First Heir of my Invention: Invention
Terry Ross
heir of my invention."
----------------
We say Edison invented the light bulb, but we don't say that Bellow
"invented" *Henderson the Rain King*. It is therefore easy to understand
why people who don't think "William Shakespeare" was the real name of the
author of *Venus and Adonis* would misinterpret the phrase "first heir of
my invention" to suggest that the real author "invented" the name William
Shakespeare, and thus that the poem is the product of that real author
under his "invention": the pseudonym "William Shakespeare." This reading,
however, cannot stand up under scrutiny. I have looked, and I cannot find
any instance where "invention" means "pseudonym"; the OED itself provides
no instances. When Shakespeare elsewhere uses "invention" in connection
with literary production, the word generally means "imagination" or
"creativity" as in these instances:
I will prove those verses to be very unlearned, neither
savoring of poetry, wit, nor invention. (LLL 4.2.157-59)
I'll give you a verse to this note, that I made yesterday
in despite of my invention. (AYL 2.5.46-47)
Go, write it in a martial hand, be curst and brief. It is
no matter how witty, so it be eloquent and full of invention.
(TN 3.2.42-44)
For who's so dumb that cannot write to thee
When thou thyself dost give invention light?" (SON 38.7-8)
I'll return to these examples later, but first let me give some background
on this word that seems to puzzle so many anti-Stratfordians. This use of
"invention" is not original with Shakespeare but was a literary
commonplace long before Shakespeare was born and long after he died.
"Invention" was originally a term in classical rhetoric and poetics.
Wilson in his *Art of Rhetoric* (1560) said, "The finding out of apt
matter, otherwise called Invention, is a searching out of things true, or
things likely, the which may reasonably set forth a matter, and make it
appear probable." Watson is not, of course, saying that one should create
a false identity or adapt a pseudonym before writing or speaking.
Invention consists in looking over the available tropes and arguments and
selecting those that will be most likely to persuade. A poet's task is
similar to that of a rhetorician's. Both intend to convey meaning or
emotion in a highly artificial form -- an address or a poem. Both wish to
appear sincere, and both are craftsmen.
George Gascoigne, in his *Certain Notes of Instruction Concerning the
Making of Verse or Rhyme in English* (1575), said,
For it is not enough to roll in pleasant to thunder in Rym, Ram, Ruff
by letter (quoth my master Chaucer), nor yet to abound in apt vocables
or epithets, unless the Invention have in it also aliquid salis. By
'aliquid salis' I mean some good and fine device, showing the quick
capacity of a writer: and where I say some 'good and fine invention'
I mean that I would have it both fine and good.
"Invention" thus may be both a quality of the writer (wit or imagination)
or of the poem (metaphors or other "devices" whose aptness shows the
"quick capacity" of the writer), or it may be the poem itself that is
produced by the poet's Invention (in 1578 an anthology of poems appeared
with the title *A Gorgeous Gallery of Gallant Inventions*). Gascoigne is
not, of course, saying that a poet should create a false identity or adapt
a pseudonym before he writes. Gascoigne goes on to describe how a poet
uses Invention:
To deliver unto you general examples it were almost unpossible,
sithence the occasions of Inventions are (as it were) infinite;
nevertheless, take in worth mine opinion, and perceive my further
meaning in these few points. If I should undertake to write in praise
of a gentlewoman, I would neither praise her crystal eye, nor her
cherry lip, etc. For these things are trita et obuia. But I would
either find some supernatural cause whereby my pen might walk in the
superlative degree, or else I would undertake to answer any
imperfection that she hath, and thereupon raise the praise of her
commendation. Likewise, if I should disclose my pretense in love, I
would either make a strange discourse of some intolerable passion, or
find occasion to plead by the example of some history, or discover my
disquiet in shadows per Allegoriam, or use the covertest mean that I
could to avoid the uncomely customs of common writers.
Note where Invention may lead the poet who wishes to write about love.
The most trite and obvious expressions have all been used. Therefore a
poet who wishes to display the quality of his Invention may decide to
fasten on some seeming imperfection in his beloved and make that the
object of his praise. This is one strategy behind Shakespeare's "Dark
Lady" sonnets. There are other strategies that Gascoigne mentions; a poet
shows the quality of his Invention by the quality of the choices he makes
among the many possible strategies.
Gascoigne concludes,
Thus much I adventure to deliver to you (my friend) upon the rule of
Invention, which of all other rules is most to be marked, and hardest
to be prescribed in certain and infallible rules; nevertheless, to
conclude therein, I would have you stand upon the excellency of your
Invention, and stick not to study deeply for some fine device. For,
that being found, pleasant words will follow well enough and fast
enough.
If a poet's invention were great enough, far more than "pleasant words"
would follow. Entire realms could be summoned up. Sir Philip Sidney, in
his *Defense of Poetry* wrote,
Only the Poet disdaining to be tied to any such subjection, lifted up
with the vigor of his own invention, doth grow in effect into another
nature: in making things either better then nature bringeth forth, or
quite a new, forms such as never were in nature: as the Heroes,
Demigods, Cyclops, Chimaeras, Furies, and such like; so as he goeth
hand in hand with nature, not enclosed within the narrow warrant of
her gifts, but freely ranging within the Zodiac of his own wit.
Nature never set forth the earth in so rich Tapestry as diverse Poets
have done, neither with so pleasant rivers, fruitful trees, sweet
smelling flowers, nor whatsoever else may make the too much loved
earth more lovely: her world is brazen, the Poets only deliver a
golden.
Sidney is not saying that a poet should create a false identity or adapt a
pseudonym before he writes. A poets's Invention (we would probably say
"imagination") allows him to become in some ways a more marvelous creator
than nature herself, but this happens not by ignoring nature but by going
"hand in hand with nature." A poet's invention may select and recombine
elements from nature's storehouse to create a world more marvelous than
the one he or she inhabits.
Sidney the poet wrestled with the ancient (and ever new) problem of saying
something novel in a love poem. Here is the first sonnet of his
*Astrophil And Stella*, one of the best sonnets from the most important
sonnet sequence of the time:
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show,
That she (dear she) might take some pleasure of my pain:
Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know,
Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain,
I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe,
Studying inventions fine, her wits to entertain:
Oft turning others' leaves, to see if thence would flow
Some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sunburned brain.
But words came halting forth, wanting Invention's stay,
Invention Nature's child, fled step-dame Study's blows,
And others' feet still seemed but strangers in my way.
Thus great with child to speak, and helpless in my throes,
Biting my truant pen, beating myself for spite,
"Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart and write."
I don't have the space to begin doing justice to this poem, but I would
draw your attention to the role of Invention here. Astrophil has done
just what Gascoigne warns against. He studied deeply for some fine
device, but found his own Invention wanting. Only when he ceases trying
to steal the inventions of other poets is Astrophil's Invention released.
When he looks in his heart he sees the image of his beloved, Stella, and
then he can write. Invention, for Astrophil, is something innate (and
therefore a part of one by Nature). He calls Invention "Nature's child,"
while Study is invention's cruel stepmother (and also a harsh
schoolmaster). Reading the works of other poets is necessary drudgery,
but creating one's own poems requires one's own Invention. Of course,
Sidney is being intricately clever in this poem. He could well have
learned to scorn study by reading the poems of others who scorn study.
The poem is simultaneously sincerely artificial and artificially sincere.
For Puttenham, a poet who writes of an imaginary word has a more powerful
Invention than one who deals with the quotidian:
if the things we covet to describe be not natural or nor veritable,
than yet the same asketh more cunning to do it, because to feign a
thing that never was nor is like to be, proceedeth of a greater wit
and sharper invention than to describe things that be true.
The greatest poets were often considered those whose Invention was
superior to the rest. In a commendatory poem to Spenser's *Amoretti*
(1595), we are told that the poet's absence in Ireland has brought English
poetry to a standstill:
So while this Muse in forraine landes doth stay,
Invention weeps, and pens are cast aside,
The time like night, deprived of chearefull day,
And few do write, but (ah) too soone may slide.
Spenser himself, we are told in the same poem, writes "With rare
invention, bewtified by skill." Once again, Invention is something innate
to the poet. Spenser also happens to be the most highly skilled of poets,
but that skill needs something to work on, and that "something" is
supplied by Invention. Of all the English poets, we are told, Spenser
alone has not felt his invention suffer: after all, he carried it to
Ireland with him. The verse of the poets left behind in England has,
however, dried up because in an England that lacks Spenser's invention, no
poet's invention can thrive.
This use of "Invention" lasted long after Shakespeare's day. Here is part
of Alexander Pope's preface to his translation of *The Iliad* (1715):
HOMER is universally allow'd to have had the greatest Invention of any
Writer whatever. The Praise of Judgment Virgil has justly contested
with him, and others may have their Pretensions as to particular
excellencies; but his Invention remains yet unrival'd. Nor is it a
Wonder if he has ever been acknowledg'd the greatest of Poets, who most
excell'd in That which is the very Foundation of Poetry. It is the
Invention that in different degrees distinguishes all great Genius's:
The utmost Stretch of human Study, Learning, and Industry, which
masters every thing besides, can never attain to this. It furnishes Art
with all her Materials, and without it Judgment itself can at best but
steal wisely: For Art is only like a prudent Steward that lives on
managing the Riches of Nature. Whatever Praises may be given to Works
of Judgment, there is not even a single Beauty in them but is owing to
the Invention: As in the most regular Gardens, however Art may carry
the greatest Appearance, there is not a Plant or Flower but is the Gift
of Nature. The first can only reduce the Beauties of the latter into a
more obvious Figure, which the common Eye may better take in, and is
therefore more entertain'd with. And perhaps the reason why most
Criticks are inclin'd to prefer a judicious and methodical Genius to a
great and fruitful one, is, because they find it easier for themselves
to pursue their Observations through an uniform and bounded Walk of
Art, than to comprehend the vast and various Extent of Nature.
A century after Shakespeare and Spenser, Pope can still speak of Invention
as the key determinant of a poet's genius. Invention is an innate aspect
of the poet's mind, not something acquired by study (although study may be
required for invention to flourish). Pope is not, of course, saying that
one should create a false identity or adapt a pseudonym before writing.
Let's return to the passages from Shakespeare that I quoted above and see
how "invention" is used in each context. The first three are from plays
in which characters assume different identities. If for Shakespeare the
word "invention" had meant "a pseudonym or false identity" then we would
have expected him to use the word in that sense in such plays as *Loves
Labors Lost*, "As You Like It*, and *Twelfth Night*. He does not.
Instead we find that when he uses the word in the context of literary
creation or judgment it is always allied to the meanings that have been
outlined above.
There are many critics in Shakespeare's plays. Characters in his dramas
who write are often self-conscious about how wretched their literary
efforts are, and those who read can often be very harsh in their
judgments.
I will prove those verses to be very unlearned, neither
savoring of poetry, wit, nor invention. (LLL 4.2.157-59)
The line is the judgment of Holofernes on a sonnet Berowne wrote to
Rosaline. If one requirement of a great poet is the excellence of his
Invention, one sign of a poor one is the lack of Invention.
I'll give you a verse to this note, that I made yesterday
in despite of my invention. (AYL 2.5.46-47)
The quoted line is spoken by Jacques after hearing the second verse of
"Under the Greenwood Tree." He apologizes in advance for a poor parody he
has written "in despite of my invention": that is, even though he lacks
the Invention of a true poet.
Go, write it in a martial hand, be curst and brief. It is
no matter how witty, so it be eloquent and full of invention.
(TN 3.2.42-44)
This line is spoken by Toby Belch as he incites Andrew Aguecheek to
challenge Sebastian to a duel. Toby considers a challenge (like a speech
or a poem) to be a literary text. It's not enough for Andrew to challenge
Sebastian; he must do so using his Invention. Just as a poet in love must
use Invention to find some creative expression of what he feels, so the
composer of a challenge must do more than merely say "meet me at such a
place at such a time." "Taunt him with the license of ink," Toby advises.
Here is one example (out of many) from the Sonnets:
For who's so dumb that cannot write to thee
When thou thyself dost give invention light? (SON 38.7-8)
Remember that Astrophil found Invention by looking "in his heart," where
he would see an image of his Stella. Sonnets of love are ostensibly poems
in praise of the beloved, but they often seem displays more of poetic
virtuosity than of sincere affection (part of the game of a love poem is
to appear simultaneously virtuosic and sincere). Therefore sonneteers
will modestly deny responsibility for the excellence of their poems and
announce that with such a beloved for a muse, anyone would be inspired to
write well. Ordinarily, Invention is spoken of as something innate: a
great poet must begin with Invention. Here the speaker is displacing
Invention to the beloved, who could inspire anyone to write well. Thus,
if the sonnets are excellent, it is to the beloved's credit, not the
speaker's.
Let us return to the dedication to *Venus and Adonis*. Some
anti-Stratfordians claim that when William Shakespeare refers to the poem
as "the first heir of my invention" he is slyly stating that "William
Shakespeare" is not really his name, but merely something that the alleged
real author "invented." As I have said, this proposed sense of
"invention" occurs nowhere in Shakespeare (or in any contemporary that I
am aware of). On the other hand, the word "invention" had a long history
in rhetoric and poetics, as I have outlined above. Shakespeare uses the
word several times in a context of literary composition, and it there
refers to a writer's imagination or his innate gift for writing.
A great poet will have a great Invention, but Shakespeare makes no claims
for his own gifts. He is not the one to rate his own Invention, but if
*Venus and Adonis* should fail, then he will know that his Invention was
inadequate: "if the first heir of my invention should prove deformed, I
shall ... never after ear so barren a land, for fear it yield me still so
bad a harvest." In this agricultural metaphor, the "harvest" is the poem
and the "land" is Shakespeare's Invention. If the poem is wretched, he
will then know that the cause was that he lacked the Invention of a fine
poet, and he will write no more such poems.
If we try to read the dedication the way some anti-Stratfordians prefer,
we end up in further nonsense because we have to consider the "land" to be
the alleged pseudonym. If the anti-Stratfordians were correct, the sense
of the metaphor would then be "if the poem is not very good then I'll have
to change my name once again." This presumes that the alleged real author
believed that the quality of a pseudonymous poem depends entirely on the
pseudonym itself, and not on some quality in the poet or the poem: that
is, the anti-Stratfordians' reading of "invention" as pseudonym requires
them to believe that Shakespeare meant that if instead of being by
"William Shakespeare" the poem had been published under the name "Osgood
Muldoon," it might have been a much better poem.
As I have already argued, the sense of "invention" that some
anti-Stratfordians wish to use is one that was unknown to Shakespeare,
while the sense I have been describing existed long before Shakespeare was
born, was frequently used by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and
persisted long after Shakespeare died. There is thus no reason to reject
the traditional reading of "invention," and no reason to accept the
anti-Stratfordian view. When William Shakespeare calls *Venus and Adonis*
"the first heir of my invention" he is saying that he wrote it by himself
and as himself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross tr...@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/xmas/xmas.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Zenner
>When William Shakespeare calls *Venus and Adonis*
>"the first heir of my invention" he is saying that he wrote it by himself
>and as himself.
Thanks for posting your read on "the first heir of my invention", Terry.
I can accept that 'invention' can mean 'imagination', as you appear
to be saying, and I can accept that 'heir' can mean a product of that
imagination -- in this case, a poem. So you are saying that 'Venus
and Adonis' is the first poem that this author wrote. Correct?
That is the explanation that was given to me by Marion Pringle, the
Senior Librarian at The Shakespeare Centre, in Stratford. She said
that "it was a flowery way of saying that he had never written a poem
before".
Do you believe that the author of 'Venus and Adonis' had NEVER
written a poem before?
Peter Zenner
+44 (0) 1246 271726
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:-
> >When William Shakespeare calls *Venus and Adonis*
> >"the first heir of my invention" he is saying that he wrote it by himself
> >and as himself.
>
> Thanks for posting your read on "the first heir of my invention", Terry.
You're welcome.
>
> I can accept that 'invention' can mean 'imagination', as you appear
> to be saying,
I'm saying a little more than that. I'm saying that the anti-Stratfordian
view that "invention" suggests "pseudonym" is entirely without warrant.
So far as I have been able to learn, the word was never used in that sense
by Shakespeare or his contemporaries. On the other hand, the sense of
"invention" that I discuss was common long before and long after
Shakespeare. I am not offering my reading as one among many competing
possibilities: I am saying the anti-Stratfordian view is flat-out
wrong, and is completely unsupported by the evidence.
> and I can accept that 'heir' can mean a product of that
> imagination -- in this case, a poem. So you are saying that 'Venus
> and Adonis' is the first poem that this author wrote. Correct?
Read it again: an heir is a publicly-acknowledged legitimate offspring.
Shakespeare is NOT saying that *Venus and Adonis* is his first work or
even his first poem. He is saying that *Venus and Adonis* is the first
published work to bear his name legitimately.
>
> That is the explanation that was given to me by Marion Pringle, the
> Senior Librarian at The Shakespeare Centre, in Stratford. She said
> that "it was a flowery way of saying that he had never written a poem
> before".
If that is exactly what she said, I don't think she was exactly correct.
>
> Do you believe that the author of 'Venus and Adonis' had NEVER
> written a poem before?
Read once again (this time with more care) what I wrote. You will find
there the following paragraph:
"Once again, we have an author who deprecates his work ("unpolished
lines"), lavishes praise on the subject of the dedication, and worries
about the work's reception. Again the work is allegorized as a child, and
there is worry about the child's being "deformed." It is significant that
this work is not fatherless: it is not just a child but an "heir": a
legitimate and acknowledged offspring. Although some of Shakespeare's
plays had already appeared, this is the first published work to bear his
name, and it bears that name legitimately."
Robert Stonehouse
...
>Read it again: an heir is a publicly-acknowledged legitimate offspring.
>Shakespeare is NOT saying that *Venus and Adonis* is his first work or
>even his first poem. He is saying that *Venus and Adonis* is the first
>published work to bear his name legitimately.
Could we compare a composer who decides to label a particular work
as Opus 1? It doesn't mean it is the first thing he ever wrote. In
some cases it's not even the first published - only the first he
doesn't want to have forgotten.
For 'invention', might I suggest the disagreeable modernism
'creativity'? We shouldn't get too much tied up in technical terms
of the Art of Rhetoric. This is a more general sense.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
kmac...@my-deja.com
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant by
"first
> heir of my invention."
>
The examples are excellent but you fail on one important point: You have
failed to show that "Shakespeare" could not have meant "something
invented" rather than "imagination" when he used the word "invention"
in his dedication. Nicholson clearly states that his lines are his
invention, but "Shakespeare" only refers rather loosely to the "first
heir of my invention". There is no reason why this could not mean
that Sidney was referring to his invention of the pseudonym/standin.
There are several examples in "Shakespeare" where the Sidney uses
the word in the sense of an object that was invented, rather than
imagination, although the other uses are more common.
As You Like It, Rosalind
I say she never did invent this letter:
This is a man's invention, and his hand.
Twelfth Night Malvolio
Or say 'tis not your seal, not your invention;
3 Henry VI King Edward
What if both Lewis and Warwick be appeas'd
By such invention as I can devise?
In this last case especially Sidney appears to be using the word in
the same sense that he used it in the dedication: as something created
to fool someone(s).
--
Kalin MacGruder
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter Zenner
>He is saying that *Venus and Adonis* is the first
>published work to bear his name legitimately.
I understand what you are saying -- but can you state
that as a fact? That is your interpretation and it may or
may not be what the author had in mind.
But thanks again for your thoughts on the matter.
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:-
> >He is saying that *Venus and Adonis* is the first
> >published work to bear his name legitimately.
>
> I understand what you are saying -- but can you state
> that as a fact? That is your interpretation and it may or
> may not be what the author had in mind.
Do a bit of homework, Peter. Look at the language used by Shakespeare and
his contemporaries. How do they use "invention"? How do they use the
metaphor of a work as an author's "child"? Under what circumstances is
that "child" legitimate rather than being a "bastard"? If you have a
different interpretation based on Elizabethan conventions, I'd be interested
in seeing it.
If, on the other hand, your argument is based on your thinking that YOU
would call the use of a pseudonym an "invention" (something that neither
Shakespeare nor any of his contemporaries ever did, so far as I have been
able to determine), then you don't seem to have a case. I have shown you,
with numerous examples (and there are plenty of other instances I could
have cited) what the phrase "first heir of my invention" would have meant
in an Elizabethan dedication.
>
> But thanks again for your thoughts on the matter.
You're welcome -- but I didn't just give you "my thoughts," I also gave
you many contemporary instances of similar language.
paul streitz
by "first
> heir of my invention."
>
In Deja.com, the second post is given, but I cannot find the first.
Could you please post it again.
paul streitz
Peter Zenner
>If, on the other hand, your argument is based on your thinking that YOU
>would call the use of a pseudonym an "invention" (something that neither
>Shakespeare nor any of his contemporaries ever did, so far as I have been
>able to determine), then you don't seem to have a case. I have shown you,
>with numerous examples (and there are plenty of other instances I could
>have cited) what the phrase "first heir of my invention" would have meant
>in an Elizabethan dedication.
But Marlowe's 'Invention' was more than just a pseudonym.
It was a fully formed 'character' consisting of three people --
a trinity. The author, the person whose name he purloined
and the frontman -- the actor. It was this third man who had
been a tutor to the Hoghton family and whose father was a
butcher. His father leased the family home from the Hoghtons
on their estate at Fishwick. The hall was demolished about
60 years ago but the house still exists.
It was this third man who Messrs Aubrey & Jonson referred to
when they spoke of 'Shakespeare'.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> But Marlowe's 'Invention' was more than just a pseudonym.
> It was a fully formed 'character' consisting of three people --
> a trinity. The author, the person whose name he purloined
> and the frontman -- the actor. It was this third man who had
> been a tutor to the Hoghton family and whose father was a
> butcher. His father leased the family home from the Hoghtons
> on their estate at Fishwick. The hall was demolished about
> 60 years ago but the house still exists.
>
> It was this third man who Messrs Aubrey & Jonson referred to
> when they spoke of 'Shakespeare'.
>
Only four problems with all this, Peter:
1. you have no hard evidence for any of it
2. the word, "invention," as Terry has demonstrated beyond reasonable
doubt, was never used for a pseudonym or the like (even one that stands
for three people, or whatever it is that your proposed one does)
3. it makes no sense that Marlowe, after going to all the trouble
of faking his death (with, according to some, a real corpse's being
passed off as his, and an official proceeding with a jury and all) to
escape, supposedly, being executed for various crimes against the state,
would within two weeks of his incredible hoax, announce that he was
still alive by putting a clue like "invention" into a dedication to
a poem supposed to be by William Shakespeare.
4. it's completely wacky.
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:-
> >If, on the other hand, your argument is based on your thinking that YOU
> >would call the use of a pseudonym an "invention" (something that neither
> >Shakespeare nor any of his contemporaries ever did, so far as I have been
> >able to determine), then you don't seem to have a case. I have shown you,
> >with numerous examples (and there are plenty of other instances I could
> >have cited) what the phrase "first heir of my invention" would have meant
> >in an Elizabethan dedication.
>
> But Marlowe's 'Invention' was more than just a pseudonym.
Before entertaining us all with your delightful fantasies about Marlowe's
afterlife, why not do the following first: come up with a more plausible
reading of the dedication than I have offered, and back up your reading by
discussing the conventions used in Elizabethan dedications. One reason
you have difficult with the use of the word "invention" is that you don't
seem to have read enough.
> It was a fully formed 'character' consisting of three people --
> a trinity. The author, the person whose name he purloined
> and the frontman -- the actor. It was this third man who had
> been a tutor to the Hoghton family and whose father was a
> butcher. His father leased the family home from the Hoghtons
> on their estate at Fishwick. The hall was demolished about
> 60 years ago but the house still exists.
You may well believe this, and it may be therapeutic for you to tell the
rest of us some of your jolly tales, but I would be more interested in
your attempting persuasion. Persuasion will require both evidence and
reasoning. Your own statements of belief are not what I would consider
evidence in this case.
>
> It was this third man who Messrs Aubrey & Jonson referred to
> when they spoke of 'Shakespeare'.
Keep telling yourself that, if you wish. On the other hand, if you desire
to persuade (and you may have noticed that there are very very very very
few people in the world who share your beliefs -- in fact, there may be
none, since even the resident Marlites here aren't buying your story),
then you need to pitch your argument to the skeptical reader rather than
to yourself.
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991220...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant
> by "first
> > heir of my invention."
> >
>
> In Deja.com, the second post is given, but I cannot find the first.
> Could you please post it again.
How odd. The first time I posted the twain, back in 1997, dejanews lost
the "invention" but kept the "heir." Here goes:
==================
This is the first of two long posts on Shakespeare's description of *Venus
and Adonis* as the "first heir of my invention." This post discusses the
meaning of "heir" in this context; the other post deals with "invention."
Anti-Stratfordians of various stripes have claimed from time to time that
the phrase somehow signifies that "William Shakespeare" is not the actual
name of the author of *Venus and Adonis* but is something that the "real
author" made up or "invented." I have from time to time answered such
claims, and since the claim is before the newsgroup again, I am reposting
what I said last year.
---------------------------
There are many examples of the metaphor of an author's works being
referred to as his "children," especially in Elizabethan dedications.
Anybody with a reasonable grounding in Elizabethan literature will be
familiar with plenty of them. I have decided to concentrate on two of the
most popular and important and popular Elizabethan works, *The Shepheardes
Calender* and Sidney's *Arcadia*.
Edmund Spenser's name did not appear on *The Shepheardes Calender* in
1579; rather the work was ascribed to "Immerito" (i.e, "unworthy").
Spenser dedicated the work to Sidney and prefaced it with this poem:
To His Book
Goe little booke: thy selfe present,
As child whose parent is unkent: [unknown]
To him that is the president [ i.e., Sidney; also = "precedent"]
Of noblesse and of chevalrie,
And if that envie barke at thee,
As sure it will, for succoure flee
Under the shadow of his wing,
And asked, who thee forth did bring,
A shepheards swaine saye did thee sing,
All as his straying flocke he fedde:
And when his honor has thee redde,
Crave pardon for my hardyhedde.
But if that any ask thy name,
Say thou wert base begot with blame:
For thy therof thou takest shame.
And when thou art past jeopardee,
Come tell me, what was sayd of mee
And I will send more after thee.
-- Immerito
It was conventional for an author to deprecate his own work, to glorify
the person to whom the work was dedicated, and to seem worried that
readers might react harshly to the work. Spenser begins by alluding
gracefully to Chaucer, as any knowledgeable reader then or now would
recognize (Oxfordians are advised to check *Troilus and Criseyde* 5.1786).
His book is a child whose father is unknown. If anyone asks who wrote the
book, "Say thou wert base begot with blame," i.e., a bastard. However, if
the book's reception is favorable, "I will send more after thee." As it
happened, the book was a triumph, and Spenser sent much more after.
Spenser's poem "to his book" was much imitated. Consider Samuel Daniel in
his *Delia* (1593):
Go, wailing verse! The infant of my love --
Minerva-like brought forth without a mother --
That bears the image of the cares I prove;
Witness your father's grief exceeds all other;
or T.W. in *The Tears of Fancy* (1593): "Go idle lines unpolished rude and
base."
Spenser does not actually use the word "bastard" to describe his book, but
Barnabe Barnes certainly read him that way. His *Parthenophil and
Parthenophe* (1593) was published without its author's name, and Barnes
addresses his book thus:
Go bastard orphan! Pack thee hence!
And seek some stranger for defence!
Now 'gins thy baseness to be known!
Nor dare I take thee for my own!
Barnes's child-book was cast out in the hope that "Some good man, that
shall think thee witty / Will be thy patron! and take pity."
Barnes's book is more indebted to Sidney than to Spenser, and the other
dedication I wish to look at is for *The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia*,
which first appeared in print in 1590, four years after Sidney's death,
though the work had circulated in manuscript. All editions contained his
dedication of the work to his sister, the Countess of Pembroke. As
expected, we find the conventional deprecation of "this idle work of
mine," praise of his sister, and worry about the work's reception:
"For my part, in very truth (as the cruel fathers among the Greeks were
wont to do to the babes they would not foster) I could well find it in my
heart to cast out in some desert of forgetfulness this child which I am
loth to father. But you desired me to do it, and your desire to my heart
is an absolute commandment. Now it is done only for you, only to you: if
you keep it to yourself or to such friends who will weigh errors in the
balance of goodwill, I hope, for the father's sake, it will be pardoned,
perchance made much of, though it have deformities. . . . In sum, a young
head, not so well stayed as I would it were (and shall be when God will)
having many fancies begotten in it, if it had not been in some way
delivered, would have grown a monster; and more sorry might I be that they
came in than that they gat out. But his chief safety shall be the not
walking abroad; and his chief protection, the bearing the livery of your
name, which (if much goodness will not deceive me) is worthy to be
sanctuary for a greater offender."
Obviously, the book as child metaphor can become very intricate. Sidney
imagines exposing the child (as, say, the club-footed Oedipus was
exposed), but his sister seems to dote on the child, and it almost becomes
hers by adoption, "bearing the livery" of her name. Her role in fostering
the development of the child is even more pronounced in later editions of
the work.
The second edition of *Arcadia* appeared in 1593, bearing an additional
note to the reader from Hugh Sanford, who had helped edit the revised
version under the Countess's direction. He speaks of "her honorable
labor" in the preparation of the new edition, and further observes,
"If it be true that likeness is a great cause of liking and that
contraries infer contrary consequences, then it is true that the worthless
reader can never worthily esteem of so worthy a writing; and as true that
the noble, the wise, the virtuous, the courteous, as many as have had any
acquaintance with true learning and knowledge, will with all love and
dearness entertain it, as well for affinity with themselves as being child
to such a father. Whom albeit it do not exactly and in every lineament
represent, yet considering the father's untimely death prevented the
timely birth of the child, it may happily seem a thank-worthy labor that
the defects being so few, so small and in no principal part, yet the
greatest unlikeliness is rather in defect than in deformity. But
howsoever it is, it is now by more than one interest The Countess of
Pembroke's Arcadia -- done, as it was, for her; as it is, by her.
Neither shall these pains be the last (if no unexpected accident cut off
her determination) which the everlasting love of her excellent brother
will make her consecrate to his memory."
Just as her brother had spoken of the necessity of his book's being "in
some way delivered," so his sister will undergo more "pains" in seeing
that more of his works are printed. As Sidney had hoped, his "child" was,
"for the father's sake," not merely "pardoned," but "made much of."
Now let's look again at Shakespeare's dedication to Southampton of *Venus
and Adonis*:
"Right Honorable, I know not how I shall offend in dedicating my
unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how the world will censure me for
choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burden; only, if your honor
seem but pleased, I shall account myself highly praised, and vow to take
advantage of all idle hours, till I have honored you with some graver
labor. But if the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be
sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never after ear so barren a land,
for fear it will yield me still so bad a harvest. I leave it to your
honorable survey, and your honor to your heart's content; which I wish may
always answer your own wish and the world's hopeful expectation."
Once again, we have an author who deprecates his work ("unpolished
lines"), lavishes praise on the subject of the dedication, and worries
about the work's reception. Again the work is allegorized as a child, and
there is worry about the child's being "deformed." It is significant that
this work is not fatherless: it is not just a child but an "heir": a
legitimate and acknowledged offspring. Although some of Shakespeare's
plays had already appeared, this is the first published work to bear his
name, and it bears that name legitimately.
Where Immerito has sent his book as if it were fatherless, and where
Sidney's death left *Arcadia* actually fatherless, *Venus and Adonis* has
a father that will not disown it even if the work "should prove deformed."
Will this be an only child? For both Spenser and Shakespeare, the
question depends on how this first child turns out. It is as if a work's
reception amounts to a kind of genetic counseling: if his first child
proves defective, perhaps the author shouldn't father any more, lest they
prove defective as well. The main criterion is said to be whether the work
is worthy of the person to whom it was dedicated. In the case of Sidney,
his sister (herself no mean poet, by the way) has adopted his works as if
they were her own children. In the case of Barnes, his work will have to
find its own patron.
If the work's author had circulated *Venus and Adonis* under any name but
his own, he would not have referred to it as an "heir." If the work had
appeared under another name, or anonymously, it would more properly have
been labeled a bastard, as Spenser obliquely and Barnes directly did.
Far from being some kind of signal that "William Shakespeare" is a
pseudonym, the dedication of *Venus and Adonis* amounts to a virtual
warranty that the work bears its author's actual name.
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991220...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant by
> "first
> > heir of my invention."
> >
>
> The examples are excellent but you fail on one important point: You have
> failed to show that "Shakespeare" could not have meant "something
> invented" rather than "imagination" when he used the word "invention"
> in his dedication.
Why is it that a Sidneyite should be as fearful as an Oxfordian or
Baconian about assuming the burden of proof? Would your hero have acted
thus? I think not. I have shown, with copious citation, how the phrase
"first heir of my invention" would have been understood in an Elizabethan
dedication. Do you find anything wrong with my analysis? Not at all,
except that you wish to claim that I have not proven a negative. What I
needed to do was to give an argument, based on the conventions of
Elizabethan dedications. Now that I have done so, thy necessity is yet
greater. Look at other dedications of the period, and offer us some
reason to prefer your reading.
> Nicholson clearly states that his lines are his invention, but
> "Shakespeare" only refers rather loosely to the "first heir of my
> invention". There is no reason why this could not mean that Sidney was
> referring to his invention of the pseudonym/standin.
The fatal wound at Zutphen is one reason; another is that there is no
instance I have been able to find anywhere in Shakespeare or any of his
contemporaries (or his successors, for that matter) where "invention" was
used to mean "pseudonym" or "standin." If you have any examples, let's
hear them.
> There are several examples in "Shakespeare" where the Sidney
I think you mean "the Shakespeare"
> uses the word in the sense of an object that was invented, rather than
> imagination, although the other uses are more common.
If I may quote myself, "'Invention' thus may be both a quality of the
writer (wit or imagination) or of the poem (metaphors or other 'devices'
whose aptness shows the 'quick capacity' of the writer), or it may be the
poem itself that is produced by the poet's Invention (in 1578 an anthology
of poems appeared with the title *A Gorgeous Gallery of Gallant
Inventions*)."
Let us look at your examples. I predict that in none of them will
"invention" be used to mean "pseudonym."
>
> As You Like It, Rosalind
> I say she never did invent this letter:
> This is a man's invention, and his hand.
In this case, "invention" means "wit." Rosalind insists that *Pheobe* could
not have written the letter -- in fact, no woman could have, because it
betrays that its author had the "invention" of a man. Rosalind goes on to
discuss the letter's style:
Why, 'tis a boisterous and a cruel style.
A style for-challengers; why, she defies me,
Like Turk to Christian: women's gentle brain
Could not drop forth such giant-rude invention
Such Ethiope words, blacker in their effect
Than in their countenance. Will you hear the letter?
This second instance of "invention" may be closer to what you mean: the
"giant-rude invention" is not, however, the letter itself, but rather
refers to those elements in it that betray the nature of the author's
"Invention" and prove to Rosalind that no woman -- not even Phoebe --
could have conceived it.
>
> Twelfth Night Malvolio
> Or say 'tis not your seal, not your invention;
Let's have a few more lines:
Lady, you have. Pray you, peruse that letter.
You must not now deny it is your hand:
Write from it, if you can, in hand or phrase;
Or say 'tis not your seal, nor your invention:
You can say none of this: well, grant it then
This is a very similar instance. Once again the question is who wrote a
particular text. Once again, the case is to be decided on both physical
evidence (is that the alleged writer's "hand"? is that her "seal"?) and
whether the work is the product of the alleged author's Invention. By an
author's work you may judge whether he or she has the capacity required to
produce such a work.
>
> 3 Henry VI King Edward
> What if both Lewis and Warwick be appeas'd
> By such invention as I can devise?
>
>
> In this last case especially Sidney appears to be using the word in
> the same sense that he used it in the dedication: as something created
> to fool someone(s).
Sidney did not write *3H6*, and the word "invention" is not used in the
*V&A* dedication to mean "something created to fool someone." In *3H6*,
Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Grey has upset both King Louis (who thought
Edward intended to marry his sister, Lady Bona) and Warwick (who went to
Louis to negotiate the match between Edward and Lady Bona). Instead of a
marriage between the royalty of France and England securing peace,
Edward's marriage to Lady Grey has caused Louis and Warwick to join
against him. He wonders whether there is any way to "appease" them.
I don't see where Edward's proposed "invention" here requires fooling
either Lewis or Warwick, but it certainly would have been a nice piece of
diplomacy if he could have brought it off. What such an "invention" would
have looked like we never learn, because the war comes first.
Let's try your suggested reading "something created to fool somebody" and
see how the dedication now reads:
"Right Honorable, I know not how I shall offend in dedicating my
unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how the world will censure me for
choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burden; only, if your honor
seem but pleased, I shall account myself highly praised, and vow to take
advantage of all idle hours, till I have honored you with some graver
labor. But if the first heir of my something intended to fool somebody
prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never
after ear so barren a land, for fear it will yield me still so bad a
harvest. I leave it to your honorable survey, and your honor to your
heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish and the
world's hopeful expectation."
The "something intended to fool somebody" is the "land" in Shakespeare's
agricultural metaphor. He has eared "something intended to fool
somebody," and if *Venus and Adonis* proves unworthy of Southampton, then
Shakespeare will never again use the same "something intended to fool
somebody." As I have already explained, this reading cannot work.
Poetry was often thought to fail or succeed on the basis of the author's
"Invention" -- his wit or imagination or creativity. A bad poem could be
taken as a sign that the poet just didn't have the talent. Under the
Sidneyite reading, however, if the poem fails the blame is to be laid not
on the poem itself nor on the author's ability, but merely on whether he
appropriately chose his "something intended to fool somebody." If there
is sense in this reading, it is that the Sidneyite must believe that if
*Venus and Adonis* failed, it would be because it had the wrong
"pseudonym" attached to it, but it would have succeeded if the late Sidney
had used some other name.
There is nothing in the dedication to suggest that "something intended to
fool somebody" is a possible reading. Edward at least wanted to "devise"
something that could "appease" his enemies -- if war hadn't broken out,
his "invention" might have involved some trickery. Yet Shakespeare
speaks in the dedication to *Venus and Adonis* of his "Invention" not as
something that would involve deception but rather as the basic faculty
that enabled him to write at all: it was the very "land" on which *Venus
and Adonis* had grown, and out of which he would create other works, if
the first one did not prove the land "barren." The success of *Venus and
Adonis* would certify that Shakespeare had that "quick capacity" of the
true poet. He certainly thought the poem was worthy, as he called it his
"heir," a word that was not used of pseudonymous or anonymous works but
rather for those an author proudly acknowledged under his actual name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Zenner
>1. you have no hard evidence for any of it
You have no idea what I have got, Bob. You only know the pieces
that I have posted.
>2. the word, "invention," as Terry has demonstrated beyond reasonable
>doubt, was never used for a pseudonym or the like (even one that stands
>for three people, or whatever it is that your proposed one does)
Terry has demonstrated what was usually the case. In Marlowe's
case it was different -- there was and never has been (as far as
we know) any other case that is similar to it.
>3. it makes no sense that Marlowe, after going to all the trouble
>of faking his death (with, according to some, a real corpse's being
>passed off as his, and an official proceeding with a jury and all) to
>escape, supposedly, being executed for various crimes against the state,
>would within two weeks of his incredible hoax, announce that he was
>still alive by putting a clue like "invention" into a dedication to
>a poem supposed to be by William Shakespeare.
You have got it the wrong way around, Bob. 'Venus and Adonis' was
registered on April 18th, 1593. That is just under six weeks BEFORE
Marlowe faked his death in Deptford on May 30th. He was establishing
that there was an author called 'William Shakespeare' BEFORE he
"died", in order to make it less suspicious. There are clues spread
all through 'the works' -- it seems that Marlowe couldn't resist his little
jokes.
>4. it's completely wacky.
Mmm -- that's another one. Let's put "wacky" in the bag with 'metaphor',
'allegory' and 'baconologyanalyzing', eh Bob?
The Queen wanted Marlowe stopped. She wanted him dead. Burghley,
Marlowe's mentor, came up with an alternative -- pretend dead. Everyone
involved with the mechanics of 'the death in Deptford' was known. The
three in the room? Colleagues from the Secret Service. The coroner?
The Queen's coroner. The owner of the house where it was staged?
Burghley's cousin, Dame Eleanor Bull. The house that he fled to?
Titchfield Abbey -- the home of Burghley's ward, the Earl of
Southampton.
Marlowe was wanted for TREASON and yet he was put on bail. The
scene was set. Why wasn't he just sent to the Tower? In Sonnet 74,
'Shakespeare' talks about "that fell arrest without all bail" -- he is
talking about when he really dies, as opposed to being put on bail
and then escaping death.
volker multhopp
> The Queen wanted Marlowe stopped. She wanted him dead. Burghley,
> Marlowe's mentor, came up with an alternative -- pretend dead. Everyone
> involved with the mechanics of 'the death in Deptford' was known. The
> three in the room? Colleagues from the Secret Service. The coroner?
> The Queen's coroner. The owner of the house where it was staged?
> Burghley's cousin, Dame Eleanor Bull. The house that he fled to?
> Titchfield Abbey -- the home of Burghley's ward, the Earl of
> Southampton.
Well, Peter, you and I at least agree the queen was personally involved
with Shakespeare, the greatest playwright. (And certainly the queen,
the sovereign of the nation, a lover of the arts, knew him, would have
brought him to her presence.) We also agree she is responsible for his
identity being lost.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
> Peter Zenner wrote:
>
> > The Queen wanted Marlowe stopped. She wanted him dead. Burghley,
> > Marlowe's mentor, came up with an alternative -- pretend dead. Everyone
> > involved with the mechanics of 'the death in Deptford' was known. The
> > three in the room? Colleagues from the Secret Service. The coroner?
> > The Queen's coroner. The owner of the house where it was staged?
> > Burghley's cousin, Dame Eleanor Bull. The house that he fled to?
> > Titchfield Abbey -- the home of Burghley's ward, the Earl of
> > Southampton.
>
> Well, Peter, you and I at least agree the queen was personally involved
> with Shakespeare, the greatest playwright.
Isn't that unanimous around here?
> (And certainly the queen,
> the sovereign of the nation, a lover of the arts, knew him, would have
> brought him to her presence.)
On several occasions this servant of the crown performed for her.
