters & manuscripts (like Gilbert's)
had to wait until the London Fire of 1666.
(Marlowe might simply have burned his own letters & manuscripts
as a precaution => just Kydding :-)
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer