Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A staunch Royalist
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 14, 2018, 9:21:39 AM5/14/18
to
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. H. Auden - 'Family Ghosts'
http://tinyurl.com/28usvlr
Rev. Thomas Swift
Birth: 1595
Death: 1658;(Age 63)
Occupation: Vicar of Goodrich, Herefordshire
Event: A staunch Royalist, 'plundred by the roundheads
. six and thirty times';(Mercurius Rusticus, 1685);
http://tinyurl.com/23nmgrm
Marriage Elizabeth Dryden before 1640;(Age 45);
Birth of a child
#1 1640 (Age 45); Son: Jonathan Swift [father of author]
#2 Son: Dryden Swift
#3 Son: Thomas Swift [son-in-law of William Davenant]
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/219/0401.html
The Cambridge History of English and American Literature (1907–21).
Volume IX. IV. § 1. [Jonathan] Swift’s parentage and descent.
<<SWIFT’s writings are so closely connected with the man that they
cannot be understood properly without reference to the circumstances
under which they were produced. The best way, therefore, of arriving
at Swift’s views and methods will be to set out briefly the chief
events of his life, and, afterwards, to consider
the more important of his writings.
.
Jonathan Swift’s royalist grandfather, Thomas Swift, of a Yorkshire
family, was vicar of Goodrich, and married Elizabeth Dryden, niece of
Sir Erasmus Dryden, the poet’s grandfather. The eldest of his large
family, Godwin, a barrister, went to Ireland, where he became wealthy;
and some of his brothers followed him. One of them, Jonathan, who had
married Abigail Erick, was made steward of the king’s inns, Dublin,
but he did not live long, and, seven months after his death, on 30
November, 1667, his only son, Jonathan, was born. The widow was left
dependent mainly on her husband’s brother, Godwin. A nurse took the
child to Whitehaven, and kept him there three years; and, not long
after his return to Dublin, his mother returned to her relatives in
England, leaving the boy in his uncle’s care. He was sent to Kilkenny
school, where he met Congreve; and, when he was fourteen, he was
entered as a pensioner at Trinity College, Dublin. Why he afterwards
felt so much resentment against his relatives is not clear;
for his uncle gave him, not “the education of a dog,” but
the best obtainable in Ireland. Swift was often at war with
the college authorities; but he got his degree in 1685.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Cheke --- William Cecil --- Mildred Cooke
| {Burghley} |
| (1520-98) Anne Cecil---Edward deVere
| {Oxford}
| (1550-1604)
{Exeter} Thomas Cecil---Dorothy Neville
(1542-1622) |
|
Elizabeth DRURY---William Cecil{Exeter}--- Elizabeth MANNERS
| (1566-1640) (2nd cousin of ROGER)
|
Elizabeth CECIL---Thomas Howard{Berkshire}
| (1625-1669)
|
Elizabeth Cecil Howard --- JOHN DRYDEN
(1631-1700)
Poet Laureate (1668)
{THE FATHER of Shakespeare Criticism &}
http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/biography/autobio.html
{close relative of Jonathan Swift's grandmother}
|
|
W. Shakspere--- Mrs. Davenant |
(1564-1616) | V
| Tom Swift--- Dryden
William Davenant ----- ?? |
(1606-1668) | /----------\
Poet Laureate | | |
1638 daughter--- Tom Swift Jonathan---Abig. Erick
| |
Tom Swift Jonathan Swift
{Rector of PUTTENHAM} {Mr.Lemuel GulliVER}
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is my contention that the good Reverend
Thomas Swift (Age 36) was responsible for the
1631 "John WeEVER" tract & he signed it accordingly
(along side the Latin name of Edward de Vere):
-------------------------------------------------------------
17th-century References to Shakespeare's Stratford Monument
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/monrefs.html
.
<<In 1631, a year before his death, John WeEVER published the massive
Ancient Funerall Monuments, which recorded many inscriptions from
monuments around England, particularly in Canterbury, Rochester,
London, and Norwich. Shakespeare's monument does not appear in the
published book, but two of WeEVER's notebooks, containing his drafts
for most of the book as well as many unpublished notes, survive as
Society of Antiquaries MSS. 127 and 128. In one of these notebooks,
under the heading "Stratford upon Avon," WeEVER recorded the poems
from Shakespeare's monument and his gravestone, as follows:
..........................................................
. Iudcio Pilum, Genio Socratem, Arte Maronem
. Terra tegit, populus maeret, Olympus habet.
. Stay Passenger, why goes[T] thou by so fast
. Read i[F] your canst whome env[I]ous death hath plac'd
. [W]ithin this monument [S]hakespeare with who[M]e
. Quick Nature dy'd wh[O]se name doth deck his [T]ombe
. far more then co{S}t, sith all yt hee hath {W}ritt
. Leaves living Art but page to serve hi{S W}itt.
.
. ob Ano doi 1616 AEtat. 53. 24 die April
.
. Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
. To digg th{e d[U]s}t enclosed heare
. Bl[E]st bee ye man that spa[R]es these stones
. And c[U]rst bee hee that move[S] my bones.
.........................................................
In the margin opposite the heading "Stratford upon Avon",
WeEVER wrote "Willm Shakespeare the famous poet",
.
and opposite the last two lines of the epitaph
he wrote "vpo[n] the grave stone".>>
...................................................
____________ <= 18 =>
.
_ I u d c i o P i l u m G e n i o S o
_ c r a t e m A r t e M a r o n e m T
_ e r r a t e g i t p o p u l u s m a
_ e r e t O l y m p u s h a b e t S t
_ a y P a s s e n g e r w h y g o e s
. [T] t h o u b y s o f a s t R e a d i
. [F] y o u r c a n s t w h o m e e n v
. [I] o u s d e a t h h a t h p l a c d
. [W] i t h i n t h i s m o n u m e n t
. [S] h a k e s p e a r e w i t h w h o
. [M] e Q u i c k N a t u r e d y d w h
. [O] s e n a m e d o t h d e c k h i s
. [T] o m b e f a r m o r e t h e n c o
. {S} t s i t h a l l y t h e e h a t h
. {W} r i t t L e a v e s l i v i n g A
_ r t b u t p a g e t o s e r v e h i
. {S W}i t t.
Prob. of [TOM SWIFT] ~ 1 in 3,700,000 (any skip)
...........................................
____________ <= 18 =>
.
- G o o d f r e n d f o r I e s u s s
- a k e f o r b e a r e T o d i g g t
. h{e d[U] s}t e n c l o s e d h e a r
_- e B l[E] s t b e e y e m a n t h a t
- s p a[R] e s t h e s e s t o n e s A
- n d c[U] r s t b e e h e e t h a t m
_ o v e[S] m y b o n e s
Prob. of [UERUS] ~ 1 in 1090 (any skip)
...........................................
Next to the infamous engraving in Dugdale's Antiquities of
Warwickshire, Dugdale transcribed both the Latin and English
verses from Shakespeare's tomb, along with the verse from
the gravestone. Except for minor spelling differences
(entirely typical of Dugdale), these verses
are the same as those seen today.
The Latin reads:
. Ivdicio Pylivm, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
. Terra tegit, popvlvs maeret, Olympvs habet
which may be translated thus:
. In judgment a Nestor, in wit a Socrates, in Art
. a Virgil; the earth b{U}ries [him], [T]h{E} people
. m[O]u{R}n [him], Oly[M]p{U}s posses[S]e{S} [him]
...........................................
____ <= 10 =>
.
. t h e e a r t -h- b {U}
. r i e s h i m [T] h {E}
. p e o p l e m [O] u {R}
. n h i m O l y [M] p {U}
. s p o s s e s [S] e {S} [him]
-------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift%27s_Epitaph
.......................................
Epitaph written by Swift for himself in Latin:
.
. Hic depositum est Corpus
. IONATHAN SWIFT S.T.D.
. Hujus Ecclesiæ Cathedralis
. Decani,
. Ubi sæ[V]a Indignatio
. Ult[ERIUS]
. Cor lacerar[E] nequit,
. Abi Viat[OR]
. Et imitare, si pot[E]ri{S},
. Strenu{U}m pro [V]i{R}ili
. Lib{E}rtatis {V}indicatorem.
Obiit 19º Die Mensis Octobris
A.D. 1745 Anno ætatis 78º.
.......................................
. <= 15 =>
.
. U b i s æ[V]a I n d i g n a t
. i o U l t[E R I U S]C o r l a
. c e r a r[E]n e q u i t,A b i
. V i a t[O R]E t i m i t a r e,
. s i p o t[E]r i s,S t r e n u
.{U}m p r o[V]i{R}i l i
.
[V E(R E)E V] -15
[VER/O] -15
[VE/RIUS] 15
.......................................
. <= 7 =>
.
