Richard II
Christine Cooper
I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would have written
Richard II. "Facts" are hard to come by in the context of the
authorship question, so don't beat me up if I get something wrong.
I'm going by what I've read so far. Please be so kind as to read all
the way down before you go back and anihilate me. I'm not MAKING an
argument. I'm ASKING for an explanation.
As I understand the situation:
1) De Vere was already dependent on his pension from Elizabeth as
early as 1586. The pension is revocable, either a) to keep him from
selling it?, or b) to keep him on a leash?. So, why would he risk
angering her? I understand that it was originally played without the
final abdication scene, but the entire Court knew the history, so
whoever wrote it was taking a risk. The missing final scene would
have been on the Court's mind from the beginning.
2) Some claim that the pension was some kind of "Royal Salary" (my
words), for De Vere to act as the Court's propaganda merchant (so to
speak). If so, how does Richard II fit into that concept? I realize
the play was already "old and long out of use" and was (revived?)
rather than written specifically for Essex' purpose, but that doesn't
address the question of how the play might have served the Queen's
purpose. Okay, the author "re-wrote" John Of Gaunt's character,
making him a patriot, but the underlying thesis is a warning to the
monarchy to choose good advisors and not give away too much power,
isn't it? In other words, the play is aimed "at" Elizabeth, not
written "for" Elizabeth (to suit her purpose).
3) The rivalry was between the Cecils and Devereux. How does De Vere
fit into that? Oxford was "old money," but that doesn't mean he was
in the line of succession. How would he have had a more legitimate
claim than the other candidates of the time? The play is in part
about divine right, but that inevitably brings up the question of
succession, which was the number one issue on the Elizabethan mind,
and about which she had forbidden discussion. So whoever wrote it was
taking serious risks.
4) Elizabeth knew she was Richard II. (from her conversation with
antquarian William Lombardo) If she knew De Vere was W.S., why didn't
he go to the Tower with Devereux? The same question applies to W.S.
as W.S. If she knew Oxford was W.S., then she knew who wrote Richard
II, because the first Quarto came out in 1597, with Richard III, and
Romeo & Juliet (Yes?). The Essex fiasco didn't happen until 1601.
5) What's the significance of her question to Francis Bacon about
whether he thought it was heresy? His answer was no, but "felonies,"
(cheeky bastard). Why would Bacon protect De Vere? If not De Vere, he
was protecting somebody. Was Bacon THAT audacious?
Thanks
Christine
Paul Crowley
news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
> I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would have written
> Richard II.
The 'logical arguments' as to why ANYONE would
have been allowed to write the play are difficult to
state. Strats (and the supporters of all other
candidates) duck the issue -- all the time.
> 1) De Vere was already dependent on his pension from Elizabeth as
> early as 1586.
The play was probably written in the 1570s --
perhaps early versions of it in the late 1560s,
so the 'pension' is hardly an issue, as such.
> The pension is revocable, either a) to keep him from
> selling it?, or b) to keep him on a leash?. So, why would he risk
> angering her?
There is no answer -- in respect of any
candidate -- except that she gave her
specific permission for the play to be
written. That meant that she knew the
author very well and trusted him implicitly.
> I understand that it was originally played without the
> final abdication scene, but the entire Court knew the history, so
> whoever wrote it was taking a risk. The missing final scene would
> have been on the Court's mind from the beginning.
>
> 2) Some claim that the pension was some kind of "Royal Salary" (my
> words), for De Vere to act as the Court's propaganda merchant (so to
> speak). If so, how does Richard II fit into that concept?
It has no place as 'propaganda'. The
canonical plays were NOT written for
public performance -- that's a Strat myth.
They were written to entertain the Queen
and the court. Later some (or many?) were
performed in public -- but only after they
had ceased to be of immediate relevance
(as many were) and the Queen felt (or saw)
that such performances would constitute
little threat. Maybe she did not care too
much what happened after her reign (après
moi, le deluge), and maybe she got a bit
careless. The RII performance in
association with the Essex rebellion must
have given her a shock.
> I realize
> the play was already "old and long out of use" and was (revived?)
> rather than written specifically for Essex' purpose, but that doesn't
> address the question of how the play might have served the Queen's
> purpose.
She was passionately interested in all the
issues it raised and discussed. She was
so close to the author, that it almost
constitutes her 'thinking-aloud'.
> Okay, the author "re-wrote" John Of Gaunt's character,
> making him a patriot, but the underlying thesis is a warning to the
> monarchy to choose good advisors and not give away too much power,
> isn't it? In other words, the play is aimed "at" Elizabeth, not
> written "for" Elizabeth (to suit her purpose).
Same thing, really.
> 3) The rivalry was between the Cecils and Devereux. How does De Vere
> fit into that?
Not especially relevant. They would have
opposed the greater public openness --
especially as regards printing -- that the
Queen and de Vere preferred towards the
end of her reign, but that's about all.
> Oxford was "old money," but that doesn't mean he was
> in the line of succession. How would he have had a more legitimate
> claim than the other candidates of the time?
He didn't. He (and his line) had no such
ambitions -- let alone chances.
> The play is in part
> about divine right, but that inevitably brings up the question of
> succession, which was the number one issue on the Elizabethan mind,
> and about which she had forbidden discussion. So whoever wrote it was
> taking serious risks.
It had to be written and performed with
(virtually) her explicit permission.
> 4) Elizabeth knew she was Richard II. (from her conversation with
> antquarian William Lombardo) If she knew De Vere was W.S., why didn't
> he go to the Tower with Devereux? The same question applies to W.S.
> as W.S. If she knew Oxford was W.S., then she knew who wrote Richard
> II, because the first Quarto came out in 1597, with Richard III, and
> Romeo & Juliet (Yes?). The Essex fiasco didn't happen until 1601.
Yep -- it's an insoluble problem under most
scenarios. You just won't get a discussion
on it here -- nor see a discussion of it in
any of the standard texts, not even in the
'scholarly' ones (especially _not_ in the
'scholarly' ones).
> 5) What's the significance of her question to Francis Bacon about
> whether he thought it was heresy? His answer was no, but "felonies,"
> (cheeky bastard). Why would Bacon protect De Vere? If not De Vere, he
> was protecting somebody. Was Bacon THAT audacious?
Bacon did not need (in this matter) to try
to protect anyone -- except maybe poor
John Hayward, who was sent to the Tower,
on indefinite sentence, for publishing a
second edition of his history, which
mentioned the reign of Richard II, but
said nothing that we can see is
objectionable about it. His offence was
that he did not have Oxford's stature nor
his friendship with the Queen. He had
not discussed the issues with her over
several decades.
Paul.
Greg Reynolds
> "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would have written
> > Richard II.
Sorry, but there is no evidence that de Vere had any
familiarity at all with any play written by Shakespeare.
Conjecture is not exactly science.
> The 'logical arguments' as to why ANYONE would
> have been allowed to write the play are difficult to
> state. Strats (and the supporters of all other
> candidates) duck the issue -- all the time.
Look who is talking.
The author and his troupe were not implicated in the Essex rebellion.
Are you pretending, Paul, that you are explaining anything? This
is your opportunity.
But the entire situation was so moot, Elizabeth herself is
paraphrased as saying "I am Richard, know ye not that?" because
it was so inconsequential she wound up having to explain it.
Shakespeare did not write the play to inflame a riot and
his patron obviously did not hold him in any jeopardy.
> > 1) De Vere was already dependent on his pension from Elizabeth as
> > early as 1586.
There is no indication that de Vere ever heard of the play.
The derelict was a social outcast, long past his prime, and
not known for any theatre presence after the 1580s, and though
his boy's companies played into the 90s, his name was not
mentioned.
Only modernday Oxfordians relate him to theatre after the
1580s and they use their imaginations instead of evidence.
> The play was probably written in the 1570s --
No, the play relied on Holinshed's 2nd edition (1587)
and an epic poem "The Civil Wars Between the Two Houses
of York and Lancaster" by Samuel Daniel published
in 1595.
"Probably" is an Oxfordian word which means "I will now falsify"
> perhaps early versions of it in the late 1560s,
If Paul Crowley knew whatever it is he is talking about, he
would tell us if it was the 70s or the 60s instead of explaining
that it is either or both. Pure unadulterated mush from the
mouth of a learned Oxfordian. Leave it at the curb next time and
save everyone the bother, Paul. you are making crap up and you
know you have not one single way of showing that Oxford
ever even heard of the play.
> so the 'pension' is hardly an issue, as such.
Any conclusion drawn from Paul's wide variance of a non-answer
is essentially a worthless stab in the dark that satisfies him and
leaves the entire question untouched because he is a typical loudmouth
Oxfordian with nothing but guesswork and a pompous verve.
> > The pension is revocable, either a) to keep him from
> > selling it?, or b) to keep him on a leash?. So, why would he risk
> > angering her?
He was handed the money each year in order to patronize the arts and it
didn't go very far. That explains the many dedications made to him
and the zero return for all the poets.
> There is no answer -- in respect of any
> candidate -- except that she gave her
> specific permission for the play to be
> written.
Paul won't be verifying any of his guesswork.
> That meant that she knew the
> author very well and trusted him implicitly.
The Queen patronized the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
The play was enormously popular and was the only
play beside Pericles to be printed in quarto twice (Q2
and Q3) in the same year (1598).
There is no evidence Oxford ever heard of the play. He
was several years out of favor with the court.
> > I understand that it was originally played without the
> > final abdication scene, but the entire Court knew the history, so
> > whoever wrote it was taking a risk. The missing final scene would
> > have been on the Court's mind from the beginning.
> >
> > 2) Some claim that the pension was some kind of "Royal Salary" (my
> > words), for De Vere to act as the Court's propaganda merchant (so to
> > speak). If so, how does Richard II fit into that concept?
>
> It has no place as 'propaganda'. The
> canonical plays were NOT written for
> public performance -- that's a Strat myth.
Elizabeth allowed the plays to be presented publicly
and employed the Office of Revels for the purpose
of overseeing all PUBLIC content. The Queen allowed
many theatres to be open, which was unprecedented
in London (and just south outside city jurisdiction)..
Many plays were written for occasions such as weddings
or state events such as visits of allied states.
Nothing mythical about it and no one knows for sure
precisely where all the plays were first staged, or when.
Paul keeps acting he is privileged to know but he isn't.
There is NO evidence that the Earl of Oxford ever
attended any Shakespeare play or had any knowledge of
any Shakespeare play. There is great evidence that
Shakespeare wrote them without his patronage, though
Oxford patronized other writers and troupes.
> They were written to entertain the Queen
> and the court. Later some (or many?) were
> performed in public -- but only after they
> had ceased to be of immediate relevance
> (as many were) and the Queen felt (or saw)
> that such performances would constitute
> little threat.
Many of the plays were written after the queen died
and Shakespeare's company was patronized by James as
the King's Men. These plays included Macbeth and
The Tempest and others and were definitely NEVER attended
by the Earl of Oxford, who was dead.
> Maybe she did not care too
> much what happened after her reign (après
> moi, le deluge), and maybe she got a bit
> careless. The RII performance in
> association with the Essex rebellion must
> have given her a shock.
She did not confuse the two or overreact.
She executed or imprisoned the rebels, not the
author or the players. The Chamberlain's Men
performed again for the queen one month later--the day
before Essex was beheaded.
WOW, big shock, Paul. You can't account for
Oxford at this time but we know what Essex,
the Queen, and Shakespeare were all doing.
The play was already passe--not much of a rabble-
rouser. The theatre was the secret meeting place
for the rebels but sitting through the play didn't
prove to be so inspiring.
