STRATS CAN'T THINK: Where Did Shakespeare Find The Time?

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Jan 31, 2002, 7:02:22 PM1/31/02
to
Bacon's authorship is always dismissed on Strat and Oxhead
websites with the phrase

"Bacon was too busy to write."

In fact, Bacon did not have a demanding job schedule.

Elizabeth was Bacon's employer during the "Marlowe and
Shakespeare Years" and he only had to advise her when
she called on him. Bacon performed the same light duties for
Essex in addition to ghostwriting speeches and letters
to make Essex look good.

Otherwise Bacon was noted as "always scribbling."

The question is

"When did Shakespeare find time to write?"

As a member of the working class--although Shakespeare
was technically in the "vagrant" class below
yeoman--Shakespeare was occupied with full time employment.

Shakespeare had to memorize lines, attend rehersals,
give performances, have makeup and costume fittings, travel,
and if Greene's line about "shakescene" is a pun, had to
move scenery between acts. If the reference to painting scenery
with Burbage is true, Shakespeare had some experience
painting scenery.

In the period of his greatest plays, after
returning to Stratford ca 1597, Shakespeare had
to purchase and maintain property including the hundred
acres of farmland and a "rental," be responsible for the
collection of the church tithes, illegally hoard malt,
collect interest on petty usery, bring trivial law suits
for various reasons and and oversee that ultimate symbol
of his success, destroying the architectural integrity of the
finest surviving example of a medieval church
in England by cramming graves into a chancel that was
not designed for them.

Between keeping up with the demands of his family
and his new social status--did he go hunting with the
gentry?--Shakespeare had to continue intermittant
acting while managing his investment in the Globe.

Since by all accounts Shakespeare was a heavy drinker,
he had to meet his friends at the taverns.

Somewhere in his busy day, Shakespeare had to conquer
forty or fifty academic disciplines including a complete mastery
of law, politics and rhetoric. [He also had to invent
the "empirical" rhetoric of the plays].

Shakespeare had to teach himself six languages so he could
make multiple level puns. He had to be able to
read Latin and Italian and know Greek well enough to understand
the difficult grammar of the Peadogogus reference
in "Electra" so he could faithfully render it in "Hamlet."

None of the Greek tragedies were translated until well after
Shakespeare was dead.

Before he could fall asleep at night Shakespeare had to
invent two or three neologisms for the English language.

Shakespeare also had to find time to pen sonnets to
the object of his perverse affection, Henry Wriothesley,
and have an affair with a Dark Lady.

And the dayrunner was four hundred years in the future!

Andrew Ness

unread,
Feb 4, 2002, 6:29:51 PM2/4/02
to

"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.02013...@posting.google.com...

> Bacon's authorship is always dismissed on Strat and Oxhead
> websites with the phrase
>
> "Bacon was too busy to write."
>
> In fact, Bacon did not have a demanding job schedule.
>
> Elizabeth was Bacon's employer during the "Marlowe and
> Shakespeare Years" and he only had to advise her when
> she called on him. Bacon performed the same light duties for
> Essex in addition to ghostwriting speeches and letters
> to make Essex look good.
>
> Otherwise Bacon was noted as "always scribbling."
>
> The question is
>
> "When did Shakespeare find time to write?"
>
> As a member of the working class--although Shakespeare
> was technically in the "vagrant" class below
> yeoman--Shakespeare was occupied with full time employment.

He was the son of an alderman wasn't he?

> Shakespeare had to memorize lines, attend rehersals,
> give performances, have makeup and costume fittings, travel,
> and if Greene's line about "shakescene" is a pun, had to
> move scenery between acts. If the reference to painting scenery
> with Burbage is true, Shakespeare had some experience
> painting scenery.

I've never heard it said he was a lead actor. In any case, actors are not
known for their long hours of work: "hi-diddly dee you sleep till after
three! etc"

> In the period of his greatest plays, after
> returning to Stratford ca 1597, Shakespeare had
> to purchase and maintain property including the hundred
> acres of farmland and a "rental," be responsible for the
> collection of the church tithes, illegally hoard malt,
> collect interest on petty usery, bring trivial law suits
> for various reasons and and oversee that ultimate symbol
> of his success, destroying the architectural integrity of the
> finest surviving example of a medieval church
> in England by cramming graves into a chancel that was
> not designed for them.

None of which strikes as matters which would occupy hours of ones time on a
regular basis.

> Between keeping up with the demands of his family
> and his new social status--did he go hunting with the
> gentry?--Shakespeare had to continue intermittant
> acting while managing his investment in the Globe.

We've had the acting haven't we? Was he the manager of the Globe?

>
> Since by all accounts Shakespeare was a heavy drinker,
> he had to meet his friends at the taverns.
>
> Somewhere in his busy day, Shakespeare had to conquer
> forty or fifty academic disciplines including a complete mastery
> of law, politics and rhetoric. [He also had to invent
> the "empirical" rhetoric of the plays].

'Forty or fifty academic disciplines?' Could you provide a list and some
proof?


>
> Shakespeare had to teach himself six languages so he could
> make multiple level puns. He had to be able to
> read Latin and Italian and know Greek well enough to understand
> the difficult grammar of the Peadogogus reference
> in "Electra" so he could faithfully render it in "Hamlet."

Latin he probably learned at school. Which other five languages do we see
evidence he spoke? French, I'll grant you.

> None of the Greek tragedies were translated until well after
> Shakespeare was dead.
>
> Before he could fall asleep at night Shakespeare had to
> invent two or three neologisms for the English language.

What a charming image.

> Shakespeare also had to find time to pen sonnets to
> the object of his perverse affection, Henry Wriothesley,
> and have an affair with a Dark Lady.

Affairs with ladies don't need to take long, surely?

NSY


Crows Dog

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 11:02:15 AM2/5/02
to
Andrew Ness replying to Elizabeth Weir wrote:

Weir: >> Bacon's authorship is always dismissed on Strat and Oxhead websites


with the phrase
>> "Bacon was too busy to write."

Nathan: I've never seen a Strat make that argument, although some may have
made it. The argument I've seen is that there isn't a shred of evidence that
Bacon wrote the plays.

Weir: >> In fact, Bacon did not have a demanding job schedule.


Elizabeth was Bacon's employer during the "Marlowe and Shakespeare Years" and
he only had to advise her when she called on him. Bacon performed the same
light duties for Essex in addition to ghostwriting speeches and letters to make
Essex look good. Otherwise Bacon was noted as "always scribbling."
The question is
"When did Shakespeare find time to write?"

Nathan: What makes you think writing two plays a year would take such a great
amount of time?

Weir: >> As a member of the working class--although Shakespeare was


technically in the "vagrant" class below yeoman--Shakespeare was occupied with
full time employment.

Nathan: What on earth are you talking about?????

Ness: >He was the son of an alderman wasn't he?

Nathan: John Shakespeare was also, for a time, the baliff, - the highest
elective office in Stratford. He became a member of the Gentry.

Weir: >> Shakespeare had to memorize lines, attend rehersals, give


performances, have makeup and costume fittings, travel,
and if Greene's line about "shakescene" is a pun, had to move scenery between
acts.

Nathan: I'll admit I don't think Shakespeare had time to write plays between
acts. Gee, I guess you've proven an actor couldn't have written the plays!

Weir: If the reference to painting scenery with Burbage is true, Shakespeare


had some experience painting scenery.