. s i p o t [E] r
. i {S},S t r e n
. u {U} m p r o [V]
. i {R} i l i L i
. b {E} r t a t i
. s {V} i n d i c
. a t o r e m.
.
{VERUS} -7
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/203/87.html
Alexander Pope (1688–1744). Poems Suggested by Gulliver: 1727
II. The Lamentation of Glumdalclitch for the Loss of Grildrig
A Pastoral
Hast thou for these now ventured from the shore,
Th[Y] bark a b[E]an shel[L], and a st[R]aw thy o[A]r?
Or in t[H]y box now bounding on the main,
Shall I ne’er bear thyself and house again?
............................................
. <= 7 =>
.
. T h [Y] b a r k
. a b [E] a n s h
. e l [L],a n d a
. s t [R] a w t h
. y o [A] r?O r i
. n t [H] y b{O X}
. n o w b o u n
. d i n g o n t
. h e m a i n,
.
[HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
.............................................
And shall I set thee on my hand no more,
To see thee leap the lines, and traverse o’er
My spacious palm; of stature scarce a span,
Mimic the actions of a real man?
No more behold thee turn my watch’s key,
As seamen at a capstan anchors weigh?
How wert thou wont to walk with cautious tread,
A dish of tea, like milkpail, on thy head!
How chase the mite that bore thy cheese away,
And keep the rolling maggot at a bay!’
She spoke; but broken accents stopp’d her voice,
Soft as the speaking-trumpet’s mellow noise:
She sobb’d a storm, and wiped her flowing eyes,
Which seem’d like two broad suns in misty skies.
O squander not thy grief! those tears command
To weep upon our cod in Newfoundland;
The plenteous pickle shall preserve the fish,
And Europe taste thy sorrows in a dish.
------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Harley,_2nd_Earl_of_Oxford_and_Earl_Mortimer
<<Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer (2 June 1689 – 16 June 1741), styled Lord Harley between 1711 and 1724, was a British politician, bibliophile, collector and patron of the arts. Harley was the only son of Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, by his first wife Elizabeth Foley.
He was MP for Radnor (as his father and paternal grandfather had been before him) from 1711 to 1714, and for Cambridgeshire from 1722 until he succeeded his father in 1724 and entered the House of Lords. He was a bibliophile, collector and patron of the arts, and took little interest in public affairs. He extended his father's library and expanded the Harleian Collection, now in the British Library. The department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, The University of Nottingham holds a number of papers relating to the 2nd Earl and the management of his estates in the Portland (London) collection.
Through his wife [Henrietta Cavendish Holles: great-great-grandaughter of Horatio Vere], he inherited Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire, and Wimpole Hall in Cambridgeshire. Wimpole became their main residence, but they had to sell it in 1740 to pay Edward's debts. He also acquired a considerable amount of land in the West End of London which was developed during his life. Many of the now famous streets took their names from Harley connections – primarily Harley Street and Oxford Street. Other streets, named after Harley properties, include Wigmore Street and Wimpole Street.
On 31 August 1713 he married Lady Henrietta Cavendish Holles (1694–1755), only daughter and heir of the 1st Duke of Newcastle and his wife, the former Lady Margaret Cavendish, daughter of the 2nd Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Lord Oxford and Mortimer died in London in 1741 and was buried in the vault of the Duke of Newcastle in Westminster Abbey. >>
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/holles-family
John Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/__data/assets/thumbnail/0003/86727/Holles,-John-D-of-Newcastle-72.jpg
<<His towering monument of white and other marble stands in the north transept, near the entrance door, although he was buried, by his own wish, in the chapel of St John the Evangelist near his great-grandfather Horace, Lord Vere of Tilbury. The monument is signed by the architect James Gibbs and the sculptor was Francis Bird assisted by J.M.Rysbrack. The duke's effigy is in armour with loose drapery and he looks upward, holding in his hands a coronet and a baton. On either side are the standing, life-size, figures of Wisdom, with a pillar, and Sincerity, with a mirror. The architectural background consists of two columns, pilasters and two seated angels, with an heraldic achievement. The inscription reads:
To the memory of JOHN HOLLES DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, Marquis and Earl of CLARE, Baron Haughton and Knight-Companion of the most Noble Order of the Garter, whose body is here deposited under the same roof with many of his noble ancestors and relations of the families of VERE, CAVENDISHE and HOLLES, whose eminent virtues he inherited; and was particularly distinguished for his courage, love to his countrey and constancy in friendship; which qualities he exerted with great zeal and readiness, whenever the cause of religion, his countrey, or friends required him. In the reign of Queen Anne he filled with great capactiy and honour the several employments of Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, and Privy Councellour, Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotularum of the counties of Middlesex and Nottingham, and of the county of the town of Nottingham and of the East and North Ridings of the county of York, Lord Chief Justice in Eyre North of Trent, and Governour of the town and fort of Kingston upon Hull; to all which titles and honours his personal merit gave a lustre, that needed not the addition of the great wealth which he possessed. He was born the 9th of January 1661/2 and died the 15th of July 1711. He marryed the Lady Margaret, third daughter and heir to Henry Cavendishe Duke of Newcastle, by whom he left issue one only child, the Lady HENRIETTA-CAVENDISHE HOLLES HARLEY, who caused this memorial of him to be here erected in the year of our Lord 1723
His daughter Henrietta married Edward Harley (later Earl of Oxford) and she was buried in the Newcastle vault on 26 December 1755, with Edward who was buried there on 25 June 1741.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
https://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/expanding-the-question/vizualizing-shakespeare-a-tale-of-two-portraits/george-vertue-and-shakespeares-face/
George Vertue and Shakespeare’s face
<<George Vertue was the premiere artist-engraver of the first half of the 18th century. At his death he left 500 engraved portraits alone, plus numerous illustrations of other subjects.
Accustomed from childhood to Court life (Vertue’s parents had been servants in the household of the exiled James II), through his artistry, his technical skill and his excellent taste, George Vertue became the friend and confidante of peers inclined towards the arts, antiquities and literature. By 1720 he had become the personal friend and consultant of Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford (by the second creation). Following Harley’s death in 1741, he remained the friend and consultant of his widow, the heiress Henrietta Holles, a descendant of Edward de Vere’s cousin, Sir Horatio Vere.
In their time, the Harleys, first the father, then the son and his wife, were great leaders of Court society and patrons of poets, artists and antiquarians. Edward’s father, the vastly wealthy Robert Harley, first Earl of Oxford (second creation) was Secretary of State under Queen Anne, then her Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ultimately her Lord Treasurer. Robert Harley used his wealth and power to amass the collection of books and manuscripts that would eventually become the British Library.
A poet himself, Harley Sr. was also the great Maecenas of the Silver Age in English literature that followed (roughly 150 years later) the Golden Age of Shakespeare, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon and Milton. Patron of Daniel Defoe, Jonathon Swift, Alexander Pope, and John Gay, Harley Sr. was a founding member of, and contributor to, the famous Scriblerus Club, where he and his brilliant friends would indulge their appetite for mirth by plotting, over interminable cups of coffee, literary tricks to play on the dull bourgeoisie, one of which was the creation of a fictional author, Martin Scriblerus, under whose name several members published satires.
With his death in 1724, Harley Sr.’s entire estate, library, and collection of antiquities, including portraits of family members and various persons of social standing, passed to his son, who compounded it by marrying the highly-educated heiress Henrietta Cavendish Holles, daughter of Gilbert Holles, Earl of Clare, Keeper of the Privy Seal, and second in wealth and importance only to Harley’s father.
Denied political power, the Harleys turned to intellectual pursuits, purchasing important manuscripts, books and memorabilia as their fellow aristocrats turned centuries-old archives and collections into cash, a venture which eventually brought this second creation of Oxford earls into serious debt. During the lifetime of the two Harleys, their wives and their daughters, they became the primary respository for much of the scientific and artistic wealth of England––plate, jewelry, portraits, statues––plus science specimens from all over the world.
By the 1750s, with father and husband gone, the expense of maintaining these vast collections became insupportable and the Duchess of Portland and her mother chose to realize Edward Harley’s dream of a great national library, selling most of the family collections to found what is now the British Museum and the British Library. For many years up until then, George Vertue had the good fortune to hold, examine, admire and research this great accumulation. Out of it the one totally trustworthy image of the 17th Earl of Oxford (the Welbeck) was recovered; Vertue, in his voluminous notebooks, suggests there were others.
...............................................................
https://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/vertue-shx-w-ruff1.jpg
Vertue’s frontispiece for Alexander Pope’s 1725 edition of Shakespeare’s works.
...............................................................