It is an Oxfordian myth that the author was to be
punished. The Queen laughed at the hothead Essex
who had fallen from favor a few times before (he
even drew his sword once when Elizabeth slapped
his face, the idiot). No way would the Queen blame
her own personal playwright for the rebellion.
Oxfordians provide no detail to make their version
plausible, but as always the history is easily understood
without the Oxfordian clutter.
Paul cannot show that Oxford ever even heard of the play
or attended it. And he cannot show any reason to believe
Oxford wrote any of Shakespeare's plays.
> > I realize
> > the play was already "old and long out of use" and was (revived?)
> > rather than written specifically for Essex' purpose, but that doesn't
> > address the question of how the play might have served the Queen's
> > purpose.
>
> She was passionately interested in all the
> issues it raised and discussed.
She was interested in the history.
> She was
> so close to the author, that it almost
> constitutes her 'thinking-aloud'.
The Queen was close to Shakespeare, not Oxford.
Oxford was a failed wool/oil/tin/fruit entrepreneur and had wasted
all his good favor by this time.
Paul and Oxford may be confused, but the Queen
saw no great significance--in fact the Chamberlain's
Men were not even summoned, they sent a representative
to explain their involvement in the February 8 staging.
> > Okay, the author "re-wrote" John Of Gaunt's character,
> > making him a patriot, but the underlying thesis is a warning to the
> > monarchy to choose good advisors and not give away too much power,
> > isn't it? In other words, the play is aimed "at" Elizabeth, not
> > written "for" Elizabeth (to suit her purpose).
>
> Same thing, really.
It was an ill-conceived event. The rebels got drunk instead of
rabid. Essex was an egomaniac on his last legs. Wouldn't
Coriolanus be a better play to show a coup was due?
> > 3) The rivalry was between the Cecils and Devereux.
Devereaux is Essex, of course.
Burghley (Cecil) won the power struggles.
> > How does De Vere
> > fit into that?
>
> Not especially relevant.
De Vere's relevence was ten+ years past any significance at all.
He shot his wad in 1588 and was never again trusted or respected.
In addition to his mining failures at this moment, his peers were
refusing him the garter. He was frittering away all good will, his
family was disowning him, he was becoming destitute having
liquidated all his holdings, and he was a sickly, desperate, recluse.
Meanwhile, Shakespeare was publicly thriving.
> They would have
> opposed the greater public openness --
> especially as regards printing -- that the
> Queen and de Vere preferred towards the
> end of her reign, but that's about all.
Paul, like all Oxfordians, cannot mention any
positive references to Oxford after 1588 and cannot
show that de Vere was familiar with ANY Shakespeare
play.
> > Oxford was "old money," but that doesn't mean he was
> > in the line of succession.
OK, but some Oxfordians make him Elizabeth's son
which is as ignorant and unverifiable as calling him the
writer of Shakespeare's plays.
His known and documented activities are disgusting
involvements in pederasty and manslaughter and cowardice.
> > How would he have had a more legitimate
> > claim than the other candidates of the time?
If he had any such claim, Oxfordians are making him
appear stupid for not pressing his claim, just as he is
made stupid for not taking credit for the plays which
made the acting troupe so very wealthy.
The stigma of print, we learn, is the inability of modernday
Oxfordians to print any sensible explanation for their
ridiculous scenario which is simply based on their snobbery
toward a commoner.
Dealing with Oxfordianism always leads to so many
unanswerables that Oxfordians themselves duck and hide
away from their own audacious labrynthic nonsense.
> He didn't. He (and his line) had no such
> ambitions -- let alone chances.
He had ambitions of wealth and power but was a
spoiled lazy wastrel.
> > The play is in part
> > about divine right, but that inevitably brings up the question of
> > succession, which was the number one issue on the Elizabethan mind,
> > and about which she had forbidden discussion. So whoever wrote it was
> > taking serious risks..
Henry IV succeeded Richard II.
It was a dramatization of history, is all.
> It had to be written and performed with
> (virtually) her explicit permission.
It did not offend her--the rebellion did.
> > 4) Elizabeth knew she was Richard II. (from her conversation with
> > antquarian William Lombardo) If she knew De Vere was W.S., why didn't
> > he go to the Tower with Devereux? The same question applies to W.S.
> > as W.S. If she knew Oxford was W.S., then she knew who wrote Richard
> > II, because the first Quarto came out in 1597, with Richard III, and
> > Romeo & Juliet (Yes?). The Essex fiasco didn't happen until 1601.
>
> Yep -- it's an insoluble problem under most
> scenarios.
Only to an idiotic scenario such as an Oxfordianism.
The history itself is clear.
The Queen personally patronized the Chamberlain's Men
and booked them again the day before she executed Essex.
No harm, no foul.
Again, there is no mention of Oxford in any of it and no
Oxfordian can show that Oxford ever knew anything of the play.
> You just won't get a discussion
> on it here -- nor see a discussion of it in
> any of the standard texts, not even in the
> 'scholarly' ones (especially _not_ in the
> 'scholarly' ones).
If you want to hear about myth and stigma and mystique,
Paul is full of it. He is a leading manufacturer of it.
> > 5) What's the significance of her question to Francis Bacon about
> > whether he thought it was heresy? His answer was no, but "felonies,"
> > (cheeky bastard). Why would Bacon protect De Vere? If not De Vere, he
> > was protecting somebody. Was Bacon THAT audacious?
Aren't felonies larger than heresy? What protection?
The queen directly employed the Chamberlain's Men
and there is no indication that de Vere knew any of the
Chamberlain's Men or had any commerce with them.
> Bacon did not need (in this matter) to try
> to protect anyone -- except maybe poor
> John Hayward, who was sent to the Tower,
> on indefinite sentence, for publishing a
> second edition of his history, which
> mentioned the reign of Richard II, but
> said nothing that we can see is
> objectionable about it. His offence was
> that he did not have Oxford's stature nor
> his friendship with the Queen. He had
> not discussed the issues with her over
> several decades.
Oxford was not integral to the Essex Rebellion or
to any of Shakespeare's plays, including Richard II.
Greg Reynolds
Jacob
Hunter
____________________________________________________________________
"So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these
is love."
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/
Bill McClain
> Has anyone ever seen a movie (or video) version of Richard II?
I've seen the BBC series version and made-for-video version from "Bard
Productions". There are reviews of both at:
http://home.salamander.com/~wmcclain/ws-movies.html
-Bill
--
Sattre Press History of Astronomy
http://sattre-press.com/ During the 19th Century
in...@sattre-press.com by Agnes M. Clerke
http://han.sattre-press.com/
Christine Cooper
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would have written
> > > Richard II.
>
> Sorry, but there is no evidence that de Vere had any
> familiarity at all with any play written by Shakespeare.
> Conjecture is not exactly science.
>
> > The 'logical arguments' as to why ANYONE would
> > have been allowed to write the play are difficult to
> > state. Strats (and the supporters of all other
> > candidates) duck the issue -- all the time.
*******
I see that now, from the number of responses I've received, as opposed
to responses involving Bacon/bacon and/or Shakespeare's sexual
preference. Perhaps I should have phrased the question more as to why
ANY of the candidates would have written Richard II?
+++++++
>
> Look who is talking.
> The author and his troupe were not implicated in the Essex rebellion.
>
> Are you pretending, Paul, that you are explaining anything? This
> is your opportunity.
>
> But the entire situation was so moot, Elizabeth herself is
> paraphrased as saying "I am Richard, know ye not that?" because
> it was so inconsequential she wound up having to explain it.
>
*******
I don't see how that conclusion follows from the context of the
conversation. She had the inventory in her lap, and it appears to me
that the issue weighed heavily on her mind.
++++++
> Shakespeare did not write the play to inflame a riot and
> his patron obviously did not hold him in any jeopardy.
>
******
I tried to make it clear that I knew that the play was already old
when revived, so you're side-stepping. I asked what would Oxford's
[Will Shakspere] [any other candidate] most probable motive be for
writing it? In fact, you're both side-stepping.
++++++
> > > 1) De Vere was already dependent on his pension from Elizabeth as
> > > early as 1586.
>
> There is no indication that de Vere ever heard of the play.
> The derelict was a social outcast, long past his prime, and
> not known for any theatre presence after the 1580s, and though
> his boy's companies played into the 90s, his name was not
> mentioned.
>
> Only modernday Oxfordians relate him to theatre after the
> 1580s and they use their imaginations instead of evidence.
>
> > The play was probably written in the 1570s --
>
> No, the play relied on Holinshed's 2nd edition (1587)
> and an epic poem "The Civil Wars Between the Two Houses
> of York and Lancaster" by Samuel Daniel published
> in 1595.
>
**********
Is there no response from the Stratfordians on this contention?
+++++++++
> "Probably" is an Oxfordian word which means "I will now falsify"
>
> > perhaps early versions of it in the late 1560s,
>
> If Paul Crowley knew whatever it is he is talking about, he
> would tell us if it was the 70s or the 60s instead of explaining
> that it is either or both. Pure unadulterated mush from the
> mouth of a learned Oxfordian. Leave it at the curb next time and
> save everyone the bother, Paul. you are making crap up and you
> know you have not one single way of showing that Oxford
> ever even heard of the play.
>
> > so the 'pension' is hardly an issue, as such.
>
> Any conclusion drawn from Paul's wide variance of a non-answer
> is essentially a worthless stab in the dark that satisfies him and
> leaves the entire question untouched because he is a typical loudmouth
> Oxfordian with nothing but guesswork and a pompous verve.
>
> > > The pension is revocable, either a) to keep him from
> > > selling it?, or b) to keep him on a leash?. So, why would he risk
> > > angering her?
>
> He was handed the money each year in order to patronize the arts and it
> didn't go very far. That explains the many dedications made to him
> and the zero return for all the poets.
>
**********
Now you're lapsing into conjecture. What is your source for the
purpose of the pension?
+++++++++
> > There is no answer -- in respect of any
> > candidate -- except that she gave her
> > specific permission for the play to be
> > written.
>
> Paul won't be verifying any of his guesswork.
>
*********
So, why would William Shakspere have written it? The play was
written, the question is what was the motive of the author, and why
would he have taken such risks?
++++++++
> > That meant that she knew the
> > author very well and trusted him implicitly.
>
*******
Did King James trust Ben Jonson implicitly when he wrote Eastward Ho!
(?)
If Elizabeth trusted the author, then why was she badgering Francis
Bacon about the author's implications?
++++++
> The Queen patronized the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
> The play was enormously popular and was the only
> play beside Pericles to be printed in quarto twice (Q2
> and Q3) in the same year (1598).
>
> There is no evidence Oxford ever heard of the play. He
> was several years out of favor with the court.
>
> > > I understand that it was originally played without the
> > > final abdication scene, but the entire Court knew the history, so
> > > whoever wrote it was taking a risk. The missing final scene would
> > > have been on the Court's mind from the beginning.
> > >
> > > 2) Some claim that the pension was some kind of "Royal Salary" (my
> > > words), for De Vere to act as the Court's propaganda merchant (so to
> > > speak). If so, how does Richard II fit into that concept?
> >
> > It has no place as 'propaganda'. The
> > canonical plays were NOT written for
> > public performance -- that's a Strat myth.
>
******
That's circular reasoning. So is Paul implying the play was pure
entertainment?
++++++
> Elizabeth allowed the plays to be presented publicly
> and employed the Office of Revels for the purpose
> of overseeing all PUBLIC content. The Queen allowed
> many theatres to be open, which was unprecedented
> in London (and just south outside city jurisdiction)..