Nathan: What reference to painting scenery? Are you referring to the impressa
Shakespeare and Burbage created for the Earl of Rutland? Do you think there
were painted flats at the Globe?

Ness: >I've never heard it said he was a lead actor. In any case, actors are


not known for their long hours of work: "hi-diddly dee you sleep till after
three! etc"

Weir: >> In the period of his greatest plays, after returning to Stratford ca
1597,
Nathan: It's mainly anti-Strats who argue Shakespeare was living in Stratford
around 1597. The vast majority of Stratfordians believe Shakespeare probably
visited Stratford regularly, but he was still living in London until much
later.

Weir: >>Shakespeare had to purchase and maintain property including the


hundred acres of farmland and a "rental," be responsible for the collection of
the church tithes, illegally hoard malt, collect interest on petty usery,
bring trivial law suits for various reasons

Nathan: To the extent Shakespeare would have performed these tasks himself,
they would have taken very little time. Many of them would have been performed
by by Shakespeare's agents, while Shakespeare was in London. Are you claiming
that Bacon didn't have to spend any time taking care of HIS finances???? And
I'm not sure what you mean by collecting tithes. Please explain.


Weir: >> and and oversee that ultimate symbol of his success, destroying the


architectural integrity of the
finest surviving example of a medieval church in England by cramming graves
into a chancel that was not designed for them.

Nathan: I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you don't
either.
I assume this is meant as some sort of joke, but it's not remotely funny.

Ness: >None of which strikes as matters which would occupy hours of ones time
on a regular basis.


Weir: >> Between keeping up with the demands of his family and his new social


status--did he go hunting with the gentry?--

Nathan: According to Aubrey, Shakespeare didn't spend a lot of time
socializing. Are you saying that Bacon didn't spend any time socilaizing????

Weir: >> Shakespeare had to continue intermittant acting while managing his
investment in the Globe.

Ness: >We've had the acting haven't we? Was he the manager of the Globe?

Nathan: Shakespeare and the other members of his company collectively owned
the Globe. This wouldn't have taken a great deal of Shakespeare's time.

Weir: >> Since by all accounts Shakespeare was a heavy drinker,

Nathan: Your fantasies don't count as "all accounts."

Weir: >> he had to meet his friends at the taverns.

Nathan: Bacon didn't have any friends????

Weir: >> Somewhere in his busy day, Shakespeare had to conquer forty or fifty


academic disciplines including a complete mastery of law, politics and

rhetoric. He also had to invent the "empirical" rhetoric of the plays.

Nathan: And Bacon didn't have to spend any time getting an education?

Ness: >'Forty or fifty academic disciplines?' Could you provide a list and
some proof?

Nathan: She's repeating the standard anti-Strat nonsense.

Weir >> Shakespeare had to teach himself six languages so he could make


multiple level puns. He had to be able to read Latin and Italian and know
Greek well enough to understand the difficult grammar of the Peadogogus
reference in "Electra" so he could faithfully render it in "Hamlet."

Ness: >Latin he probably learned at school. Which other five languages do we


see evidence he spoke? French, I'll grant you.

Weir: >>None of the Greek tragedies were translated until well after
Shakespeare was dead.

Nathan: Can this possibly be true? I hadn't heard this claim before.

Weir: >> Before he could fall asleep at night Shakespeare had to invent two or


three neologisms for the English language.

Ness: >What a charming image.

Weir: >> Shakespeare also had to find time to pen sonnets to the object of his


perverse affection, Henry Wriothesley,
and have an affair with a Dark Lady.

Nathan: And this would have taken less time for Bacon than for Shakespeare?

Ness: >Affairs with ladies don't need to take long, surely?
>
>NSY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


KQKnave

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 2:24:15 PM2/5/02
to
In article <20020205110215...@mb-mg.aol.com>, crow...@aol.com
(Crows Dog) writes:

>Weir: >> In fact, Bacon did not have a demanding job schedule.
> Elizabeth was Bacon's employer during the "Marlowe and Shakespeare Years"
>and
>he only had to advise her when she called on him. Bacon performed the same
>light duties for Essex in addition to ghostwriting speeches and letters to
>make
>Essex look good. Otherwise Bacon was noted as "always scribbling."
>The question is
>"When did Shakespeare find time to write?"
>
>Nathan: What makes you think writing two plays a year would take such a
>great
>amount of time?

I think they did take quite a bit of time. They are crafted, polished works,
which takes time. There is no reason not to assume that Shakespeare
had that time. He lived away from his family in London, his business
affairs were at most part time (and more likely very infrequent over
the course of 20 years. How many business deals do we have a
record of over his 20+ years of writing? Half a dozen?). It's a red herring.


See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Agent Jim

Crows Dog

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 4:52:54 PM2/5/02
to
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Shakespeare could knock off two plays a
year by writing each play within a couple of weeks or so. Obviously, a great
deal of effort went into all of the works. What I meant to suggest was that
the plays didn't require so much work that he could not also perform as an
actor, manage his finances, visit with friends, provide for his family, etc.

Weir must think Bacon did NONE of those things (e.g., he must not have ever
spent any time with friends or managed his finances), because she makes a point
that Shakespeare did them, and therefore could not have written the plays.

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 5:35:21 PM2/5/02
to
In article <20020205165254...@mb-mt.aol.com>, crow...@aol.com
(Crows Dog) writes:

>Weir must think Bacon did NONE of those things (e.g., he must not have ever
>spent any time with friends or managed his finances), because she makes a
>point
>that Shakespeare did them, and therefore could not have written the plays.
>

Which sounds like baker-think to me. He invents evidence for his candidates
and invents negative evidence to dismiss Shakespeare with the same
blithe disregard of the facts.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 7:00:18 PM2/5/02
to
Crows Dog wrote:
>
> I didn't mean to imply that I thought Shakespeare could knock off two plays a
> year by writing each play within a couple of weeks or so.

I wouldn't rule it out. I know successful writers who say their best
work is that which they do in a white heat. (And it tallies with
Jonson's comments, too.)

--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 8:06:29 PM2/5/02
to
"Andrew Ness" <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message news:<a3ok3r$hmf$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...

Type Shakespeare + [any discipline] into a search engine.

> > Shakespeare had to teach himself six languages so he could
> > make multiple level puns. He had to be able to
> > read Latin and Italian and know Greek well enough to understand
> > the difficult grammar of the Peadogogus reference
> > in "Electra" so he could faithfully render it in "Hamlet."
>
> Latin he probably learned at school. Which other five languages do we see
> evidence he spoke? French, I'll grant you.

There are six lanuages in the plays required by the author since
some of the works used as sources were not translated into
English [and some of the sources are not on the Strat's
lists]: Italian, French, Spanish, English, Latin
and Greek. I posted on one untranslated Greek source and
since my Greek source in Hamlet from Sophocles' Electra didn't
come up in google I'll repost it. None of the Greek tragedies
were translated until after Shakespeare was dead. Nobody
believes that Shakespeare knew Greek which was only learned
at university unless your grandfather was the tutor to
Edward.

Bacon was raised in a household fluent in the
six lanuages of the Shakespeare plays. His mother and
her four sisters were linguists and two published
translations of Greek works into Latin!! They corresponded
in Italian--some of their letters are extant.