> We also agree she is responsible for his
> identity being lost.
Oooh, chalk that one up to conspirators and theorists.
Shakespeare and company continued in employment of the crown after the queen and
the earl died--so only their identities became essentially "lost," not
Shakespeare's.
Greg Reynolds
Gary Kosinsky
"Peter Zenner" <pe...@pzenner.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>You have got it the wrong way around, Bob. 'Venus and Adonis' was
>registered on April 18th, 1593. That is just under six weeks BEFORE
>Marlowe faked his death in Deptford on May 30th. He was establishing
>that there was an author called 'William Shakespeare' BEFORE he
>"died", in order to make it less suspicious.
Kyd wasn't arrested, and therefore did not implicate
Marlowe for atheism, until after May 11, 1593. Why would Marlowe
have created this new identity before then? Did he somehow
know in advance that Kyd was going to be arrested and that he
(Marlowe) would be implicated? Or are you saying he just happened
to have planned this new identity, and it conveniently came into
use when he was arrested?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kosinsky gk...@vcn.bc.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
kmac...@my-deja.com
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>Why is it that a Sidneyite should be as fearful as an Oxfordian or
>Baconian about assuming the burden of proof?
Why is the learned professor so tart? The burden of proof is equally
yours. You have not shown that Shakespeare MUST have meant what you say
he meant.
>Would your hero have acted thus? I think not.
That's just silly. I think Sidney would have been as aware as I am of
what constitutes proof. You have shown that one possible meaning of the
V&A dedication is that the author meant to speak about his own work, the
creation of his own "invention" or imagination. That is acceptable. It
is not proof, however.
>Look at other dedications of the period, and offer us some
>reason to prefer your reading.
I've looked at some other meanings of the word "invention", and one
meaning is "something created by someone". That "something" could
be a poem, or it could be a pseudonym/stand-in.
>> Nicholson clearly states that his lines are his invention, but
>> "Shakespeare" only refers rather loosely to the "first heir of my
>> invention". There is no reason why this could not mean that Sidney
was
>> referring to his invention of the pseudonym/standin.
>The fatal wound at Zutphen is one reason;
Only if you believe everything you read.
>another is that there is no
>instance I have been able to find anywhere in Shakespeare or any of his
>contemporaries (or his successors, for that matter) where "invention"
>was used to mean "pseudonym" or "standin." If you have any examples,
>let's hear them.
If there was only one man using a pseudonym to write serious literature,
there is no reason to expect that there would be other examples. There
are examples of "invention" meaning something invented by the mind of
man, for example Marlowe's use in 2 Tamburlaine. That is sufficient. I
have not proven my case, nor do I claim to. It is one interpretation of
the evidence.
>> There are several examples in "Shakespeare" where the Sidney
>I think you mean "the Shakespeare"
No, I meant Sidney ;-)
> uses the word in the sense of an object that was invented, rather than
> imagination, although the other uses are more common.
>Let us look at your examples. I predict that in none of them will
>"invention" be used to mean "pseudonym."
I never said it meant literally "pseudonym" in these examples, and it's
a bit disingenuous of you to imply that it did. I used the examples
to show that it could mean "something invented by somebody", and since
a pseudonym is just such a thing, "invention" could be used to refer to
a pseudonym.
>>
>> As You Like It, Rosalind
>> I say she never did invent this letter:
>> This is a man's invention, and his hand.
>In this case, "invention" means "wit." Rosalind insists that *Pheobe*
>could not have written the letter -- in fact, no woman could have,
>because it betrays that its author had the "invention" of a man.
>Rosalind goes on to discuss the letter's style:
This is debatable. Notice that she does not say "this is the product of
a man's invention", she says "This is a man's invention", right after
saying that "she never did invent this letter" another use in the same
vein. In the continuation of the quote, "invention" is quite clearly
meant to mean "creativity":
Why, 'tis a boisterous and a cruel style.
A style for-challengers; why, she defies me,
Like Turk to Christian: women's gentle brain
Could not drop forth such giant-rude invention
Such Ethiope words, blacker in their effect
Than in their countenance. Will you hear the letter?
>This second instance of "invention" may be closer to what you mean:
No it's not. You've got everything reversed. The part I originally
quoted refers to "something invented."
>the
>"giant-rude invention" is not, however, the letter itself, but rather
>refers to those elements in it that betray the nature of the author's
>"Invention" and prove to Rosalind that no woman -- not even Phoebe --
>could have conceived it.
Agreed, see above.
>
>> Twelfth Night Malvolio
>> Or say 'tis not your seal, not your invention;
>Let's have a few more lines:
In the above lines the word "invention" could mean "something invented"
or "style". However, your following instance, you've changed a word,
from "not" to "nor", which makes the meaning "style" more likely.
Lady, you have. Pray you, peruse that letter.
You must not now deny it is your hand:
Write from it, if you can, in hand or phrase;
Or say 'tis not your seal, nor your invention:
You can say none of this: well, grant it then
>This is a very similar instance. Once again the question is who wrote
>a particular text. Once again, the case is to be decided on both
>physical evidence (is that the alleged writer's "hand"? is that her
>"seal"?) and whether the work is the product of the alleged author's
>Invention. By an author's work you may judge whether he or she has the
>capacity required to produce such a work.
No, it seems to me that it means "something invented", especially once
you change "nor" back to "not".
>>
>>
>> What if both Lewis and Warwick be appeas'd
>> By such invention as I can devise?
>>
>>
>> In this last case especially Sidney appears to be using the word in
>> the same sense that he used it in the dedication: as something
>>created to fool someone(s).
>Sidney did not write *3H6*,
That's the point we are arguing, isn't it?
>and the word "invention" is not used in the
>*V&A* dedication to mean "something created to fool someone."
How do you know? That's what we are arguing. You've shown that
that might be the case, but you haven't proven it.
>In *3H6*, Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Grey has upset both King Louis
>(who thought Edward intended to marry his sister, Lady Bona) and
>Warwick (who went to Louis to negotiate the match between Edward and
>Lady Bona). Instead of a marriage between the royalty of France and
>England securing peace, Edward's marriage to Lady Grey has caused Louis
>and Warwick to join against him. He wonders whether there is any way
>to "appease" them.
>I don't see where Edward's proposed "invention" here requires fooling
>either Lewis or Warwick,
It "fools" them because he is able to appease them with something he
invented, a "design or plan" as the Riverside puts it. If you appease
someone into doing what you want to do by means of a clever stratagem,
such as creating a pseudonym to avoid embarrassing the Crown, then you
have "fooled" someone.
>but it certainly would have been a nice piece of
>diplomacy if he could have brought it off. What such an "invention"
>would have looked like we never learn, because the war comes first.
>Let's try your suggested reading "something created to fool somebody"
>and see how the dedication now reads:
> But if the first heir of my something intended to fool somebody
>prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never
>after ear so barren a land, for fear it will yield me still so bad a
>harvest. I leave it to your honorable survey, and your honor to your
>heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish and the
>world's hopeful expectation."
It is of course silly to place the literal phrase "something intended
to fool somebody" into this context, but what it means is "If the first
product of my invented persona turns out to be inferior, I will be
sorry I dedicated it to you, and I won't try this form again, for fear
the exact same thing will happen." Not really any different from the
traditional meaning, except that the work is an heir of his adopted
persona, rather than his creativity.
--
Kalin MacGruder
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > Well, Peter, you and I at least agree the queen was personally involved
> > with Shakespeare, the greatest playwright.
> Isn't that unanimous around here?
Is it?
> > (And certainly the queen,
> > the sovereign of the nation, a lover of the arts, knew him, would have
> > brought him to her presence.)
> On several occasions this servant of the crown performed for her.
Does performing for her along with other actors constitute "personal
involvment"?
> > We also agree she is responsible for his
> > identity being lost.
> Oooh, chalk that one up to conspirators and theorists.
> Shakespeare and company continued in employment of the crown after the queen and
> the earl died--so only their identities became essentially "lost," not
> Shakespeare's.
Exactly when was Shakespeare (not by inference through the company, but
he by name) "in employment of the crown after the queen and the earl
died"?
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote:
> In article <83ughj$tic$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Peter Zenner" <pe...@pzenner.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >You have got it the wrong way around, Bob. 'Venus and Adonis' was
> >registered on April 18th, 1593. That is just under six weeks BEFORE
> >Marlowe faked his death in Deptford on May 30th. He was establishing
> >that there was an author called 'William Shakespeare' BEFORE he
> >"died", in order to make it less suspicious.
>
> Kyd wasn't arrested, and therefore did not implicate
> Marlowe for atheism, until after May 11, 1593. Why would Marlowe
> have created this new identity before then? Did he somehow
> know in advance that Kyd was going to be arrested and that he
> (Marlowe) would be implicated? Or are you saying he just happened
> to have planned this new identity, and it conveniently came into
> use when he was arrested?
>
is that it doesn't matter when Marlowe made his little joke, risking
exposure: it'd be idiotic of him to do ANYTHING to give away this
elaborate vital hoax after OR before it was carried out! Indeed,
it'd be safer to make his joke afterwards, when he may have felt
safe.
My use of the word, "wacky," by the way, is my quick way of summing
up the fact that your hoax scenario is unprecedented, preposterously
tangled and implausible, without hard evidence or anything but
speculation supporting it, and WITH hard evidence against it (like the
coroner's report, and the various people who referred to Marlowe and
Shakespeare as separate persons--and opposed by scenarios that DO have
hard evidence supporting them. Other than that it's only a little bit
dumb.
--Bob G.
Peter Zenner
>Kyd wasn't arrested, and therefore did not implicate
>Marlowe for atheism, until after May 11, 1593. Why would Marlowe
>have created this new identity before then? Did he somehow
>know in advance that Kyd was going to be arrested and that he
>(Marlowe) would be implicated? Or are you saying he just happened
>to have planned this new identity, and it conveniently came into
>use when he was arrested?
It didn't start with Kydd, Gary. Trouble had been brewing for some
time and all who were associated with 'Sir Walter Rauley's School
of Atheism' ('Shakespeare's' 'School of Night') were being hounded.
Marlowe was branded an atheist by Robert Greene in 1592.
You don't have to take my word for it -- read up on Marlowe BEFORE
that day in Deptford in any of the biographies.
Peter Zenner
>Well, Peter, you and I at least agree the queen was personally involved
>the sovereign of the nation, a lover of the arts, knew him, would have
>identity being lost.
I have posted this poem before. Nobody commented at the time,
so maybe it was overlooked. It tells us in a nutshell why Marlowe
had to be stopped and it was published in October, 1593, i.e.,
five months after he officially died.
A secret murder hath been done of late,
Unkindness found to be the bloody knife.
And she that did the deed a dame of state,
Fair, gracious wife, as any beareth life.
To quiet herself, this answer did she make,
Mistrust (quoth she) hath brought him to his end.
Which makes the man so much himself mistake,
To lay the guilt upon his guiltless friend.
Lady not so, not feared I found my death,
For no desert thus murdered is my mind,
And yet, before I yield my fainting breath,
I quiet the killer, though I blame the kind.
You kill unkind, I die, and yet am true.
For at your sight my wound doth bleed anew.
The Queen did not trust him; he had been preaching atheism
for several years -- he was guilty of treason. (Check Jonson's
poems on this person who he called 'Guilty', the one that he
could not name, etc., etc.) She wanted him dead. But this was
a secret murder. It was apparently done with a 'bloody knife'
and the blame was laid upon his "guiltless friend", Ingram
Fryzer, a colleague from the Secret Service.
Merry Christmas to all our readers!
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991220...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant by
> "first
> > heir of my invention."
> >
>
> failed to show that "Shakespeare" could not have meant "something
> invented" rather than "imagination" when he used the word "invention"
> invention, but "Shakespeare" only refers rather loosely to the "first
> heir of my invention". There is no reason why this could not mean
> that Sidney was referring to his invention of the pseudonym/standin.
> the word in the sense of an object that was invented, rather than
> imagination, although the other uses are more common.
>
> I say she never did invent this letter:
> This is a man's invention, and his hand.
>
> Or say 'tis not your seal, not your invention;
>
> By such invention as I can devise?
>
> In this last case especially Sidney appears to be using the word in
> the same sense that he used it in the dedication: as something created
> to fool someone(s).
No, that's how you're reading it, because you are accustomed to the
20th-century meaning of "invention". The semantic drift from process to
product is a slow one -- cf. the word "devising", which never did make
it all the way.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
Please tell me this is a joke. (By the way, I rather fancy both of
those quiet's should be "quit".)
paul streitz
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, paul streitz wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991220...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> > Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > > This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant
> > by "first
> > > heir of my invention."
> > >
> pseudonym, the dedication of *Venus and Adonis* amounts to a virtual
> warranty that the work bears its author's actual name.
If this is so, then the man from Stratford must have used this "actual
name" must have been in use at the time, or prior to this publication
of V&A. Correct? Where then is the name "William Shakespeare" found
prior to V&A.
Here I am using "actual" to mean the dictionary definition of "existing
in fact or reality; existing or occuring at the time." This would
exclude variations, other spellings, later spellings after this fact,
etc.. His "actual name" cannot be "Shakespeare' if in fact he was
using or known by some other spelling.
paul streitz
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Terry Ross tr...@bcpl.net
> SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
> CHRISTMAS POEMS http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/xmas/xmas.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>
Tom Reedy
TR
paul streitz <pfst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:840js2$lu7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.99122...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, paul streitz wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991220...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> > > Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > > > This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant
> > > by "first
> > > > heir of my invention."
> > > >
> > Far from being some kind of signal that "William Shakespeare" is a
> > pseudonym, the dedication of *Venus and Adonis* amounts to a virtual
> > warranty that the work bears its author's actual name.
>
> If this is so, then the man from Stratford must have used this "actual
> name" must have been in use at the time, or prior to this publication
> of V&A. Correct? Where then is the name "William Shakespeare" found
> prior to V&A.
>
> Here I am using "actual" to mean the dictionary definition of "existing
> in fact or reality; existing or occuring at the time." This would
> exclude variations, other spellings, later spellings after this fact,
> etc.. His "actual name" cannot be "Shakespeare' if in fact he was
> using or known by some other spelling.
>
> paul streitz
>
>
>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > Terry Ross tr...@bcpl.net
> > SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
> > CHRISTMAS POEMS http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/xmas/xmas.html
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.99122...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, paul streitz wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991220...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> > > Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > > > This is the second of two long posts on what Shakespeare meant
> > > by "first
> > > > heir of my invention."
> > > >
> > Far from being some kind of signal that "William Shakespeare" is a
> > pseudonym, the dedication of *Venus and Adonis* amounts to a virtual
> > warranty that the work bears its author's actual name.
>
> If this is so, then the man from Stratford must have used this "actual
> name" must have been in use at the time, or prior to this publication
> of V&A. Correct? Where then is the name "William Shakespeare" found
> prior to V&A.
Look at Dave's lists.
>
> Here I am using "actual" to mean the dictionary definition of "existing
> in fact or reality; existing or occuring at the time." This would
> exclude variations, other spellings, later spellings after this fact,
> etc..
This is a rule that you have invented, or have borrowed from other
anti-Stratfordians; I hope you take great comfort from it, but it has
nothing whatsoever to do with Elizabethan literature. The poet Edmund
Spenser's name sometimes appeared as "Spencer"; Sidney's name could be
"Sidnei"; Jonson could be "Johnson." If you have some general rule, based
on Elizabethan conventions, that you can apply generally to contemporary
names, then let us see it in all its marvelous articulation. If, on the
other hand, you just wish to present your imaginations as facts, then
while we may applaud your delving into fiction, we need not take it
seriously.
> His "actual name" cannot be "Shakespeare' if in fact he was using or
> known by some other spelling.
You really haven't the slightest clue about Elizabethan orthography, have
you. He was indeed using "William Shakespeare" in his signature to *Venus
and Adonis*, and that was indeed his actual name.
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991222...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> >Why is it that a Sidneyite should be as fearful as an Oxfordian or
> >Baconian about assuming the burden of proof?
>
> Why is the learned professor so tart? The burden of proof is equally
> yours. You have not shown that Shakespeare MUST have meant what you say
> he meant.
And just how should one do that? One might do it by surveying the front
matter of contemporaneous works to see whether similar language was used.
One might do it by exploring the Elizabethan notion of "Invention" and
seeing how Shakespeare and others understood the term. One might do so by
offering a reading of the dedication that is based on contemporary
conventions and that makes coherent sense. I have done all of that, and I
have at the least made a prima facie case for the standard reading of the
dedication. At this point, anybody who wishes to counter that reading
needs to come up with a more plausible one. This you have failed even to
attempt.
>
> >Would your hero have acted thus? I think not.
>
> That's just silly. I think Sidney would have been as aware as I am of
> what constitutes proof. You have shown that one possible meaning of the
> V&A dedication is that the author meant to speak about his own work, the
> creation of his own "invention" or imagination. That is acceptable. It
> is not proof, however.
Let's see you make a more plausible case than I have.
>
> >Look at other dedications of the period, and offer us some
> >reason to prefer your reading.
>
> I've looked at some other meanings of the word "invention", and one
> meaning is "something created by someone". That "something" could
> be a poem, or it could be a pseudonym/stand-in.
I know of no instance in 16th- or 17th-Century literature where the use of
a pseudonym or "standin" was called "Invention." Shakespeare's plays
abound with instances of characters assuming other names, but not once do
they refer to this as an "Invention." You have already said that my
reading is "acceptable"; your job is to show that your reading is
preferable. When we try to plug your idiosyncratic sense of "Invention"
into the dedication, the result is nonsense.
>
>
> >> Nicholson clearly states that his lines are his invention, but
> >> "Shakespeare" only refers rather loosely to the "first heir of my
> >> invention". There is no reason why this could not mean that Sidney
> was
> >> referring to his invention of the pseudonym/standin.
>
> >The fatal wound at Zutphen is one reason;
>
> Only if you believe everything you read.
If you don't believe ANYthing you read, then you have no reason for
believing that Sidney ever lived or wrote.
>
>
> >another is that there is no
> >instance I have been able to find anywhere in Shakespeare or any of his
> >contemporaries (or his successors, for that matter) where "invention"
> >was used to mean "pseudonym" or "standin." If you have any examples,
> >let's hear them.
>
> If there was only one man using a pseudonym to write serious literature,
> there is no reason to expect that there would be other examples.
Spenser used a pseudonym to write serious literature, and his dedication
to his book is one of the texts I analyzed. A work that went forth under
a pseudonym or anonymously was not an "heir" -- a legitimate offspring --
but a "bastard" or one "whose parent is unkent."
> There
> are examples of "invention" meaning something invented by the mind of
> man, for example Marlowe's use in 2 Tamburlaine. That is sufficient. I
> have not proven my case, nor do I claim to. It is one interpretation of
> the evidence.
In order to have a case in the first place, you need to advance an
argument that your reading of the dedication is superior to mine. This
you have not done. You merely claim that yours is not impossible. You
acknowledge that it would be unprecedented, and since my reading is
coherent and is based on contemporary usage and conventions, I see no
reason to prefer yours. That your fancy about Sidney requires you to
believe in your reading of "Invention" is not a factor that matters to the
rest of us.
>
> >> There are several examples in "Shakespeare" where the Sidney
>
> >I think you mean "the Shakespeare"
>
> No, I meant Sidney ;-)
Then you should mean Shakespeare.
>
> > uses the word in the sense of an object that was invented, rather than
> > imagination, although the other uses are more common.
>
>
> >Let us look at your examples. I predict that in none of them will
> >"invention" be used to mean "pseudonym."
>
> I never said it meant literally "pseudonym" in these examples, and it's
> a bit disingenuous of you to imply that it did.
Your point is that, somehow, by referring to *Venus and Adonis* as the
"first heir of my invention" Shakespeare was informing us that his real
name was not Shakespeare. What else could you mean but that "invention"
meant "pseudonym"? And yet this is a meaning that is unknown in the
history of the language. Moreover, an examination of contemporary
literature shows that the phrase would have been understood by
contemporaries as a virtual warranty that the actual author's actual name
was "William Shakespeare," and that this was the first publicly
acknowledged work that had appeared with his name.
> I used the examples to show that it could mean "something invented by
> somebody", and since a pseudonym is just such a thing, "invention"
> could be used to refer to a pseudonym.
I see. Since anything that could be invented by anybody at any time is an
"invention," we can just substitute the name of any "invention" in this
sense for the word "invention" in the dedication. Elias Howe invented the
sewing machine, but maybe Sidney did so before him. In that case, *V&A*
was the first heir of his sewing machine. Perhaps *V&A* was the first
heir of the cordless electric drill, or the lightbulb, or the telescope,
or the skinless frankfurter. In that case, one would expect that there
would be something else in the dedication that would point to the
particular invention you think "Sidney" had in mind. Otherwise you will
not be able to choose between "telephone" and "digital watch."
>
> >>
> >> As You Like It, Rosalind
> >> I say she never did invent this letter:
> >> This is a man's invention, and his hand.
>
> >In this case, "invention" means "wit." Rosalind insists that *Pheobe*
> >could not have written the letter -- in fact, no woman could have,
> >because it betrays that its author had the "invention" of a man.
> >Rosalind goes on to discuss the letter's style:
>
> This is debatable. Notice that she does not say "this is the product of
> a man's invention", she says "This is a man's invention", right after
> saying that "she never did invent this letter" another use in the same
> vein.