>
> Many plays were written for occasions such as weddings
> or state events such as visits of allied states.
>
******
More sidestepping. If the play was a paraphrase of Elizabeth's
innermost thoughts and concerns, (thinking out loud), why would she
allow it to be played publicly?
++++++
> Nothing mythical about it and no one knows for sure
> precisely where all the plays were first staged, or when.
> Paul keeps acting he is privileged to know but he isn't.
>
> There is NO evidence that the Earl of Oxford ever
> attended any Shakespeare play or had any knowledge of
> any Shakespeare play. There is great evidence that
> Shakespeare wrote them without his patronage, though
> Oxford patronized other writers and troupes.
******
Now Greg is side-stepping. An explanation of why Oxford didn't write
it, doesn't explain why William Shakspere would have.
++++++
>
> > They were written to entertain the Queen
> > and the court. Later some (or many?) were
> > performed in public -- but only after they
> > had ceased to be of immediate relevance
> > (as many were) and the Queen felt (or saw)
> > that such performances would constitute
> > little threat.
>
******
So, what's the argument that it was of little relevance, if either it
was an expression of the Queen "thinking out loud," or of Essex'
not-so-innermost thoughts?
+++++
> Many of the plays were written after the queen died
> and Shakespeare's company was patronized by James as
> the King's Men. These plays included Macbeth and
> The Tempest and others and were definitely NEVER attended
> by the Earl of Oxford, who was dead.
******
The Strats invent a new dance, the Shakespearian Side-Step?
++++++
>
> > Maybe she did not care too
> > much what happened after her reign (après
> > moi, le deluge), and maybe she got a bit
> > careless. The RII performance in
> > association with the Essex rebellion must
> > have given her a shock.
>
> She did not confuse the two or overreact.
> She executed or imprisoned the rebels, not the
> author or the players. The Chamberlain's Men
> performed again for the queen one month later--the day
> before Essex was beheaded.
*******
So, under the circumstances, at best isn't that an indication (not
proof) that she knew nobody connected with the Chamberlain's men wrote
the play).
++++++
>
> WOW, big shock, Paul. You can't account for
> Oxford at this time but we know what Essex,
> the Queen, and Shakespeare were all doing.
>
> The play was already passe--not much of a rabble-
> rouser. The theatre was the secret meeting place
> for the rebels but sitting through the play didn't
> prove to be so inspiring.
>
******
One, two, shuffle, shuffle
+++++
> It is an Oxfordian myth that the author was to be
> punished. The Queen laughed at the hothead Essex
> who had fallen from favor a few times before (he
> even drew his sword once when Elizabeth slapped
> his face, the idiot). No way would the Queen blame
> her own personal playwright for the rebellion.
>
*****
One more time, then why the conversation with Francis Bacon?
Elizabeth was obviously concerned.
Speaking of Elizabeth, why haven't we heard from her on this thread?
+++++
> Oxfordians provide no detail to make their version
> plausible, but as always the history is easily understood
> without the Oxfordian clutter.
>
> Paul cannot show that Oxford ever even heard of the play
> or attended it. And he cannot show any reason to believe
> Oxford wrote any of Shakespeare's plays.
>
*****
One more time, why would William Shakespeare have risked writing it?
(given the sort of thing that happened to Ben Jonson)
I'm beginning to feel like a square dance caller, whose job is to call
the steps after the fact.
+++++
> > > I realize
> > > the play was already "old and long out of use" and was (revived?)
> > > rather than written specifically for Essex' purpose, but that doesn't
> > > address the question of how the play might have served the Queen's
> > > purpose.
> >
> > She was passionately interested in all the
> > issues it raised and discussed.
>
> She was interested in the history.
>
> > She was
> > so close to the author, that it almost
> > constitutes her 'thinking-aloud'.
>
> The Queen was close to Shakespeare, not Oxford.
> Oxford was a failed wool/oil/tin/fruit entrepreneur and had wasted
> all his good favor by this time.
*****
Where are your sources that the Queen was "close to Shakespeare?"
Letters? Apocrypha? A painting of them playing chess together?
Did she grant him any lands or other favours?
Allow him to dedicate plays to her?
+++++
>
> Paul and Oxford may be confused, but the Queen
> saw no great significance--in fact the Chamberlain's
> Men were not even summoned, they sent a representative
> to explain their involvement in the February 8 staging.
>
******
Meaning if she didn't call the person William Shakespeare on the
carpet, then she knew he didn't write the play?
++++++
> > > Okay, the author "re-wrote" John Of Gaunt's character,
> > > making him a patriot, but the underlying thesis is a warning to the
> > > monarchy to choose good advisors and not give away too much power,
> > > isn't it? In other words, the play is aimed "at" Elizabeth, not
> > > written "for" Elizabeth (to suit her purpose).
> >
> > Same thing, really.
******
How do you figure that?
++++++
>
> It was an ill-conceived event. The rebels got drunk instead of
> rabid. Essex was an egomaniac on his last legs. Wouldn't
> Coriolanus be a better play to show a coup was due?
>
> > > 3) The rivalry was between the Cecils and Devereux.
>
> Devereaux is Essex, of course.
*****
Duh, uh.
+++++
> Burghley (Cecil) won the power struggles.
>
> > > How does De Vere
> > > fit into that?
> >
> > Not especially relevant.
>
*****
Would be if he wrote the play.
+++++
> De Vere's relevence was ten+ years past any significance at all.
> He shot his wad in 1588 and was never again trusted or respected.
> In addition to his mining failures at this moment, his peers were
> refusing him the garter. He was frittering away all good will, his
> family was disowning him, he was becoming destitute having
> liquidated all his holdings, and he was a sickly, desperate, recluse.
>
> Meanwhile, Shakespeare was publicly thriving.
>
> > They would have
> > opposed the greater public openness --
> > especially as regards printing -- that the
> > Queen and de Vere preferred towards the
> > end of her reign, but that's about all.
>
> Paul, like all Oxfordians, cannot mention any
> positive references to Oxford after 1588 and cannot
> show that de Vere was familiar with ANY Shakespeare
> play.
>
*******
One more time, then why did William Shakespeare write it?
++++++
> > > Oxford was "old money," but that doesn't mean he was
> > > in the line of succession.
>
> OK, but some Oxfordians make him Elizabeth's son
> which is as ignorant and unverifiable as calling him the
> writer of Shakespeare's plays.
>
*******
Well, it would at least give a small hint of a motive.
+++++++
******
> > > 4) Elizabeth knew she was Richard II. (from her conversation with
> > > antquarian William Lombardo) If she knew De Vere was W.S., why didn't
> > > he go to the Tower with Devereux? The same question applies to W.S.
> > > as W.S. If she knew Oxford was W.S., then she knew who wrote Richard
> > > II, because the first Quarto came out in 1597, with Richard III, and
> > > Romeo & Juliet (Yes?). The Essex fiasco didn't happen until 1601.
> >
> > Yep -- it's an insoluble problem under most
> > scenarios.
>
> Only to an idiotic scenario such as an Oxfordianism.
> The history itself is clear.
> The Queen personally patronized the Chamberlain's Men
> and booked them again the day before she executed Essex.
> No harm, no foul.
>
*******
The author re-wrote history to make a point.
What was William Shakespeare's point?
+++++++
*******
So, why would Elizabeth ask the question,
and why would Bacon answer it that way?
My impression is that "heresies" carried darker implications than
"felonies."
++++++++
> Oxford was not integral to the Essex Rebellion or
> to any of Shakespeare's plays, including Richard II.
>
> Greg Reynolds
Thanks guys,
Baconians?
Marlovians?
Farey, you encouraged me to post this thing.
Surely, you have something to offer?
Christine
Jo Lonergan
Cooper) wrote:
>I see that now, from the number of responses I've received, as opposed
>to responses involving Bacon/bacon and/or Shakespeare's sexual
>preference. Perhaps I should have phrased the question more as to why
>ANY of the candidates would have written Richard II?
>
At a guess, the box-office success of the Richard III and the various
Henrys had shown that there was a market for plays based on English
history. The fate of Richard II was obviously dramatic, giving plenty
of opportunity for effective, and affecting, scenes.
--
Jo
Tom Reedy
Well, you see, Shakespeare was in business with other theatre people, and
the purpose of that business was to rent seats to people who would watch a
play being enacted on stage.
Obviously Shakespeare thought the subject matter of R2 to be dramatic enough
to be adapted for the stage. Turns out he was right.
The play was
> written, the question is what was the motive of the author,
He probably had more than one motive, but as a theatre businessman, the
primary one would have been profit. As an artist, another motive would have
been to create something beautiful. Artists sell their works for the money
to survive all the time; it isn't an unusual motivation.
and why
> would he have taken such risks?
Every play -- and artistic creation -- is a risk. Judging the tastes of an
audience is a tricky thing.
Your thinking out loud -- or silently -- seems to be faulty. Who besides you
contends the play was a paraphrase of E's thoughts?
why would she
> allow it to be played publicly?
Uh, because your contention is wrong? Has that ever crossed your mind?
You are laughably ignorant. Get your history straight.
> I'm beginning to feel like a square dance caller, whose job is to call
> the steps after the fact.
That's exactly what you're doing with history. And badly, too.
More moronic gibberish. As I said earlier, looks like 2004 is going to be a
banner year for morons on hlas.
TR
Peter Farey
Christine Cooper wrote:
>
> Marlovians?
>
> Farey,
More old-time memories. At school I was always addressed
as 'Farey' both by teachers and all except my very closest
friends. As far as I recall, that was the last time this
happened, until Elizabeth Weir arrived here, apparently
wanting to seem all macho and as tough as any of us guys
- and achieving quite the opposite effect, I'm afraid.
I sign myself 'Peter', (but add an 'F.' to distinguish
myself from any other Peters that may be around at the
time), and this really is how I prefer to be addressed.
And if you don't, you're 'Susan' from now on, OK!
> you encouraged me to post this thing.
> Surely, you have something to offer?
Well I may have, although this is not something to which
I have given that much thought. Originally, you did indeed
speak of: "a question I have about the motive of each of
the various candidates for writing Richard II, (inexplic-
able as to most candidates in my uneducated mind)".
To which I said: "Do ask the question. It sounds quite
interesting".
When it appeared, however, it had become transmuted to:
"I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would
have written Richard II." You will, I am sure, understand
why I felt unable to contribute any worthwhile answer to
thas question!
Now, however, you say "Perhaps I should have phrased the
question more as to why ANY of the candidates would have
written Richard II?", and this is something which I do
feel able to say something about, even if it is, at this
stage, only off the top of my head! Much of it is, as I
readily admit, pure speculation.
Marlowe arrived in London in 1587, with *Tamburlaine the
Great* (part one) under his belt and (I suspect) quite a
bit of part two as well, which (if necessary) he then
completed and which appeared in 1588. The two went down
a treat, and the idea of a 'continuing story' - one play
after another - was born. (I stand to be corrected if
this was not the first time it had happened!).
With the defeat of the Spanish Armada, however, a play
representing a similarly famous naval victory was needed,
so at the end of 1588 *Edward III* and his victory at
Sluys was presented. (As an aside - there are so many
reasons for believing that Marlowe wrote this that it
is completely separate in my mind from the 'Shakespeare
authorship' question).
Given the success of the two-part *Tamburlaine*, but
realizing that a completely different saga (The Wars of
the Roses) started with the death of Edward III, he
decided to write the 'prequel' to it, with *Edward II*,
probably in 1589. He took huge risks with this, showing
a degenerate king, manipulated by his favorites, who
abdicates, but, having tried to regain the crown, is in
the end (literally!) murdered. Apparently the play went
ahead with no problem.