George Vertue began working with/for Edward Harley in 1720 at about the same time that he was commissioned to provide a portrait of Shakespeare to introduce Alexander Pope’s six-volume edition of the works. Although Vertue would have been well-acquainted with the Droeshout engraving, the Chandos, and the engraving by Michael Vandergucht, his own teacher, that Nicholas Rowe had used as the frontispiece in his 1709 edition of Shakespeare, Vertue chose to copy a portrait from Harley’s collection (as is inscribed at the bottom of the engraving). Who the subject of this portrait was remains unknown. To distinguish it from Vertue’s other Shakespeare we’ll call it Shakespeare with a ruff. As noted by J. Parker Norris, 19th-century editor of The Editors of Shakespeare (v2.1885) in his chapter on Pope’s 1725 edition:
...............................................................
https://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/vertue-shx-w-ruff1.jpg
...............................................................
It seems that Alexander Pope had his edition of Shakespeare ready to publish several years before it finally saw print in 1725 (he had trouble getting subscribers). The date inscribed by Vertue on the engraving used as Pope’s frontispiece, Harley’s Shakespeare with a ruff, was 1721. But two years earlier, in 1719, George Vertue had engraved another very different portrait of Shakespeare for his series “Twelve Heads of Poets,” published at some point between 1726 and 1729,” one we’ll call Shakespeare with a collar:
...............................................................
http://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00833/AN00833167_001_l.jpg
Shakespeare! such Thoughts inimitable shine,
Drest in thy Words, thy Fancy seems Divine,
'Tis Natures Mirrour where she views each Grace,
And all the various Features of her Face.
...............................................................
So why has the world of Shakespeare scholarship so abjectly and wrongly continued to pipe the refrain that Vertue’s Shakespeare with a collar is a copy of the Chandos? This misconception must have arisen from Vertue’s own notebooks, and from the line he added at the bottom of the engraving: “Done from the original now in the possession of Robert Keck of the Inner Temple, Esq.” Also from Vertue comes the information that by 1619 the Chandos was owned by Keck, collector of Shakespeare artefacts; that with his death on November 23, 1619, it passed––one after another––to various members of his family until it ended up with the descendant who married the aristocrat whose name then became attached to it. Apparently it has never occured to anyone that, as a well-known collector of Shakespeare memorabilia, Keck could have owned more than one Shakespeare portrait. Either that or Vertue’s statement was a red herring meant to steer the viewer away from the subject’s true identity.
In fact it seems that never in any of its various incarnations has there been an attempt to recreate on the Bust the face of the Chandos. Most curious of all is the fact that Vertue, whose 1737 sketch of his patron looking up at the Stratford monument during their Stratford visit appears to have the same head as in the Dugdale 1634 sketch, minus the moustache and with pen and pillow replacing the woolsack. Admittedly these are rough sketches, but even so, the head and face of the Vertue squiggle looks most like the Dugdale versions of the Bust, nothing like any of its later incarnations.
................................................................
https://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/vertue-sketch-of-monument.png
................................................................
This suggests that when Vertue and Harley saw the Bust in 1737 it had not been altered since 1656 when Dugdale published an engraved version of his earlier sketch in his Antiquities of Warwickshire. Was Vertue’s 1737 sketch, with the addition of the pen and pillow, the first suggestion of how he (and Edward Harley) thought the Bust should look, rather than how it actually looked at that time? Was his version of the Bust as portrayed on page 30 of Pope’s 1725 edition, not an illustration of what the Bust actually looked like then, but a projection of what he was suggesting it be made to look like? And why did Alexander Pope allow it, possibly even promote it, as the image to face his chapter on Shakespeare’s Life?
The TLS (Times Literary Supplement) for August 22, 2011, provides an interesting exchange among curator Tarnya Cooper, academics Katherine Duncan-Jones, Jonathon Bate and Stanley Wells, Oxfordian Dorna Bewley, and scholars Peter Beal and Brian Vickers.
As Vickers emphasizes, quoting authorship scholar Richard Kennedy, much of the problem is solved when we accept that the figure in the Dugdale sketch of 1634 and later Rowe illustration of 1656 represent, not William of Stratford, but the memorial’s original occupant, William’s father, John Shakspere, grasping the emblem of his trade, a woolsack, a figure still in place in 1737 when Vertue sketched Harley observing the Bust. Convincing detail on the true history of that figure has been provided by authorship scholar Richard Whalen in his 2005 article in The Oxfordian, “A Monumental Fraud.”
During the early 1720s when Alexander Pope was at work on his edition of Shakespeare, the issue of the Bard’s face and the problems it presented must have roused Pope’s curiosity. How interesting that the choices he made for his Shakespeare edition, condemned by critic Norris a century later, show that he avoided what would have been his most likely options––for the frontispiece, the Chandos or the Droeshout; for the “Life” the Dugdale engraving, choosing instead Vertue’s 1721 Shakespeare with a ruff, taken from the miniature owned by his patron, Edward Harley, and, on page 30, for the “Life” by Rowe, Vertue’s 1719 Shakespeare with a collar. Pope’s edition stimulated a renewed interest in Shakespeare, which perhaps included, among his Scriblerus coterie at least, a curiosity about his image. It may be that Harley and Vertue’s 1737 trip to Stratford to view the monument was in reponse to this curiosity.
The lifesized statue of the Bard is the centerpiece of a huge marble screen that creates a separate space from what had been until 1741 an open area where the floor was lined with plaques honoring various poets (and others) buried beneath it. With the addition of the great screen that not only holds the Shakespeare monument, but provides a wall where other memorials soon found a niche in the increasingly crowded Poet’s Corner, these floor plaques were lost, among them the ones marking where in 1599, Edmund Spenser, and in 1616, Francis Beaumont had been buried.
The creation of this monument came at the peak of the Augustan era, often marked as having ended with Pope’s death in 1744. Noting that Vertue was a trustee on the committee that planned this memorial, and that he had submitted a design for it (now lost) that was passed over in favor of the Kent design, Hannas points to several facts about the memorial that in his opinion suggest that the project had actually originated with the Harleys.
With Edward Harley’s death in 1741, Vertue continued to serve his widow, Henrietta Bentinck Holles Harley, Countess of Oxford, who looked to him to examine and inventory their collections, much of it at Welbeck Abbey, which she had inherited from her Cavendish father. Following her husband’s death she commissioned Vertue to make a number of engravings from the portraits in his collection. In 1742 she sold his collection of portraits, prints, Greek and Roman antiquities, coins and medals at auction, reserving for herself and her family portraits of family members, including the Welbeck portrait of de Vere which passed with her death in 1755 to her daughter, Margaret, Duchess of Portland where it remains as part of the Portland collection on loan to the National Portrait Gallery.
There can be no doubt that Vertue, who had helped this Countess of Oxford prepare the catalog for this sale, knew this portrait and so, as a portrait artist, was aware of the qualities of his face, the high forehead and pursed lips. In his notebook, Vertue mentions that he knew of another portrait of de Vere by Cornelius Ketel, active in England in the 1580s (now identified by some as the Ashbourne). Vertue claimed (sometime after 1712) that Henrietta Stanley, Countess of Strafford, daughter of the 7th Earl of Derby, the son of Elizabeth Vere, de Vere’s eldest daughter, had owned a portrait of de Vere by Cornelius Ketel (Ruth Miller 2.418). She died without issue in 1685, leaving it to her husband William Wentworth, who left a large collection at Wentworth Woodhouse, which then passed to his descendants. Some years ago, authorship scholar Derran Charleton, in researching the Earls of Strafford archives at Wentworth Woodhouse, found an old inventory that included a three-quarter portrait of the Earl of Oxford. There are other extant portraits of de Vere: the Ashbourne and the Welbeck. There is also a Hilliard miniature of Oxford in his thirties with blond curly hair that belongs to the Duke of Buccleuch. Although Hilliard is not a particularly trustworthy reporter of a likeness (he tended to give everyone a pie face, little nose and weak chin), we do see the pursed lips that suggest de Vere.
It’s certainly not unreasonable that there are, or have been, other portraits of de Vere than these that have been identified.
I propose that Vertue based his engraving of Shakespeare with a collar on a portrait of de Vere, painted in his fifties, that Vertue had access to at that time through Henrietta Holles, Countess of Oxford (by the second creation), that is now lost or at least is not presently accessible, and that he, and his patron, Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford (by the second creation) knew (or believed) that its subject was the true author of the Shakespeare canon. I’m forced to consider this because the face in this engraving––and in the Bust engraving based on it––a face that looks nothing like any other portrait of Shakespeare, that are so similar to those in the Welbeck and the Ashbourne, each from different stages in his life. I believe this, one: because the face reflects intelligence of the sort not found in any other image of Shakespeare; two: because it simply isn’t possible that Vertue could have come up with such a real face out of his imagination; and three: because there are mentions throughout the literature of other portraits of Oxford that haven’t yet been located or identified. I propose that this lost portrait was painted when Oxford was in his fifties. As for the hairline and the collar, the bald head on the Vertue portrait may reflect his own hairline as it was in his fifties, or both may be Vertue’s attempt to corelate the image in the original portrait with the standard image of Shakespeare.