Your reading in this case is possible, but I prefer mine. It is a man's
"invention" and a man's "hand." Of course the letter itself is not
literally a hand, but it was written (Rosalind says) in a style that
betrays that a man's hand wrote it. Similarly, the letter itself is not
the "invention" but is recognizably the product of a masculine Invention.
> In the continuation of the quote, "invention" is quite clearly
> meant to mean "creativity":
>
> Why, 'tis a boisterous and a cruel style.
> A style for-challengers; why, she defies me,
> Like Turk to Christian: women's gentle brain
> Could not drop forth such giant-rude invention
> Such Ethiope words, blacker in their effect
> Than in their countenance. Will you hear the letter?
>
> >This second instance of "invention" may be closer to what you mean:
>
> No it's not. You've got everything reversed. The part I originally
> quoted refers to "something invented."
Then you also think the "letter" literally is a human hand?
>
> >the
> >"giant-rude invention" is not, however, the letter itself, but rather
> >refers to those elements in it that betray the nature of the author's
> >"Invention" and prove to Rosalind that no woman -- not even Phoebe --
> >could have conceived it.
>
> Agreed, see above.
>
> >
> >> Twelfth Night Malvolio
> >> Or say 'tis not your seal, not your invention;
>
> >Let's have a few more lines:
>
> In the above lines the word "invention" could mean "something invented"
> or "style". However, your following instance, you've changed a word,
> from "not" to "nor", which makes the meaning "style" more likely.
>
> Lady, you have. Pray you, peruse that letter.
> You must not now deny it is your hand:
> Write from it, if you can, in hand or phrase;
> Or say 'tis not your seal, nor your invention:
> You can say none of this: well, grant it then
I don't know that it affects the matter in question, but you are right
that the word is "not"; thanks for the correction.
Malvolio challenges Olivia to prove that the letter is not "your hand,"
"your seal," "your invention." He says, "write from it, if you can, in
hand or phrase." By "write from it" he means "write differently from it."
He does not think she can write differently from it "in hand" or "in
phrase." She cannot write differently from it "in hand" because looks
like it is in handwriting. She cannot write differently from it "in ...
phrase" because it looks like it was created by her "Invention." Still, I
do not deny that your reading here is possible, and it may be that
"Invention" partakes here of both meanings -- i.e., the innate capacity to
write in such a style, and the document itself.
>
> >This is a very similar instance. Once again the question is who wrote
> >a particular text. Once again, the case is to be decided on both
> >physical evidence (is that the alleged writer's "hand"? is that her
> >"seal"?) and whether the work is the product of the alleged author's
> >Invention. By an author's work you may judge whether he or she has the
> >capacity required to produce such a work.
>
> No, it seems to me that it means "something invented", especially once
> you change "nor" back to "not".
I don't read it that way, but your is at least a plausible reading in this
case.
> >>
> >>
> >> What if both Lewis and Warwick be appeas'd
> >> By such invention as I can devise?
> >>
> >>
> >> In this last case especially Sidney appears to be using the word in
> >> the same sense that he used it in the dedication: as something
> >>created to fool someone(s).
>
> >Sidney did not write *3H6*,
>
> That's the point we are arguing, isn't it?
Not really; you have yet to supply an argument.
>
> >and the word "invention" is not used in the
> >*V&A* dedication to mean "something created to fool someone."
>
> How do you know? That's what we are arguing. You've shown that
> that might be the case, but you haven't proven it.
I have made a strong enough case; you have offered us no reason to prefer
your reading -- in fact, you have not provided a reading of the
dedication at all.
>
> >In *3H6*, Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Grey has upset both King Louis
> >(who thought Edward intended to marry his sister, Lady Bona) and
> >Warwick (who went to Louis to negotiate the match between Edward and
> >Lady Bona). Instead of a marriage between the royalty of France and
> >England securing peace, Edward's marriage to Lady Grey has caused Louis
> >and Warwick to join against him. He wonders whether there is any way
> >to "appease" them.
>
> >I don't see where Edward's proposed "invention" here requires fooling
> >either Lewis or Warwick,
>
> It "fools" them because he is able to appease them with something he
> invented, a "design or plan" as the Riverside puts it. If you appease
> someone into doing what you want to do by means of a clever stratagem,
> such as creating a pseudonym to avoid embarrassing the Crown, then you
> have "fooled" someone.
How on earth could Edward assume a pseudonym? Would he prevent Louis and
Warwick from attacking by saying "I'm not really Edward of England I'm
actually Marie of Rumania"? In the cases of the other plays, there were
written texts that were the products of a certain kind of Invention and
that might be seen as particular products of "invention." In this case, we
have no way of knowing what Edward might have done because he has invented
nothing (there is no "design or plan" yet).
>
> >but it certainly would have been a nice piece of
> >diplomacy if he could have brought it off. What such an "invention"
> >would have looked like we never learn, because the war comes first.
>
> >Let's try your suggested reading "something created to fool somebody"
> >and see how the dedication now reads:
>
>
> > But if the first heir of my something intended to fool somebody
> >prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never
> >after ear so barren a land, for fear it will yield me still so bad a
> >harvest. I leave it to your honorable survey, and your honor to your
> >heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish and the
> >world's hopeful expectation."
>
> It is of course silly to place the literal phrase "something intended
> to fool somebody" into this context,
But it is not at all silly to put "imagination" or "creativity" in this
context. One test of whether a proposed gloss works is whether it can be
placed in the original context.
> but what it means is "If the first product of my invented persona
> turns out to be inferior, I will be sorry I dedicated it to you, and I
> won't try this form again, for fear the exact same thing will happen."
Where do you get the "I won't try this form again"? Shakespeare uses the
agricultural metaphor in which his Invention is the land from which the
work was produced. You are claiming that the genre of the brief epic is
the "land," which makes no sense. Since he did not invent the genre, it
can hardly be called his "heir."
> Not really any different from the traditional meaning, except that the
> work is an heir of his adopted persona, rather than his creativity.
That is very different indeed. For one thing, an "adopted
persona" never has an "heir" although it might father an child whose
parent is "unkent." For another, there is nothing in the dedication to
suggest this meaning of "invention." For another, to maintain this view
you must think that Shakespeare was saying that if *Venus and Adonis*
failed, it was not due to any lack in the poet but merely to the poet's
having chosen the wrong pseudonym, and that if he had called himself
"Francis Muldoon" the poem would have succeeded.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
the dedication? Surely, he only intends us to take the invention-
as-pseudonym reading as a secondary hidden meaning to go along with
the overt meaning (however unlikely)?
--Bob G.
kmac...@my-deja.com
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
> Surely, Kalin is not arguing that we junk the obvious overt meaning of
> the dedication? Surely, he only intends us to take the invention-
> as-pseudonym reading as a secondary hidden meaning to go along with
> the overt meaning (however unlikely)?
>
> --Bob G.
I'm not a rigidnik like you and Ross, so I don't have any problem with
the possibility of other interpretations, or multiple meanings.
kmac...@my-deja.com
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> Let's see you make a more plausible case than I have.
Plausibility is a matter of opinion.
>I know of no instance in 16th- or 17th-Century literature where the
>use of a pseudonym or "standin" was called "Invention." Shakespeare's
>plays abound with instances of characters assuming other names, but not
>once do they refer to this as an "Invention." You have already said
>that my reading is "acceptable"; your job is to show that your reading
>is preferable. When we try to plug your idiosyncratic sense of
>"Invention" into the dedication, the result is nonsense.
Your rigidnikal insistence that I believe that "invention" means
"pseudonym" is, I assume, a joke. An "invention" is something which
is invented, and since a pseudonym is something that is invented,
the dedication could be referring to an invented person or a stand-in.
>Your point is that, somehow, by referring to *Venus and Adonis* as the
>"first heir of my invention" Shakespeare was informing us that his
>real name was not Shakespeare. What else could you mean but that
>"invention" meant "pseudonym"? And yet this is a meaning that is
>unknown in the history of the language.
I'm sure that there are many words that Sidney used only once in his
work. The fact that they were used only once does not alter their
meaning, nor do we have to search his corpus for another meaning in
order to have permission to interpret that meaning.
>
> Your reading in this case is possible,
Thank you, that's all I ask.
PFStreitz
>
>Look at Dave's lists.
You know very well that Dave's list don't have any "William Shakespeare" before
1593, and neither does anyone else.
> He was indeed using "William Shakespeare" in his signature to *Venus
and Adonis*, and that was indeed his actual name.
>You really haven't the slightest clue about Elizabethan orthography
There are many clues indeed, but when they point to some complication of the
simple plot of the untutored man from Stratford writing the plays, they are
simply ignored by Stratfordians.
Somehow in your world, "William Shakespeare" is a touchstone of your existence,
and therefore everything is interpreted to conform to that touchstone. You
know as well as anyone else, that nowhere is the name "William Shakespeare"
found prior to the name found at the bottom of the dedication to Southampton.
How is "actual name" can be something other than the name he is "actually"
using, rather than a variant spelling. The author of a million words somehow,
for whatever reason, is very careful to choose a name that is similar, but the
not the same, as the one he uses in Stratford. How odd.
One would never expect you to agree to this, but it is so interesting how your
long winded justification for "invention" falls apart at a feather's touch.
The feather touch being the actual spelling of the Stratford man's name.
paul streitz
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
the name 'Shakespeare' until Venus and Adonis was published" as
Richard Kennedy is at repeating "No one ever referred to Shakespeare
as a writer until he had been dead seven years," Paul.
One question: do you really hold that Will's father, John
Shakespeare, was never referred to as "Shakespeare" before 1593?
--Bob G.
Stephanie Caruana
Was John Shaksper ever referred to as "John Shake-speare", ever, in his
life? Or in his death, for that matter?
--
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote in message <847ghe$u53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Terry Ross
> In article <845smh$shc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
> > Surely, Kalin is not arguing that we junk the obvious overt meaning of
> > the dedication? Surely, he only intends us to take the invention-
> > as-pseudonym reading as a secondary hidden meaning to go along with
> > the overt meaning (however unlikely)?
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> I'm not a rigidnik like you and Ross, so I don't have any problem with
> the possibility of other interpretations, or multiple meanings.
What you need to do is present some reason for the rest of us to accept
your reading. Since your reading is inconsistent, and since it is based
on a "meaning" that is unknown in the history of the language, and since
if we put your reading aside the phrase "first heir of my invention" makes
perfect sense, why should we bother with your reading?
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.991224...@mail.bcpl.net>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's see you make a more plausible case than I have.
>
> Plausibility is a matter of opinion.
Give us a reading that is internally consistent and that is informed by
Elizabethan conventions. Then you might have a plausible reading, and we
could discuss which of two plausible readings to prefer. Until then, we
will not have heard from you any reason to throw over the standard
reading, or even to add yours as an alternative or additional reading.
>
> >I know of no instance in 16th- or 17th-Century literature where the
> >use of a pseudonym or "standin" was called "Invention." Shakespeare's
> >plays abound with instances of characters assuming other names, but not
> >once do they refer to this as an "Invention." You have already said
> >that my reading is "acceptable"; your job is to show that your reading
> >is preferable. When we try to plug your idiosyncratic sense of
> >"Invention" into the dedication, the result is nonsense.
>
> Your rigidnikal insistence that I believe that "invention" means
> "pseudonym" is, I assume, a joke.
I merely take you at your word. You want us to take "Invention" to mean
"pseudonym" or "standin" or "assumed persona." I know of no instance in
the history of the language where the word bore that meaning. On the
other hand, the meaning I have been advancing was common in Elizabethan
texts.
> An "invention" is something which
> is invented, and since a pseudonym is something that is invented,
> the dedication could be referring to an invented person or a stand-in.
The telephone was also invented, as was the modem, as was the tubeless
tire. Assuming for the second that we entertain your reading, what is
there in the dedication that compels the conclusion that the particular
invented thing is the one you believe in rather than any of the millions
of other things that have been invented?
>
>
> >Your point is that, somehow, by referring to *Venus and Adonis* as the
> >"first heir of my invention" Shakespeare was informing us that his
> >real name was not Shakespeare. What else could you mean but that
> >"invention" meant "pseudonym"? And yet this is a meaning that is
> >unknown in the history of the language.
>
> I'm sure that there are many words that Sidney used only once in his
> work. The fact that they were used only once does not alter their
> meaning, nor do we have to search his corpus for another meaning in
> order to have permission to interpret that meaning.
Sidney used Invention many times in his works, as did Shakespeare. You
will also find the word in Spenser and in a great many other writers of
the period. What you will NOT find is a single instance in which the word
was used to mean "pseudonym" or "standin" or "assumed persona."
>
>
> >
> > Your reading in this case is possible,
>
> Thank you, that's all I ask.
Such a sneaky snipper you are. You hope to leave the impression that I
think there is a least of scintilla of sense in your reading of the
dedication, which is not really very honest of you, is it. I was not
referring to your reading of the dedication, which is internally
inconsistent and based on a definition of "Invention" that did not and
does not exist. I DO think your considering the letter in *Twelfth Night*
or Phoebe's poem an "invention" is plausible. In neither instance, of
course, is the word "Invention" used to mean a "pseudonym," a "standin" or
an "assumed persona." Nor does it mean "electric toothbrush," "ball-point
pen," or "stock ticker," to name other things that have been invented
(through probably not by Sidney).
Terry Ross
> > Where then is the name "William Shakespeare" found prior to V&A.
> >
> >Look at Dave's lists.
>
> You know very well that Dave's list don't have any "William Shakespeare" before
> 1593, and neither does anyone else.
Dave's list does indeed have instances of William Shakespeare's name
before 1593. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but English
orthography was not entirely consistent way back then. Leaf sometime
through Henslowe's diary and see how many ways he spells his name.
>
> > He was indeed using "William Shakespeare" in his signature to *Venus
> and Adonis*, and that was indeed his actual name.
>
> >You really haven't the slightest clue about Elizabethan orthography
>
> There are many clues indeed, but when they point to some complication
> of the simple plot of the untutored man from Stratford writing the
> plays, they are simply ignored by Stratfordians.
"Untutored man from Stratford"? I'm sure there were several untutored men
from Stratford, but William Shakespeare of Stratford does not seem to have
been one of them.
> Somehow in your world, "William Shakespeare" is a touchstone of your
> existence, and therefore everything is interpreted to conform to that
> touchstone.
You are not a very careful reader, Paul, as we have all noticed on many
occasions. I have often challenged anti-Stratfordians to do as I do --
apply the same rules and methods in the cases of Shakespeare and the
various "candidates" that people have been proposing that one would use
for Spenser, Daniel, Gascoigne, Sidney (the real one), Oxford (the real
one), Marlowe (the real one) and other authors of the period. I do not
have some "Shakespeare only" rules that I trot out when it is convenient.
The spelling of Elizabethan names was very inconsistent if judged by
today's standards, and this was true not only of Shakespeare but of many
other contemporaries. Henslowe's name also appears as "Hensley,"
"Hinchlowe," "Hinchley," and "Hinchlaw" in his own diary. How many
different people do you think those spellings referred to? How many of
them do you think were "really" Oxford?
> You know as well as anyone else, that nowhere is the name
> "William Shakespeare" found prior to the name found at the bottom of
> the dedication to Southampton. How is "actual name" can be something
> other than the name he is "actually" using, rather than a variant
> spelling. The author of a million words somehow, for whatever reason,
> is very careful to choose a name that is similar, but the not the
> same, as the one he uses in Stratford. How odd.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "the name ... he uses in Stratford."
Like that of many, many other contemporaries, the name of William
Shakespeare was spelled in a variety of ways. Do you have some problem
understanding this? All of the instances on Dave's list are consistent
with the fact that they refer to a single person. Nobody has been able
(although many anti-Stratfordians have tried) to divide those names in
such a way that all the instances referring to William Shakespeare of
Stratford can be put into one pile, and all the instances referring to
some other William Shakespeare -- that different person you believe wrote
Shakespeare's works -- can be put into another pile.
> One would never expect you to agree to this, but it is so interesting
> how your long winded justification for "invention" falls apart at a
> feather's touch.
I warned readers it would be long; I thought it important to discuss the
way actual Elizabethans used and understood the word, rather than just
making something up, as so many anti-Stratfordians do. I'm sorry if you
found it long-winded, but you may not be the best judge. You have a
history on this newsgroup of pretending to have read works that you have
not, so I would find it amazing if you managed to read anything of any
length whatsoever.
> The feather touch being the actual spelling of the Stratford man's
> name.
It is the feather of a roc or some other imaginary bird, because you are
relying on an anti-Stratfordian Shakespeare-only "rule" that did not apply
in Shakespeare's time.
When Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis* on June 12, 1593,
he noted his purchase of "Venus and Adhonay pr Shakspere." By
anti-Stratfordian reasoning (if the concept is not an oxymoron), this
ought to indicate Stonley's knowledge that the "pseudonym" of "William
Shakespeare" belonged not to Oxford, or the late Marlowe, or the later
Sidney but to William Shakespeare of Stratford.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"Stephanie Caruana" <spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Yes, but what about that pesky hyphen?
>
> Was John Shaksper ever referred to as "John Shake-speare", ever, in
> his life? Or in his death, for that matter?
Keep clinging to that magic hyphen, Stephanie--it's about all you
have.
Stephanie Caruana
--
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote in message <8484gg$bbg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Richard Nathan
EARL.
cyndi...@my-deja.com
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
> You're getting as good at repeating your "Shakespeare never used
> the name 'Shakespeare' until Venus and Adonis was published" as
> Richard Kennedy is at repeating "No one ever referred to Shakespeare
> as a writer until he had been dead seven years," Paul.
>
> One question: do you really hold that Will's father, John
> Shakespeare, was never referred to as "Shakespeare" before 1593?
>
such a simple site to win the cool site of the day award:
http://www.321website.com/members/home/data/zzzorro/shakespeare.htm
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Don't forget that Stephanie has also uncovered that LEAR is an anagram
> for EARL.
No kidding! I missed that. I'd better radio Tom at
ground control for back-ups pronto!
Stephanie Caruana
--
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote in message <848nt7$p6m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
PFStreitz
never referred to as "Shakespeare" before 1593?
I have looked through Maltus, and I have looked through Schonenbaum, there are
many references to "John Shakespeare" doing this or that, but when you look at
the spelling of the name it is everything but "Shakespeare." To answer your
question, no I have not found one quoted or graphic with the name "John
Shakespeare."
David Webb claims there is one, but he has not provided a quote.
If there were one, it would be in contrast to about a dozen or so others, where
his name is not John "Shakespeare."
paul streitz
PFStreitz
Stratford.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
standards, and this was true not only of Shakespeare but of many other
contemporaries
This is very true. But we are not talking about "other contemporaries." We
are talking about the man from Stratford. And the spelling of his name is
"very consistent" and that spelling is one of a "shak" pronunciation,
especially before 1593.
>Dave's list does indeed have instances of William Shakespeare's name
>before 1593.
This is Kathman's first reference in the non-literary section:
1598 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London; October 1)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 87; facs. SS, 162)
This is Kathman's literary references:
1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
"William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
(printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
Please show me where there is a listing of "William Shakespeare" before 1593.
Or have you gone from merely denial, into some trance-like state where you
conjure up William Shakespeare spellings.
>I'm sure there were several untutored men from Stratford, but William
Shakespeare of Stratford does not seem to have been one of them.
Please show me one actual record that the man from Stratford actually attended
school anywhere, or was tutored by anyone anywhere. Or show me a letter in his
hand. Or something other than the published material under dispute that he
could read or write. Nothing exists. You know it too.
paul streitz
Dave Kathman
>
> Yes, but what about that pesky hyphen?
>
> Was John Shaksper ever referred to as "John Shake-speare", ever, in his
> life? Or in his death, for that matter?
Not that I know of, but that's because all the surviving
records of John Shakespeare are *handwritten*, and hyphenation
(especially of proper names) is a feature of *printed* texts.
William Shakespeare's name appeared only twice in *printed*
non-literary references (both in the 1616 Jonson folio),
and in one of those two references it was hyphenated.
When Camden, in his (printed) *Remaines* (1605), listed
"Shake-speare" among English surnames with martial
connotations, he hyphenated it.
I've explained all this repeatedly. Why does it never
seem to get through?
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Dave Kathman
>
> >The spelling of Elizabethan names was very inconsistent if judged by today's
> standards, and this was true not only of Shakespeare but of many other
> contemporaries
>
> This is very true. But we are not talking about "other contemporaries." We
> are talking about the man from Stratford. And the spelling of his name is
> "very consistent" and that spelling is one of a "shak" pronunciation,
> especially before 1593.
Why are you lying again? Are you actually claiming that other
names were spelled inconsistently, but that Shakespeare's was
spelled consistently? How can you write such a blatant falsehood
with a straight face?
> >Dave's list does indeed have instances of William Shakespeare's name
> >before 1593.
>
> This is Kathman's first reference in the non-literary section:
>
> 1598 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London; October 1)
> "William Shakespeare"
> (handwritten) (EKC II, 87; facs. SS, 162)
Huh? I assume you're talking about the specific spelling "Shakespeare",
in which case you've missed a half-dozen instances which predate
1598. The record of the 1594 Court performance by the
Chamberlain's Men lists "William Shakespeare", and the 1597
Foot of Fine for the purchase of New Place names "Willielmus
Shakespeare" five times.