The two-part design did seem to be a winner, so the next
thing he tried was a play called "The First Part of the
Contention of the two Noble Houses of York and Lancaster",
followed almost immediately by the second part, "The
True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York and the Good King
Henry the Sixth". (1590-91?)
People wanted more, so a prequel "Henry the Sixth" was
cobbled together by various writers (including Marlowe)
for the opening of Henslowe's new "Rose" in 1592. Again,
this was successful, so he started work immediately
on the next part of the story, *Richard III*, but fate
intervened, and before it was finished he was 'dead'.
(Between times, he had, of course, done plays on other
topics that appealed to him - *Doctor Faustus*, *The
Jew of Malta* and *The Massacre at Paris*)
Fascinated by the Machiavellianism of characters such
as Ferneze (JoM) and de Guise (MaP) he had decided to
extend almost to the limit this same characteristic,
which had begun to appear in the Gloucester of *Richard
Duke of York*, and would indeed reach fruition (written
posthumously!) with the same character in *Richard III*.
Having completed a highly successful four-play series,
he would therefore now have the confidence to go back
to the point at which he had stopped last time - the
war between the descendents of Edward III, the War of
the Roses: *Richard II*, *Henry IV*, (two parts for this)
and *Henry V*, thus taking it up to where the *Henry VI*
series had started. It was perhaps fortuitous (or maybe
not?) that his wanting to make a start on this coincided
with the appearance of Samuel Daniel's "The First Four
Books of the Civil Wars" in 1595.
The project was interrupted, of course. *A Midsummer
Night's Dream*, ordered for the marriage of Sir George
Carey's daughter in February 1595/6, came before he could
make a start on *Henry IV*, and the Queen's own command
seems to have required the trivial *Merry Wives of
Windsor* before he could get started on part two. By the
end of 1598, however, he had completed the lot, with
*Henry V*.
As to whether he had any qualms about writing *Richard II*,
I doubt it very much indeed. Having got away with *Edward
II* there seems no reason at all for him to have been
worried. That they were asked to delete the abdication
scene (if indeed he knew anything at all about that) may
well have come as quite a surprise. But, having done so,
what other problem would be thought to remain - at least
before 1601?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Greg Reynolds
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3FEE94D7...@core.com>...
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > > "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would have written
> > > > Richard II.
> >
> > Sorry, but there is no evidence that de Vere had any
> > familiarity at all with any play written by Shakespeare.
> > Conjecture is not exactly science.
> >
> > > The 'logical arguments' as to why ANYONE would
> > > have been allowed to write the play are difficult to
> > > state. Strats (and the supporters of all other
> > > candidates) duck the issue -- all the time.
>
> *******
>
> I see that now, from the number of responses I've received, as opposed
> to responses involving Bacon/bacon and/or Shakespeare's sexual
> preference. Perhaps I should have phrased the question more as to why
> ANY of the candidates would have written Richard II?
You will have to pay attention to understand things here.
They are not candidates and there is no scheduled election.
Do not call Oxford or Marlowe or Bacon "candidates."
Hey, for that matter, do not call Derby a "running mate."
They did not write Shakespeare's works and they died
wholly unaware that a 20th/21st century cottage industry
would spring up to accredit them. I call them suggested surrogates
because that is their achieved status in this ahistorical discussion
known as the authorship issue. Each surrogate requires a
separate conspiracy that was somehow undetected through two
regimes. (My own condemnations of their indignant scenarios
go unanswered because I pop their stupid bubbles all day and they
want to live in a peaceful world where Shakespeare is illiterate and
they are brilliant reinterpreters of their fractured grasp of history.
One such so-called "society" even published its own intent to rewrite
literary history and they stand around non-plussed with no clue
as to how inappropriate they appear. No, really!)
Richard II was likely written at the request of Shakespeare's patron,
the Lord Chamberlain, who answered to the Queen.
It is not clear precisely who was Lord Chamberlain at the moment that
Richard II was written, because one Lord Chamberlain, Henry Carey
died in '96 and his son, George Carey was not named Lord Chamberlain
for nine months, but technicality notwithstanding, both of these
men patronized Shakespeare's troupe and both answered to the queen.
The play was a history lesson. The selection of material was ultimately the
crown's, as evidenced by a full time Office of Revels that had to
approve all material and by the lack of evidence that any Shakespeare
play was ever rejected on any grounds whatsoever.
Keep in mind this dramatization is an adaptation of a well known
existing source.
> > Look who is talking.
> > The author and his troupe were not implicated in the Essex rebellion.
> >
> > Are you pretending, Paul, that you are explaining anything? This
> > is your opportunity.
> >
> > But the entire situation was so moot, Elizabeth herself is
> > paraphrased as saying "I am Richard, know ye not that?" because
> > it was so inconsequential she wound up having to explain it.
> >
> *******
>
> I don't see how that conclusion follows from the context of the
> conversation. She had the inventory in her lap, and it appears to me
> that the issue weighed heavily on her mind.
The play was not incendiary. The queen was not offended by the play.
She had likely seen the play in 1595 or 1596. The play was about
six years old when the rebellion was staged. Only Essex thought it
would help incite the London populace to join him in his coup. Only
Oxfordians pretend this was so monumental and important that the
author was at any risk.
Here is an analogy for you to understand it better...
Suppose you hated a girl in your school and so you had a
party and you rented the videotape "Carrie" to get everyone
to hate the girl and mock her. But no one reacted the way you
wanted.
Would Stephen King be implicated? Would he have a lot of
explaining to do?
Don't let Oxfordians reinvent history for you.
> > Shakespeare did not write the play to inflame a riot and
> > his patron obviously did not hold him in any jeopardy.
> I tried to make it clear that I knew that the play was already old
> when revived, so you're side-stepping.
You are very difficult to understand, though, Christine.
(Do people tell you that?)
You said above that the queen had "her inventory in her lap."
Only you know what you're talking about, so don't blame me
when you rattle off your incomprehensible colloquialisms.
SO, I am not side-stepping (maybe your inventory is in your lap!).
> I asked what would Oxford's
> [Will Shakspere] [any other candidate]
Really, I hope you're through referring to suggested surrogates
as "candidates." These people did not ask for your attention
and we have no idea how they would react to being told they
wrote these plays.
> most probable motive be for
> writing it? In fact, you're both side-stepping.
The history plays were written as political documentaries to
educate and entertain, I believe. Richard was a weak king, but
Elizabeth was not, so this play was not written to evoke any
misgivings about her reign. The drama was adapted from Raphael
Holinshed's "Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland." The
edition Shakespeare used was published in 1587, seven years
after the death of Holinshed, and that edition was edited in
part by historian John Stow--yet Stow was not implicated in the
Essex Rebellion either, believe it or not!!!!!
Essex was an idiot, remember. This was not a clever undertaking.
(Just as Richard was no Elizabeth, Essex was no Bolingbroke!)
> > > > 1) De Vere was already dependent on his pension from Elizabeth as
> > > > early as 1586.
> >
> > There is no indication that de Vere ever heard of the play.
> > The derelict was a social outcast, long past his prime, and
> > not known for any theatre presence after the 1580s, and though
> > his boy's companies played into the 90s, his name was not
> > mentioned.
> >
> > Only modernday Oxfordians relate him to theatre after the
> > 1580s and they use their imaginations instead of evidence.
> >
> > > The play was probably written in the 1570s --
> >
> > No, the play relied on Holinshed's 2nd edition (1587)
> > and an epic poem "The Civil Wars Between the Two Houses
> > of York and Lancaster" by Samuel Daniel published
> > in 1595.
> >
> **********
>
> Is there no response from the Stratfordians on this contention?
Stratfordians present history. This is history.
> > "Probably" is an Oxfordian word which means "I will now falsify"
> >
> > > perhaps early versions of it in the late 1560s,
> >
> > If Paul Crowley knew whatever it is he is talking about, he
> > would tell us if it was the 70s or the 60s instead of explaining
> > that it is either or both. Pure unadulterated mush from the
> > mouth of a learned Oxfordian. Leave it at the curb next time and
> > save everyone the bother, Paul. you are making crap up and you
> > know you have not one single way of showing that Oxford
> > ever even heard of the play.
> >
> > > so the 'pension' is hardly an issue, as such.
> >
> > Any conclusion drawn from Paul's wide variance of a non-answer
> > is essentially a worthless stab in the dark that satisfies him and
> > leaves the entire question untouched because he is a typical loudmouth
> > Oxfordian with nothing but guesswork and a pompous verve.
> >
> > > > The pension is revocable, either a) to keep him from
> > > > selling it?, or b) to keep him on a leash?. So, why would he risk
> > > > angering her?
> >
> > He was handed the money each year in order to patronize the arts and it
> > didn't go very far. That explains the many dedications made to him
> > and the zero return for all the poets.
> >
> **********
>
> Now you're lapsing into conjecture.
I believe it to be the only valid explanation.
Read the so-called 'tin letters' if you want to see
Oxford's canon. Shakespeare and company was
steadily amassing wealth off the plays, so how
stupid is it to believe the powerful Earl couldn't
just take his rightful share--WELL, he didn't
have anything to do with Shakespeare, that's why.
Simple explanations are more accurate than elaborate
concoctions that have to grow and stretch to invalidate
simple history. (Oxfordians have no explanation
for the conspiracy that wasn't known, or, the stigma of
print that was already violated by the earl's own fame as a
writer.)
> What is your source for the
> purpose of the pension?
Oxford was a patron of the arts and he patronized
writers, an adult company, and a few boys' companies.
Oxford went broke a few times. Oxford's Men (which
was just the boys' company now grown up) were
absorbed by Worcester's Men, soon after the tin letters
were being written and unanswered. (Broke patron, no?)
As Lord Great Chamberlain [please do not confuse
this title with Lord Chamberlain], he had been sought out
by poets who had dedicated their works to him in order
to gain his patronage (compensation). But he had spent the
money on his travels, lusty lifestyle, and his opulence.
So he could not patronize the many who had addressed
him.
Oxfordians call the stipend payment for the plays, which
is indefensible in light of the void of any evidence for
Oxford having written them.
But then....
...they also say a 42 year old de Vere dedicated
Venus and Adonis to a 27 year old lesser noble and
sought patronage there! This is just a dizzying display of
disregard for history and common sense.
Oxfordian explanations are made to prey upon weaker
minds than their own, but that wouldn't include you,
would it?
> +++++++++
>
> > > There is no answer -- in respect of any
> > > candidate -- except that she gave her
> > > specific permission for the play to be
> > > written.
> >
> > Paul won't be verifying any of his guesswork.
> >
> *********
>
> So, why would William Shakspere have written it? The play was
> written, the question is what was the motive of the author, and why
> would he have taken such risks?
I believe the plays were commissioned by the crown
via 1.) the Queen, 2.) the Lord Chamberlain, and
3.) the Master of Revels.
I believe King James, not Queen Elizabeth, commissioned
H8 which documents the execution of Elizabeth's mother.
>< snipped amateurish Paul bashing --not my style! ><
> > Nothing mythical about it and no one knows for sure
> > precisely where all the plays were first staged, or when.
> > Paul keeps acting he is privileged to know but he isn't.
> >
> > There is NO evidence that the Earl of Oxford ever
> > attended any Shakespeare play or had any knowledge of
> > any Shakespeare play. There is great evidence that
> > Shakespeare wrote them without his patronage, though
> > Oxford patronized other writers and troupes.