Putting them together, we have the Welbeck from his twenties, the Ashbourne from his forties, and the Vertue from his fifties––all reflecting the same facial structure, the same nose, and most uniquely, the pursed lips.
That the Harleys were curious about Shakespeare is obvious. That they were also curious about the Earl of Oxford seems to be equally apparent. The very fact that Robert Harley, poet, patron of poets, chose to call himself Earl of Oxford rather than some other antiquated title, suggests that his choice of title was based on something more than just a remote family connection.
I propose that the Harleys knew that Oxford was Shakespeare, and were invested in recovering the truth. A diligent collector, it’s no accident that his son married the heiress, a descendant of Oxford’s cousin, Sir Horatio Vere, who would bring him de Vere family heirlooms, papers and books. Their daughter Margaret brought the vast inheritance of their combined estates to her husband, the Earl of Portland.
Having grown up in the company of poets like Swift, Pope and Matthew Prior, surrounded by the libraries, aviaries, botanical gardens and collections of three great houses, Margaret continued the family tradition of collecting and preserving the antiquities of her aristocratic culture. Among the possessions she brought her wealthy husband was Welbeck Abbey, former home of a branch of the Cavendish family, where the one certain portrait of the 17th Earl was located. It was a Cavendish who had, years earlier, had purchased Fisher’s Folly from the 5th Earl of Rutland (or from whoever had purchased it from Rutland), his descendants turning it into the fabulous Devonshire House.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
GULLIVER’S TRAVELS into several
REMOTE NATIONS OF THE WORLD
BY JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.,
dean of st. patrick’s, dublin.
------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF PART II. A VOYAGE TO BROBDINGNAG.
.................................................
I told him, “I had likewise observed another thing, that, when I first got into the ship, and the sailors stood all about me, I thought they were th{E} mos{T} lit{T}le c{O}nte{M}pti{B}le creatures I had ever beheld.”
............................
{B.MOTTE} -4
............................
For indeed, while I was in that prince’s country, I could never endure to look in a glass, after mine eyes had been accustomed to such prodigious objects, because the comparison gave me so despicable a conceit of myself. The captain said, “that while we were at supper, he observed me to look at every thing with a sort of wonder, and that I often seemed hardly able to contain my laughter, which he knew not well how to take, but imputed it to some disorder in my brain.” I answered, “it was very true; and I wondered how I could forbear, when I saw his dishes of the size of a silver three-pence, a leg of pork hardly a mouthful, a cup not so big as a nut-shell;” and so I went on, describing the rest of his household-stuff and provisions, after the same manner. For, although he queen had ordered a little equipage of all things necessary for me, while I was in her service, yet my ideas were wholly taken up with what I saw on every side of me, and I winked at my own littleness, as people do at their own faults. The captain understood my raillery very well, and merrily replied with the old English proverb, “that he doubted mine eyes were bigger than my belly, for he did not observe my stomach so good, although I had fasted all day;” and, continuing in his mirth, protested “he would have gladly given a hundred pounds, to have seen my closet in the eagle’s bill, and afterwards in its fall from so great a height into the sea; which would certainly have been a most astonishing object, worthy to have the description of it transmitted to future ages:” and the comparison of Phaëton was so obvious, that he could not forbear applying it, although I did not much admire the conceit.
The captain having been at Tonquin, was, in his return to England, driven north-eastward to the latitude of 44 degrees, and longitude of 143. But meeting a trade-wind two days after I came on board him, we sailed southward a long time, and coasting New Holland, kept our course west-south-west, and then south-south-west, till we doubled the Cape of Good Hope. Our voyage was very prosperous, but I shall not trouble the reader with a journal of it. The captain called in at one or two ports, and sent in his long-boat for provisions and fresh water; but I never went out of the ship till we came into the Downs, which was on the third day of June, 1706, about nine months after my escape. I offered to leave my goods in security for payment of my freight: but the captain protested he would not receive one farthing.
We took a kind leave of each other, and I made him promi{S}e he woul[D] come to see me at my house in Redriff. I hired a horse and guid{E} for fiv[E] shillings, which I borrowed of the captain. As I was on the roa[D], obser[V]ing the littleness of the houses, the trees, the cattle, and the p[E]opl[E], I began to think myself in Lilliput. I was afraid of trampling on e[V]e[R]y traveller I met, and often called aloud to have them stand out of th[E] way, so that I had like to have gotten one or two broken heads for my impe[R]tinence. When I came to my own house, for which I was forced to inquire, on[E] of the servants opening the door, I bent down to go in,
......................................................................
, <= 57 =>
.
WetookakindleaveofeachotherandImadehimpromi {S}e h e w o u l[D] comet
oseemeatmyhouseinRedriffIhiredahorseandguid {E}f o r f i v[E]s hilli
ngswhichIborrowedofthecaptainAsIwasontheroa [D]o b s e r[V]i n gthel
ittlenessofthehousesthetreesthecattleandthe p[E]o p l[E]I b e ganto
thinkmyselfinLilliputIwasafraidoftramplingo n e[V]e[R]y t r a velle
rImetandoftencalledaloudtohavethemstandouto f t h[E]w a y s o thatI
hadliketohavegottenoneortwobrokenheadsformy i m p e[R]t i n e nceWh
enIcametomyownhouseforwhichIwasforcedtoinqu i r e o n[E]o f t heser
vantsopeningthedoorIbentdowntogoin
[DE VERE] 56,58 : Prob. both near end of first half ~ 1 in 100,000
......................................................................
(like a goose under a gate,) for fear of striking my head. My wife run out to embrace me, but I stooped lower than her knees, thinking she could otherwise never be able to reach my mouth. My daughter kneeled to ask my blessing, but I could not see her till she arose, having been so long used to stand with my head and eyes erect to above sixty feet; and then I went to take her up with one hand by the waist. I looked down upon the servants, and one or two friends who were in the house, as if they had been pigmies and I a giant. I told my wife, “she had been too thrifty, for I found she had starved herself and her daughter to nothing.” In short, I behaved myself so unaccountably, that they were all of the captain’s opinion when he first saw me, and concluded I had lost my wits. This I mention as an instance of the great power of habit and prejudice.
In a little time, I and my family and friends came to a right understanding: but my wife protested “I should never go to sea any more;” although my evil destiny so ordered, that she had not power to hinder me, as the reader may know hereafter. In the mean time, I here conclude the second part of my unfortunate voyages.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
A LETTER FROM CAPTAIN GULLIVER TO HIS COUSIN SYMPSON.
Written in the Year 1727.
I hope you will be ready to own publicly, whenever you shall be called to it, that by your great and frequent urgency you prevailed on [M]e to publish a very loose and uncorrect account of my travels, with directions t[O] hire some young gentleman of either university to put them in order, and correc[T] the style, as my cousin Dampier did, by my advice, in his book called “A Voyage round [T]he world.” But I do not remember I gave you power to consent that any thing should b[E] omitted, and much less that any thing should be inserted; therefore, as to the latter, I do here renounce every thing of that kind; particularly a paragraph about her majesty Queen Anne, of most pious and glorious memory; although I did reverence and esteem her more than any of human {S}pecies. But you, {O}r your interpo{L}ator, ought to h{A}ve considered, {T}hat it was not my inclination, so was it not decent to praise any animal of our composition before my master Houyhnhnm: And besides, the fact was altogether false; for to my knowledge, being in England during some part of her majesty’s reign, she did govern by a chief minister; nay even by two successively, the first whereof was the lord of Godolphin, and the second the lord of Oxford; so that you have made me say the thing that was not. Likewise in the account of the academy of projectors, and several passages of my discourse to my master Houyhnhnm, you have either omitted some material circumstances, or minced or changed them in such a manner, that I do hardly know my own work. When I formerly hinted to you something of this in a letter, you were pleased to answer that you were afraid of giving offence; that people in power were very watchful over the press, and apt not only to interpret, but to punish every thing which looked like an innuendo (as I think you call it). But, pray how could that which I spoke so many years ago, and at about five thousand leagues distance, in another reign, be applied to any of the Yahoos, who now are said to govern the herd; especially at a time when I little thought, or feared, the unhappiness of living under them? Have not I the most reason to complain, when I see these very Yahoos carried by Houyhnhnms in a vehicle, as if they were brutes, and those the rational creatures? And indeed to avoid so monstrous and detestable a sight was one principal motive of my retirement hither.
Thus much I thought proper to tell you in relation to yourself, and to the trust I reposed in you.