> This is Kathman's literary references:
>
> 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
> Please show me where there is a listing of "William Shakespeare" before 1593.
> Or have you gone from merely denial, into some trance-like state where you
> conjure up William Shakespeare spellings.
Neither I nor Terry has ever claimed that the specific spelling
"William Shakespeare" occurs before 1593, though I have pointed
out that: (1) the spelling "Shakespeare" occurs for William's
father John in 1569 and 1574 (see *Shakespeare Quarterly* (1984)
for transcriptions and references), and the single most
common spelling for John in Stratford was "Shakespere";
and (2) this discussion is silly, because spelling of
proper names was not standardized in those days, and all
these are manifestly variations of the same name.
I realize that I'm not going to get through to you
with this, any more than I did the previous dozen times
I've tried to explain it to you, but as usual I'm doing
it for the benefit of the lurkers.
> >I'm sure there were several untutored men from Stratford, but William
> Shakespeare of Stratford does not seem to have been one of them.
>
> Please show me one actual record that the man from Stratford actually attended
> school anywhere, or was tutored by anyone anywhere. Or show me a letter in his
> hand. Or something other than the published material under dispute that he
> could read or write. Nothing exists. You know it too.
This has been discussed to death in this group, but reposting one
of those discussions would be futile. The evidence that William
Shakespeare was literate, quite apart from his published plays
and poems, is more than ample for anyone whose mind is not
closed to the subject. And his closest friends in Stratford
were a very literate and cultured lot, as I showed in my
essay "Shakespeare's Stratford Friends". Lurkers, please
go to http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Nigel Davies
> >The spelling of Elizabethan names was very inconsistent if judged by today's
> standards, and this was true not only of Shakespeare but of many other
> contemporaries
>
> This is very true. But we are not talking about "other contemporaries." We
> are talking about the man from Stratford. And the spelling of his name is
> "very consistent" and that spelling is one of a "shak" pronunciation,
> especially before 1593.
Oxford spelled the word "sake" both as "sake" and "sak" in his personal letters.
How stupid can you be that your own man demonstrates that an "e" after "shak" or
"sak" is irrelevant yet you cling to it as if it is of immense importance?
The "e" is irrelevant. Edward de Vere shows that to be the case. Your complaint,
by the evidence of your own man's hand, as well as Shakespeare's, is profoundly
ignorant.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
that the "shake" spelling and the "shak" spelling of Shakespeares name
were used about fifty percent of the time, each, in Stratford. I
compared DOCUMENTS from Stratford with either name on them--from,
needless to say, Dave Kathman's excellent list.
Why, by the way, does a difference in spelling count for Shakespeare,
but not for Henslowe/Hinchley or Marlowe/Marley? You just say it does,
but give no reason for anyone to accept your word for it.
Also, about the hyphen, Dave makes a good point that I, for one, had
overlooked: it is that Will, the actor, was referred to once as
"Shake-speare." Doesn't that pretty incontestably make the actor and
the poet the same man? Ergo, you must go with Volkretin in believing
that Oxford, concealing his authorship with the name, "Shake-speare,"
acted on the public stage (and bought property after his death) using
the very same name--and never got caught.
PFStreitz
>Why are you lying again? Are you actually claiming that other names were
spelled inconsistently, but that Shakespeare's was
spelled consistently? How can you write such a blatant falsehood with a
straight face?
Because it is true. We have been through this before and the non-duplicated
"Shak" pronunciations are about 50 and the "Shake" pronunciations are about
twenty. In the church records it is about 27 to 4. In legal or business it is
23 for Shak and 13 for Shake. So I would think this marks a consistency for
for "Shak."
>I assume you're talking about the specific spelling "Shakespeare", in which
case you've missed a half-dozen instances which predate 1598.
Maybe so, but the period we are talking about is the spelling of his name
before 1593. You have not shown one instance of where there is a William
Shakespeare before 1593.
>Neither I nor Terry has ever claimed that the specific spelling "William
Shakespeare" occurs before 1593,
Exactly. You have never claimed this because there is no listing. But, Terry
is claiming that "William Shakespeare" is the man from Stratford's "actual
name." The burden of proof is on Terry to show that the name was in use prior
to 1593.
>(1) the spelling "Shakespeare" occurs for William's father John in 1569 and
1574 (see *Shakespeare Quarterly* (1984) for transcriptions and references
Thanks for the information. I will look it up and add it to my list. So far I
have about twelve listings for John, and none of them are "Shakespeare."
>the single most common spelling for John in Stratford was "Shakespere";
Not exactly. The place that John's name most frequently occured was in the
corporation records. ""..on January 24, 1571, until the record of April 2,
1572, Rogers spelled the name "Shakespere" exclusively. But, exactly one week
later, he entered it as "hakpere" for the first time and cntinued to do so as
longas the minutes and accounts of Stratford are identified as being in his
hand writing (at least until January 1577)."
>Or something other than the published material under dispute that he could
read or write. Nothing exists. You know it too.
>
>This has been discussed to death in this group, but reposting one of those
discussions would be futile
I agree. Nothing existed yesterday and nothing exists today that shows the man
from Stratford could read or write, other than the disputed publications.
To summarize, at best there are two references to a "John Shakespeare" before
1593, and no reference to a "William Shakespeare,"before 1593, yet Terryis
still claiming that the "actual name" of the author who is the man from
Stratford, was "William Shakespeare."
No your own evidence or lack thereof, indicates that "Shakespeare" was an
invention by whomever was the writer of Venus and Adonis. Either the man from
Stratford used a new variant spelling of his name, or a seldom (almost never)
variant spelling of his father's name.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
>complaint,
Go read Shakspere's will. You will see that the "e" defines the pronunciation
in about a dozen words and that the writer of the will was fully cognizant of
that the silent e is a clue of how to pronounce the proceeding vowel.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
the "shake" spelling and the "shak" spelling of Shakespeares name were used
about fifty percent of the time, each, in Stratford.
Right, with duplicated counts it is about 50/50. With non-duplicated counts it
is about 80/20.
But of course that is not the point, even if the name was "Shakespere" 100% of
the time, "Shakespeare" would still be a new "invention."
paul streitz
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Paul Streitz says:
> Nothing existed yesterday and nothing exists today that shows
> the man from Stratford could read or write, other than the disputed
> publications.
Here you are either insane or a liar, Paul. The monument to William
Shakespeare, with his name and date of death on it, speaks of "all
he writt." All he WRITT, Paul. That's evidence he could write. We
also have six signatures of his that don't prove but certainly SHOW
that he could write. Then there is the section of Thomas More that
may have been written by Shakespeare and at least suggests the
possibility that he could write. And Aubrey spoke of his writing
excuses for not going bar-hopping with friends, which is only anecdotal
evidence but still evidence. And there were at least three letters
written to Shakespeare, which suggests he was thought to have been able
to read. Finally, the fact that he was taken to be an author by so many
after he did (and not taken to have been an author by no one in the
records) also suggests his probable literacy.
As for Paul's idea of what the word, "consistency," means, and his
ability to count, I have little to say except that I think he probably
really is stupid rather than a liar.
Nigel Davies
I say again, due to your dishonest snipping of the original post on this, that
Oxford himself spells "sake" both with and without an "e": as "sake" and "sak".
Just as Shakespeare's name was spelled both with and without the first "e".
These "dozen words" are irrelevant. You don't look out how "Shakespeare" was
pronounced by looking at a totally different word. You don't look at how "sake"
was prononced by looking at a totally different word either. The facts regarding
Shakespeare/Shakspear and sake/sak are irrefutable contemporary proof that the
"e" was utterly irrelevant.
Your snipping of the factual evidence does not remove its existence nor the fact
that it's in your face but you dishonestly choose to ignore it.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
KQKnave
(PFStreitz) writes:
>Because it is true. We have been through this before and the non-duplicated
>"Shak" pronunciations are about 50 and the "Shake" pronunciations are about
>twenty. In the church records it is about 27 to 4. In legal or business it
>is
>23 for Shak and 13 for Shake. So I would think this marks a consistency for
>for "Shak."
>
Streitz, how did the earl spell his name? Oxford? Oxforde? Oxenforde?
Oxenford?
Jim
Tom Davidson
news:84atmp$u90$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> The text on the 1623 monument
> (erected 7 years after William Shaksper's death) reads:
>
> JUDICIO PVLIUM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM:
> TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
>
> STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
> READ IF THOU CANST, WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HAS PLAST
> WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKESPEARE: WITH WHOME,
> QVICK NATURE DIDE: WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK Ye TOMBE.
> FAR MORE THAN COST: SIEH ALL, Yt HE HATH WRITT,
> LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
>
>
> Do you see a date, or even a first name, on this monument?
It's even worse than that, Stephanie!
Oh, I know that some unclear thinkers might jump to some silly
conclusions about a monument erected in Stratford for a literate
person named Shakespeare that compares him to great minds
of the past. It's understandable, I suppose, because there was,
after all, a Stratford citizen with a name (Shaksper) that was
similar to that of the man who wrote the poetic works. Less curious
minds might compound this foolishness by thinking of the First
Folio and the tributes there for the poet and dramatist Shakespeare
with their references to--of all things!--his Stratford monument. The
naive then could get really confused when they remember that
Shaksper's will mentions Heminges and Condell, who put that
First Folio together and... Oh, let it go! The stupid things people
will believe! Gracious, some might think that the author of the
great dramas was that Stratford grain hoarder!
No. Clear thinkers will recognize immediately that the monument
doesn't refer to WILLIAM Shakespeare OF STRATFORD, that it
mentions no dates of death, and that it was clearly erected AFTER
THE DEATH OF SHAKSPER OF STRATFORD. All this clearly
eliminates the monument as a source of good information about
the true author. Perceptive critics will not allow themselves to be
distracted by the irrelevancies of the First Folio and the testimony of
those who knew the author. Open minded people will understand
that the monument practically shouts "Conspiracy!" Unclouded
judgement knows why this is so: THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR
CONSPIRACY IS THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE THAT SHAKSPER
OF STRATFORD WROTE THE WORKS. There is a good deal of
such so-called "evidence" for Shaksper, which is further indication
of the EXTENT OF THE CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE IDENTITY
OF THE TRUE AUTHOR AND TO CREATE THE LIE THAT THE
STRATFORD BUMPKIN WAS THE MAN WHO WROTE THE WORKS.
The whole Stratfordian industry is based on the acceptance and
perpetuation of these red herrings!
Now, the presence of evidence for Shaksper's authorship is the
product of this conspiracy. The corollary should be immediately
intuited by those whose faculties are not befogged by the
Stratfordian nonsense: THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR
OXFORD'S AUTHORSHIP IS CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR HIS
AUTHORSHIP.
Case closed, I think.
Nigel Davies
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote in message <84al8v$2b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> but you still don't keep your facts straight. The text on the 1623 monument
> (erected 7 years after William Shaksper's death) reads:
It was erected after William Shakespeare died. How do you know it was as long as
7 years after he died?
>
> JUDICIO PVLIUM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM:
> TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
>
> STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
> READ IF THOU CANST, WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HAS PLAST
> WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKESPEARE: WITH WHOME,
> QVICK NATURE DIDE: WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK Ye TOMBE.
> FAR MORE THAN COST: SIEH ALL, Yt HE HATH WRITT,
> LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
>
> Do you see a date, or even a first name, on this monument?
Yes, the date April 23 1616 is on the monument. Specifically: "OBIT ANO DOI 1616
ÆTATIS 53 DIE 23 AP."
> >Here you are either insane or a liar, Paul. The monument to William
> >Shakespeare, with his name and date of death on it, speaks of "all
> >he writt."
>
> Since there is no date,
There is a date on the monument: April 23 1616. Specifically: "OBIT ANO DOI 1616
ÆTATIS 53 DIE 23 AP."
> and no first name,
What? Like there was more than one Shakespeare from Stratford-on-Avon who could
be compared to Virgil and was renowned for being a writer? Do you need the
"Presley" to distinguish between "Elvis Presley" and "Elvis Warburton"?
> this could be the monument of
> anyone named "Shakespeare," who died at any time.
No, a person from Stratford, renowned for writing, comparable with Virgil, who
explicitly died on April 23 1616. This is on an ignorance level comparable to
your Caxton fiasco. Let me guess: you are so clueless about the Stratford
Monument, you've never even seen it yourself. If you had you wouldn't state that
there is "no date" on the monument and that it refers to someone "who died at
any time" because the monument's inscription specifically does not do that.
> It is deliberately vague.
It is deliberately specific. Ben Jonson's is vague. Shakespeare's is specific.
> If someone didn't already "know" that "William Shakespeare, who died in
> 1616, was meant, there would be no way of knowing who the monument referred
> to.
It specifically refers to William Shakespeare, spelled the same way as in
Williams Shakespeare's will, comparing him to Virgil, refering to all he had
written and the date of his death and his age.
> There is no date or name on the doggerel of the supposed "tombstone",
> either.
It's on the monument that arguably was originally intended to be part of a tomb.
> A reasonable difference of opinion about what all this double-talk
> "means" is no reason for you to call anyone insane or a liar. To some
> people, the whole thing looks so fishy as to scream "hoax." The fact that
> you call names so freely indicates that the book you are "planning to write"
> will be as worthless as your "evaluations" of people and evidence.
Your statements again demonstrate that you have an exceptionally superficial
attention to detail and don't even know the text of the thing you are
discussing. How you keep doing this in public is frankly extraordinary.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Tom Reedy
news:84atmp$u90$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> You are trying to write a book about "evidence" on Shakespeare authorship,
> but you still don't keep your facts straight. The text on the 1623
monument
> (erected 7 years after William Shaksper's death) reads:
>
> TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
>
> STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
> READ IF THOU CANST, WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HAS PLAST
> WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKESPEARE: WITH WHOME,
> QVICK NATURE DIDE: WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK Ye TOMBE.
> FAR MORE THAN COST: SIEH ALL, Yt HE HATH WRITT,
> LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
>
>
> Do you see a date, or even a first name, on this monument?
>
> >Shakespeare, with his name and date of death on it, speaks of "all
> >he writt."
>
> anyone named "Shakespeare," who died at any time. It is deliberately
vague.
> If someone didn't already "know" that "William Shakespeare, who died in
> 1616, was meant, there would be no way of knowing who the monument
referred
> either. A reasonable difference of opinion about what all this
double-talk
> "means" is no reason for you to call anyone insane or a liar. To some
> people, the whole thing looks so fishy as to scream "hoax." The fact that
> you call names so freely indicates that the book you are "planning to
write"
> will be as worthless as your "evaluations" of people and evidence.
>
> Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
> http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
Are you stupid? Why do you continually get your facts wrong? Are you
stupid?
The monument says, "OBIT ANO DOI 1616 ÆTATIS 53 DIE 23 AP." Looks like a
date to me.
Most, but not all, Oxfordians are stupid, but you really take the prize.
TR
Stephanie Caruana
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote in message <84al8v$2b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>Paul Streitz says:
>
>> Nothing existed yesterday and nothing exists today that shows
>> the man from Stratford could read or write, other than the disputed
>> publications.
>
>Here you are either insane or a liar, Paul. The monument to William
>Shakespeare, with his name and date of death on it, speaks of "all
>he writt." All he WRITT, Paul. That's evidence he could write. We
>also have six signatures of his that don't prove but certainly SHOW
>that he could write. Then there is the section of Thomas More that
>may have been written by Shakespeare and at least suggests the
>possibility that he could write. And Aubrey spoke of his writing
>excuses for not going bar-hopping with friends, which is only anecdotal
>evidence but still evidence. And there were at least three letters
>written to Shakespeare, which suggests he was thought to have been able
>to read. Finally, the fact that he was taken to be an author by so many
>after he did (and not taken to have been an author by no one in the
>records) also suggests his probable literacy.
>
>As for Paul's idea of what the word, "consistency," means, and his
>ability to count, I have little to say except that I think he probably
>really is stupid rather than a liar.
>
> --Bob G.
You are trying to write a book about "evidence" on Shakespeare authorship,
Stephanie
Dave Kathman
>
> >Why are you lying again? Are you actually claiming that other names were
> spelled inconsistently, but that Shakespeare's was
> spelled consistently? How can you write such a blatant falsehood with a
> straight face?
>
> "Shak" pronunciations are about 50 and the "Shake" pronunciations are about
> twenty. In the church records it is about 27 to 4. In legal or business it is
> 23 for Shak and 13 for Shake. So I would think this marks a consistency for
> for "Shak."
These numbers of yours are based on selective data. I have provided
the complete data on my web site, yet you continue to ignore it,
reposting the very incomplete list of references from the
Riverside and other sources. You also continue to mix in
references to people other than William Shakespeare when
it suits your purpose, and to apply double standards
which I can only assume are based on ignorance. For
example, you would like to count each document only
once, no matter how many instances of William Shakespeare's
name it contains. That's one way to do it, and while
I don't think it's necessarily the best way (and certainly
not the only way that should be used), you're entitled
to count that way if you choose. Yet you keep mentioning
"the church records", presumably referring to the
Stratford parish register, while neglecting to mention
that all the surviving entries from before 1600 are
written in a single hand and a single ink, having been
recopied in that year by the parish clerk. By your
standards, the parish register entries from before 1600
should count as a single document, since they were written
by a single person at a single time; yet you continue to
treat them as separate documents, because the recopier
consistently used the "Shakspere" spelling that you're
so enamored of. In my essay, I note that much more
important than "church records" (which in this case
were written by a single person with his own
preferred spelling patterns) are legal documents
involving property purchases, where spellings tended
to be more consistent because of the legal
ramifications. In the documents relating to
William Shakespeare's property purchases, his
name was invariably spelled "Shakespeare" or
its close variants, and never "Shaksper".
Also, you eagerly include parish register entries referring
to people other than William Shakespeare, solely because
they use that "Shakspere" spelling; yet you don't include
other documents referring to these people, many of which
use other spellings. I have restricted my lists to
references to William Shakespeare of Stratford, in order
to have some controls and be consistent. If you wish
to include other people of that surname in your calculations,
fine, but if you're going to maintain any standards
of consistency, you'll need to include *all* the
references to these people. Yet I see no indication
that you have done so, or that you even see the
problem.
In addition to these inconsistencies (which greatly
weaken any conclusions you draw), you further mislead
your readers by concentrating solely on references
in Stratford and ignoring those in London. In the
relevant section of my article (which I have pasted
in at the end of this post), I find that in non-literary
references outside of London, "shake"-type spellings
(with the first 'e') occur 59% of the time, and
"shak-"spellings (without the first 'e') occur
41% of the time. If one chooses to count each
document only once (and does so consistently),
then those percentages are roughly reversed.
But when one looks at non-liteary references
in London, one finds that "shake"-spellings are
dominant, occurring 87% of the time. Even if one
chooses to count each document only once, as you
prefer, "shake"-spellings are still dominant in
London non-literary references. Yet you never
mention this fact. Why? I describe in the
article how London spelling was much more consistent
and modern than outside London, and how this
has to be taken into account in any study of
this type. Yet you never acknowledge this
fact. Why?
> >I assume you're talking about the specific spelling "Shakespeare", in which
> case you've missed a half-dozen instances which predate 1598.
>
> Maybe so, but the period we are talking about is the spelling of his name
> before 1593. You have not shown one instance of where there is a William
> Shakespeare before 1593.
I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with this one point. No,
there is no surviving record from before 1593 where William's
surname is spelled "Shakespeare", though there are such
records for his father. But there are only four instances
at all of pre-1593 references to William Shakespeare, and
in two of them the name is spelled "Shackespere", a fairly
close variant of your preferred spelling. The next
non-literary reference, from two years after 1593, does
use the spelling "Shakespeare". I have explained repeatedly
that spelling was not fixed at that time, and that these
variants have no significance, yet you continually
fixate on these differences as though you were dealing
with 20th-century documents. I despair of ever getting
through to you, but I hope lurkers will take note of
what I'm saying.
> >Neither I nor Terry has ever claimed that the specific spelling "William
> Shakespeare" occurs before 1593,
>
> Exactly. You have never claimed this because there is no listing. But, Terry
> is claiming that "William Shakespeare" is the man from Stratford's "actual
> name." The burden of proof is on Terry to show that the name was in use prior
> to 1593.
What? Why? I have just explained that "Shakespeare" and "Shakspere"
and "Shackespere" are variants of the same name, and that even so,
the surname was indeed spelled "Shakespeare" before 1593 in
referring to other members of the family.
> >(1) the spelling "Shakespeare" occurs for William's father John in 1569 and
> 1574 (see *Shakespeare Quarterly* (1984) for transcriptions and references
>
> Thanks for the information. I will look it up and add it to my list. So far I
> have about twelve listings for John, and none of them are "Shakespeare."
You also might want to look at the documents relating to the
grant of arms in 1596 and 1599, where John's name is spelled
"Shakespeare" several times. A few years ago I compiled
a list of references to John Shakespeare which contains many
more than 12 references, and posted the results on this
newsgroup. It should be in Dejanews. I found that the
most common single spelling used for John was "Shakespere".
> >the single most common spelling for John in Stratford was "Shakespere";
>
> Not exactly. The place that John's name most frequently occured was in the
> corporation records. ""..on January 24, 1571, until the record of April 2,
> 1572, Rogers spelled the name "Shakespere" exclusively. But, exactly one week
> later, he entered it as "hakpere" for the first time and cntinued to do so as
> longas the minutes and accounts of Stratford are identified as being in his
> hand writing (at least until January 1577)."