>
> ******
>
> Now Greg is side-stepping. An explanation of why Oxford didn't write
> it, doesn't explain why William Shakspere would have.
Asked and answered.
(wow, my legal terminology indicates I'm legally trained!)
>< snipped Paul bashing--not my department ><
> > Many of the plays were written after the queen died
> > and Shakespeare's company was patronized by James as
> > the King's Men. These plays included Macbeth and
> > The Tempest and others and were definitely NEVER attended
> > by the Earl of Oxford, who was dead.
>
> ******
>
> The Strats invent a new dance, the Shakespearian Side-Step?
Your inventory is in your lap.
> > > Maybe she did not care too
> > > much what happened after her reign (après
> > > moi, le deluge), and maybe she got a bit
> > > careless. The RII performance in
> > > association with the Essex rebellion must
> > > have given her a shock.
> >
> > She did not confuse the two or overreact.
> > She executed or imprisoned the rebels, not the
> > author or the players. The Chamberlain's Men
> > performed again for the queen one month later--the day
> > before Essex was beheaded.
>
> *******
>
> So, under the circumstances, at best isn't that an indication (not
> proof) that she knew nobody connected with the Chamberlain's men wrote
> the play).
She knew since 1596 that it was written by Shakespeare.
She likely had seen it performed, because it was a very
popular play.
Again, your are falling under the Oxfordian corruption of history.
The queen did not blame the play or the author.
> > WOW, big shock, Paul. You can't account for
> > Oxford at this time but we know what Essex,
> > the Queen, and Shakespeare were all doing.
> >
> > The play was already passe--not much of a rabble-
> > rouser. The theatre was the secret meeting place
> > for the rebels but sitting through the play didn't
> > prove to be so inspiring.
> >
> ******
>
> One, two, shuffle, shuffle
Prove me wrong, Stinky Goo-head.
> > It is an Oxfordian myth that the author was to be
> > punished. The Queen laughed at the hothead Essex
> > who had fallen from favor a few times before (he
> > even drew his sword once when Elizabeth slapped
> > his face, the idiot). No way would the Queen blame
> > her own personal playwright for the rebellion.
> >
> *****
>
> One more time, then why the conversation with Francis Bacon?
I neither know nor care.
> Elizabeth was obviously concerned.
> Speaking of Elizabeth, why haven't we heard from her on this thread?
I'm real tired of your grandstanding. I won't
make time again for your stubborn inability
to assimilate the known details.
I hereby sentence you to five years of Oxfordianism;
you are to believe their hokey inventions and you are
to converse like the drunken adolescent you are
impersonating here.
> > Oxfordians provide no detail to make their version
> > plausible, but as always the history is easily understood
> > without the Oxfordian clutter.
> >
> > Paul cannot show that Oxford ever even heard of the play
> > or attended it. And he cannot show any reason to believe
> > Oxford wrote any of Shakespeare's plays.
> >
> *****
>
> One more time, why would William Shakespeare have risked writing it?
I don't see any risk beyond financial, and hey, he had a dynamite patron!
> (given the sort of thing that happened to Ben Jonson)
> I'm beginning to feel like a square dance caller, whose job is to call
> the steps after the fact.
No wonder everyone is walking out on you.
>< snip ><
> > The Queen was close to Shakespeare, not Oxford.
> > Oxford was a failed wool/oil/tin/fruit entrepreneur and had wasted
> > all his good favor by this time.
>
> *****
>
> Where are your sources that the Queen was "close to Shakespeare?"
She patronized his company as did her successor.
That is, she was his royal client for about ten years.
Money talks, no?
> Letters? Apocrypha? A painting of them playing chess together?
Jonson said she was taken by his work.
Or do you ignore eyewitness accounts when they bash your version?
> Did she grant him any lands or other favours?
Cash and protection is what patrons offered.
> Allow him to dedicate plays to her?
You have your inventory in your lap.
> > Paul and Oxford may be confused, but the Queen
> > saw no great significance--in fact the Chamberlain's
> > Men were not even summoned, they sent a representative
> > to explain their involvement in the February 8 staging.
> >
> ******
>
> Meaning if she didn't call the person William Shakespeare on the
> carpet, then she knew he didn't write the play?
Asked and answered.
>< snipped amateurish Paul bashing ><
> > It was an ill-conceived event. The rebels got drunk instead of
> > rabid. Essex was an egomaniac on his last legs. Wouldn't
> > Coriolanus be a better play to show a coup was due?
> >
> > > > 3) The rivalry was between the Cecils and Devereux.
> >
> > Devereaux is Essex, of course.
>
> *****
>
> Duh, uh.
I'll take that as a yes.
> > Burghley (Cecil) won the power struggles.
> >
> > > > How does De Vere
> > > > fit into that?
> > >
> > > Not especially relevant.
>
> *****
>
> Would be if he wrote the play.
Left that little Paul-bashing in! You go, woman.
> > De Vere's relevence was ten+ years past any significance at all.
> > He shot his wad in 1588 and was never again trusted or respected.
> > In addition to his mining failures at this moment, his peers were
> > refusing him the garter. He was frittering away all good will, his
> > family was disowning him, he was becoming destitute having
> > liquidated all his holdings, and he was a sickly, desperate, recluse.
> >
> > Meanwhile, Shakespeare was publicly thriving.
> >
> > > They would have
> > > opposed the greater public openness --
> > > especially as regards printing -- that the
> > > Queen and de Vere preferred towards the
> > > end of her reign, but that's about all.
> >
> > Paul, like all Oxfordians, cannot mention any
> > positive references to Oxford after 1588 and cannot
> > show that de Vere was familiar with ANY Shakespeare
> > play.
> >
> *******
>
> One more time, then why did William Shakespeare write it?
He probably earned a lot of money for it.
WHY, Oh Why, oh why did Stephen King write "Carrie?"
> > > > Oxford was "old money," but that doesn't mean he was
> > > > in the line of succession.
> >
> > OK, but some Oxfordians make him Elizabeth's son
> > which is as ignorant and unverifiable as calling him the
> > writer of Shakespeare's plays.
> >
>
> *******
>
> Well, it would at least give a small hint of a motive.
Now you are badgering the witness--or whatever that furry little
inventory is in your lap.
>< snipped the rest of Cooper's redundancies.
For a lawyer, she sure can't state a case or
acknowledge evidence or cross examine a
testimony ><
> Christine
Life is short--your posts are long.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley
> > > That meant that she knew the
> > > author very well and trusted him implicitly.
> Did King James trust Ben Jonson implicitly when he wrote Eastward Ho!
> (?)
We don't have the text of "Eastward Ho!",
do we? So we can't know what problem
it raised. Though it hardly depicted the
dethonement of an unsatisfactory king.
> If Elizabeth trusted the author, then why was she badgering Francis
> Bacon about the author's implications?
She did not badger Bacon about the play,
*Richard II* or its author. Or have you
some information to the effect that she did?
> > > > 2) Some claim that the pension was some kind of "Royal Salary" (my
> > > > words), for De Vere to act as the Court's propaganda merchant (so to
> > > > speak). If so, how does Richard II fit into that concept?
> > >
> > > It has no place as 'propaganda'. The
> > > canonical plays were NOT written for
> > > public performance -- that's a Strat myth.
>
> That's circular reasoning. So is Paul implying the play was pure
> entertainment?
It was 'entertainment' for the Queen and
the royal court. NOT for the common
public.
The plays were NOT written for the common
public. Got that?
The plays were NOT written for the common
public. They may, towards the end of
Elizabeth's reign have been performed in
public -- to some limited extent. Those
performances were carefully watched. The
Queen tells us (in late 1601) that *Richard II*
had been played 40 times in open streets
and houses -- she'd been keeping a careful
count.
> > > They were written to entertain the Queen
> > > and the court. Later some (or many?) were
> > > performed in public -- but only after they
> > > had ceased to be of immediate relevance
> > > (as many were) and the Queen felt (or saw)
> > > that such performances would constitute
> > > little threat.
> So, what's the argument that it was of little relevance, if either it
> was an expression of the Queen "thinking out loud," or of Essex'
> not-so-innermost thoughts?
I do not understand your question.
Please re-state in a different way.
> Christine
If you have questions for me, please address
a separate post. Greg's airy vaporizings get
in the way of any clear presentation or
thinking -- and are best completely ignored.
Paul.
Greg Reynolds
It was printed in quarto (Q1) by Richard Wise in 1597
and TWICE again (Q2 and Q3) in 1598.
The Queen's court was buying them all, then Paul?
> The plays were NOT written for the common
> public. Got that?
>
> The plays were NOT written for the common
> public. They may, towards the end of
> Elizabeth's reign have been performed in
> public -- to some limited extent. Those
> performances were carefully watched. The
> Queen tells us (in late 1601) that *Richard II*
> had been played 40 times in open streets
> and houses -- she'd been keeping a careful
> count.
Open streets and houses full of the royal courtiers?
This self-contradiction is called Oxfordian logic.
> > > > They were written to entertain the Queen
> > > > and the court. Later some (or many?) were
> > > > performed in public -- but only after they
> > > > had ceased to be of immediate relevance
> > > > (as many were) and the Queen felt (or saw)
> > > > that such performances would constitute
> > > > little threat.
>
> > So, what's the argument that it was of little relevance, if either it
> > was an expression of the Queen "thinking out loud," or of Essex'
> > not-so-innermost thoughts?
>
> I do not understand your question.
> Please re-state in a different way.
Paul, she is desperately trying to utilize your
own wording that the author was so close
to the Queen that this play was tantamount to
her thinking out loud. (Yeah, I'd disown it too
if it was my monstrosity.) Maybe YOU need to
restate it. Here is what you and Christine can't
comprehend, which are your words verbatim:
"She was passionately interested in all the
issues it [RII] raised and discussed. She was
so close to the author, that it almost
constitutes her 'thinking-aloud'."
Total crap from an Oxfordian master.
What WERE you saying?
> > Christine
>
> If you have questions for me, please address
> a separate post. Greg's airy vaporizings get
> in the way of any clear presentation or
> thinking -- and are best completely ignored.
Don't blame me. Explain how Shakespeare was so
close to the Queen that RII almost constituted her
thinking out loud.
Show Christine a little courtesy.
> Paul.
Another bubble popped -- Happy New Year!
Greg Reynolds
Christine Cooper
> Christine Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Marlovians?
> >
> > Farey,
>
> More old-time memories. At school I was always addressed
> as 'Farey' both by teachers and all except my very closest
> friends. As far as I recall, that was the last time this
> happened, until Elizabeth Weir arrived here, apparently
> wanting to seem all macho and as tough as any of us guys
> - and achieving quite the opposite effect, I'm afraid.
>
> I sign myself 'Peter', (but add an 'F.' to distinguish
> myself from any other Peters that may be around at the
> time), and this really is how I prefer to be addressed.
> And if you don't, you're 'Susan' from now on, OK!
>
> >
Dear Peter F.
My deepest apologies, most venerable one.
Perhaps I should also apologize for being so presumptuous as to
having previously addressed you by your first name
before having been invited to do so.
My habit of referring to others by their last name
in the context of discourse stems more from habit,
than any desire to imitate the peacock or from disrespect.
(as well as the need to distinguish you from other Peters hanging about)
Since I entered law school in 1991, no one has addressed me
professionally by anything other than my last name,
(with the single exception of other female attorneys
who are not [presently] acting as opposing counsels.
Those (few) male attorneys I call "friend" unanimously
address me as "Coop," which I find both amusing and curious,
as none of them know each other.