Shakespeare *may* have known a "little Latin and less Greek"
[Jonson's jeste is aimed at Bacon whose classical grammar was
not as perfect as Jonson's--Jonson was one of the two or three
great classicists of his time with Chapman and Bodley] but
there is no evidence that Shakespeare could read any language.
The only evidence of his "literacy" are his barbarically
illiterate signatures.

> > None of the Greek tragedies were translated until well after
> > Shakespeare was dead.
> >
> > Before he could fall asleep at night Shakespeare had to
> > invent two or three neologisms for the English language.
>
> What a charming image.

Yes, from the second best bed Hathaway would yell "Shvtte yovr
flappe Willi yovr mvtterin' is stoppin' me sleepe."

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 9:06:45 PM2/5/02
to
In article <3C6071ED...@attglobal.net>, "John W. Kennedy"
<jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:

>I wouldn't rule it out. I know successful writers who say their best
>work is that which they do in a white heat. (And it tallies with
>Jonson's comments, too.)
>

*Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
of any great works that weren't written without considerable
re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
"As I Lay Dying."

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 5:07:36 AM2/6/02
to
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3C6071ED...@attglobal.net...

> Crows Dog wrote:
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply that I thought Shakespeare could knock off two plays a
> > year by writing each play within a couple of weeks or so.
>
> I wouldn't rule it out. I know successful writers who say their best
> work is that which they do in a white heat. (And it tallies with
> Jonson's comments, too.)


Also, we have to remember that for most of his plays, Shakespeare
had the helpful advantage of a source text to work from. And it
seem to me quite possible that he could knock out a rough draft in
two weeks or less that would be good enough for production, and that
most of the rest of the work he did on the play was during his
acting time: that is, as the play was rehearsed with him as an
actor in it, he revised it--with the help of his true peers, his
fellow actors (as opposed the Oxford's peers). He would have gone
on revising it as it was performed, which would account for much
of whatever polish the plays now have.

--Bob G.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 5:09:24 AM2/6/02
to
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.02020...@posting.google.com>...

> "Andrew Ness" <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message news:<a3ok3r$hmf$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.02013...@posting.google.com...

> > > Shakespeare had to teach himself six languages so he could


> > > make multiple level puns. He had to be able to
> > > read Latin and Italian and know Greek well enough to understand
> > > the difficult grammar of the Peadogogus reference
> > > in "Electra" so he could faithfully render it in "Hamlet."
> >
> > Latin he probably learned at school. Which other five languages do we see
> > evidence he spoke? French, I'll grant you.
>
> There are six lanuages in the plays required by the author since
> some of the works used as sources were not translated into
> English [and some of the sources are not on the Strat's
> lists]: Italian, French, Spanish, English, Latin
> and Greek. I posted on one untranslated Greek source and
> since my Greek source in Hamlet from Sophocles' Electra didn't
> come up in google I'll repost it. None of the Greek tragedies
> were translated until after Shakespeare was dead. Nobody
> believes that Shakespeare knew Greek which was only learned
> at university unless your grandfather was the tutor to
> Edward.

> > > None of the Greek tragedies were translated until well after
> > > Shakespeare was dead.

I am not an expert on this, but I am capable of getting useful
information out of a search engine.

Looking for the first English translation of Sophocles' "Electra", I
find indeed that it appears to have been done by Christopher Wase and
published in the Hague in 1649; you can find a copy on sale for a mere
$4800 here:

http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/BookDetailsFS.asp?ItemID=30962

However there is a good discussion of the extent of knowledge of the
Greek tragedies in *Latin* translation by Edith Hall at:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~apgrd/texts/eh1566.htm

She mentions that "both Euripides' Orestes and Sophocles' Electra had
already begun to make some impression upon the imagination of
English-speaking lands with the first circulation of early Latin
translations, such as Sophocles' Ajax, Antigone, and Electra in the
version of the Dutch translator George Rotaller (1548)."

I'm not sure about the 1548 date: compare a page on Latin Theatre in
the Low Countries by Josefg IJzewijn at:

http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/ijse001thea01/ijse001thea01_001.htm

where he refers to a Friesian, Georges Ratallerus, who brought out a
complete Sophocles in Latin in 1570 (I translate from the original
Dutch). Of course it's not inconsistent that three plays were
published by Rataller in 1548 and the rest in 1570. In any case, it's
clear that a Latin translation of Electra was available by the time
Hamlet was written.

Some might object that Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin is not on a
par with his knowledge of French, which everyone agrees he read
extremely well. As it turns out, however, according to the article on
Tragedy in the xrefer on-line encyclopedia at:

http://194.130.42.102/entry/253191

"Although there are no significant French tragedies before the era of
Corneille and Racine, some sixteenth-century works of note are: Lazare
de Baïf's translation of Sophocles' Electra (1537)... [several others
mentioned, but this is the first]"

There is another reference to this translation in a list (in French)
of significant developments in theatre in France and Italy during the
Renaissance at:

http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/c2545/chronologie/chrono5.html

So although it is clear that there is no record of an English
translation of "Electra" before 1649, there were printed versions in
Latin translation from at the latest 1570 and in French from at the
latest 1537.

I don't know which particular incident from "Hamlet" you have in mind
as proof of the author's knowledge of Electra. Whatever it is, you
have to show that it is absent from both Rataller and especially de
Baïf to make a convincing case that the author read it in the original
Greek, and not in a translation into one of the other languages we
know he could read.

Nicholas

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 5:18:25 AM2/6/02
to

> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> "As I Lay Dying."
>
>
How about Dickens? My impression was that he did almost no revising.

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 6:26:13 AM2/6/02
to
I think I have resolved the Rataller issue:

On 6 Feb 2002 02:09:24 -0800, nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas


Whyte) wrote:
>She mentions that "both Euripides' Orestes and Sophocles' Electra had
>already begun to make some impression upon the imagination of
>English-speaking lands with the first circulation of early Latin
>translations, such as Sophocles' Ajax, Antigone, and Electra in the
>version of the Dutch translator George Rotaller (1548)."
>
>I'm not sure about the 1548 date: compare a page on Latin Theatre in
>the Low Countries by Josefg IJzewijn at:
>
>http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/ijse001thea01/ijse001thea01_001.htm
>
>where he refers to a Friesian, Georges Ratallerus, who brought out a
>complete Sophocles in Latin in 1570 (I translate from the original
>Dutch). Of course it's not inconsistent that three plays were
>published by Rataller in 1548 and the rest in 1570. In any case, it's
>clear that a Latin translation of Electra was available by the time
>Hamlet was written.

A copy of a 1584 reprint of the 1570 edition is on sale for a mere
$1250 at:

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookDetails?bi=102587342

The description confirms what I had suspected and adds more details:

"SOPHOCLES Tragoediae quotquot extant carmine Latine redditae (Tr.
Georg Rataller). Antwerp: J. Bellère, 1584 8vo, ...

"Revised edition of the Latin verse translation of the seven extant
tragedies of Sophocles by the Dutch humanist and neolatin poet Georg
Rataller (1528-1581), who served as magistrate in Utrecht. It is to
Rataller that Willem Canter dedicated his edition of Euripides
published by Plantin in 1571; Rataller also published Latin verse
translations of three plays of Euripides in 1581.