No, you are using selective data, as usual. The most common
single spelling used for John Shakespeare, by a considerable
margin, was "Shakespere", and "Shakespeare" was used at least
half a dozen times.
> >Or something other than the published material under dispute that he could
> read or write. Nothing exists. You know it too.
> >
> >This has been discussed to death in this group, but reposting one of those
> discussions would be futile
>
> I agree. Nothing existed yesterday and nothing exists today that shows the man
> from Stratford could read or write, other than the disputed publications.
This has been covered ad nauseam, and I'm not going to get into it now.
> To summarize, at best there are two references to a "John Shakespeare" before
> 1593, and no reference to a "William Shakespeare,"before 1593, yet Terryis
> still claiming that the "actual name" of the author who is the man from
> Stratford, was "William Shakespeare."
He says that because "William Shakespeare" was the most common
spelling used for this man's name. Saying that this was the
man's "actual name" does not mean that it was always spelled
this way, since as I have noted repeatedly, spelling of
proper names was not fixed.
> No your own evidence or lack thereof, indicates that "Shakespeare" was an
> invention by whomever was the writer of Venus and Adonis. Either the man from
> Stratford used a new variant spelling of his name, or a seldom (almost never)
> variant spelling of his father's name.
>
> paul streitz
It would be stretching the point mightily to say that
William Shakespeare's use of a variant spelling of his
own name was an "invention", when such variants had
little or no significance to anybody. He used a
spelling that had been used before for his father,
and which was a very close variant of the most
common spelling used to refer to his father.
Your attempt to imbue great significance into this
fact is based on a level of ignorance which can
only make me shake my head.
I'm posting below the spelling portion of my
article, which is available in full at
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name1.html.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
*************************
2. Spelling of the Name "Shakespeare"
Elizabethan spelling was very erratic by twentieth-century
standards, though it was not (as is sometimes stated) totally
without rules. Even the simplest proper names were spelled
a variety of ways, but we can at least look at the range
of different spellings used for a given name and see what
patterns emerge. In the accompanying lists, I have attempted
to gather together all the references to Shakespeare by name,
from his christening in 1564 to the publication of the First
Folio in 1623 and slightly beyond, with the original spellings
used at the time. These are primarily taken from the
transcripts in E.K. Chambers's William Shakespeare:
A Study of the Facts and Problems and J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps's
Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare; Chambers was the primary
source, but in some instances Halliwell-Phillipps reproduces
an entire document where Chambers only reproduces an excerpt,
and transcripts of some references (particularly those
discovered since 1930) are taken from other sources. Page
numbers are given for reference, and for those handwritten
documents which are reproduced in facsimile in Samuel
Schoenbaum's William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, I have
also given page references to that work, so that readers
who are so inclined may check the transcriptions for
themselves. In one or two instances, Chambers and
Halliwell-Phillipps disagree in their transcriptions, in
which cases I have made my own judgement based on the facsimiles.
There are two separate lists, to make it easier to test
the claim that the names of "the Stratford man" and the
playwright were distinct and spelled differently.
The first list consists of non-literary references to
William Shakespeare of Stratford; these include records
from Stratford and its environs, as well as various
London records, including those relating to his career
as an actor and shareholder in the Globe and Blackfriars
theatres. The second list consists of references
to Shakespeare as a poet and/or playwright up to the
publication of the First Folio in 1623; this includes
both direct references to Shakespeare by other writers
as well as mentions of his name on title pages of quartos,
with each edition of a work counting as a separate reference.
Some references could be taken as belonging on either list;
I have generally put in the second ("literary") list any
references which allude to Shakespeare as a playwright/poet,
regardless of other content it may have. For instance, the
references in "The Return from Parnassus, Part II" and in
John Davies's epigram of 1611 are in the "literary" list
because they praise Shakespeare as a playwright/poet,
even though they also allude to him as an actor and
member of the Chamberlain's/King's Men. The
following tables give a breakdown of how many times each
of the various spellings of Shakespeare's name occurs in
the documents that have survived, from 1564 through 1616,
the year of his death. [note1] Abbreviated versions are
listed only if they include more than half of the name;
thus "Shakespe" is included, but "Shak" is not. I should
emphasize that the figures in Table 1 refer only to
non-literary references which can be reasonably taken
to refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, and that
literary references to William Shakespeare as a
poet/playwright are summarized in Table 2. Each of the
tables is divided into three columns. In Table 1, the
first column lists the total occurrences of each spelling,
and the other two columns break these down into non-London
(mostly Stratford) and London occurrences. In Table 2,
the first column also lists total occurrences, while the
other two columns break these down into printed vs.
handwritten occurrences. At the bottom of each table I
have tabulated the total occurrences of spellings with
the first 'e' (e.g. "Shakespeare") vs. spellings
without the first 'e' (e.g. "Shakspere").
Table 1. Non-literary references (1564-1616):
Outside In
Total London London
----- ------- ------
Shakespeare 71 8 63
Shakespere 27 25 2
Shakespear 16 16 0
Shakspeare 13 9 4
Shackspeare 12 11 1
Shakspere 8 7 1
Shackespeare 7 7 0
Shackspere 6 5 1
Shackespere 5 5 0
Shaxspere 3 3 0
Shexpere 2 2 0
Shakspe~ 2 0 2
Shaxpere 1 1 0
Shagspere 1 1 0
Shaksper 1 1 0
Shaxpeare 1 1 0
Shaxper 1 1 0
Shake-speare 1 0 1
Shakespe 1 0 1
Shakp 1 0 1
with first 'e' 128 (71%) 61 (59%) 67 (87%)
w/o first 'e' 52 (29%) 42 (41%) 10 (13%)
Table 2. Literary references (1593-1616):
Hand-
Total Printed written
----- ------- -------
Shakespeare 115 108 7
Shake-speare 21 21 0
Shakspeare 9 5 4
Shaxberd 4 0 4
Shakespere 3 0 3
Shak-speare 2 2 0
Shakspear 2 0 2
Shakspere 1 0 1
Shaksper 1 0 1
Schaksp. 1 0 1
Shakespear 1 1 0
Shakespheare 1 1 0
with first 'e' 141 (88%) 131 (95%) 10 (43%)
w/o first 'e' 20 (12%) 7 (5%) 13 (57%)
It is clear from Tables 1 and 2 that, at least by modern
standards, there was considerable variation in the spelling
of Shakespeare's name in both literary and non-literary
contexts. In both contexts, though, "Shakespeare" was the
most common spelling by a wide margin, and in both contexts,
variants with the first 'e' ("Shakespeare," etc.) greatly
outnumber variants without the first 'e' ("Shakspere," etc.).
The latter type are somewhat more prevalent in non-literary
contexts (28% vs. 12%), a fact which Oxfordians might seize
upon as some small support for their theories. However,
there are a variety of factors which need to be taken into
account, factors which upon examination make it clear
that the evidence gives no support to the claim that
"Shakespeare" and "Shakspere" were distinct names,
referring to playwright and Stratford citizen respectively.
First, spelling in London tended to be more uniform
and modern than in the rest of the country, where regional
dialects and lower literacy rates made it more
idiosyncratic. Note that among the non-literary
references from outside London, "Shakspere" spellings
are fairly prominent (41%), and this group includes
the more idiosyncratic spellings often ridiculed by
Oxfordians, such as "Shagspere" and "Shaxper."
Among non-literary references from London, though,
"Shakespeare" is the overwhelmingly preferred spelling
(63 out of 77). The percentage of "Shakespeare"-spellings
among non-literary references in London
(87%) is comparable to the percentage among literary
references (95%), nearly all of which are also from London.
Another very significant factor is handwritten vs.
printed spellings. Spelling in Elizabethan printed
texts was much more uniform and closer to modern
practice than in handwritten ones, because compositors
tended to normalize idiosyncratic features of the
manuscripts they worked from. This factor can clearly
be seen in the breakdown of literary references in
Table 2. The spelling "Shakespeare" and its
hyphenated variant "Shake-speare" were overwhelmingly
preferred in printed texts, but among handwritten
references they were much less prevalent, with
"Shakspere"-spellings (without the first 'e')
actually being in the majority (13 out of 23).
Given this pattern, it is actually somewhat
surprising that there are not more "Shakspere"-type
spellings among the non-literary references, all
but two of which are handwritten.
A specific example illustrates more forcefully
the difference between printed and handwritten
spellings. We have four surviving contemporary
records where someone recorded his purchase of
one of Shakespeare's printed works while noting
the author's name; in each case the writer spelled
the name without the first 'e', even though in three
of the four cases the corresponding printed work
spells the name "Shakespeare":
1.On June 12, 1593, Richard Stonley purchased
a copy of newly-published Venus and Adonis, with a
dedication signed "William Shakespeare," yet in
his notebook he wrote "Venus and Adhonay pr Shakspere."
2.On June 19, 1609, Edward Alleyn noted his
purchase of the recently-published Shake-speares
Sonnets (as it is called on the title page) by
writing down "Shaksper sonetts, 5 d.."
3.Sometime in 1609 or 1610, Sir John Harington
made a list of play quartos he owned, including
"K. Leir of Shakspear" (the 1608 Quarto spells the
name "Shak-speare").
4.In 1611, William Drummond of Hawthornden
noted among an inventory of his books "Venus and
Adon. by Schaksp." (the name was spelled
"Shakespeare" in all editions).
Surely these entries indicate that "Shakspere,"
"Shaksper," "Shakspear," and "Schakspe(a)re," when
they happened to appear, were just seen as
variants of "Shakespeare," and that nobody gave
them a second thought.
Still another factor to be considered is the
nature of the documents themselves. Legal documents
such as contracts, which might have to be referred
to decades later, tended to be more carefully
written than informal jottings such as those of
Stonley, Alleyn, and Drummond. It is thus worth
noting that the documents relating to Shakespeare's
property purchases, both in Stratford and in London,
invariably spell the name "Shakespeare" or its
close variants. For example, both of the documents
relating to Shakespeare's purchase of New Place
in 1597 consistently have "Shakespeare"; the two
documents concerning his 1602 purchase of the Old
Stratford freehold consistently have "Shakespere";
the indenture for his 1605 purchase of tithes has
"Shakespear" throughout; both the conveyance and
the mortgage from his 1613 purchase of the
Blackfriars Gatehouse consistently have "Shakespeare."
It is clear that from a legal standpoint, the man's
name was considered to be "William Shakespeare,"
not "Shaksper." [note 2]
I have tried to be as complete as possible in
compiling the accompanying lists; others have
sometimes tried to make arguments based on
selective or incomplete lists of references,
which can lead to a distorted picture. I have
also tried to be fair and reasonable, but inevitably
some people may object to one aspect or another
of the procedure; I will not attempt here to rebut
every possible objection. [note3]Arguments about
the spelling of the name are ultimately
less important than it might seem, though, because
as I will argue in the next section, there is
no evidence that "Shake-" and "Shak-"-type
spellings represented different pronunciations,
while there considerable evidence that they were
seen as interchangeable.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> >When are you going to read my chapter on the Name, Paul. In it I
> >show that the "shake" spelling and the "shak" spelling of
> >Shakespeare's name were used about fifty percent of the time, each,
> >in Stratford.
>
> Right, with duplicated counts it is about 50/50. With non-duplicated
counts it
> is about 80/20.
I erred above. What I found was that when people referred in print to
Shakespeare of Stratford (which happened unambiguously in London as
well as in Stratford) about 50% of the documents had the "shake"
spelling (that's unduplicated names I'm speaking of, Paul. The most
common spelling was "Shakespeare." Using your dopey way of figuring it,
limiting it only to Stratford and not counting duplicates (but counting
a single person's repeated spelling of it since, of course, in the one
case it happens, he spells it the way YOU want him to), we still get a
dozen or more instances of the long e in Stratford or, as you have it,
about 20%, which makes the latter still common enough for any sane
person to consider it part of the cluster of ways the name was spelled.
> But of course that is not the point, even if the name was "Shakespere"
> 100% of the time, "Shakespeare" would still be a new "invention."
>
> paul streitz
If it were never spelled that way till then, not even by Shakespeare's
father or any previous Shakespeare in his family, it would be an
absolutely trivially new way of spelling the name for HIM. However, it
is uncontested that there were families named "Shakespeare" or,
according to Camden, "Shake-speare," at the time, so the name itself
would not have been an invention.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"Tom Davidson" <td...@bconnex.net> wrote:
> "Stephanie Caruana" <spear-...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:84atmp$u90$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > (erected 7 years after William Shaksper's death) reads:
> >
> > JUDICIO PVLIUM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM:
> > TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
> >
> > STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
> > READ IF THOU CANST, WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HAS PLAST
> > WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKESPEARE: WITH WHOME,
> > QVICK NATURE DIDE: WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK Ye TOMBE.
> > FAR MORE THAN COST: SIEH ALL, Yt HE HATH WRITT,
> > LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
> >
> >
> > Do you see a date, or even a first name, on this monument?
>
the whole ballgame! (We didn't know about you, Davidson--which, come
to think of it, is ANOTHER MARK AGAINST AGENT REEDY). There's no longer
any point in my finishing my book--the monument, now unsavably
discredited by the two of you, was too large a part of my argument.
Peter Zenner
>And Aubrey spoke of his writing
>excuses for not going bar-hopping with friends,
That's right Bob. He was talking about the actor -- the ex-"school-
master from the country" and son of a butcher.
But the man from Stratford was a boozer....
Peter Zenner
+44 (0) 1246 271726
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> >And Aubrey spoke of his writing
> >excuses for not going bar-hopping with friends,
> That's right Bob. He was talking about the actor -- the
> ex-"school-master from the country" and son of a butcher.
>
> But the man from Stratford was a boozer....
>
> Peter Zenner
Sorry, Peter, but you've lost me. Aubrey specified that he was
talking about the man named William Shakespeare who was born in
Stratford, became an actor, and "began early to make essayes at
Dramatique Poetry, which at that time was very lowe; and his
Playes tooke well." That he spoke of this man as a playwright
is further evidence that this man was literate, and further
evidence that Paul Streitz is either stupid or a liar for saying
that NOTHING shows that he could write.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Since there is no date, and no first name, this could be the monument
> of anyone named "Shakespeare," who died at any time. It is
> deliberately vague. If someone didn't already "know" that "William
> Shakespeare, who died in 1616, was meant, there would be no way of
> knowing who the monument referred to. There is no date or name on
> the doggerel of the supposed "tombstone", either. A reasonable
> difference of opinion about what all this double-talk "means" is no
> reason for you to call anyone insane or a liar. To some people, the
> whole thing looks so fishy as to scream "hoax." The fact that
> you call names so freely indicates that the book you are "planning
> to write" will be as worthless as your "evaluations" of people
> and evidence.
>
> Stephanie Caruana
Ease up, Stephanie. In the first place, I listed other evidence that
Paul Streitz has been exposed to which SHOWS that Shakespeare was
literate, just as the monument does--and would even if its subject's
date of death were not there--because of its location (in Stratford
right near the grave of the Stratford Shakespeare's wife) and the
name of its subject, which resembles the Stratford man's. If Paul
were to say that nothing CONVINCINGLY shows that the Stratford man
was literate, I would not call him either insane or a liar. That he
says NOTHING even SHOWS that he was literate makes him either insane
or a liar. As no one who isn't insane or unbelievably stupid will
contest.
PFStreitz
that indicate how a word is pronounced. English is confronted with the fact
that there are more vowel sounds than there are vowel letters. English further
does not have a set of symbols as French and German to indicate how the word is
pronounced.
Therefore, one of the conventions of the language extending back to the 13th
century (as far as I can tell) is to use a silent e at the end of a word to
indicate how a vowel is pronounced. This distinguishes the pronunciation
between wif and wife, had and hade, rat and rate, etc. It is true that words
may have been either mispelled, errors, or that the word might have been
pronounced differently with different dialects and therefore spelled
differently.
But in Shakspere's will a) it is clear that the writer of the will clearly was
following this convention of spelling. b) It is also clear that the name was
most often spelled "Shak." c) there are no contradictions to this rule of
spelling, that is where he is describing his "wife" and spells it "wif."
Putting a & b together, the inference is that the pronunciation of the name was
intended to be "Shak."
paul streitz
PFStreitz
speaks of "all he writt."
This evidence would be thrown out of court as hearsay.
Is this the same monument that has the name spelled "Shackspere?"
paul streitz
PFStreitz
Second, there may be two spellings of "Shakespeare" for his father John,
according to Kathman. However, there are numerous spellings where it is
something different. Also please remember, that John Shakspere appears to be
illiterate, (he signed with a mark) so we really can't say that he "spelled"
his name any particular way at all. The fact is that these are other people,
presumably different people, spelling the name differently as we might expect.
At best (if true) there are two spellings of "Shakespeare" prior to 1593,
referring to his father. This hardly makes the case that the "actual name" or
the author was "William Shakespeare."
It is Terry Ross who has made the claim that the "actual name" of the man is
"William Shakespeare" but he simply has no evidence that this was the case.
paul streitz
Peter Zenner
>Ease up, Stephanie. In the first place, I listed other evidence that
>Paul Streitz has been exposed to which SHOWS that Shakespeare was
>literate, just as the monument does--and would even if its subject's
>date of death were not there--because of its location (in Stratford
>right near the grave of the Stratford Shakespeare's wife) and the
>name of its subject, which resembles the Stratford man's.
People were meant to believe that the man who died in Stratford
in 1616 was the author, Bob. That was the whole idea. So whoever
ordered the bust and the lettering would want to indicate that the
deceased was a writer. Strange then that the bust had to be
altered, over 100 years later, in order to convince us that it really
was the author who was buried there.
Strange also that no big fuss was made about his demise at the
time -- that nobody thought to commemorate him until "early 1622".
There is an awful lot of smoke if there never was a fire...
Peter Zenner
>Sorry, Peter, but you've lost me.
Sorry Bob -- but I can't think why. You said:-
> >And Aubrey spoke of his writing
> >excuses for not going bar-hopping with friends,
To which I replied:-
> That's right Bob. He was talking about the actor -- the
> ex-"school-master from the country" and son of a butcher.
>
> But the man from Stratford was a boozer....
All I was doing was pointing out that the two men had different
ideas about going drinking. As you say, the actor declined to
go boozing -- but the Stratford man was renowned for it!
>Aubrey specified that he was
>talking about the man named William Shakespeare who was born in
>Stratford, became an actor, and "began early to make essayes at
>Dramatique Poetry, which at that time was very lowe; and his
>Playes tooke well." That he spoke of this man as a playwright
>is further evidence that this man was literate, and further
>evidence that Paul Streitz is either stupid or a liar for saying
>that NOTHING shows that he could write.
My comment had nothing to do with Paul Streitz. Aubrey was talking
about the man that everybody was supposed to think was the
author of the plays; he was repeating what he believed and that is
not necessarily what was true.
The evidence according to the Beestons was that 'Shakespeare'
was an abstainer and the evidence according to the stories that
have been passed down is that the man from Stratford was a
boozer.
It isn't a lot -- but it fits in with my claim that the Stratford man was
not an actor as well as not being a poet or a playwright.
Stephanie Caruana
Since apparently no one commented on the "new monument", whenever it was put
up, in writing, ayway, until around 1640 or so, and since Eccles and various
other scholars have indicated that people named "Shaksper" and infinite
spelling variations of the same or a similar name were fairly common in and
around the Stratford/Warwickshire area, including a shoe-maker or butcher in
or around Stratford named John Shakespeare or Shaksper or whatever, who had
six children or something like that, and who was not William Shaksper's
father, again I ask, how was or is anyone to really know or assume that it
was "William Shakesper the famous playwright" who was being referred to?
Maybe "all that he hath writ" referred to the fact that the Shoe-maker, or
one of his clever sons or nephews, or some other Shaksper or Shakespere of
the area, well-educated in the local primary school as they all must have
been, had written lots of bills to shoe-buyers, or doggerel like the
"Alexander Aspinall" couplet or the "famous Lucy ballad"????? It's true
that once the Stratford-ites got the message that they might be able to make
something out of the notion that non-Stratford-ites seemed to have gotten
from somewhere that the dead and forgotten brewer/land owner/hoarder/tithe
owner Guglielmo Shaksper had a rep in London and among higher social circles
as a great writer, they found out what the dumb visitors wanted to hear and
started making up stories in the hope of getting a good tip. It did turn out
to be a good thing for Stratford in the long run!
But even though "Shaksper" has brought great prosperity to Stratford, not
everyone appreciates that fact. Here's a quote from revered Shakespearean
Louis B. Wright, PhD, formerly the Director fo the Folger Shakespeare
Library, from an article in the May, 1964 National Geographic on the
occasion of a recent visit to Stratford:
"A townsman I met at Holy Trinity Church was even more emphatic...'What has
Shakespeare done for this church? Just brought crowds here....I wsih they
would move 'im out of 'ere. Just take 'im out; that is, if they can find
'im. Al he is, is mud, anyway. Mud, I say, because the river gets up and
floods where he is buried down there." (p.625).
There is something vastly entertaining to me in the idea that whoever is or
was in the tomb, got washed away long ago in the Avon River.
I'm sure you'll see what I am getting at without further explanation, since
you're so good at extrapolating from little or no evidence, volumes of
convictions.
Huh? Huh??