(The single exception is 74 years old, and he calls me Ms. Cooper)
Addressing a person by something other than their given name
became common among my children's friends within the past 15 years or so.
As "Yo, Thompson," was to my oldest son, now aged 30,
so my younger son's friends now commonly address him
as, "J-Dogg...Sup Muh-Fukka!" ("J-Dog," aka Jefferson, is 20)
Although I understand that this form of address is a synonym
for "U-dah-man," I would not presume to address your
most respectful personage as "P-Dogg," at this point in our relationship.
I will digest that part of your response that refers to
the matter in question and give you feed back in due time.
(I'll get back to you on that)
Sincerely, Christine
P.S. "J-Dogg" was once offered a full scholarship at Houston Ballet,
but decided he wanted to be a chef, (most likely because he likes the
den-of-thieves-and-pirates culture of the commercial kitchen).
But, I'm given to understand that the form of address
is common among the young men of the present day,
regardless of race, creed, or socio-economic status.
Christine Cooper
> "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45b7371d.03123...@posting.google.com...
> > Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
> news:<3FEE94D7...@core.com>...
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:45b7371d.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> >
> > > Elizabeth allowed the plays to be presented publicly
> > > and employed the Office of Revels for the purpose
> > > of overseeing all PUBLIC content. The Queen allowed
> > > many theatres to be open, which was unprecedented
> > > in London (and just south outside city jurisdiction)..
> > >
> > > Many plays were written for occasions such as weddings
> > > or state events such as visits of allied states.
> > >
> > ******
> >
> > More sidestepping. If the play was a paraphrase of Elizabeth's
> > innermost thoughts and concerns, (thinking out loud),
>
> Your thinking out loud -- or silently -- seems to be faulty. Who besides you
> contends the play was a paraphrase of E's thoughts?
++ I didn't say that, Mr. Crowley did.
>
> why would she allow it to be played publicly?
>
> Uh, because your contention is wrong? Has that ever crossed your mind?
>
> >
+++ Please clarify: Which contention?
(I want to be sure that I said what YOU think I said, given that I
didn't say RII was Elizabeth "thinking out loud.")
> >
> > One more time, why would William Shakespeare have risked writing it?
> > (given the sort of thing that happened to Ben Jonson)
>
> You are laughably ignorant. Get your history straight.
>
> > I'm beginning to feel like a square dance caller, whose job is to call
> > the steps after the fact.
>
> That's exactly what you're doing with history. And badly, too.
>
> >
++ Are you saying Ben Jonson didn't do any jail time over Eastward
Ho! (?)
It's all right with me if it's not true, but I'd just like to know for
sure.
I'm not implying that Elizabeth jailed Ben Jonson, I'm trying to
figure out why James I would jail Ben Jonson, but Elizabeth wouldn't
jail Shakespeare.
How are the two situations different?
Why the discussion between Elizabeth and Francis Bacon if she wasn't
concerned about the implications?
> > +++++++
> > THX
> >
> > Christine
Paul Crowley
> > It was 'entertainment' for the Queen and
> > the royal court. NOT for the common
> > public.
>
> It was printed in quarto (Q1) by Richard Wise in 1597
> and TWICE again (Q2 and Q3) in 1598.
>
> The Queen's court was buying them all, then Paul?
Actually the print runs were so small --
(as was the play-reading 'public') that
such an idea is quite feasible.
However, I'm sure that they were on
public sale, and were bought by some
of the more discerning members of the
middle-classes -- student lawyers and
the like.
> > The plays were NOT written for the common
> > public. Got that?
> >
> > The plays were NOT written for the common
> > public. They may, towards the end of
> > Elizabeth's reign have been performed in
> > public -- to some limited extent. Those
> > performances were carefully watched. The
> > Queen tells us (in late 1601) that *Richard II*
> > had been played 40 times in open streets
> > and houses -- she'd been keeping a careful
> > count.
>
> Open streets and houses full of the royal courtiers?
Read what I wrote -- some of the plays
were performed (to a limited extent) for
public audiences towards the end of
her reign. But they were not _written_
for it. Read the texts sometime. It's
easy to see, even for a dopey Strat.
What I wrote seems so clear to me that I
can't see how I can express it any better.
You followed it -- what better proof could
I have?
> Don't blame me. Explain how Shakespeare was so
> close to the Queen that RII almost constituted her
> thinking out loud.
They knew each other's thinking -- and
agreed so closely, that when Oxford
expressed ideas (as 'Shakespeare') he
was often stating the opinions of the
Queen. Much of RII is about the role
of kingship (or the monarchy) and when
and how a weak monarch should resign
-- or whether or not he (or she) should
do so at all.
Nothing like that would have been
tolerated -- or even thinkable -- coming
from some commoner. We see that in
the case of John Hayward, who did
nothing except provide a factual
description of the events of the reign.
He ended up in the Tower, on an
indefinite sentence, fearing death at
any time.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
news:ompIb.2589$HR....@news.indigo.ie...
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3FF20352...@core.com...
>
> > > It was 'entertainment' for the Queen and
> > > the royal court. NOT for the common
> > > public.
> >
> > It was printed in quarto (Q1) by Richard Wise in 1597
"As it hath beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde
Chamberlaine his Seruants."
> > and TWICE again (Q2 and Q3) in 1598.
"As it hath beene publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lorde
Chamberlaine his Seruants. By William Shake-speare."
> >
> > The Queen's court was buying them all, then Paul?
>
> Actually the print runs were so small --
Crowley pulls his famous time machine out of his ass again.
> (as was the play-reading 'public')
And again.
that
> such an idea is quite feasible.
Anything is feasible to someone with Crowley's mentality.
> However, I'm sure that they were on
> public sale,
And they were "publikely acted!"
> and were bought by some
> of the more discerning members of the
> middle-classes -- student lawyers and
> the like.
>
> > > The plays were NOT written for the common
> > > public. Got that?
> > >
> > > The plays were NOT written for the common
> > > public. They may, towards the end of
> > > Elizabeth's reign have been performed in
> > > public -- to some limited extent. Those
> > > performances were carefully watched. The
> > > Queen tells us (in late 1601) that *Richard II*
> > > had been played 40 times in open streets
> > > and houses -- she'd been keeping a careful
> > > count.
> >
> > Open streets and houses full of the royal courtiers?
>
> Read what I wrote -- some of the plays
Those "some" being, according to the historical record, H6, R3, Titus,
Shrew, R&J, R2, MND, KJ, MoV, 1H4, 2H4, Ado, H5, Hamlet and Wives.
> were performed (to a limited extent) for
As opposed to an unlimited extent, yes.
> public audiences towards the end of
> her reign.
Depending what you mean by "towards the end of her reign." Fifteen years
before the end, in some cases.
> But they were not _written_
> for it. Read the texts sometime. It's
> easy to see, even for a dopey Strat.
But most people aren't as stupid as you, and weren't even in Elizabethan
times.
Crowley is so full of shit I don't know why anybody bothers to answer him
anymore.
TR
Greg Reynolds
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:3FF20352...@core.com...
>
> > > It was 'entertainment' for the Queen and
> > > the royal court. NOT for the common
> > > public.
> >
> > It was printed in quarto (Q1) by Richard Wise in 1597
> > and TWICE again (Q2 and Q3) in 1598.
> >
> > The Queen's court was buying them all, then Paul?
>
> Actually the print runs were so small --
> (as was the play-reading 'public') that
> such an idea is quite feasible.
You have no idea the size of the print runs,
DO YOU? You are lulling yourself into
complacency. AGAIN.
Meanwhile, you contend it was played before
the court in the 1570s or 1560s.
> However, I'm sure that they were on
> public sale, and were bought by some
> of the more discerning members of the
> middle-classes -- student lawyers and
> the like.
If you had a student paying you for the scant
education in Elizabethan lore that you offer, you'd be
sued for malpractice.
You don't know the print run quantities and you
don't know who bought them and you are a
typical Oxfordian self-expert. You make it up simply
to satisfy yourself.
That's why Oxfordians surround themselves with
Oxfordians--it is like talking to children.
> > > The plays were NOT written for the common
> > > public. Got that?
> > >
> > > The plays were NOT written for the common
> > > public. They may, towards the end of
> > > Elizabeth's reign have been performed in
> > > public -- to some limited extent. Those
> > > performances were carefully watched. The
> > > Queen tells us (in late 1601) that *Richard II*
> > > had been played 40 times in open streets
> > > and houses -- she'd been keeping a careful
> > > count.
> >
> > Open streets and houses full of the royal courtiers?
>
> Read what I wrote -- some of the plays
> were performed (to a limited extent) for
> public audiences towards the end of
> her reign.
You forgot to verify what you wrote.
You are also contradicting yourself because
all of a sudden you have this play popular
at the end of her reign because you have
neglected your invented lie that it was
written in the 1560s or 70s. Verify that!
You can't even keep your own story straight
because you are manufacturing it as we speak.
> But they were not _written_
> for it. Read the texts sometime. It's
> easy to see, even for a dopey Strat.
There is no indication that Oxford ever heard
of any Shakespeare play, or that he ever attended
any Shakespeare play.
That is where your argument stands at present.
You can assume all you like but don't insult your
audience by assuming they go along with you. You
need to substantiate, but Oxfordians leave that part
out. It's hard enough making it up without having
to substantiate it, too.
YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW it and YOU ASKED for
the clarification of your OWN wording and YOU are
the one with an open discussion with Christine Cooper
so let's see you wriggle out over there. (I'm laughing
that you told her to change the name of the thread
because you couldn't answer my criticisms--good one.)
I never expect any response from
you and when it does come it is just more of this
trite, suggestive hogwash--you never counter an
argument or attack any would-be errors on my part.
You really know how to make a guy feel intelligent!
> > Don't blame me. Explain how Shakespeare was so
> > close to the Queen that RII almost constituted her
> > thinking out loud.
>
> They knew each other's thinking -- and
> agreed so closely, that when Oxford
> expressed ideas (as 'Shakespeare') he
> was often stating the opinions of the
> Queen.
It is funny that you demonstrate such a
hostile distrust of academics and scholarship,
but when left to your own thoughts, you run
on and on with no regard for substance or
verification. Here you are demonstrating Crowley
divining Oxford divining Elizabeth--and you
somehow keep a straight face! You are
drowning in your own self-satisfaction.
Do you think you are making sense somehow?
When the earl left court for seven years, was he still
co-thinking with the Queen the whole time? Why
couldn't he cothink her into granting a tin mining
franchise which he so desperately sought?
> Much of RII is about the role
> of kingship (or the monarchy) and when
> and how a weak monarch should resign
> -- or whether or not he (or she) should
> do so at all.
>
> Nothing like that would have been
> tolerated -- or even thinkable -- coming
> from some commoner.
Holinshed?
You are so busy demeaning Shakespeare that
you can't admit he only rose in status to become
a gentleman and a member of the royal household
while Oxford only disgraced himself into oblivion.
And you still won't show any reason to believe Oxford
ever heard of any of Shakespeare's plays.
Why is your hunch based on nothing so comfortable
to you when history shows it is folly?
> We see that in
> the case of John Hayward, who did
> nothing except provide a factual
> description of the events of the reign.
Nothing?
Dr. Hayward's book (which predated the rebellion
by two years) was seditious in that it was dedicated to
Essex, and hinted at an intended change for
"both for private direction and for affairs of state"
and this infuriated the Queen. She demanded to
know who was behind any plot on her. She knew it
went beyond Hayward (and she wasn't worried it
was a playwright, being familiar already with the play).
> He ended up in the Tower, on an
> indefinite sentence, fearing death at
> any time.