"Rataller's translation of Sophocles first appeared in 1550 from the
press of Sebastianus Gryphius in Lyon; he thoroughly revised the
translation for a second edition published in 1570, of which the
present is a re-issue. This copy belonged to one Jean Rataller,
archdeacon of Vaison-la-Romaine, in the Vaucluse, presumably a
relative of the translator. "

So it's pretty clear that Latin translations of Sophocles by Rataller
had been in circulation for decades before Hamlet was written. A final
note its that Rataller's Christian name is probably more accurately
translated as Joris rather than Georg as he was not German.

Nicholas

Email to this address will be treated as SPAM.
My real address is explorers (at) whyte (dot) com
Northern Ireland elections site: http://explorers.whyte.com/

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 1:13:35 PM2/6/02
to
KQKnave wrote:
> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> "As I Lay Dying."

Kubla Khan.

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 2:23:20 PM2/6/02
to
In article <7b33cc41.02020...@posting.google.com>,
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) writes:

>Some might object that Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin is not on a
>par with his knowledge of French, which everyone agrees he read
>extremely well.

They do?

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 2:23:20 PM2/6/02
to
In article <023daafe18f761cbbae...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Bob
Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:

>How about Dickens? My impression was that he did almost no revising.
>

I don't know how he wrote his works. My impression was that he
wrote in pieces for serialization in newspapers over a long time, which
would have involved the editor at the newspaper as well.

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 2:23:21 PM2/6/02
to
In article <5d469f327d656a14eff...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Bob
Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:

> that is, as the play was rehearsed with him as an
>actor in it, he revised it--with the help of his true peers, his
>fellow actors (as opposed the Oxford's peers). He would have gone
>on revising it as it was performed, which would account for much
>of whatever polish the plays now have.

I think that most of the revision was of a literary kind, done in
the quiet of a study. I suspect that's what he was doing after
he left London in 1613.

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 4:38:19 PM2/6/02
to
On 06 Feb 2002 19:23:20 GMT, kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:

>In article <7b33cc41.02020...@posting.google.com>,
>nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) writes:
>
>>Some might object that Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin is not on a
>>par with his knowledge of French, which everyone agrees he read
>>extremely well.
>
>They do?

You probably know better than me; but are there not several of the
plays (eg Othello) whose sources existed in French but not English?
And perhaps Elizabeth Weir will demonstrate to us that some incident
in Hamlet is certainly based on something in Sophocles (I wait in
eager anticipation).

Also Henry V shows that he could write very basic French, which makes
one suspect that he was comfortable enough in the language. In my
professional position I often need to listen to and read French, but
rarely have to speak it for work purposes (other than in restaurants,
shops and railway stations) and never have to write it. My
ill-informed and purely instinctive guess is that Shakespeare was
slightly better at it than I am.

Anyway, to be honest, I have difficulty believing a) that he had not
learnt any French at school, let alone b) that an Elizabethan with a
serious interest in European culture would not have taken the trouble
to learn French for the sake of it. Indeed, Jim, you yourself seem to
argue as much in this article:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19981108130103...@ngol07.aol.com

Nicholas

Mark Steese

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 6:41:19 PM2/6/02
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "John W. Kennedy"
<jwk...@attglobal.net> that wrote news:3C61723B...@attglobal.net, on
the day of 06 Feb 2002:

> KQKnave wrote:
>> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
>> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
>> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
>> "As I Lay Dying."
>
> Kubla Khan.

What did *he* ever write?

-Mark Steese
--
"I'm an impulse buyer. The primitive little *knot* at the top of my
*spine* says I'll have *all* this stuff." -Max, "Beast from the Cereal
Aisle"

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 7:03:39 PM2/6/02
to
Mark Steese wrote:
>
> Hwęt! We have heard of the glory of "John W. Kennedy"

> <jwk...@attglobal.net> that wrote news:3C61723B...@attglobal.net, on
> the day of 06 Feb 2002:
>
> > KQKnave wrote:
> >> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> >> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> >> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> >> "As I Lay Dying."
> >
> > Kubla Khan.
>
> What did *he* ever write?

"The Travels of Marco Polo", of course. How could a mere Italian
bourgeois ever have done it?

Jim KQKnave

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 11:14:13 PM2/6/02
to
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote in message news:<3c619ad1...@news.cis.dfn.de>...

> On 06 Feb 2002 19:23:20 GMT, kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:
>
> >In article <7b33cc41.02020...@posting.google.com>,
> >nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) writes:
> >
> >>Some might object that Shakespeare's knowledge of Latin is not on a
> >>par with his knowledge of French, which everyone agrees he read
> >>extremely well.
> >
> >They do?
>
> You probably know better than me; but are there not several of the
> plays (eg Othello) whose sources existed in French but not English?

Here is what the Riverside says:

"Sources: (1) Giraldi Cinthio, Hecatommithi (1565), Decade 3, Novella 7
(no contemporary English translation known; Shakespeare does not appear
to have used the French tr. by Chappuys [1584])."

> And perhaps Elizabeth Weir will demonstrate to us that some incident
> in Hamlet is certainly based on something in Sophocles (I wait in
> eager anticipation).
>
> Also Henry V shows that he could write very basic French, which makes
> one suspect that he was comfortable enough in the language.

The fact the he used very basic French, and doesn't use French much
in the plays, indicates to me that he wasn't
comfortable in French and probably used someone else to translate it
for him.

>In my
> professional position I often need to listen to and read French, but
> rarely have to speak it for work purposes (other than in restaurants,
> shops and railway stations) and never have to write it. My
> ill-informed and purely instinctive guess is that Shakespeare was
> slightly better at it than I am.
>
> Anyway, to be honest, I have difficulty believing a) that he had not
> learnt any French at school, let alone b) that an Elizabethan with a
> serious interest in European culture would not have taken the trouble
> to learn French for the sake of it. Indeed, Jim, you yourself seem to
> argue as much in this article:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19981108130103...@ngol07.aol.com

I give many possibilities for how the French in H5 came to be there.
That post was written in response to someone who claimed that because
Shakespeare did not go to college (or was a commoner or some such nonsense)
that HE COULDN'T POSSIBLY have known or used any French, which is just silly.
You said "...almost everyone agrees he read [French] extremely well." is
simply wrong. I don't think he knew much French at all, which is not the
same thing as saying that opportunities for learning it did not exist AT ALL
for someone of his station in life.

http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Jim

Tom Reedy

unread,
Feb 6, 2002, 11:51:23 PM2/6/02
to
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020206142320...@mb-fh.aol.com...

> In article <023daafe18f761cbbae...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
"Bob
> Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:
>
> >How about Dickens? My impression was that he did almost no revising.
> >
>
> I don't know how he wrote his works. My impression was that he
> wrote in pieces for serialization in newspapers over a long time, which
> would have involved the editor at the newspaper as well.

I thought Dickens *was* the editor of the journal in which most of his works
first appeared.

TR

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 12:57:39 AM2/7/02
to
On 6 Feb 2002 20:14:13 -0800, kqk...@yahoo.co.uk (Jim KQKnave) wrote:

>You said "...almost everyone agrees he read [French] extremely well." is
>simply wrong. I don't think he knew much French at all, which is not the
>same thing as saying that opportunities for learning it did not exist AT ALL
>for someone of his station in life.

OK, if you don't agree, and if there are others who share your view,
then clearly that was wrong.

So which do you think his source for Othello was? The French or the
Italian? Baker attempted to convince me that it must have been the
Italian, but his evidence was so pathetic (even for Baker) that I
assumed it must be the French. What is the evidence for the Italian
source, other than Baker's imagination?