Stephanie
--
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote in message <84cq43$iob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> Since there is no date, and no first name, this could be the monument
>> of anyone named "Shakespeare," who died at any time. It is
>> deliberately vague. If someone didn't already "know" that "William
>> Shakespeare, who died in 1616, was meant, there would be no way of
>> knowing who the monument referred to. There is no date or name on
>> the doggerel of the supposed "tombstone", either. A reasonable
>> difference of opinion about what all this double-talk "means" is no
>> reason for you to call anyone insane or a liar. To some people, the
>> whole thing looks so fishy as to scream "hoax." The fact that
>> you call names so freely indicates that the book you are "planning
>> to write" will be as worthless as your "evaluations" of people
>> and evidence.
>>
>> Stephanie Caruana
>
>Ease up, Stephanie. In the first place, I listed other evidence that
>Paul Streitz has been exposed to which SHOWS that Shakespeare was
>literate, just as the monument does--and would even if its subject's
>date of death were not there--because of its location (in Stratford
>right near the grave of the Stratford Shakespeare's wife) and the
Stephanie Caruana
Hmm--Maybe that's what the poet really meant, when he said:
When Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment....."
Huh? Huh? Nudge, nudge, wink wink--
Stephanie
Nigel Davies
> But Bob--
> Since apparently no one commented on the "new monument", whenever it was put
> up, in writing, ayway, until around 1640 or so, and since Eccles and various
> other scholars have indicated that people named "Shaksper" and infinite
> spelling variations of the same or a similar name were fairly common in and
> around the Stratford/Warwickshire area, including a shoe-maker or butcher in
> or around Stratford named John Shakespeare or Shaksper or whatever, who had
> six children or something like that, and who was not William Shaksper's
> father, again I ask, how was or is anyone to really know or assume that it
> was "William Shakesper the famous playwright" who was being referred to?
Because "shoemakers" and "butchers" are not renowned for being compared to
Virgil and Nestor and Socrates. And for holding a quill and paper on a satin
cushion. And for all that they hath writ. And people who sign their will as
"Shakspeare" tend to have a monument referring to "Shakspeare" rather than
"Shaksper or whatever".
> Maybe "all that he hath writ" referred to the fact that the Shoe-maker, or
> one of his clever sons or nephews, or some other Shaksper or Shakespere of
> the area, well-educated in the local primary school as they all must have
> been, had written lots of bills to shoe-buyers, or doggerel like the
> "Alexander Aspinall" couplet or the "famous Lucy ballad"????? It's true
> that once the Stratford-ites got the message that they might be able to make
> something out of the notion that non-Stratford-ites seemed to have gotten
> from somewhere that the dead and forgotten brewer/land owner/hoarder/tithe
> owner Guglielmo Shaksper had a rep in London and among higher social circles
> as a great writer, they found out what the dumb visitors wanted to hear and
> started making up stories in the hope of getting a good tip. It did turn out
> to be a good thing for Stratford in the long run!
>
> But even though "Shaksper" has brought great prosperity to Stratford, not
> everyone appreciates that fact. Here's a quote from revered Shakespearean
> Louis B. Wright, PhD, formerly the Director fo the Folger Shakespeare
> Library, from an article in the May, 1964 National Geographic on the
> occasion of a recent visit to Stratford:
> "A townsman I met at Holy Trinity Church was even more emphatic...'What has
> Shakespeare done for this church? Just brought crowds here....I wsih they
> would move 'im out of 'ere. Just take 'im out; that is, if they can find
> 'im. Al he is, is mud, anyway. Mud, I say, because the river gets up and
> floods where he is buried down there." (p.625).
>
> There is something vastly entertaining to me in the idea that whoever is or
> was in the tomb, got washed away long ago in the Avon River.
>
> I'm sure you'll see what I am getting at without further explanation, since
> you're so good at extrapolating from little or no evidence, volumes of
> convictions.
>
> Huh? Huh??
Sad. So sad.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"Peter Zenner" <pe...@pzenner.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob G wrote:-
> >Ease up, Stephanie. In the first place, I listed other evidence that
> >Paul Streitz has been exposed to which SHOWS that Shakespeare was
> >literate, just as the monument does--and would even if its subject's
> >date of death were not there--because of its location (in Stratford
> >right near the grave of the Stratford Shakespeare's wife) and the
> >name of its subject, which resembles the Stratford man's.
>
> in 1616 was the author, Bob. That was the whole idea. So whoever
> ordered the bust and the lettering would want to indicate that the
Right. In which case the monument SHOWED (correctly or incorrectly)
that the man it depicted was the author, which is all my point is.
For Paul Streitz to say that NOTHING shows that Shakespeare was
literate therefore makes him either insane or a liar.
Terry Ross
> >Why are you lying again? Are you actually claiming that other names were
> spelled inconsistently, but that Shakespeare's was
> spelled consistently? How can you write such a blatant falsehood with a
> straight face?
>
> Because it is true. We have been through this before and the
> non-duplicated "Shak" pronunciations are about 50 and the "Shake"
> pronunciations are about twenty.
You cannot know how the name was pronounced; you may wish to count
spellings that have the first "e" of Shakespeare and those that do not,
but this is not the same thing at all. But let us take all the
nonliterary references to William Shakespeare from Dave's lists, and let
us ignore all instances of any spelling after the first in each document
(that is, if a document has 7 instances of "Shackespeare" and 1 of
"Shakspeare" then we will count only one of each). Now let us group all
spellings by whether they have the first "e" in Shakespeare. Here are the
results:
With the first "e":
Shakespeare 33
Shakespere 9
Shackespere 3
Shackespeare 1
Shakespe 1
Shakespear 1
Shake-Speare 1
TOTAL 49
Without the first "e":
Shakspeare 15
Shackspeare 7
Shackspere 6
Shakspere 5
Shakspe~ 2
Shaxspere 2
Shagspere 1
Shakp 1
Shaksper 1
Shaxpeare 1
Shaxper 1
Shaxpere 1
Shexpere 1
TOTAL 44
A few comments:
I'm not sure why we should ignore multiple instances of a spelling within
a particular document. This, it seems to me, is like trying to find out
what bills are in circulation by asking everybody not how many bills of
each denomination they have in their wallets but whether they have at
least one of each denomination. This "method" privileges the
idiosyncratic over the typical. Nevertheless, because I never believe
anything Paul says unless I can check it for myself, I counted up the
unique instances per document, and "Shakespeare" was far and away the most
common spelling (remember, these instances are all from Dave's list of
NON-literary references to Shakespeare).
The second most common spelling was "Shakspeare." Now, Paul has in the
past entertained us with his fable that William Shakespeare of Stratford
pronounced both syllables of his name differently from that of William
Shakespeare the writer, yet even when we eliminate all duplicate spellings
of Shakespeare's last name within a document we find that "speare" is far
and away the most common spelling even among NON-literary references.
Here are the counts (I am assuming in each case that the name has exactly
two syllables and that the last syllable begins with an "S" sound rather
than that the "S" sound ends the first syllable):
Last Syllable spelled "speare":
Shakespeare 33
Shakspeare 15
Shackspeare 7
Shaxpeare 1
Shake-Speare 1
Shackespeare 1
TOTAL 58
Last Syllable not spelled "speare":
Shakespere 9
Shackspere 6
Shakspere 5
Shackespere 3
Shaxspere 2
Shakspe~ 2
Shaksper 1
Shakp 1
Shaxper 1
Shakespear 1
Shakespe 1
Shagspere 1
Shaxpere 1
Shexpere 1
TOTAL 35
Now, I'm giving Paul every possible break here. I don't know that a form
of the name where the last syllable is spelled "speare" would be
pronounced differently from a last syllable spelled "spear" or "spere" or
"sper," and I can't recall Paul's latest Elizabethan spelling theory
(although I'm sure it's a doozy), but even if we assume that every
spelling other than "speare" is in some significant way different from
"speare," "speare still seems to be what we would have to consider the
"norm."
Now let's go back to these instances and look for FIRST syllables. We
find the following counts:
Shake 45
Shak 24
Shack 13
Shax 5
Shacke 4
Shag 1
Shex 1
Again, if we are looking for a first syllable "norm" here, then it is
"Shake."
To review the bidding: even if we eliminate all duplicates in a given
document (and I have yet to hear a strong reason for doing so), we find
that spellings with the first "e" are a majority of all instances, that
"Shakespeare" is easily the commonest spelling, that "Shake" is the
commonest first syllable, and that "speare" is the commonest second
syllable even among the NON-literary references to Shakespeare. Of
course, if we open our eyes to all of the evidence, the case becomes even
clearer.
Since Shakespeare's name was spelled in so many different ways in
Shakespeare's own time, Paul has taken me to task for saying that his name
was "William Shakespeare." By the same token, since Edmund Spenser's
name, and Christopher Marlowe's name, and Philip Sidney's name, and Ben
Jonson's name were also subject to variable spellings, he should oppose my
using the commonly accepted standard form for any of those writers. He
should oppose my referring to "Oxford" as well, since there were variants
of that name. He should also (if he wished to be consistent) propose that
every variant of every Elizabethan writer's name signaled a pseudonym.
And yet he does not: rather, he wishes to invent (or borrow from his
glorious Oxfordian predecessors) a Shakespeare-only rule that is based on
his own odd and imperfect sampling.
> In the church records it is about 27 to 4.
I admire the use of the word "about" for such seemingly precise
numbers; your counts are as reliable as Clark's dates.
> In legal or business it is 23 for Shak and 13 for Shake. So I would
> think this marks a consistency for for "Shak."
Even if your counts were accurate, they would suggest that there was
considerable variation in the spelling of the name "Shakespeare," and that
both variants with and variants without the first "e" were often used
interchangeably of the same person. But your counts are not accurate.
>
> >I assume you're talking about the specific spelling "Shakespeare", in which
> case you've missed a half-dozen instances which predate 1598.
>
> Maybe so, but the period we are talking about is the spelling of his name
> before 1593. You have not shown one instance of where there is a William
> Shakespeare before 1593.
A quibble. There is only one "William" for any variant of "Shakespeare"
before 1593, but among the four instances of his name prior to that date
two are "Shackespere" and none spell the first syllable "Shak," which you
imagine is the "real" spelling. As Dave has often noted, the name of
Shakespeare's father sometimes appeared as "Shakespeare," and its most
common spelling was "Shakespere."
>
> >Neither I nor Terry has ever claimed that the specific spelling "William
> Shakespeare" occurs before 1593,
>
> Exactly. You have never claimed this because there is no listing.
> But, Terry is claiming that "William Shakespeare" is the man from
> Stratford's "actual name." The burden of proof is on Terry to show
> that the name was in use prior to 1593.
Of course William Shakespeare was William Shakespeare's actual
name. There are only four instances of it before 1593, and those four
instances are spelled three different ways, not one of which has a first
syllable of "Shak":
1582 (Entry of License in the Bishop of Worcester's Register; Nov. 27)
"Wm Shaxpere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 70)
1582 (Bond of Sureties; Nov. 28)
"William Shagspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 63)
1588 (Bill of complaint in Queen's Bench case of Shakespeare v. Lambert)
"Willielmo Shackespere"
"Willielmo Shackespere" (in same document, John's surname
spelled "Shackespere" (11x),
"Shackspere" (2x), "Shackspeare" (1x)
(handwritten) (EKC II, 35)
In fact, the first nonliterary reference to William Shakespeare with a
"Shak" spelling did not occur until 1596.
>
> >(1) the spelling "Shakespeare" occurs for William's father John in 1569 and
> 1574 (see *Shakespeare Quarterly* (1984) for transcriptions and references
>
> Thanks for the information. I will look it up and add it to my list.
> So far I have about twelve listings for John, and none of them are
> "Shakespeare."
>
> >the single most common spelling for John in Stratford was "Shakespere";
>
> Not exactly. The place that John's name most frequently occured was in
> the corporation records. ""..on January 24, 1571, until the record of
> April 2, 1572, Rogers spelled the name "Shakespere" exclusively.
> But, exactly one week later, he entered it as "hakpere" for the first
> time and cntinued to do so as longas the minutes and accounts of
> Stratford are identified as being in his hand writing (at least until
> January 1577)."
I think, given the garbled nature of your attempted refutation, that we
will have to accept Dave's point. The most common spelling for John
Shakespeare in Stratford was "Shakespere."
>
> >Or something other than the published material under dispute that he could
> read or write. Nothing exists. You know it too.
> >
> >This has been discussed to death in this group, but reposting one of those
> discussions would be futile
>
> I agree. Nothing existed yesterday and nothing exists today that shows
> the man from Stratford could read or write, other than the disputed
> publications.
Anti-Stratfordians have been trying for 150 years to put the publications
into dispute and have so far failed. A man who made his living as an
actor and playwright, a man to whom letters were addressed, a man whose
signatures survive (and whose hand is probably also seen in his manuscript
additions to *Thomas More*), a man whose monument refer to his writings --
such a man could read and write.
> To summarize, at best there are two references to a "John Shakespeare"
> before 1593, and no reference to a "William Shakespeare,"before 1593,
> yet Terryis still claiming that the "actual name" of the author who is
> the man from Stratford, was "William Shakespeare."
Yes I am; that was the most common spelling of his name in his time.
Even if we restrict ourselves to non-literary references, and even if we
ignore multiple instances of a particular spelling in a given document,
"Shakespeare" is still the most common spelling of his name. Even if it
were not, the variants amount to no more than versions of the same
person's name, and that person was William Shakespeare of Stratford on
Avon. If, however, you wish to use a "Shak" spelling for his name, then
you need to create a story to explain why no "Shak" spellings appeared in
a non-literary context until 1596. If you believe "Shak-" was a different
name from "Shake-" then when did "Shakespeare" of Stratford assume the
"Shak-" name? If, on the other hand, you understand that orthography was
not settled in Shakespeare's day, then you should not have too much
difficulty accepting that the same man's name could be spelled in many
different ways.
>
> No your own evidence or lack thereof, indicates that "Shakespeare" was
> an invention by whomever was the writer of Venus and Adonis.
William Shakespeare wrote *Venus and Adonis*; there's no doubt of that.
His name was on every edition, and the work was never credited to anybody
else. Nobody ever suggested that William Shakespeare was anything but the
actual author's actual name. The word "invention" was not used to mean
"pseudonym" or even "fancy-schmancy new spelling of a dowdy old family
name."
That the particular orthography was not the crucial issue is shown by
Richard Stonley's noting his purchase of the work by "Shakspere." You
might be interested to learn that Stonley is the first person to use a
"Shak-" spelling for William Shakespeare, and he did so regarding a work
written by "William Shakespeare." According to your theory that
Shakespeare "really " had a "Shak-" name, you must think that the name
"Shakspere" was Stonley's "invention." The next "Shak-" instance was a
comment by William Covell in 1595 about works that bore the name "William
Shakespeare." Covell was, by your lights, the "inventor" of the spelling
"Shakspeare" for the author of *Lucrece* and *Venus and Adonis*. The
first "Shak-" spelling of William Shakespeare's name in a non-literary
context was in 1596, when the form "Shakspere" was invented in a writ for
sureties of the peace.
In other words, before any "Shak-" spelling appeared in a nonliterary
context, William Shakespeare had already published two lengthy poems under
his own name and was already being mentioned in print as one of the
leading poets of the day. He had already been paid as "Will. Shakespeare"
of the Lord Chamberlain's men, the company for which he acted and wrote.
> Either the man from Stratford used a new variant spelling of his name,
> or a seldom (almost never) variant spelling of his father's name.
The word "invention" was not used that way; see my posts on the phrase
"first heir of my invention." What you call a "variant" was the most
common spelling of Shakespeare's name in his own time, though nobody at
the time seems to have thought that any of the variants indicated that
somebody else was intended. While "Shakespeare" was not the most common
spelling of his father's name (the most common was "Shakespere"), it was
used before 1593, so there was no particular novelty in Shakespeare's
using the name "Shakespeare" in *Venus and Adonis*. If, on the other
hand, you wish to be consistent in your theories of orthography and
"invention," then you need to give us an account of why Shakespeare's
publishing under his own name induced readers to "invent" the
"Shak-" variants "Shakspere" and "Shakspeare" of the poet at a time when
"Shak-" variants had not been used of William Shakespeare of Stratford.
There are some variants (or "inventions" in your funny lingo) that were
used in literary contexts that do not appear in non-literary contexts,
including "Shak-speare," "Sheakspear," "Shaksperr," and "Shaxberd." I
suppose you need to account for all of those "inventions" as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> Sorry Bob -- but I can't think why. You said:-
> > >And Aubrey spoke of his writing
> > >excuses for not going bar-hopping with friends,
>
> To which I replied:-
> > That's right Bob. He was talking about the actor -- the
> > ex-"school-master from the country" and son of a butcher.
> >
> > But the man from Stratford was a boozer....
Peter . . . I just don't know about you. Anyway, as far as I know,
the only evidence about any William Shakespeare's being a boozer was
the anecdote about the AUTHOR/TOWNSMAN William Shakespeare, who took
sick after lifting a few with Drayton and Jonson. That doesn't make
him a boozer, whoever he was. The Rev. Ward told the story, if
I remember rightly, and he considered the man he was speaking of to
have been both the authr and the townsman.
--Bob G.
> All I was doing was pointing out that the two men had different
> ideas about going drinking. As you say, the actor declined to
> go boozing -- but the Stratford man was renowned for it!
>
> >Aubrey specified that he was
> >talking about the man named William Shakespeare who was born in
> >Stratford, became an actor, and "began early to make essayes at
> >Dramatique Poetry, which at that time was very lowe; and his
> >Playes tooke well." That he spoke of this man as a playwright
> >is further evidence that this man was literate, and further
> >evidence that Paul Streitz is either stupid or a liar for saying
> >that NOTHING shows that he could write.
>
> My comment had nothing to do with Paul Streitz. Aubrey was talking
> about the man that everybody was supposed to think was the
> author of the plays; he was repeating what he believed and that is
> not necessarily what was true.
>
> The evidence according to the Beestons was that 'Shakespeare'
> was an abstainer and the evidence according to the stories that
> have been passed down is that the man from Stratford was a
> boozer.
>
> It isn't a lot -- but it fits in with my claim that the Stratford man
was
> not an actor as well as not being a poet or a playwright.
>
> Peter Zenner
>
> +44 (0) 1246 271726
> Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
> http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
Stephanie Caruana
--
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
http://dmoz.org/arts/humanities/english literature/shakespeare/authorship
Nigel Davies wrote in message <386A5F68...@emirates.net.ae>...
As Evita once said, "Don't cry for me, Nigel Davies!"
>______________________________________________________________________
>nda...@emirates.net.ae
>
>
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Shakespeare was literate. So you are either insane or a
liar to say that nothing SHOWS that Shakespeare was literate.
This monument, to answer your subtle question, has the name as
"Shakspeare," so is not referring to the poet William Shakespeare
but to someone with a similar name who had the art of Virgil.
I might add that just about all historical evidence is hearsay--a
matter of what records like wills, title-pages, inscriptions on
monuments, and the like say.
--Bob G.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
pfst...@aol.com (PFStreitz) wrote:
> First, there is no spelling of "William Shakespeare" prior to 1593.
>
> Second, there may be two spellings of "Shakespeare" for his father
John,
> according to Kathman. However, there are numerous spellings where it
is
> something different. Also please remember, that John Shakspere
appears to be
> illiterate, (he signed with a mark) so we really can't say that he
"spelled"
> his name any particular way at all. The fact is that these are other
people,
> presumably different people, spelling the name differently as we might
expect.
>
> At best (if true) there are two spellings of "Shakespeare" prior to
1593,
> referring to his father. This hardly makes the case that the "actual
name" or
> the author was "William Shakespeare."
>
man is
> "William Shakespeare" but he simply has no evidence that this was the
case.
>
> paul streitz
What you can't seem to comprehend, Paul, is that William Shakcspeer had
a dozen ACTUAL NAMES! "William Shakespeare" was one; "William
Shakspeare" was another. Many many people of that time had more than
one ACTUAL NAME, including even Thomas Nayshe. Even Ben Ionson.
Greg Reynolds
PFStreitz wrote:
> Your argument is off the point.
>
> I am not concerned what Oxford, or Marlow or a dozen others wrote or how they
> spelled it. I am concerned with getting a hold on how the man from Stratford
> pronounced his name, and his will and the spelling conventions used within the
> will are the best indicator of how the man pronounced his name. The spelling
> conventions of the e at the end of a word indicating a long vowel and the lack
> of an e indicating a short vowel are clearly followed.]
Nigel's list clearly shows this is your error. These are not conventions. The
more you bang your head on the wall the harder it will be to sense anything.
Please, stop it Paul. Its painful to watch you.
> But this whole argument is off the point, it is the burden of Terry Ross to
> indicate why given all these variant spellings that we are to believe that the
> newly coined variation of "Shakespeare" is the "actual name" of the writer of
> the sonnets. He has offered zip evidence.
>
> paul streitz
How can anyone pick one variant of the man's name and pretend it is THE one? That
was never an issue. You are stuck on this like a dog chasing his own tail.
I've watched your argument ten times in 20 months, and you have been roundly
defeated consistently. You simply are incapable of learning that the "e" was used
at the discretion of the person holding the pen, that it had no ramifications,
and that most names of people (including writers and courtiers) had inconsistent
spellings in the era. You prove over and over that you have no case. Its not Mr.