I do, in the next place, complain of my own great want of judgment, in being prevailed upon by the entreaties and false reasoning of you and some others, very much against my own opinion, to suffer my travels to be published. Pray bring to your mind how often I desired you to consider, when you insisted on the motive of public good, that the Yahoos were a species of animals utterly incapable of amendment by precept or example: and so it has proved; for, instead of seeing a full stop put to all abuses and corruptions, at least in this little island, as I had reason to expect; behold, after above six months warning, I cannot learn that my book has produced one single effect according to my intentions. I desired you would let me know, by a letter, when party and faction were extinguished; judges learned and upright; pleaders honest and modest, with some tincture of common sense, and Smithfield blazing with pyramids of law books; the young nobility’s education entirely changed; the physicians banished; the female Yahoos abounding in virtue, honour, truth, and good sense; courts and levees of great ministers thoroughly weeded and swept; wit, merit, and learning rewarded; all disgracers of the press in prose and verse condemned to eat nothing but their own cotton, and quench their thirst with their own ink. These, and a thousand other reformations, I firmly counted upon by your encouragement; as indeed they were plainly deducible from the precepts delivered in my book. And it must be owned, that seven months were a sufficient time to correct every vice and folly to which Yahoos are subject, if their natures had been capable of the least disposition to virtue or wisdom. Yet, so far have you been from answering my expectation in any of your letters; that on the contrary you are loading our carrier every week with lib[E]ls, and keys, and reflections, and memoirs, and second pa[R]ts; wherein I see myself accused of reflecting upon gr[E]at state folk; of degrading human nature (for so they ha[V]e still the confidence to style it), and of abusing the f[E]male sex. I find likewise that the writers of those bun[D]les are not agreed among themselves; for some of them will not allow me to be the author of my own travels; and others make me author of books to which I am wholly a stranger.
............................
[DEVERE] -45
............................
I find likewise that your printer has been so careless as to confound the times, and mistake the dates, of my several voyages and returns; neither assigning the true year, nor the true month, nor day of the month: and I hear the original manuscript is all destroyed since the publication of my book; neither have I any copy left: however, I have sent you some corrections, which you may insert, if ever there should be a second edition: and yet I cannot stand to them; but shall leave that matter to my judicious and candid readers to adjust it as they please.
I hear some of our sea Yahoos find fault with my sea-language, as not proper in many parts, nor now in use. I cannot help it. In my first voyages, while I was young, I was instructed by the oldest mariners, and learned to speak as they did. But I have since found that the sea Yahoos are apt, like the land ones, to become new-fangled in their words, which the latter change every year; insomuch, as I remember upon each return to my own country their old dialect was so altered, that I could hardly understand the new. And I observe, when any Yahoo comes from London out of curiosity to visit me at my house, we neither of us are able to deliver our conceptions in a manner intelligible to the other.
If the censure of the Yahoos could any way affect me, I should have great reason to complain, that some of them are so bold as to think my book of travels a mere fiction out of mine own brain, and have gone so far as to drop hints, that the Houyhnhnms and Yahoos have no more existence than the inhabitants of Utopia.
Indeed I must confess, that as to the people of Lilliput, Brobdingrag (for so the word should have been spelt, and not erroneously Brobdingnag), and Laputa, I have never yet heard of any Yahoo so presumptuous as to dispute their being, or the facts I have related concerning them; because the truth immediately strikes every reader with conviction. And is there less probability in my account of the Houyhnhnms or Yahoos, when it is manifest as to the latter, there are so many thousands even in this country, who only differ from their brother brutes in Houyhnhnmland, because they use a sort of jabber, and do not go naked? I wrote for their amendment, and not their approbation. The united praise of the whole race would be of less consequence to me, than the neighing of those two degen[E]rate Houyhnhnms I keep in my stable; because from these, degenerate as [T]hey are, I still improve in some virtues without any mixture of vice.
Do [T]hese miserable animals presume to think, that I am so degenerated as t[O] defend my veracity? Yahoo as I am, it is well known through all Houyhnhn[M]land, that, by the instructions and example of my illustrious master, I was able in the compass of two years (although I confess with the utmost difficulty) to remove that infernal habit of lying, shuffling, deceiving, and equivocating, so deeply rooted in the very souls of all my species; especially the Europeans.
I have other complaints to make upon this vexatious occasion; but I forbear troubling myself or you any further. I must freely confess, that since my last return, some corruptions of my Yahoo nature have revived in me by conversing with a few of your species, and particularly those of my own family, by an unavoidable necessity; else I should never have attempted so absurd a (P)r(O)j(E)c(T) a(S) that of reforming the Yahoo race in this kingdom: But I have now done with all such visionary schemes for ever.
April 2, 1727
---------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
W. H. Auden - 'Family Ghosts'
http://tinyurl.com/28usvlr
Rev. Thomas Swift
Birth: 1595
Death: 1658;(Age 63)
Occupation: Vicar of Goodrich, Herefordshire
Event: A staunch Royalist, 'plundred by the roundheads
. six and thirty times';(Mercurius Rusticus, 1685);
http://tinyurl.com/23nmgrm
Marriage Elizabeth Dryden before 1640;(Age 45);
Birth of a child
#1 1640 (Age 45); Son: Jonathan Swift [father of author]
#2 Son: Dryden Swift
#3 Son: Thomas Swift [son-in-law of William Davenant]
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/219/0401.html
The Cambridge History of English and American Literature (1907–21).
Volume IX. IV. § 1. [Jonathan] Swift’s parentage and descent.
<<SWIFT’s writings are so closely connected with the man that they
cannot be understood properly without reference to the circumstances
under which they were produced. The best way, therefore, of arriving
at Swift’s views and methods will be to set out briefly the chief
events of his life, and, afterwards, to consider
the more important of his writings.
.
Jonathan Swift’s royalist grandfather, Thomas Swift, of a Yorkshire
family, was vicar of Goodrich, and married Elizabeth Dryden, niece of
Sir Erasmus Dryden, the poet’s grandfather. The eldest of his large
family, Godwin, a barrister, went to Ireland, where he became wealthy;
and some of his brothers followed him. One of them, Jonathan, who had
married Abigail Erick, was made steward of the king’s inns, Dublin,
but he did not live long, and, seven months after his death, on 30
November, 1667, his only son, Jonathan, was born. The widow was left
dependent mainly on her husband’s brother, Godwin. A nurse took the
child to Whitehaven, and kept him there three years; and, not long
after his return to Dublin, his mother returned to her relatives in
England, leaving the boy in his uncle’s care. He was sent to Kilkenny
school, where he met Congreve; and, when he was fourteen, he was
entered as a pensioner at Trinity College, Dublin. Why he afterwards
felt so much resentment against his relatives is not clear;
for his uncle gave him, not “the education of a dog,” but
the best obtainable in Ireland. Swift was often at war with
the college authorities; but he got his degree in 1685.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Cheke --- William Cecil --- Mildred Cooke
| {Burghley} |
| (1520-98) Anne Cecil---Edward deVere
| {Oxford}
| (1550-1604)
{Exeter} Thomas Cecil---Dorothy Neville
(1542-1622) |
|
Elizabeth DRURY---William Cecil{Exeter}--- Elizabeth MANNERS
| (1566-1640) (2nd cousin of ROGER)
|
Elizabeth CECIL---Thomas Howard{Berkshire}
| (1625-1669)
|
Elizabeth Cecil Howard --- JOHN DRYDEN
(1631-1700)
Poet Laureate (1668)
{THE FATHER of Shakespeare Criticism &}
http://www.jaffebros.com/lee/gulliver/biography/autobio.html
{close relative of Jonathan Swift's grandmother}
|
|
W. Shakspere--- Mrs. Davenant |
(1564-1616) | V
| Tom Swift--- Dryden
William Davenant ----- ?? |
(1606-1668) | /----------\
Poet Laureate | | |
1638 daughter--- Tom Swift Jonathan---Abig. Erick
| |
Tom Swift Jonathan Swift
{Rector of PUTTENHAM} {Mr.Lemuel GulliVER}
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is my contention that the good Reverend
Thomas Swift (Age 36) was responsible for the
1631 "John WeEVER" tract & he signed it accordingly
(along side the Latin name of Edward de Vere):
-------------------------------------------------------------
17th-century References to Shakespeare's Stratford Monument
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/monrefs.html
.
<<In 1631, a year before his death, John WeEVER published the massive
Ancient Funerall Monuments, which recorded many inscriptions from
monuments around England, particularly in Canterbury, Rochester,
London, and Norwich. Shakespeare's monument does not appear in the
published book, but two of WeEVER's notebooks, containing his drafts
for most of the book as well as many unpublished notes, survive as
Society of Antiquaries MSS. 127 and 128. In one of these notebooks,
under the heading "Stratford upon Avon," WeEVER recorded the poems
from Shakespeare's monument and his gravestone, as follows:
..........................................................
. Iudcio Pilum, Genio Socratem, Arte Maronem
. Terra tegit, populus maeret, Olympus habet.