Paul, she found out that it was Essex, so she went after Essex.
That Shakespeare was in any jeopardy is Oxfordian
fabrication, and that only Oxford as Shakespeare could
escape the Queen's invented wrath is total nonsense.
Four years later, Dr. Hayward was tutoring King James'
children, so he must have escaped all the dangers.
You are simply misinterpreting history to make
Oxford look like some unique participant when he in fact had
nothing to do with the rebellion and nothing to do with the writing
of the play.
Divine that!
Greg Reynolds
(Now, be a good guy and tell Christine the truth or I will.)
Tom Reedy
I forgot T&C, and probably a few others.
>
> > were performed (to a limited extent) for
>
> As opposed to an unlimited extent, yes.
>
> > public audiences towards the end of
> > her reign.
>
> Depending what you mean by "towards the end of her reign." Fifteen years
> before the end, in some cases.
Whoops. Ten years.
TR
Peter Farey
Christine Cooper wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > Christine Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > Marlovians?
> > >
> > > Farey,
> >
> > More old-time memories. At school I was always addressed
> > as 'Farey' both by teachers and all except my very closest
> > friends. As far as I recall, that was the last time this
> > happened, until Elizabeth Weir arrived here, apparently
> > wanting to seem all macho and as tough as any of us guys
> > - and achieving quite the opposite effect, I'm afraid.
> >
> > I sign myself 'Peter', (but add an 'F.' to distinguish
> > myself from any other Peters that may be around at the
> > time), and this really is how I prefer to be addressed.
> > And if you don't, you're 'Susan' from now on, OK!
> Dear Peter F.
>
> My deepest apologies, most venerable one.
>
> Perhaps I should also apologize for being so presumptuous
> as to having previously addressed you by your first name
> before having been invited to do so.
What's with the sarcasm, Coop? Seemed like a quite reasonable
(and friendly) request to me. No hostility required.
That would be nice. I look forward to it.
> Sincerely, Christine
>
> P.S. "J-Dogg" was once offered a full scholarship at
> Houston Ballet, but decided he wanted to be a chef, (most
> likely because he likes the den-of-thieves-and-pirates
> culture of the commercial kitchen). But, I'm given to
> understand that the form of address is common among the
> young men of the present day, regardless of race, creed,
> or socio-economic status.
Well I never.
Terry Ross
> "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:45b7371d.03123...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > That meant that she knew the
> > > > author very well and trusted him implicitly.
>
> > Did King James trust Ben Jonson implicitly when he wrote Eastward Ho!
> > (?)
>
> We don't have the text of "Eastward Ho!", do we?
This was an alarming question. Thinking Paul must know something (let's
be fair, he must know SOMETHING), I rushed to the bookshelves -- but
fortunately no burglars had come during the night to plunder my valuables,
and my Revels edition of *Eastward Ho* was right where it should have
been.
So the answer is, yes "we" (or at least "I") have the text of *Eastward
Ho*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Reedy
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0312310632150.18236@mail...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:45b7371d.03123...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > > That meant that she knew the
> > > > > author very well and trusted him implicitly.
> >
> > > Did King James trust Ben Jonson implicitly when he wrote Eastward Ho!
> > > (?)
> >
> > We don't have the text of "Eastward Ho!", do we?
>
> This was an alarming question. Thinking Paul must know something (let's
> be fair, he must know SOMETHING),
I think you're probably being overly optimistic.
TR
Paul Crowley
> > We don't have the text of "Eastward Ho!", do we?
>
> This was an alarming question. Thinking Paul must know something (let's
> be fair, he must know SOMETHING), I rushed to the bookshelves -- but
> fortunately no burglars had come during the night to plunder my valuables,
> and my Revels edition of *Eastward Ho* was right where it should have
> been.
>
> So the answer is, yes "we" (or at least "I") have the text of *Eastward
> Ho*.
Just checking, Terry, to see if you were still
paying attention. Glad to see you are not
falterin'.
I was thinking of the 'Isle of Dogs'.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:APqIb.26945$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > It was 'entertainment' for the Queen and
> > > > the royal court. NOT for the common
> > > > public.
> > >
> > > It was printed in quarto (Q1) by Richard Wise in 1597
>
> "As it hath beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde
> Chamberlaine his Seruants."
What ELSE do you think would be said?
How about this?
"First written for the private entertainment
of the Queen and Court in 1568"
Would that have fitted in with the putative
authorship of the Stratman?
> > > and TWICE again (Q2 and Q3) in 1598.
>
> "As it hath beene publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lorde
> Chamberlaine his Seruants. By William Shake-speare."
What ELSE do you think would be said?
> > > The Queen's court was buying them all, then Paul?
> >
> > Actually the print runs were so small --
>
> Crowley pulls his famous time machine out of his ass again.
Reedy hasn't a clue about the numbers thought
to be printed. He wants someone to tell him.
> > (as was the play-reading 'public')
>
> And again.
Reedy hasn't a clue about the numbers thought
to be printed He wants someone to tell him.
> > Read what I wrote -- some of the plays
>
> Those "some" being, according to the historical record, H6, R3, Titus,
> Shrew, R&J, R2, MND, KJ, MoV, 1H4, 2H4, Ado, H5, Hamlet and Wives.
The Shrew was not printed before the Folio, and
no performances are known. Meres does not
mention it.
King John was not printed before the Folio, and
no performances are known.
The first record of most of the rest occurs only
in the very last years of Elizabeth's reign.
> > were performed (to a limited extent) for
>
> As opposed to an unlimited extent, yes.
There are records of only eight public
performances and of one short run (of H6).
Several of those are dubious (thought
possibly forged).
> Crowley is so full of shit I don't know why anybody bothers to answer him
> anymore.
Except that you don't. Fair enough, though,
you're not exceptional. The rest around
here don't answer either -- they just make
responses.
Paul.
Christine Cooper
> Christine Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > > Christine Cooper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marlovians?
> > > >
> > > > Farey,
> > >
> > > More old-time memories. At school I was always addressed
> > > as 'Farey' both by teachers and all except my very closest
> > > friends. As far as I recall, that was the last time this
> > > happened, until Elizabeth Weir arrived here, apparently
> > > wanting to seem all macho and as tough as any of us guys
> > > - and achieving quite the opposite effect, I'm afraid.
> > >
> > > I sign myself 'Peter', (but add an 'F.' to distinguish
> > > myself from any other Peters that may be around at the
> > > time), and this really is how I prefer to be addressed.
> > > And if you don't, you're 'Susan' from now on, OK!
>
>
> > Dear Peter F.
> >
> > My deepest apologies, most venerable one.
> >
> > Perhaps I should also apologize for being so presumptuous
> > as to having previously addressed you by your first name
> > before having been invited to do so.
>
> What's with the sarcasm, Coop? Seemed like a quite reasonable
> (and friendly) request to me. No hostility required.
And none intended, mein herr. I forgot my manners,
and the apology is sincere, Sir, merely phrased in the local vernacular.
> > I will digest that part of your response that refers to
> > the matter in question and give you feed back in due time.
> > (I'll get back to you on that)
>
> That would be nice. I look forward to it.
My daughter has a t-shirt that says "Easily Amused."
Would you like to borrow it for the occasion?
>
+++++++++
> >
> > P.S. "J-Dogg" was once offered a full scholarship at
> > Houston Ballet, but decided he wanted to be a chef, (most
> > likely because he likes the den-of-thieves-and-pirates
> > culture of the commercial kitchen). But, I'm given to
> > understand that the form of address is common among the
> > young men of the present day, regardless of race, creed,
> > or socio-economic status.
>
> Well I never.
>
++
Yah, Go Figure, but we're the Great Melting Pot, aren't we?
He tried ballet for a few years after I told him
Nureyev made $84,000,000.00 in his lifetime.
At the HBA audition, he accused the other boys of being "unprofessional,"
He's a high school drop-out, by the way.
He pan-sears a mean tuna-and-withered-greens, though.
I worked in the hotel & restaurant trade a few times.
Better watch how you treat the staff,
or one of them might spit in your food before he serves it.
I watched a cohort at a 4 diamond hotel
do that for Kevin Costner's first wife,
who was a particularly unpleasant person.
(I think they were here filming Tin Cup)
But I'm sure you are always correct, and so may dine in peace.
>
Christine
Symposium1
wmcc...@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>In <p36Ib.66450$4F2.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com>, ""Jacob" <pi...@nyc.rr.com>"
>wrote:
>
>> Has anyone ever seen a movie (or video) version of Richard II?
>
>I've seen the BBC series version and made-for-video version from "Bard
>Productions". There are reviews of both at:
>
> http://home.salamander.com/~wmcclain/ws-movies.html
The BBC Shakespeare Series version, possibly available at your local library,
is really worth it. It stars Derek Jacobi as Richard II and Jon Finch as
Bolingbroke/Henry IV, with Sir John Gielgud as John of Gaunt and some other
great actors and actresses.
It's the only time I've seen RII enacted. I would have seen it this year had I
been able to make the trip to London. It was at the Globe.
--Ann
Tom Reedy
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:APqIb.26945$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > > > It was 'entertainment' for the Queen and
> > > > > the royal court. NOT for the common
> > > > > public.
> > > >
> > > > It was printed in quarto (Q1) by Richard Wise in 1597
> >
> > "As it hath beene publikely acted by the right Honourable the Lorde
> > Chamberlaine his Seruants."
>
> What ELSE do you think would be said?
Since that was indeed the case, I don't expect anything else to be said.
> How about this?
>
> "First written for the private entertainment
> of the Queen and Court in 1568"
No, that didn't happen, so I wouldn't expect that to have been said.
>
> Would that have fitted in with the putative
> authorship of the Stratman?
>
> > > > and TWICE again (Q2 and Q3) in 1598.
> >
> > "As it hath beene publikely acted by the Right Honourable the Lorde
> > Chamberlaine his Seruants. By William Shake-speare."
>
> What ELSE do you think would be said?
>
> > > > The Queen's court was buying them all, then Paul?
> > >
> > > Actually the print runs were so small --
> >
> > Crowley pulls his famous time machine out of his ass again.
>
> Reedy hasn't a clue about the numbers thought
> to be printed. He wants someone to tell him.
I already know. The first edition had a run of 21,500, the second of 25,440
(there were a few spoils). The third was smaller, 18,000. There was also a
numbered signed edition restricted to the nobility, but no copies survive.
>
> > > (as was the play-reading 'public')
> >
> > And again.
>
> Reedy hasn't a clue about the numbers thought
> to be printed He wants someone to tell him.
>
> > > Read what I wrote -- some of the plays
> >
> > Those "some" being, according to the historical record, H6, R3, Titus,
> > Shrew, R&J, R2, MND, KJ, MoV, 1H4, 2H4, Ado, H5, Hamlet and Wives.
>
> The Shrew was not printed before the Folio, and
> no performances are known. Meres does not
> mention it.
The Shrew was printed in two medium-sized editions (12,500 and 10,000), but
no copies survive.
>
> King John was not printed before the Folio, and
> no performances are known.
Performances of KJ were reviewed positively by critics of the day, but
unfortunately they have not come down to us.
>
> The first record of most of the rest occurs only
> in the very last years of Elizabeth's reign.
Record? If you don't need a record I don't need no stinkin' record. If I say
it it's true unless you can prove otherwise. You can't, and you don't even
try becuase you know you can't, so therefore it happened the way I said it
did.
>
> > > were performed (to a limited extent) for
> >
> > As opposed to an unlimited extent, yes.
>
> There are records of only eight public
> performances and of one short run (of H6).