Nicholas

Alan Jones

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 4:16:46 AM2/7/02
to

"Nicholas Whyte" <nichol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c619ad1...@news.cis.dfn.de...

> Anyway, to be honest, I have difficulty believing a) that he had not
> learnt any French at school, let alone b) that an Elizabethan with a
> serious interest in European culture would not have taken the trouble
> to learn French for the sake of it.

I wasn't aware that French, or any other modern language, was taught in
Elizabethan schools. Can you give any source for thinking that it was?

If someone knew a good deal of Latin but had never been taught Italian or
French, I think he would find Italian the easier to decipher in a fairly
loose way, and I'd guess that Italian was culturally more significant than
French in Shakespeare's time. Is there any contemporary evidence either way?
(In favour of French there would be the survival of much legal
Norman-French, even if the "frenssh of parys was to [hem] unknowe".)

Alan Jones


Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 5:13:05 AM2/7/02
to
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote in message news:<7b33cc41.02020...@posting.google.com>...

> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.02020...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Andrew Ness" <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message news:<a3ok3r$hmf$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:efbc3534.02013...@posting.google.com...

> snip

Nice work, Nicholas. I couldn't find those sites. The sources I
found on "history of translation" sites gave later dates. Yours
look right.

Here's the Hamlet source in Electra you asked for:

"But when the crowd saw that [Paedagogus] had fallen from the
chariot, a cry of pity went up for the young man who had done such
deeds and was allotted such bad fortune-now dashed against the earth,
now tossed with his feet to the sky."

Sophocles, Electra. line 752.

[752] [Paedagogus] phoroumenos pros oudas, "dashed to the ground". .
. pros oudasouranôi skelê prophainôn, i.e. "tossed feet uppermost to
the sky."

Cross references from Sir Richard Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles:
Electra:
* [516-1057]: 'Then trip him that his heels may kick at heaven'

[752] . . . With reference to what occurs while he is being dragged;
he is dashed earthwards (after being tossed upward). . . ouranôi skelê
prophainôn, i.e. tossed feet uppermost to the sky. Cp. Shakesp. Hamlet
3. 3. 93 'Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven:' where
Stevens quotes from Heywood's Silver Age, 'Whose heels tript up,
kick'd 'gainst the firmament.'
Heywood, T.: The Silver Age (1613);

<http://perseus.csad.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0025&query=commline%3D%23435>

Ham.

Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent;
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, 96
Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed,
At gaming, swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in &#8217;t;
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, 100
And that his soul may be as damn&#8217;d and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays:
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days. [Exit.

Act III, Scene III.

> snip

It violates the rules of evidence to conclude that Shakespeare wrote
the plays based on inferences drawn from the plays. The only evidence
that the plays can offer is that *someone* who could read and write in
the six lanugages found in the plays wrote the plays.

Even the fact that Bacon could read and write fluently in the six
languages found in the plays does not *prove* that Bacon wrote the
plays.

By the process of exclusion we can eliminate any candidate who was not
at least literate in five of the six languages. Without evidence to
the
contrary that excludes only Shakespeare.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 5:34:46 AM2/7/02
to
> So which do you think his source for Othello was?

I think it was a summary of the Italian version given to him
by someone who could read Italian--with, perhaps, a detailed
translation of a few of the most dramatic passages.

You know, as I've said before, it would be SO useful
if someone interested in Shakespeare's sources would
do a line-by-line version of some Shakespeare play
showing with interlineations exactly what was absolutely
taken from some source, what suggested by some source.
(Maybe it's been done?) I wonder just how close the
match would be.

--Bob G.

Andrew Ness

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 6:48:27 AM2/7/02
to

"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.02020...@posting.google.com...

> "Andrew Ness" <ne...@liverpoolfc.net> wrote in message
news:<a3ok3r$hmf$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> > Latin he probably learned at school. Which other five languages do we


see
> > evidence he spoke? French, I'll grant you.
>
> There are six lanuages in the plays required by the author since
> some of the works used as sources were not translated into
> English [and some of the sources are not on the Strat's
> lists]: Italian, French, Spanish, English, Latin
> and Greek. I posted on one untranslated Greek source and
> since my Greek source in Hamlet from Sophocles' Electra didn't
> come up in google I'll repost it. None of the Greek tragedies
> were translated until after Shakespeare was dead. Nobody
> believes that Shakespeare knew Greek which was only learned
> at university unless your grandfather was the tutor to
> Edward.

I think even the most uncharitable person would have to conclude he spoke
English.
French, Italian and Spanish speakers would not have been hard to find in
London at the time. Indeed, French, Italian and Spanish _people_ would not
be hard to find. I know you find the idea hilarious, but why could he not
just have hired someone to translate for him? (Maybe even your Mr Bacon...)
Personally, I have no trouble believing he spoke French and could read
Latin. I don't see it as necessary for him to have spoken Italian or
Spanish.

How was Greek studied at university if not by translation of texts?


> Bacon was raised in a household fluent in the
> six lanuages of the Shakespeare plays. His mother and
> her four sisters were linguists and two published
> translations of Greek works into Latin!!

This was after Shakespeare was dead? How old was Bacon's mother?

NSY


Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 10:45:58 AM2/7/02
to
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.02020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Nice work, Nicholas. I couldn't find those sites. The sources I
> found on "history of translation" sites gave later dates. Yours
> look right.

Thanks!

Hmm. Not very convincing for me, I'm afraid. Two significant
differences: 1) Sophocles uses the phrase to indicate the violence
with which Orestes is being hurled about the place due to the
(fictional, as it turns out) chariot crash; dashed to the ground and
then tossed feet uppermost. The Hamlet reference is a simple tumble
with a subsequent jerk of the heels upwards; no particular agitation
involved. 2) Shakespeare explicitly mentions heels; Sophocles does
not, surely indicating that there is no particular connection. Sir
Richard Jebb refers to the Hamlet phrase to explain to the student
what Shakespeare is referring to.

> It violates the rules of evidence to conclude that Shakespeare wrote
> the plays based on inferences drawn from the plays. The only evidence
> that the plays can offer is that *someone* who could read and write in
> the six lanugages found in the plays wrote the plays.

Or someone who could cut-n-paste from the other languages in question.
Which is rather easier. I like to use the expressive Serbo-Croat word
"vukojebinje" when discussing Bosnia-Herzegovina; I don't speak the
language at all well but I can appreciate some of its humour.

> Even the fact that Bacon could read and write fluently in the six
> languages found in the plays does not *prove* that Bacon wrote the
> plays.
>
> By the process of exclusion we can eliminate any candidate who was not
> at least literate in five of the six languages. Without evidence to
> the
> contrary that excludes only Shakespeare.

Do we know for certain that Shakespeare was not literate in five of
the six languages? How?

Nicholas

MakBane

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 11:56:24 AM2/7/02
to
Whyte to Agent Jim:

>Anyway, to be honest, I have difficulty believing a) that [Shakespeare] had


not
>learnt any French at school, let alone b) that an Elizabethan with a
>serious interest in European culture would not have taken the trouble
>to learn French for the sake of it. Indeed, Jim, you yourself seem to
>argue as much in this article:
>
>

>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19981108130103.14601.00000455@ngol07
.aol.com

Do Stratfordians maintain that Shakspere would have learned French at the
King's School? They probably don't. Instead, they claim that he would have
learned all the French he needed to know from the Mountjoys. Of course, judging
from the quality of his memory as demonstrated in the Mountjoy deposition, he
didn't remember much at all from his time there.