. Stay Passenger, why goes[T] thou by so fast
. Read i[F] your canst whome env[I]ous death hath plac'd
. [W]ithin this monument [S]hakespeare with who[M]e
. Quick Nature dy'd wh[O]se name doth deck his [T]ombe
. far more then co{S}t, sith all yt hee hath {W}ritt
. Leaves living Art but page to serve hi{S W}itt.
.
. ob Ano doi 1616 AEtat. 53. 24 die April
.
. Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
. To digg th{e d[U]s}t enclosed heare
. Bl[E]st bee ye man that spa[R]es these stones
. And c[U]rst bee hee that move[S] my bones.
.........................................................
In the margin opposite the heading "Stratford upon Avon",
WeEVER wrote "Willm Shakespeare the famous poet",
.
and opposite the last two lines of the epitaph
he wrote "vpo[n] the grave stone".>>
...................................................
____________ <= 18 =>
.
_ I u d c i o P i l u m G e n i o S o
_ c r a t e m A r t e M a r o n e m T
_ e r r a t e g i t p o p u l u s m a
_ e r e t O l y m p u s h a b e t S t
_ a y P a s s e n g e r w h y g o e s
. [T] t h o u b y s o f a s t R e a d i
. [F] y o u r c a n s t w h o m e e n v
. [I] o u s d e a t h h a t h p l a c d
. [W] i t h i n t h i s m o n u m e n t
. [S] h a k e s p e a r e w i t h w h o
. [M] e Q u i c k N a t u r e d y d w h
. [O] s e n a m e d o t h d e c k h i s
. [T] o m b e f a r m o r e t h e n c o
. {S} t s i t h a l l y t h e e h a t h
. {W} r i t t L e a v e s l i v i n g A
_ r t b u t p a g e t o s e r v e h i
. {S W}i t t.
Prob. of [TOM SWIFT] ~ 1 in 3,700,000 (any skip)
...........................................
____________ <= 18 =>
.
- G o o d f r e n d f o r I e s u s s
- a k e f o r b e a r e T o d i g g t
. h{e d[U] s}t e n c l o s e d h e a r
_- e B l[E] s t b e e y e m a n t h a t
- s p a[R] e s t h e s e s t o n e s A
- n d c[U] r s t b e e h e e t h a t m
_ o v e[S] m y b o n e s
Prob. of [UERUS] ~ 1 in 1090 (any skip)
...........................................
Next to the infamous engraving in Dugdale's Antiquities of
Warwickshire, Dugdale transcribed both the Latin and English
verses from Shakespeare's tomb, along with the verse from
the gravestone. Except for minor spelling differences
(entirely typical of Dugdale), these verses
are the same as those seen today.
The Latin reads:
. Ivdicio Pylivm, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
. Terra tegit, popvlvs maeret, Olympvs habet
which may be translated thus:
. In judgment a Nestor, in wit a Socrates, in Art
. a Virgil; the earth b{U}ries [him], [T]h{E} people
. m[O]u{R}n [him], Oly[M]p{U}s posses[S]e{S} [him]
...........................................
____ <= 10 =>
.
. t h e e a r t -h- b {U}
. r i e s h i m [T] h {E}
. p e o p l e m [O] u {R}
. n h i m O l y [M] p {U}
. s p o s s e s [S] e {S} [him]
-------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift%27s_Epitaph
.......................................
Epitaph written by Swift for himself in Latin:
.
. Hic depositum est Corpus
. IONATHAN SWIFT S.T.D.
. Hujus Ecclesiæ Cathedralis
. Decani,
. Ubi sæ[V]a Indignatio
. Ult[ERIUS]
. Cor lacerar[E] nequit,
. Abi Viat[OR]
. Et imitare, si pot[E]ri{S},
. Strenu{U}m pro [V]i{R}ili
. Lib{E}rtatis {V}indicatorem.
Obiit 19º Die Mensis Octobris
A.D. 1745 Anno ætatis 78º.
.......................................
. <= 15 =>
.
. U b i s æ[V]a I n d i g n a t
. i o U l t[E R I U S]C o r l a
. c e r a r[E]n e q u i t,A b i
. V i a t[O R]E t i m i t a r e,
. s i p o t[E]r i s,S t r e n u
.{U}m p r o[V]i{R}i l i
.
[V E(R E)E V] -15
[VER/O] -15
[VE/RIUS] 15
.......................................
. <= 7 =>
.
. s i p o t [E] r
. i {S},S t r e n
. u {U} m p r o [V]
. i {R} i l i L i
. b {E} r t a t i
. s {V} i n d i c
. a t o r e m.
.
{VERUS} -7
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/203/87.html
Alexander Pope (1688–1744). Poems Suggested by Gulliver: 1727
II. The Lamentation of Glumdalclitch for the Loss of Grildrig
A Pastoral
Hast thou for these now ventured from the shore,
Th[Y] bark a b[E]an shel[L], and a st[R]aw thy o[A]r?
Or in t[H]y box now bounding on the main,
Shall I ne’er bear thyself and house again?
............................................
. <= 7 =>
.
. T h [Y] b a r k
. a b [E] a n s h
. e l [L],a n d a
. s t [R] a w t h
. y o [A] r?O r i
. n t [H] y b{O X}
. n o w b o u n
. d i n g o n t
. h e m a i n,
.
[HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
.............................................
And shall I set thee on my hand no more,
To see thee leap the lines, and traverse o’er
My spacious palm; of stature scarce a span,
Mimic the actions of a real man?
No more behold thee turn my watch’s key,
As seamen at a capstan anchors weigh?
How wert thou wont to walk with cautious tread,
A dish of tea, like milkpail, on thy head!
How chase the mite that bore thy cheese away,
And keep the rolling maggot at a bay!’
She spoke; but broken accents stopp’d her voice,
Soft as the speaking-trumpet’s mellow noise:
She sobb’d a storm, and wiped her flowing eyes,
Which seem’d like two broad suns in misty skies.
O squander not thy grief! those tears command
To weep upon our cod in Newfoundland;
The plenteous pickle shall preserve the fish,
And Europe taste thy sorrows in a dish.
------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Harley,_2nd_Earl_of_Oxford_and_Earl_Mortimer
<<Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer (2 June 1689 – 16 June 1741), styled Lord Harley between 1711 and 1724, was a British politician, bibliophile, collector and patron of the arts. Harley was the only son of Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, by his first wife Elizabeth Foley.
He was MP for Radnor (as his father and paternal grandfather had been before him) from 1711 to 1714, and for Cambridgeshire from 1722 until he succeeded his father in 1724 and entered the House of Lords. He was a bibliophile, collector and patron of the arts, and took little interest in public affairs. He extended his father's library and expanded the Harleian Collection, now in the British Library. The department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, The University of Nottingham holds a number of papers relating to the 2nd Earl and the management of his estates in the Portland (London) collection.
Through his wife [Henrietta Cavendish Holles: great-great-grandaughter of Horatio Vere], he inherited Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire, and Wimpole Hall in Cambridgeshire. Wimpole became their main residence, but they had to sell it in 1740 to pay Edward's debts. He also acquired a considerable amount of land in the West End of London which was developed during his life. Many of the now famous streets took their names from Harley connections – primarily Harley Street and Oxford Street. Other streets, named after Harley properties, include Wigmore Street and Wimpole Street.
On 31 August 1713 he married Lady Henrietta Cavendish Holles (1694–1755), only daughter and heir of the 1st Duke of Newcastle and his wife, the former Lady Margaret Cavendish, daughter of the 2nd Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Lord Oxford and Mortimer died in London in 1741 and was buried in the vault of the Duke of Newcastle in Westminster Abbey. >>
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/holles-family
John Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/__data/assets/thumbnail/0003/86727/Holles,-John-D-of-Newcastle-72.jpg
<<His towering monument of white and other marble stands in the north transept, near the entrance door, although he was buried, by his own wish, in the chapel of St John the Evangelist near his great-grandfather Horace, Lord Vere of Tilbury. The monument is signed by the architect James Gibbs and the sculptor was Francis Bird assisted by J.M.Rysbrack. The duke's effigy is in armour with loose drapery and he looks upward, holding in his hands a coronet and a baton. On either side are the standing, life-size, figures of Wisdom, with a pillar, and Sincerity, with a mirror. The architectural background consists of two columns, pilasters and two seated angels, with an heraldic achievement. The inscription reads:
To the memory of JOHN HOLLES DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, Marquis and Earl of CLARE, Baron Haughton and Knight-Companion of the most Noble Order of the Garter, whose body is here deposited under the same roof with many of his noble ancestors and relations of the families of VERE, CAVENDISHE and HOLLES, whose eminent virtues he inherited; and was particularly distinguished for his courage, love to his countrey and constancy in friendship; which qualities he exerted with great zeal and readiness, whenever the cause of religion, his countrey, or friends required him. In the reign of Queen Anne he filled with great capactiy and honour the several employments of Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, and Privy Councellour, Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotularum of the counties of Middlesex and Nottingham, and of the county of the town of Nottingham and of the East and North Ridings of the county of York, Lord Chief Justice in Eyre North of Trent, and Governour of the town and fort of Kingston upon Hull; to all which titles and honours his personal merit gave a lustre, that needed not the addition of the great wealth which he possessed. He was born the 9th of January 1661/2 and died the 15th of July 1711. He marryed the Lady Margaret, third daughter and heir to Henry Cavendishe Duke of Newcastle, by whom he left issue one only child, the Lady HENRIETTA-CAVENDISHE HOLLES HARLEY, who caused this memorial of him to be here erected in the year of our Lord 1723
His daughter Henrietta married Edward Harley (later Earl of Oxford) and she was buried in the Newcastle vault on 26 December 1755, with Edward who was buried there on 25 June 1741.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
https://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/expanding-the-question/vizualizing-shakespeare-a-tale-of-two-portraits/george-vertue-and-shakespeares-face/
George Vertue and Shakespeare’s face
<<George Vertue was the premiere artist-engraver of the first half of the 18th century. At his death he left 500 engraved portraits alone, plus numerous illustrations of other subjects.