So what? How many records support your fantasy version of history? It's
inconsistant to require me to document my version when you can't document
yours. It happened the way I said it happened unless you can prove
otherwise.
> Several of those are dubious (thought
> possibly forged).
>
> > Crowley is so full of shit I don't know why anybody bothers to answer
him
> > anymore.
>
> Except that you don't.
I wasn't really naswering you. I just thought I'd throw my reply out there
unless any newbie might get the idea that you're anything but a dumb shit
who makes up things and tries to pass them off as history.
TR
Peter Farey
<Nothing about *Richard II*>
Just to remind you, Christine:
I wrote:
> > Marlowe arrived in London in 1587, with *Tamburlaine the
> > Great* (part one) under his belt and (I suspect) quite a
> > bit of part two as well, which (if necessary) he then
> > completed and which appeared in 1588. The two went down
> > a treat, and the idea of a 'continuing story' - one play
> > after another - was born. (I stand to be corrected if
> > this was not the first time it had happened!).
(I was meaning on the English stage, of course. I hadn't
forgotten the Greeks, for example).
(I think *Dido* was probably written while he was at
Cambridge).
> > Fascinated by the Machiavellianism of characters such
> > as Ferneze (JoM) and de Guise (MaP) he had decided to
> > extend almost to the limit this same characteristic,
> > which had begun to appear in the Gloucester of *Richard
> > Duke of York*, and would indeed reach fruition (written
> > posthumously!) with the same character in *Richard III*.
> >
> > Having completed a highly successful four-play series,
> > he would therefore now have the confidence to go back
> > to the point at which he had stopped last time - the
> > war between the descendents of Edward III, the War of
> > the Roses: *Richard II*, *Henry IV*, (two parts for this)
> > and *Henry V*, thus taking it up to where the *Henry VI*
> > series had started. It was perhaps fortuitous (or maybe
> > not?) that his wanting to make a start on this coincided
> > with the appearance of Samuel Daniel's "The First Four
> > Books of the Civil Wars" in 1595.
> >
> > The project was interrupted, of course. *A Midsummer
> > Night's Dream*, ordered for the marriage of Sir George
> > Carey's daughter in February 1595/6, came before he could
> > make a start on *Henry IV*,
(It's perhaps worth mentioning that I have always seen
Falstaff to large extent as having grown out of the
character of Bottom the Weaver)
> > and the Queen's own command
> > seems to have required the trivial *Merry Wives of
> > Windsor* before he could get started on part two.
(I am happy to concede, however, that this may well have
been mostly by William Shakespeare himself).
> > By the
> > end of 1598, however, he had completed the lot, with
> > *Henry V*.
> >
> > As to whether he had any qualms about writing *Richard II*,
> > I doubt it very much indeed. Having got away with *Edward
> > II* there seems no reason at all for him to have been
> > worried. That they were asked to delete the abdication
> > scene (if indeed he knew anything at all about that) may
> > well have come as quite a surprise. But, having done so,
> > what other problem would be thought to remain - at least
> > before 1601?
Looking back at your original questions, I did have a few
points to make:
1) The deposition scene was not, as you said, the 'final'
scene, but was in Act IV, Scene 1 (154-318). Although it
was omitted from the first three Quartos, this does not
necessarily mean that it was omitted in performance.
2) If any sort of propaganda was intended (and it is by no
means certain that this is so), then it is far more likely
that it would be on behalf of members of the Privy Council
rather than the Queen herself. Initially one would expect
Marlowe to have written in support of the Cecils in such
circumstances, but if Wraight's 'hunch' about *Le Doux*
is correct (and I think it is) then by the time this was
written he was more beholden to Essex than them. And such
political allegory as there may be does indeed seem to
favour Essex rather than the Cecils.
3) By the same token, we see the surviving Marlowe as a
close friend of the Bacon brothers at that time, and it is
therefore no surprise to find Francis Bacon protecting him
as the author later.
Lorenzo4344
>From: kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper)
>Date: 12/27/2003
>I want a logical argument as to why Edward De Vere would have written
>Richard II...
>As I understand the situation:
>
>1) De Vere was already dependent on his pension from Elizabeth as
>early as 1586. The pension is revocable, either a) to keep him from
>selling it?, or b) to keep him on a leash?. So, why would he risk
>angering her? I understand that it was originally played without the
>final abdication scene, but the entire Court knew the history, so
>whoever wrote it was taking a risk. The missing final scene would
>have been on the Court's mind from the beginning.
Hi, Ms Cooper. The play was originally *published* minus the abdication scene.
It didn't appear in print til 1608, and not correctly til the FF was released.
As to why it was written, the best premise I've seen is that Oxford meant the
play not as an admonition or criticism of QE's Princely style, or a suggestion
she be dethroned, but as a REwarning to Elizabeth of the potential result of
the treacheries being fomented by the Howard coterie, who, following EO's
denunciation of them in the last weeks of 1980, were nonetheless still working
to have her supplanted by Mary, QoS. This is not to omit acknowledging the
opportunity to carp about his detractors.
In the brief-chronicle-of-the-times scheme of things, the most appropriate
point would have been when Oxford was still in disfavor re A Vavasor, and the
Howard people had not yet been recognized as being precisely what he'd said
they were - conspirators against the state. (At least not openly - I have seen
speculation that QE was, how you say, "Giving them enough rope."). That would
be between summer of 1581, when his foes were again in good graces, and
December '82, post-Throckmorton, when Henry Howard et al were either busted or
ran for it. This was 4-5 years prior to EO's indeed-irrelevant-here annuity. In
this scenario, one of Eva Clark's more likely ones, I would think the play was
hatched in the early part of that time frame, nearer than not to the January,
'81 tournament in which EO successfully defended against the challenger, Philip
Howard (think Mowbray-Bolingbroke.)
Therefore, be the premise correct or no, the play was not written by EO as some
sort of salaried Minister of Literary Propaganda. I think Paul is right in
this, as regards this play, anyway. I think he's right, too, that the plays one
and all were not originally created for the general public. Many of them
eventually hit the popular stage after they were reworked in Oxford's
"retirement" and the characters and events alluded to in them presumably less
indentifiable to the great unwashed. This is very basic Oxfordianism. If you
are one of those who think there are no allusions, in Richard II, I will for
starters say Queen Elizabeth *was* Richard II - know ye not that?
Well, of course you do. It was Lambarde who didn't.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music"
A Tsar Is Born
> I see that now, from the number of responses I've received, as opposed
> to responses involving Bacon/bacon and/or Shakespeare's sexual
> preference. Perhaps I should have phrased the question more as to why
> ANY of the candidates would have written Richard II?
Having written (and had a great popular success with) the Henry VI plays and
Richard III, the playwright was called upon for connected material -- as any
successful author naturally would be. To write of the years AFTER Richard
III was a bit risky -- that was the reigning house, and reigning houses
aren't crazy about stage representation. (Illegal, in many monarchies, e.g.
the Romanovs.) So he backtracked and wrote about how the English succession
got so tangled in the first place. That meant the deposition of the
legitimate but incompetent Richard II and then the widely varying fortunes
of the House of Lancaster down to Agincourt. Perfectly rational thing to do.
(And it worked.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
P.S. to Greg: Coriolanus had not been written yet in 1601 (but you know
that); it is the last of the tragedies, ergo c. 1609; and Burghley was some
years dead -- the Cecils involved were his sons.
Kinsayder
<sympo...@aol.computer> wrote:
> It's the only time I've seen RII enacted. I would have seen it this year had I
> been able to make the trip to London. It was at the Globe.
If you're in the UK with access to BBC Four, there's a recording of
this Globe production tomorrow night (Jan 5).
From the BBC website:
RICHARD II FROM SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE
Monday 5 January 2004 8.30pm-11.55pm
BBC Four presents Shakespeare's tragedy Richard II from Shakespeare's
Globe Theatre in London. Starring Mark Rylance and directed by Tim
Carroll, this all-male interpretation aims to replicate the authentic
Shakespearean experience as accurately as possible.
This evening of live theatre is presented by Andrew Marr who is joined
by distinguished guests, Corin Redgrave, Zoe Wanamaker and Michael Wood
to discuss all aspects of the production. Razia Iqbal talks to members
of the audience.
The first in Shakespeare's second history cycle, Richard II is written
entirely in verse, making it one of the most lyrical of his plays.
The performance will be enhanced by pressing the red key on your
digital handset.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/richardII.shtml
K.
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
SNIP
>The first in Shakespeare's second history cycle, Richard II is written
>entirely in verse, making it one of the most lyrical of his plays.
>
>The performance will be enhanced by pressing the red key on your
>digital handset.
In what way will this enhance the performance?
- Gary Kosinsky
Kinsayder
<gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
Well, it won't improve the acting...
It looks like it adds a text commentary to the bottom of the screen.
Details of the interactive stuff are on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/richardII_interactive.shtml
I think when this production was broadcast live last year, you could
also use the handset to change the camera viewpoint.
K.
Symposium1
>
>If you're in the UK with access to BBC Four, there's a recording of
>this Globe production tomorrow night (Jan 5).
Alas, I am not. I'm in Florida.
Thank you, though, for the information. It might have helped others to see it.
--Ann
Paul Crowley
> In article <20031231181948...@mb-m04.aol.com>, Symposium1
> <sympo...@aol.computer> wrote:
>
> > It's the only time I've seen RII enacted. I would have seen it this year had I
> > been able to make the trip to London. It was at the Globe.
>
>
> If you're in the UK with access to BBC Four, there's a recording of
> this Globe production tomorrow night (Jan 5).
Thanks for the notice. I would have missed it otherwise.
Mark Rylance played Richard as a remarkably
weak-minded fool, totally unaware of the role
that kings were obliged to play in giving an
impression of strength and deciseness. It
certainly worked for me -- in the terms of the
text -- and I'll find it hard not to think of his
performance as definitive -- while at the same
time, I don't feel happy about it. Perhaps it was
too over-the-top.
The were plenty of Stratfordian idiocies in the
associated commentaries. Michael Wood was
interviewed, with the usual nonsense that
while everyone knew of the intense sensitivity
of the topic, there was no good reason for
anyone to be bothered in particular about our
Bard's treatment of it. On another matter, the
director remarked that theatre companies of the
day would not have dressed in costumes
appropriate to the period (about 200 years
earlier) -- they either did not know about earlier
fashions or did not care -- the usual modern
academic ahistorical "dem folks were reel
hignorant den" -- unlike us, of course.
Paul.
Kinsayder
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> Mark Rylance played Richard as a remarkably
> weak-minded fool, totally unaware of the role
> that kings were obliged to play in giving an
> impression of strength and deciseness. It
> certainly worked for me -- in the terms of the
> text -- and I'll find it hard not to think of his
> performance as definitive -- while at the same
> time, I don't feel happy about it. Perhaps it was
> too over-the-top.
I suspect Mark Rylance's idea in this production was to play Richard
like an actor struggling to perform a role (in this case kingship) for
which he has no natural aptitude. When required to behave in a kingly
way, Richard either overdoes it, strutting and swaggering and making
rash decisions with disastrous consequences; or else, recognising the
absurdity of his situation, he drops out of character, giggling and
fumbling his lines.
It was certainly the funniest production of Richard II I've seen, with
a highly original central performance. Liam Brennan as Bolingbroke (the
model of natural kingship in this play) was excellent too.
> The were plenty of Stratfordian idiocies in the
> associated commentaries. Michael Wood was
> interviewed...
I loved Michael Wood's spoonerism: "Boringbloke", indeed!
K.