Toby Petzold
American

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 12:41:28 PM2/7/02
to
In article <3C61723B...@attglobal.net>, "John W. Kennedy"
<jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:

>
>KQKnave wrote:
>> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
>> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
>> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
>> "As I Lay Dying."
>
>Kubla Khan.
>

54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale the sacred river ran"?
Do you like Longfellow too?

Tom Reedy

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 1:17:45 PM2/7/02
to
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020207124128...@mb-mp.aol.com...

> In article <3C61723B...@attglobal.net>, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> >
> >KQKnave wrote:
> >> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> >> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> >> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> >> "As I Lay Dying."
> >
> >Kubla Khan.
> >
>
> 54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale

I know. It's such a cliche. Shakespeare is full of them, too.

TR

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 1:17:41 PM2/7/02
to
KQKnave wrote:
>
> In article <3C61723B...@attglobal.net>, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> >
> >KQKnave wrote:
> >> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> >> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> >> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> >> "As I Lay Dying."
> >
> >Kubla Khan.
> >
>
> 54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale the sacred river ran"?
> Do you like Longfellow too?

I should, as I'm told he's an ancestor of mine, but I know only his
syllabus-set bits.

For the rest, old man, you really have to expand your critical horizons,
for I fear you are turning into one of the worst sort of Lewis's
"stylemongers". Too many readers in too many generations have damned
the visitor from Porlock for such a casual dismissal on your part to
look like anything better than aesthetic puritanism.

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 4:22:30 PM2/7/02
to
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote in message news:<5f7d2eb3.02020...@posting.google.com>...

Bob. I've already come up with two sources that
Shakespeare could not have known under any circumstances.

In fact the Strachey letter is the third because
Kathman is apparently not aware that it was suppressed
or why it was suppressed until 1625.

1. Coke's Institutes not printed until 1634.

2. The Pensioners Book of Gray's Inn.

3. The Strachey letter.

4. Harvey's discovery of the circulation
of the blood printed after 1626--I just
thought of that.

The "army of Strat scholars" have seen these
sources in the plays and no doubt countless
others but they can't *say anything.*

Mark Steese

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 5:00:57 PM2/7/02
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "John W. Kennedy"
<jwk...@attglobal.net> that wrote news:3C61C432...@attglobal.net,

on the day of 06 Feb 2002:

> Mark Steese wrote:
>>
>> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "John W. Kennedy"


>> <jwk...@attglobal.net> that wrote
>> news:3C61723B...@attglobal.net, on the day of 06 Feb 2002:
>>
>> > KQKnave wrote:
>> >> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
>> >> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
>> >> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is
>> >> Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying."
>> >
>> > Kubla Khan.
>>
>> What did *he* ever write?
>
> "The Travels of Marco Polo", of course. How could a mere Italian
> bourgeois ever have done it?

Don't be silly - the august journal U.S. News and World Report published an
article proving that *The Travels of Marco Polo* is full of mistakes that
Kublai Khan could never had made - see
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/marco.htm. Obviously
the true author of the work was Teobaldo Visconti, a/k/a Pope Gregory X.
The character of "Marco Polo" is a thinly-disguised Gregory, and the
character of "Kublai Khan" is obviously based on Prince Edward, later
Edward I of England ("Longshanks"), who as everyone knows was with Visconti
at Acre when news of the papal election reached them. From this we can see
that the movie "Braveheart" proves that Mel Gibson is a Gregorian who
sneers at the hidebound orthodoxy of the Dalmatians, with their insistence
that Marco Polo and "Marco Polo" are the same person merely because they
happen to have the same name.

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 6:21:41 PM2/7/02
to
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote in message news:<7b33cc41.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> > That has no relish of salvation in't;
> > Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, 100
> > And that his soul may be as damn'd and black
> > As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays:
> > This physic but prolongs thy sickly days. [Exit.
> >
> > Act III, Scene III.
>
> Hmm. Not very convincing for me, I'm afraid. Two significant
> differences: 1) Sophocles uses the phrase to indicate the violence
> with which Orestes is being hurled about the place due to the
> (fictional, as it turns out) chariot crash; dashed to the ground and
> then tossed feet uppermost.

I edited Sir Richard Jebb's note for the sake of brevity.
Sir Richard explains his translation for the unusual image of a
body dashed to the ground with its legs then thrown up iinto the air:

[752] phoroumenos pros oudas, "dashed to the ground": cp. I. T. 49
"beblêmenon pros oudas". [Not, "dragged upon the ground" (Campb.),
which would be "pros oudei".] These words can be taken in two ways: I
prefer the first. (1) With reference to his fall from the chariot. The
people speak of his mishap as a whole, not merely of what he is
suffering at the moment. (2) With reference to what occurs while he is


being dragged; he is dashed earthwards (after being tossed upward).

But this would be most awkward, when the mention of his being tossed
upward follows. Eur. , where he speaks of men dragged on the ground by
their chariot-horses, naturally says, "tossed up and down" (not "down
and up"): Suppl. 689 "ê tous anô te kai katô phoroumenous" |
"himasin".

allot: the first "alloite" is omitted: Eur. Hec. 28"keimai d' ep'
aktais, allot' en pontou salôi."

ouranôi skelê prophainôn, i.e. tossed feet uppermost to the sky. Cp.
Shakesp. Hamlet 3. 3. 93 "Then trip him, that his heels may kick at
heaven": where Stevens quotes from Heywood's Silver Age, "Whose heels
tript up, kick'd 'gainst the firmament."

> The Hamlet reference is a simple tumble


> with a subsequent jerk of the heels upwards; no particular agitation
> involved.

Yes but the line above in Hamlet suggest violence imagery--swearing,
raging, some act for which there will be no salvation which suggests
dueling for which there is no time for last rites [salvation].
This presages Bacon's black satire on the stupidity of dueling
in Hamlet. Bacon wrote a treatise, "A Charge Touching Duells,"
because he hated this un-English practice that had come in
from France.

I think the "Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven"
image is so rare that it has to be from Sophocles.

2) Shakespeare explicitly mentions heels; Sophocles does
> not, surely indicating that there is no particular connection.

Sir Richard Jebb explains that in his last line.

> Sir
> Richard Jebb refers to the Hamlet phrase to explain to the student
> what Shakespeare is referring to.
>
> > It violates the rules of evidence to conclude that Shakespeare wrote
> > the plays based on inferences drawn from the plays. The only evidence
> > that the plays can offer is that *someone* who could read and write in
> > the six lanugages found in the plays wrote the plays.
>
> Or someone who could cut-n-paste from the other languages in question.
> Which is rather easier. I like to use the expressive Serbo-Croat word
> "vukojebinje" when discussing Bosnia-Herzegovina; I don't speak the
> language at all well but I can appreciate some of its humour.

The quote from Parmenides in an earlier post was verbatim and Bacon
also uses it verbatim in one of his openly published sources. This
only bears
on the authorship dispute if Shakespeare can be excluded. You refuted
my claim so now both lines are merely interesting.

> > Even the fact that Bacon could read and write fluently in the six
> > languages found in the plays does not *prove* that Bacon wrote the
> > plays.
> >
> > By the process of exclusion we can eliminate any candidate who was not
> > at least literate in five of the six languages. Without evidence to
> > the
> > contrary that excludes only Shakespeare.
>
> Do we know for certain that Shakespeare was not literate in five of
> the six languages? How?