Accustomed from childhood to Court life (Vertue’s parents had been servants in the household of the exiled James II), through his artistry, his technical skill and his excellent taste, George Vertue became the friend and confidante of peers inclined towards the arts, antiquities and literature. By 1720 he had become the personal friend and consultant of Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford (by the second creation). Following Harley’s death in 1741, he remained the friend and consultant of his widow, the heiress Henrietta Holles, a descendant of Edward de Vere’s cousin, Sir Horatio Vere.
In their time, the Harleys, first the father, then the son and his wife, were great leaders of Court society and patrons of poets, artists and antiquarians. Edward’s father, the vastly wealthy Robert Harley, first Earl of Oxford (second creation) was Secretary of State under Queen Anne, then her Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ultimately her Lord Treasurer. Robert Harley used his wealth and power to amass the collection of books and manuscripts that would eventually become the British Library.
A poet himself, Harley Sr. was also the great Maecenas of the Silver Age in English literature that followed (roughly 150 years later) the Golden Age of Shakespeare, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon and Milton. Patron of Daniel Defoe, Jonathon Swift, Alexander Pope, and John Gay, Harley Sr. was a founding member of, and contributor to, the famous Scriblerus Club, where he and his brilliant friends would indulge their appetite for mirth by plotting, over interminable cups of coffee, literary tricks to play on the dull bourgeoisie, one of which was the creation of a fictional author, Martin Scriblerus, under whose name several members published satires.
With his death in 1724, Harley Sr.’s entire estate, library, and collection of antiquities, including portraits of family members and various persons of social standing, passed to his son, who compounded it by marrying the highly-educated heiress Henrietta Cavendish Holles, daughter of Gilbert Holles, Earl of Clare, Keeper of the Privy Seal, and second in wealth and importance only to Harley’s father.
Denied political power, the Harleys turned to intellectual pursuits, purchasing important manuscripts, books and memorabilia as their fellow aristocrats turned centuries-old archives and collections into cash, a venture which eventually brought this second creation of Oxford earls into serious debt. During the lifetime of the two Harleys, their wives and their daughters, they became the primary respository for much of the scientific and artistic wealth of England––plate, jewelry, portraits, statues––plus science specimens from all over the world.
By the 1750s, with father and husband gone, the expense of maintaining these vast collections became insupportable and the Duchess of Portland and her mother chose to realize Edward Harley’s dream of a great national library, selling most of the family collections to found what is now the British Museum and the British Library. For many years up until then, George Vertue had the good fortune to hold, examine, admire and research this great accumulation. Out of it the one totally trustworthy image of the 17th Earl of Oxford (the Welbeck) was recovered; Vertue, in his voluminous notebooks, suggests there were others.
...............................................................
https://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/vertue-shx-w-ruff1.jpg
Vertue’s frontispiece for Alexander Pope’s 1725 edition of Shakespeare’s works.
...............................................................
George Vertue began working with/for Edward Harley in 1720 at about the same time that he was commissioned to provide a portrait of Shakespeare to introduce Alexander Pope’s six-volume edition of the works. Although Vertue would have been well-acquainted with the Droeshout engraving, the Chandos, and the engraving by Michael Vandergucht, his own teacher, that Nicholas Rowe had used as the frontispiece in his 1709 edition of Shakespeare, Vertue chose to copy a portrait from Harley’s collection (as is inscribed at the bottom of the engraving). Who the subject of this portrait was remains unknown. To distinguish it from Vertue’s other Shakespeare we’ll call it Shakespeare with a ruff. As noted by J. Parker Norris, 19th-century editor of The Editors of Shakespeare (v2.1885) in his chapter on Pope’s 1725 edition:
...............................................................
https://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/vertue-shx-w-ruff1.jpg
...............................................................
It seems that Alexander Pope had his edition of Shakespeare ready to publish several years before it finally saw print in 1725 (he had trouble getting subscribers). The date inscribed by Vertue on the engraving used as Pope’s frontispiece, Harley’s Shakespeare with a ruff, was 1721. But two years earlier, in 1719, George Vertue had engraved another very different portrait of Shakespeare for his series “Twelve Heads of Poets,” published at some point between 1726 and 1729,” one we’ll call Shakespeare with a collar:
...............................................................
http://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00833/AN00833167_001_l.jpg
Shakespeare! such Thoughts inimitable shine,
Drest in thy Words, thy Fancy seems Divine,
'Tis Natures Mirrour where she views each Grace,
And all the various Features of her Face.
...............................................................
So why has the world of Shakespeare scholarship so abjectly and wrongly continued to pipe the refrain that Vertue’s Shakespeare with a collar is a copy of the Chandos? This misconception must have arisen from Vertue’s own notebooks, and from the line he added at the bottom of the engraving: “Done from the original now in the possession of Robert Keck of the Inner Temple, Esq.” Also from Vertue comes the information that by 1619 the Chandos was owned by Keck, collector of Shakespeare artefacts; that with his death on November 23, 1619, it passed––one after another––to various members of his family until it ended up with the descendant who married the aristocrat whose name then became attached to it. Apparently it has never occured to anyone that, as a well-known collector of Shakespeare memorabilia, Keck could have owned more than one Shakespeare portrait. Either that or Vertue’s statement was a red herring meant to steer the viewer away from the subject’s true identity.
In fact it seems that never in any of its various incarnations has there been an attempt to recreate on the Bust the face of the Chandos. Most curious of all is the fact that Vertue, whose 1737 sketch of his patron looking up at the Stratford monument during their Stratford visit appears to have the same head as in the Dugdale 1634 sketch, minus the moustache and with pen and pillow replacing the woolsack. Admittedly these are rough sketches, but even so, the head and face of the Vertue squiggle looks most like the Dugdale versions of the Bust, nothing like any of its later incarnations.
................................................................
https://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/vertue-sketch-of-monument.png
................................................................
This suggests that when Vertue and Harley saw the Bust in 1737 it had not been altered since 1656 when Dugdale published an engraved version of his earlier sketch in his Antiquities of Warwickshire. Was Vertue’s 1737 sketch, with the addition of the pen and pillow, the first suggestion of how he (and Edward Harley) thought the Bust should look, rather than how it actually looked at that time? Was his version of the Bust as portrayed on page 30 of Pope’s 1725 edition, not an illustration of what the Bust actually looked like then, but a projection of what he was suggesting it be made to look like? And why did Alexander Pope allow it, possibly even promote it, as the image to face his chapter on Shakespeare’s Life?
The TLS (Times Literary Supplement) for August 22, 2011, provides an interesting exchange among curator Tarnya Cooper, academics Katherine Duncan-Jones, Jonathon Bate and Stanley Wells, Oxfordian Dorna Bewley, and scholars Peter Beal and Brian Vickers.
As Vickers emphasizes, quoting authorship scholar Richard Kennedy, much of the problem is solved when we accept that the figure in the Dugdale sketch of 1634 and later Rowe illustration of 1656 represent, not William of Stratford, but the memorial’s original occupant, William’s father, John Shakspere, grasping the emblem of his trade, a woolsack, a figure still in place in 1737 when Vertue sketched Harley observing the Bust. Convincing detail on the true history of that figure has been provided by authorship scholar Richard Whalen in his 2005 article in The Oxfordian, “A Monumental Fraud.”
During the early 1720s when Alexander Pope was at work on his edition of Shakespeare, the issue of the Bard’s face and the problems it presented must have roused Pope’s curiosity. How interesting that the choices he made for his Shakespeare edition, condemned by critic Norris a century later, show that he avoided what would have been his most likely options––for the frontispiece, the Chandos or the Droeshout; for the “Life” the Dugdale engraving, choosing instead Vertue’s 1721 Shakespeare with a ruff, taken from the miniature owned by his patron, Edward Harley, and, on page 30, for the “Life” by Rowe, Vertue’s 1719 Shakespeare with a collar. Pope’s edition stimulated a renewed interest in Shakespeare, which perhaps included, among his Scriblerus coterie at least, a curiosity about his image. It may be that Harley and Vertue’s 1737 trip to Stratford to view the monument was in reponse to this curiosity.