Ross' responsibility to save or destroy your credibility--that's up to you.
Get a new problem, man.
Grege Reynoldse
Greg Reynolds
PFStreitz wrote:
> Not at all. The basics of any phoentic language is to have a set of symbols
> that indicate how a word is pronounced.
This belief is your downfall, Paul. English was not codified yet. And the flimsy
eventual "rules" are ridden with exceptions. And you know it.
> English is confronted with the fact
> that there are more vowel sounds than there are vowel letters. English further
> does not have a set of symbols as French and German to indicate how the word is
> pronounced.
You demand it be pronounced your way, though, don't you?
> Therefore, one of the conventions of the language extending back to the 13th
> century (as far as I can tell) is to use a silent e at the end of a word to
> indicate how a vowel is pronounced.
Nigel has often showed how Elizabethans ignored this rule of yours. And you know
it. You are into ignore-at-all-cost mode, now.
No one followed your "rule." Why take that out on one guy from Stratford?
> This distinguishes the pronunciation
> between wif and wife, had and hade, rat and rate, etc.
This is just plain stupid for you to say or believe.
> It is true that words
> may have been either mispelled,
By what standard? There was no formalized spelling of words or names.
AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
[I truly love it when you misspell "misspelled." Its ironic as hell, Paul.]
> errors, or that the word might have been
> pronounced differently with different dialects and therefore spelled
> differently.
Only in your world.
> But in Shakspere's will a) it is clear that the writer of the will clearly was
> following this convention of spelling.
This is not clear! Take it back!
There was no indication that spelling provided pronunciation guidance. You fail to
show any reason to believe this.
> b) It is also clear that the name was
> most often spelled "Shak."
Are you prepared to show that the twenty variations of his name were actually
twenty different people? Otherwise, you are without a case here.
Do you know what "variations" are?
> c) there are no contradictions to this rule of
> spelling, that is where he is describing his "wife" and spells it "wif."
Rephrase this monstrosity, please. Tell us what a wif is.
> Putting a & b together, the inference is that the pronunciation of the name was
> intended to be "Shak."
>
> paul streitz
You can live and die believing what you please, but you haven't supported your
case on this, because you unfailingly fail to look at the simple evidence that
tosses your weak claim into the trash.
Show us that Oxford, Oxenford, and Oxenforde were three different people, or give
up already! Nobody's buying, got it?
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
Peter Zenner wrote:
> Nigel Davies wrote:-
> >It's "Shakspeare", as spelled in his will.
>
> Well I think that it is strange that he was 'Shakespeare'
> (with or without the hyphen) on all of his 'works' and yet
> he signed his name differently. Why didn't he tell them
> to get the name right?
There was no "right" yet. Look at all the names of the era.
> I can understand others coming up with different spellings
> but wouldn't you think that the man himself would have
> settled on a particular spelling when he reached maturity?
Tell the Elizabethans, not us.
> Can't we set aside how others guessed at the spelling, Dave,
> and just go on how the Shaksperes spelt the name themselves?
It will only prove that you can't misspell it no matter what you do.
> So we can ignore his dad; as Paul says -- he only made a mark.
He is not suspected of writing the plays and the poems, Peter.
Greg Reynolds
Nigel Davies
> Not at all. The basics of any phoentic language is to have a set of symbols
> that there are more vowel sounds than there are vowel letters. English further
> does not have a set of symbols as French and German to indicate how the word is
> pronounced.
> century (as far as I can tell) is to use a silent e at the end of a word to
> between wif and wife, had and hade, rat and rate, etc. It is true that words
> may have been either mispelled, errors, or that the word might have been
> pronounced differently with different dialects and therefore spelled
> differently.
Exactly. That's why we have variant spellings between Londoners and others
during the Elizabethan period when English was an evolving language, not a
mathematical formula. This shouldn't be as hard as you are demonstrating it is
for you to comprehend.
The letter "e" is evidently immaterial as Oxford himself variously spelt the
word "sake" both with and without an "e", as "sak" and "sake".
He spelt "oft" with and without an "e", as "oft" and "ofte".
He spelled "there" with and without an "e", as "ther" and "there".
He spelled "here" with and without an "e", as "her" and "here".
He spelled "saying" with and without an "e", as "saying" and "sayinge".
He spelled "Sayoye" with and without an "e", as "Savoy" and "Savoye" then back
to "Savoy" in the very same sentence!
He also spelled "hackney" with and without the "ck", as "hackney" and "hakney",
just like "Shakespeare" and "Shackspeare".
There are many, many other examples in Oxford's own letters, as well as other
contemporaries, that demonstrate the "e" that you require to determine the
pronuniciation of the first vowel is in fact utterly irrelevant. Oxford's own
spellings of sake/sak and hackney/hakney prove conclusively that
Shakspear/Shackspeare/etc. are all valid contemporary spellings of exactly the
same name: Shakespeare.
It is so ridiculous to find an Oxenfordian, of all people, waste so much time
and energy on a triviality of spelling that is proven to be so utterly and
manifestly irrelevant by no less a contemporary authority than your own man.
> But in Shakspere's will a) it is clear that the writer of the will clearly was
> following this convention of spelling. b) It is also clear that the name was
> most often spelled "Shak."
Irrelevant. "Sake" was spelled in Elizabethan times as both "sake" and "sak" by
Oxenforde himself. Whether it was a million or a zillion or 28 times it is a
fact that the variant spellings were equally acceptable. The same is true of
many other words of the time proving conclusively that your precious
vowel-changing "e" was not necessarily relevant to the people of the time who
spoke the dialects and knew far more about their language than you evidently do.
In light of this mass of contemporary evidence that the vowel-changing "e" was
not an issue, Shakspear and Shakespeare and its other variants can be shown to
be exactly the same name in Elizabethan England.
> c) there are no contradictions to this rule of
> spelling, that is where he is describing his "wife" and spells it "wif."
> Putting a & b together, the inference is that the pronunciation of the name was
> intended to be "Shak."
You've just completely contradicted your valid assertion of above in which you
said: "that the word might have been pronounced differently with different
dialects and therefore spelled differently". What is your problem with accepting
predominant pronunciation in one part of the country and predominant
pronunciation in another which results in different spelling.?
You're so confused, you've identified that fact above and then completely
contradicted it below.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Nigel Davies
> >The monument to William Shakespeare, with his name and date of death on it,
> speaks of "all he writt."
>
> This evidence would be thrown out of court as hearsay.
It isn't what anyone said. It's concrete, contemporary, material evidence.
> Is this the same monument that has the name spelled "Shackspere?"
It's "Shakspeare", as spelled in his will.
Your attention to detail is nearly as lamentable as Stephanie's.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Peter Zenner
>It's "Shakspeare", as spelled in his will.
Well I think that it is strange that he was 'Shakespeare'
(with or without the hyphen) on all of his 'works' and yet
he signed his name differently. Why didn't he tell them
to get the name right?
I can understand others coming up with different spellings
but wouldn't you think that the man himself would have
settled on a particular spelling when he reached maturity?
Can't we set aside how others guessed at the spelling, Dave,
and just go on how the Shaksperes spelt the name themselves?
So we can ignore his dad; as Paul says -- he only made a mark.
Peter Zenner
Peter Zenner
>There is something vastly entertaining to me in the idea that whoever is or
>was in the tomb, got washed away long ago in the Avon River.
That reminds me of one of my visits to the church. I had been doing
some research about Shakspere's burial and had found out that the
church is built on Mercian Mud-Stone. Very difficult to dig through
and yes -- 17 feet down would be below the water-table. Seventeen
feet down is the depth of three men!
I mentioned the flooding to the verger and he said, "Yes -- he
probably floated off down the river years ago."
None of the people at the church could confirm the 17 feet story; they
said that it must be just a story. But then I found it in Schoenbaum's
'Shakespeare's Lives'. If he WAS buried 17 feet down, he will be even
further down now.
My bet would be that there is nothing there...
Peter Zenner
>Peter . . . I just don't know about you. Anyway, as far as I know,
>the only evidence about any William Shakespeare's being a boozer was
>the anecdote about the AUTHOR/TOWNSMAN William Shakespeare, who took
>sick after lifting a few with Drayton and Jonson. That doesn't make
>him a boozer, whoever he was
Just that one story proves that the Stratford man was not an
abstainer, as the Beestons indicated that the actor was.
Have you not heard of the story about him and the Bidford sippers?
There are one or two other indications in the books. The point is that
the Stratford man did go drinking and the actor did not.
>The Rev. Ward told the story, if
>I remember rightly, and he considered the man he was speaking of to
>have been both the authr and the townsman.
Ward was vicar of Stratford from 1662 to 1681. Whatever he was told
was hearsay, at least FORTY-SIX YEARS after Shakspere died. Do
you honestly think that it would be admitted in a court of law? He
believed that he was making enquiries about a famous author, as do
other visitors to Stratford. That is what we were meant to believe.
PFStreitz
major poems and a collection of sonnets, and the only thing that you can point
to as evidence he could read or write is an inscription on his tomb? Hardly
overwhelming evidence.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
I am not concerned what Oxford, or Marlow or a dozen others wrote or how they
spelled it. I am concerned with getting a hold on how the man from Stratford
pronounced his name, and his will and the spelling conventions used within the
will are the best indicator of how the man pronounced his name. The spelling
conventions of the e at the end of a word indicating a long vowel and the lack
of an e indicating a short vowel are clearly followed.]
But this whole argument is off the point, it is the burden of Terry Ross to
Dave Kathman
>
> Your argument is off the point.
>
> I am not concerned what Oxford, or Marlow or a dozen others wrote or how they
> spelled it.
That's part of your problem. You aggressively resist any
attempts to put things in context. Plus, you have a
very shaky grasp of the facts, and you aggressively resist
any attempts to correct your mistakes.
> I am concerned with getting a hold on how the man from Stratford
> pronounced his name, and his will and the spelling conventions used within the
> will are the best indicator of how the man pronounced his name.
What? Are you assuming that Shakespeare wrote his own will?
Very few people believe that, but it's the only way I can
make sense of this statement. If that's what you believe
(and please correct me if I'm wrong), why do you believe it?
What are your reasons? I assume you don't believe that
Hand D of Sir Thomas More is Shakespeare's, despite a mass
of evidence; if so, why do you believe that the will is
holograph, despite a lack of evidence? And even if one
assumes for a moment that the will is holograph, I don't
see why this should be the "best" evidence for how
Shakespeare pronounced his name. For one thing, you're
wrong about the spelling facts, and even if the spelling
in the will was as you depict it, it would not say
anything definite about pronunciation. As I demonstrated
in my paper, the presence of an "e" did not necessarily
indicate a long vowel, or a different pronunciation.
> The spelling
> conventions of the e at the end of a word indicating a long vowel and the lack
> of an e indicating a short vowel are clearly followed.]
Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?
Here are some words in the will which have an 'e' at the end
of the word but a short vowel:
forme
terme
everlastinge
graunte
Lyvinge
Ringe
performe
Sonne
yssueinge (later spelled "yssueing" in the same sentence)
Here are some words in the will which have no 'e' at the end
but a long vowel:
deceas (many times)
lief
wief
scituat (arguably)
There are also numerous other words which have a final 'e'
where modern English does not, but where vowel length
is not an issue (e.g. Christe, yeare, nowe). I assume you'll
try to come up with some ad hoc restriction in an attempt
to save your claim.
> But this whole argument is off the point, it is the burden of Terry Ross to
> indicate why given all these variant spellings that we are to believe that the
> newly coined variation of "Shakespeare" is the "actual name" of the writer of
> the sonnets. He has offered zip evidence.
Terry has explained this patiently, but as usual his explanation
has fallen on deaf ears. Given that spelling was variable and
the variations had no significance, Terry is using the most
common spelling of the man's name as a proxy for all the
other variants. And your description of the spelling
"Shakespeare" as "newly coined" is disingenuous, since it has
been pointed out to you repeatedly that this spelling was
used for John Shakespeare when William was still in short pants.
Your apparent inability to process evidence against your
positions, and your constant repetition of claims which
have been roundly discredited, are truly sad to behold.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Nigel Davies
> Nigel Davies wrote:-
> >It's "Shakspeare", as spelled in his will.
>
> Well I think that it is strange that he was 'Shakespeare'
> (with or without the hyphen) on all of his 'works' and yet
> he signed his name differently. Why didn't he tell them
> to get the name right?
Because people weren't so small-minded. A letter "e" does not have the
enormous significance that people like you bestow on it. When I sign my name on
bank cheques, contracts, etc., I guarantee that there are instances where the
"e" gets lost between the "i" and "s". No-one has ever complained. I haven't
complained. The signature is enough to identify me and that's all that matters.
Many people during my life have recorded my name as "Davis" instead of "Davies":
in restaurant bookings, business appointments, etc. There have been no
tremblings of anxiety or distress that the missing "e" might perhaps fail to
identify me. I have never considered that in 400 years time someone who, for
some unfathomable reason, might want to trace my family's activity might deduce
that there were 2 different Nigel Davies's living at exactly the same time doing
exactly the same things in exactly the same places because some people wrote
Davis and others wrote Davies, and my own signatures have variously omitted
some letters of my name.
Elizabethans would be rolling on the floor laughing at you if they could see the
small-mindedness of people on the threshold of the 21st-Century with all their
computers, DNA profiling and rocket science being so disturbed over the letter
"e". All Elizabethan documentation demonstrates that during this stage of the
language's development spelling in general was variable and the vowel-changing
"e" was certainly variably used. As I have shown, Oxford's letters show "sake"
and many other words variously spelled with and without the vowel-changing "e",
sometimes in the very same sentence.
> I can understand others coming up with different spellings
> but wouldn't you think that the man himself would have
> settled on a particular spelling when he reached maturity?
No. People spelling their own names inconsistently was a commonplace of
Elizabethan times. Are you blind to all the posts showing the many examples of
mature people of the time who persistently failed to settle on a unique spelling
of their name like Marlowe/Marley, Henslowe/Henslow/Hensley/Hinshley/Hinshleye?
Have you still not visited the Kathman/Ross Web Page that discusses the facts of
this?
You display the worst symptoms of bardolatory in requiring the man to have been
and done what you want him to have been and done instead of accepting the
unchangeable facts of who he was and the period he lived in. No matter how loud
you moan that Shakespeare should have spelled his own name consistently, a fact
of Elizabethan England is that imprecision in spelling was intrinsic to the
language and people even today fail to include every single letter of their name
in every signature they've ever written in their lives.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Nigel Davies
> Your argument is off the point.
>
> I am not concerned what Oxford, or Marlow or a dozen others wrote or how they
> pronounced his name, and his will and the spelling conventions used within the
> conventions of the e at the end of a word indicating a long vowel and the lack
> of an e indicating a short vowel are clearly followed.
They are not "clearly followed" atall. They are clearly not followed. Oxford
spells "sake" as "sak" and "sake". Do you think he varied his pronunciation of
this word as "sake" and "sack" or do you accept that the "e" was irrelevant? He
varied his spelling of "oft" as "oft" and "ofte". Do you think he varied his
pronunciation of this word as "oft" and "oaft" or do you accept that the "e" was
irrelevant? Oxenford variously spelled his own name as "Oxenford" and
"Oxenforde".
"Clearly following spelling conventions of the e at the end of a word indicating
a long vowel" is manifestly a gross misrepresentation of what the Elizabethans
actually did. Refer to any number of Oxford's own letters and you will see your
self-invented rule repeatedly disproven. You're inventing groundless rules on
how you personally want Elizabethans to have spelled and pronounced instead of
looking at how they actually did.
> But this whole argument is off the point, it is the burden of Terry Ross to
> indicate why given all these variant spellings that we are to believe that the
> newly coined variation of "Shakespeare" is the "actual name" of the writer of
> the sonnets. He has offered zip evidence.
What you want is for everyone else to do your donkey work because you're too
bone-idle to examine and tabulate the evidence yourself. The evidence is all in
the public domain available to everyone but you can only stretch to estimating
"about" instead of exactly. The facts are that "Shakespeare" was the most common
form of his name and your "Shak" variants are the exception, not the rule. As
usual for an Oxfordian, you're looking at the matter backwards and coming up
with a conclusion that is incompatible with the facts.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Terry Ross
If that were all the evidence it would be pretty conclusive in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary. Add to that the existence of specimens
of the man's own handwriting (more than we have for many other writers of
the period), and the million or so lines of published writings from the
man, and the testimony of contemporaries to his writings, and the fact
that letters were sent to him, and the man's profession as an actor and
playwright, and the absence of any evidence from any source that the man
could not read and write, and the case is overwhelming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross tr...@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/xmas/xmas.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
pfst...@aol.com (PFStreitz) wrote:
> What your telling me is that a man who wrote thirty some odd published
plays,
> major poems and a collection of sonnets, and the only thing that you
can point
> to as evidence he could read or write is an inscription on his tomb?
Hardly
> overwhelming evidence.
>
>
You miss a lot of posts, we know. Anyway, my point in my
last one in this thread to you was whether you were
justified in saying NOTHING showed that Shakespeare could
read and write. I said that the monument showed that he could.
In other posts (on this thread, I think) I have pointed out
other evidence that SHOWS Shakespeare was literate: for instance,
that we have signatures from him; that he was an actor; that
Aubrey tells an anecdote about him in which he writes a
letter; that three letters are known to have been written
to him.
The direct evidence that Shakespeare was literate IS
slim, but, as you fail to recognize, the years tend to
cut down on such evidence. Fortunately, in Shakespeare's
case we don't need evidence that he was literate to know
beyond reasonable doubt that he wrote the plays attributed
to him. The subject of his literacy, in fact, only comes
up because of the need to refute your side's claim, with NO
evidence except your subjective dislike of the way he signed his
name, that Shakespeare was illiterate--which, amazingly, is
among your strongest arguments against his having written
the plays.
Bottom line: are you going to continue to claim that NO evidence
shows that Shakespeare was literate, or grow up and say
that no evidence has convinced YOU that he was?
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
pfst...@aol.com (PFStreitz) wrote:
> What your telling me is that a man who wrote thirty some odd published
plays,
> major poems and a collection of sonnets, and the only thing that you
can point
> to as evidence he could read or write is an inscription on his tomb?
Hardly
> overwhelming evidence.
>
> paul streitz
>
erected within seven years of Shakespeare's death when
there were still many people living who knew him; it was
erected in a public place where many people could see its
inscription, and while we have records that people DID see its
inscription and accept it as true, we have no record whatever
of anyone's not accepting its truth, or even questioning it.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Who cares about courts of law. In the study of literary history,
anecdotal evidence, such as Ward's testimony, is considered weak,
but still possible useful--and certainly not necessarily untrue. But
what's your point? Ward is the main source of your claim that
Shakespeare of Stratford was a boozer (and the only one I know of--
can you tell us more about the Bidford sippers, and the other stories
you say there are?). Also, Aubrey does not tell us Shakespeare was a
teetotaler, only that he was not a bar-hopper. There's a difference,
Peter.
PFStreitz
The direct evidence is non-existent.
If the only evidence is on his tombstone which seems to have been placed their
several years later, probably by the same parties who published the first
folio, where the name is not even spelled "Shakespeare", the evidence is weak
indeed.
>that Shakespeare was illiterate--which, amazingly, is among your strongest
arguments against his having written
the plays
No, it is only one of a series of factors that indicates that he was not the
author. Put it the other way, if this was a case of trying to "convict" the
Stratford man of authorship, would there be a strong case. A case beyond
reasonable doubt. Of course not, a good defense lawyer could get him off in a
minute.
Again this is off the point and not to repeat the whole authorship argument.
Terry Ross made the claim that the "actual name" of the author of VA was
"William Shakespeare" but before the publication of the poem, there is no trace
of any "William Shakespeare."
paul streitz
PFStreitz
years of Shakespeare's death when there were still many people living who knew
him;
Yes, but none of the people who knew him ever wrote down anything about this
local wonder being a playwright. A fact Mark Twain comments on extensively.
In your view, a grain of evidence becomes a mountain when it supports the
Stratfordian notion.
paul streitz
Beth Smarr
Nigel Davies wrote:
> All Elizabethan documentation demonstrates that during this stage of the
> language's development spelling in general was variable and the vowel-changing
> "e" was certainly variably used. As I have shown, Oxford's letters show "sake"
> and many other words variously spelled with and without the vowel-changing "e",
> sometimes in the very same sentence.
Right. The language was in flux, stretching itself and transforming from the Middle
English of Chaucer ("Whan in Aprill") to modern English. Printing began to
regularize spelling, but if you look at some of Caxton's printed stuff, he uses
"plough" and "plow" in the same passage. Spelling began true regularization with
the advent of dictionaries (Johnson and Webster) which recorded the most common way
to spell words as the dictionary compilers spelled them. Even now there are variant
spellings of words that are acceptable. I had marked a word misspelled in a
student's paper in early December but had to change the mark because, when I looked
into the dictionary, her version was there as well.
So, 383+ years after the death of Shakespeare, with English the most widely spoken
second language in the world, we still have words - and names (ever seen the various
spellings of the names of Middle East leaders?) - that can be spelled more than one
way.
Beth
--
mailto:bsm...@zoomnet.net
http://www.zoomnet.net/~bsmarr/ted.html The Chameleon Talent of Ted Raimi
Official Keeper of Joxer the Mighty, Master of Geography