According to the rules of evidence we can only exclude
an author who could not possibly have been there or could
not have known. No author
can be excluded if the author could conceivably have
had access to the source.

There is no evidence that Shakespeare had any education
but since we can't definitely exclude his finding his way into
Sir Thomas Bodley, Sir Henry Cotton or Dr. John Dee's
great libraries--Bacon had access to all and a
library of his own--we can't exclude Shakespeare from authorship.

I'm not keeping track but I can think of at least four
cources that Shakepeare definitely could not have known
because he was dead when they were printed.
We can only prove a negative.

Jim KQKnave

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 9:01:25 PM2/7/02
to
mak...@aol.com (MakBane) wrote in message news:<20020207115624...@mb-df.aol.com>...

> Whyte to Agent Jim:
>
> >Anyway, to be honest, I have difficulty believing a) that [Shakespeare] had
> not
> >learnt any French at school, let alone b) that an Elizabethan with a
> >serious interest in European culture would not have taken the trouble
> >to learn French for the sake of it. Indeed, Jim, you yourself seem to
> >argue as much in this article:
> >
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19981108130103.14601.00000455@ngol07
> .aol.com
>
> Do Stratfordians maintain that Shakspere would have learned French at the
> King's School? They probably don't. Instead, they claim that he would have
> learned all the French he needed to know from the Mountjoys.

No. There is little French in the plays, and what little he needed he
COULD have had translated by the Mountjoys or any other French-speaking
person he knew. He wouldn't have LEARNED French, he would have USED
A LITTLE FRENCH. Comprende? I doubt it.

>Of course, judging
> from the quality of his memory as demonstrated in the Mountjoy deposition, he
> didn't remember much at all from his time there.

Why would he, or anyone, so many years after the fact?

Jim

See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

See my demolition of some of John Baker's ridiculous web pages!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/bakerbull21.html

Jim KQKnave

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 10:00:33 PM2/7/02
to
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3C62C48D...@attglobal.net>...

> KQKnave wrote:
> >
> > In article <3C61723B...@attglobal.net>, "John W. Kennedy"
> > <jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > >
> > >KQKnave wrote:
> > >> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> > >> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> > >> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> > >> "As I Lay Dying."
> > >
> > >Kubla Khan.
> > >
> >
> > 54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale the sacred river ran"?
> > Do you like Longfellow too?
>
> I should, as I'm told he's an ancestor of mine, but I know only his
> syllabus-set bits.
>
> For the rest, old man, you really have to expand your critical horizons,
> for I fear you are turning into one of the worst sort of Lewis's
> "stylemongers". Too many readers in too many generations have damned
> the visitor from Porlock for such a casual dismissal on your part to
> look like anything better than aesthetic puritanism.

Please explain exactly what is good about this poem. I don't find
a single phrase that impresses me, either from the standpoint of
poetic technique or emotional truth. It's empty noise, the kind of
thing that impresses young people, as I was when I first read it in
high school. Real poets write new language. This is nothing of the kind.

Jim

See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

See my demolition of some of John Baker's ridiculous web pages!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/bakerbull21.html

Jim KQKnave

unread,
Feb 7, 2002, 10:09:18 PM2/7/02
to
"Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<dxz88.17732$Hb6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

> "KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> news:20020207124128...@mb-mp.aol.com...
> > In article <3C61723B...@attglobal.net>, "John W. Kennedy"
> > <jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > >
> > >KQKnave wrote:
> > >> *Some* writers may do their "best work" rapidly, but I don't know
> > >> of any great works that weren't written without considerable
> > >> re-writing and editing. The closest thing I can think of is Faulkner's
> > >> "As I Lay Dying."
> > >
> > >Kubla Khan.
> > >
> >
> > 54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale
>
> I know. It's such a cliche. Shakespeare is full of them, too.


Are you sure? I don't think he used many cliches in V&A, RofL,
Ph&T and LC. I'd be interested to see them. The reason I noticed
this phrase in particular is that I remembered "hill and dale"
from Shakespeare (it turns out to be in MSND). A real poet would
not use that phrase, for that reason alone, but a real poet creates
new language in any case.

Shakespeare, in fact, uses "hill and dale" in a song. Was "hill and
dale" a cliche in 1595? It certainly became one after Shakespeare
used it.


> TR
>
> the sacred river ran"?
> > Do you like Longfellow too?

The poem is too full of easy alliteration like "river ran".

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:04:06 AM2/8/02
to
In article <fJn88.16840$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Tom
Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> writes:

>> I don't know how he wrote his works. My impression was that he
>> wrote in pieces for serialization in newspapers over a long time, which
>> would have involved the editor at the newspaper as well.
>
>I thought Dickens *was* the editor of the journal in which most of his works
>first appeared.
>

He was. His magazine was a monthly, and Pickwick Papers and
Nicholas Nickleby were were each written over 20 months.

Crows Dog

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:12:32 AM2/8/02
to
kqknave misquoted:

>Kubla Khan.
>>
>
>54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale the sacred river ran"?
>Do you like Longfellow too?
>

That's "Through WOOD and dale the sacred river ran."

Rivers don't run through hills.

KQKnave

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:24:10 AM2/8/02
to
In article <20020208011232...@mb-ck.aol.com>, crow...@aol.com
(Crows Dog) writes:

>
>That's "Through WOOD and dale the sacred river ran."

Right, I misquoted. Don't know why.

>Rivers don't run through hills.

They don't?

That poem is a piece of crap. I suspect that Coleridge tried
to write some popular piece, and when he ran out of gas,
he made up a story about dreaming it etc.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:25:22 AM2/8/02
to
"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:716b251.02020...@posting.google.com...

So you weren't kidding? I find the poem to be a poetic commentary on the
source of creativity, myself, among other things.

But then of course I'm always reading things into things.

TR


KQKnave

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:30:42 AM2/8/02
to
In article <mbK88.20353$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Tom
Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> writes:

>
>So you weren't kidding? I find the poem to be a poetic commentary on the
>source of creativity, myself, among other things.
>
>But then of course I'm always reading things into things.
>

I wasn't kidding. I have no clue what you're talking about.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:45:00 AM2/8/02
to
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020208013042...@mb-ce.aol.com...

> In article <mbK88.20353$3E5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Tom
> Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >
> >So you weren't kidding? I find the poem to be a poetic commentary on the
> >source of creativity, myself, among other things.
> >
> >But then of course I'm always reading things into things.
> >
>
> I wasn't kidding. I have no clue what you're talking about.
>

I even wrote an essay on it when I was an undergrad. I'll look around and
see if I can find it.

Of course, it also could be that I'm a genius and you're not. Or maybe
you're a genius and I'm not. Onr thing for sure, Crowley ain't no genius.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

TR


Crows Dog

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 2:35:04 AM2/8/02
to
I used to recite "Kubla Kahn" when I was in high school. I loved it then, -
not so much for the poem itself, but because it's easy to use little vocal
tricks to sound impressive when you're reciting it. It's better poem to recite
than to read.

And the sexual imagery is a bit over the top.

I wasn't completely serious when I said rivers don't run through hills. A
river can run between hills, but it wouldn't run through A hill, unless it was
running underground.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 5:41:55 AM2/8/02
to
> > You know, as I've said before, it would be SO useful
> > if someone interested in Shakespeare's sources would
> > do a line-by-line version of some Shakespeare play
> > showing with interlineations exactly what was absolutely
> > taken from some source, what suggested by some source.
> > (Maybe it's been done?) I wonder just how close the
> > match would be.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
>
>
> Bob. I've already come up with two sources that
> Shakespeare could not have known under any circumstances.

Show this by putting the source text next to the Shakespearean
text, and then, if they match, showing that the source text
influenced the Shakespearean text rather than vice versa.


> In fact the Strachey letter is the third because
> Kathman is apparently not aware that it was suppressed
> or why it was suppressed until 1625.

It circulated in manuscript.

> 1. Coke's Institutes not printed until 1634.
>
> 2. The Pensioners Book of Gray's Inn.
>
> 3. The Strachey letter.
>
> 4. Harvey's discovery of the circulation
> of the blood printed after 1626--I just
> thought of that.
>
> The "army of Strat scholars" have seen these
> sources in the plays and no doubt countless
> others but they can't *say anything.*

They are sane, Elizabeth, so don't see them as legitimate
parallels anymore than they see the ones Faker comes up
with as legitimate parallels.

--Bob G.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 6:01:05 AM2/8/02
to
> I think the "Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven"
> image is so rare that it has to be from Sophocles.

I agree. I can't imagine any writer even thinking of heels,
much less of kicking them. The incredible figure of sky as
"heaven" clinches it. Only a bishop, like Marlowe, could
have written this line.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 6:16:28 AM2/8/02
to
> >Of course, judging
> > from the quality of his memory as demonstrated in the Mountjoy deposition, he
> > didn't remember much at all from his time there.
>
> Why would he, or anyone, so many years after the fact?
>
> Jim

And why would he necessarily reveal all he DID remember when it
involved a dispute between two parties both of whom he sympathized
with?

Andrew Ness

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 7:32:42 AM2/8/02
to

"Crows Dog" <crow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020208023504...@mb-bj.aol.com...

> I used to recite "Kubla Kahn" when I was in high school. I loved it
then, -
> not so much for the poem itself, but because it's easy to use little
vocal
> tricks to sound impressive when you're reciting it. It's better poem to
recite
> than to read.
>
> And the sexual imagery is a bit over the top.
>
> I wasn't completely serious when I said rivers don't run through hills. A
> river can run between hills, but it wouldn't run through A hill, unless it
was
> running underground.
>

More through a 'cavern' then?

NSY


Andrew Ness

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 7:31:27 AM2/8/02
to

"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020208012410...@mb-ci.aol.com...

> In article <20020208011232...@mb-ck.aol.com>, crow...@aol.com
> (Crows Dog) writes:
>
> >
> >That's "Through WOOD and dale the sacred river ran."
>
> Right, I misquoted. Don't know why.
>
> >Rivers don't run through hills.
>
> They don't?
>
> That poem is a piece of crap. I suspect that Coleridge tried
> to write some popular piece, and when he ran out of gas,
> he made up a story about dreaming it etc.

The popular story is that it was an opium dream brought on by an attempt to
use the drug to ward off an attack of dysentry. And interrupted when a
salesman knocked at the door.

NSY


Andrew Ness

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 7:30:03 AM2/8/02
to

"Crows Dog" <crow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020208011232...@mb-ck.aol.com...

Jsut through some chap called Alf isn't it?

NSY


MakBane

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 8:47:40 AM2/8/02
to
Petzold, on Shakspere's facility with French:

>> >Of course, judging
>> > from the quality of his memory as demonstrated in the Mountjoy
>deposition, he
>> > didn't remember much at all from his time there.

Agent Jim:

>> Why would he, or anyone, so many years after the fact?

Grumman:

>And why would he necessarily reveal all he DID remember when it
>involved a dispute between two parties both of whom he sympathized
>with?

If Shakspere deliberately lied or withheld information, doesn't that suggest
that he sympathized with one side more than the other? Regardless, your view of
Shakspere's truthfulness is well-taken.

Incidentally, Henry V had been written long before Shakspere took the top bunk
in the Mountjoy's guest bedroom, so he probably picked and gleaned his French
from somewhere else.

Toby Petzold
American

Tad Davis

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 10:51:46 AM2/8/02
to
Bob Grumman wrote:

> And why would he necessarily reveal all he DID remember when it
> involved a dispute between two parties both of whom he sympathized
> with?

Or both of whom he thought were a bit seedy and mercenary (as concluded by a
later Hugenot court who looked into the same matter).

--
Tad Davis
dav...@voicenet.com

Stephanie Caruana

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 10:59:56 AM2/8/02
to


"Tad Davis" <dav...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:B8895EE8.2FC19%dav...@voicenet.com...

Or both of whom he didn't give a hoot about?

Stephanie Caruana


Stephanie Caruana

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 11:03:39 AM2/8/02
to

"Tad Davis" <dav...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:B8895EE8.2FC19%dav...@voicenet.com...

Or both of whom he didn't give a hoot about?

Stephanie

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Stephanie Caruana
author/editor:
The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
http://gemstone-file.com

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


Mark Steese

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 1:14:57 PM2/8/02
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of "Andrew Ness" <ne...@liverpoolfc.net>
that wrote news:a40iha$o7j$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk, on the day of 08 Feb
2002:

Shurely Alf was the chap doing the running? If I remember correctly, he
was in a hurry to get home because it was night-time. 'Course Coleridge
couldn't just come out and say it was night, he had to be a poet and say it
was "sunless". See?

-Mark

Mark Steese

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 2:31:24 PM2/8/02
to
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of kqk...@yahoo.co.uk (Jim KQKnave)
that wrote news:716b251.02020...@posting.google.com, on the day
of 07 Feb 2002:

[snip]


>> > >Kubla Khan.
>> > >
>> >
>> > 54 lines of quasi-poetry. "Through hill and dale the sacred river
>> > ran"? Do you like Longfellow too?
>>
>> I should, as I'm told he's an ancestor of mine, but I know only his
>> syllabus-set bits.
>>
>> For the rest, old man, you really have to expand your critical
>> horizons, for I fear you are turning into one of the worst sort of
>> Lewis's "stylemongers". Too many readers in too many generations have
>> damned the visitor from Porlock for such a casual dismissal on your
>> part to look like anything better than aesthetic puritanism.
>
> Please explain exactly what is good about this poem. I don't find
> a single phrase that impresses me, either from the standpoint of
> poetic technique or emotional truth. It's empty noise, the kind of
> thing that impresses young people, as I was when I first read it in
> high school. Real poets write new language. This is nothing of the
> kind.

"Real poets write new language"? That strikes me as no more substantive a
claim than "Real men don't eat quiche." The fact that the poem doesn't
impress you is not necessarily a marker of its value. You have previously
asserted that Keats "beats [Milton] and just about everyone except
Shakespeare at certain moments" for "pure poetry," but you were unable then
to explain exactly why the author of "Isabella; or, The Pot of Basil"
should be considered a greater poet than the author of "Paradise Lost." As
for new language, Keats was rather more than half in love with "poetic"
archaisms that I, for one, find quite irritating:

" She took me to her elfin grot,
And there she gaz'd and sighed deep,
And there I shut her wild sad eyes--
So kiss'd to sleep."

If you can provide any evidence that this is superior to

" Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise."

I will be very interested to see it.

Bob Grumman

unread,
Feb 8, 2002, 2:50:46 PM2/8/02