The lifesized statue of the Bard is the centerpiece of a huge marble screen that creates a separate space from what had been until 1741 an open area where the floor was lined with plaques honoring various poets (and others) buried beneath it. With the addition of the great screen that not only holds the Shakespeare monument, but provides a wall where other memorials soon found a niche in the increasingly crowded Poet’s Corner, these floor plaques were lost, among them the ones marking where in 1599, Edmund Spenser, and in 1616, Francis Beaumont had been buried.
The creation of this monument came at the peak of the Augustan era, often marked as having ended with Pope’s death in 1744. Noting that Vertue was a trustee on the committee that planned this memorial, and that he had submitted a design for it (now lost) that was passed over in favor of the Kent design, Hannas points to several facts about the memorial that in his opinion suggest that the project had actually originated with the Harleys.
With Edward Harley’s death in 1741, Vertue continued to serve his widow, Henrietta Bentinck Holles Harley, Countess of Oxford, who looked to him to examine and inventory their collections, much of it at Welbeck Abbey, which she had inherited from her Cavendish father. Following her husband’s death she commissioned Vertue to make a number of engravings from the portraits in his collection. In 1742 she sold his collection of portraits, prints, Greek and Roman antiquities, coins and medals at auction, reserving for herself and her family portraits of family members, including the Welbeck portrait of de Vere which passed with her death in 1755 to her daughter, Margaret, Duchess of Portland where it remains as part of the Portland collection on loan to the National Portrait Gallery.
There can be no doubt that Vertue, who had helped this Countess of Oxford prepare the catalog for this sale, knew this portrait and so, as a portrait artist, was aware of the qualities of his face, the high forehead and pursed lips. In his notebook, Vertue mentions that he knew of another portrait of de Vere by Cornelius Ketel, active in England in the 1580s (now identified by some as the Ashbourne). Vertue claimed (sometime after 1712) that Henrietta Stanley, Countess of Strafford, daughter of the 7th Earl of Derby, the son of Elizabeth Vere, de Vere’s eldest daughter, had owned a portrait of de Vere by Cornelius Ketel (Ruth Miller 2.418). She died without issue in 1685, leaving it to her husband William Wentworth, who left a large collection at Wentworth Woodhouse, which then passed to his descendants. Some years ago, authorship scholar Derran Charleton, in researching the Earls of Strafford archives at Wentworth Woodhouse, found an old inventory that included a three-quarter portrait of the Earl of Oxford. There are other extant portraits of de Vere: the Ashbourne and the Welbeck. There is also a Hilliard miniature of Oxford in his thirties with blond curly hair that belongs to the Duke of Buccleuch. Although Hilliard is not a particularly trustworthy reporter of a likeness (he tended to give everyone a pie face, little nose and weak chin), we do see the pursed lips that suggest de Vere.
It’s certainly not unreasonable that there are, or have been, other portraits of de Vere than these that have been identified.
I propose that Vertue based his engraving of Shakespeare with a collar on a portrait of de Vere, painted in his fifties, that Vertue had access to at that time through Henrietta Holles, Countess of Oxford (by the second creation), that is now lost or at least is not presently accessible, and that he, and his patron, Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford (by the second creation) knew (or believed) that its subject was the true author of the Shakespeare canon. I’m forced to consider this because the face in this engraving––and in the Bust engraving based on it––a face that looks nothing like any other portrait of Shakespeare, that are so similar to those in the Welbeck and the Ashbourne, each from different stages in his life. I believe this, one: because the face reflects intelligence of the sort not found in any other image of Shakespeare; two: because it simply isn’t possible that Vertue could have come up with such a real face out of his imagination; and three: because there are mentions throughout the literature of other portraits of Oxford that haven’t yet been located or identified. I propose that this lost portrait was painted when Oxford was in his fifties. As for the hairline and the collar, the bald head on the Vertue portrait may reflect his own hairline as it was in his fifties, or both may be Vertue’s attempt to corelate the image in the original portrait with the standard image of Shakespeare.
Putting them together, we have the Welbeck from his twenties, the Ashbourne from his forties, and the Vertue from his fifties––all reflecting the same facial structure, the same nose, and most uniquely, the pursed lips.
That the Harleys were curious about Shakespeare is obvious. That they were also curious about the Earl of Oxford seems to be equally apparent. The very fact that Robert Harley, poet, patron of poets, chose to call himself Earl of Oxford rather than some other antiquated title, suggests that his choice of title was based on something more than just a remote family connection.
I propose that the Harleys knew that Oxford was Shakespeare, and were invested in recovering the truth. A diligent collector, it’s no accident that his son married the heiress, a descendant of Oxford’s cousin, Sir Horatio Vere, who would bring him de Vere family heirlooms, papers and books. Their daughter Margaret brought the vast inheritance of their combined estates to her husband, the Earl of Portland.
Having grown up in the company of poets like Swift, Pope and Matthew Prior, surrounded by the libraries, aviaries, botanical gardens and collections of three great houses, Margaret continued the family tradition of collecting and preserving the antiquities of her aristocratic culture. Among the possessions she brought her wealthy husband was Welbeck Abbey, former home of a branch of the Cavendish family, where the one certain portrait of the 17th Earl was located. It was a Cavendish who had, years earlier, had purchased Fisher’s Folly from the 5th Earl of Rutland (or from whoever had purchased it from Rutland), his descendants turning it into the fabulous Devonshire House.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
GULLIVER’S TRAVELS into several
REMOTE NATIONS OF THE WORLD
BY JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.,
dean of st. patrick’s, dublin.
------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF PART II. A VOYAGE TO BROBDINGNAG.
.................................................
I told him, “I had likewise observed another thing, that, when I first got into the ship, and the sailors stood all about me, I thought they were th{E} mos{T} lit{T}le c{O}nte{M}pti{B}le creatures I had ever beheld.”
............................
{B.MOTTE} -4
............................
For indeed, while I was in that prince’s country, I could never endure to look in a glass, after mine eyes had been accustomed to such prodigious objects, because the comparison gave me so despicable a conceit of myself. The captain said, “that while we were at supper, he observed me to look at every thing with a sort of wonder, and that I often seemed hardly able to contain my laughter, which he knew not well how to take, but imputed it to some disorder in my brain.” I answered, “it was very true; and I wondered how I could forbear, when I saw his dishes of the size of a silver three-pence, a leg of pork hardly a mouthful, a cup not so big as a nut-shell;” and so I went on, describing the rest of his household-stuff and provisions, after the same manner. For, although he queen had ordered a little equipage of all things necessary for me, while I was in her service, yet my ideas were wholly taken up with what I saw on every side of me, and I winked at my own littleness, as people do at their own faults. The captain understood my raillery very well, and merrily replied with the old English proverb, “that he doubted mine eyes were bigger than my belly, for he did not observe my stomach so good, although I had fasted all day;” and, continuing in his mirth, protested “he would have gladly given a hundred pounds, to have seen my closet in the eagle’s bill, and afterwards in its fall from so great a height into the sea; which would certainly have been a most astonishing object, worthy to have the description of it transmitted to future ages:” and the comparison of Phaëton was so obvious, that he could not forbear applying it, although I did not much admire the conceit.
The captain having been at Tonquin, was, in his return to England, driven north-eastward to the latitude of 44 degrees, and longitude of 143. But meeting a trade-wind two days after I came on board him, we sailed southward a long time, and coasting New Holland, kept our course west-south-west, and then south-south-west, till we doubled the Cape of Good Hope. Our voyage was very prosperous, but I shall not trouble the reader with a journal of it. The captain called in at one or two ports, and sent in his long-boat for provisions and fresh water; but I never went out of the ship till we came into the Downs, which was on the third day of June, 1706, about nine months after my escape. I offered to leave my goods in security for payment of my freight: but the captain protested he would not receive one farthing.
We took a kind leave of each other, and I made him promi{S}e he woul[D] come to see me at my house in Redriff. I hired a horse and guid{E} for fiv[E] shillings, which I borrowed of the captain. As I was on the roa[D], obser[V]ing the littleness of the houses, the trees, the cattle, and the p[E]opl[E], I began to think myself in Lilliput. I was afraid of trampling on e[V]e[R]y traveller I met, and often called aloud to have them stand out of th[E] way, so that I had like to have gotten one or two broken heads for my impe[R]tinence. When I came to my own house, for which I was forced to inquire, on[E] of the servants opening the door, I bent down to go in,
......................................................................
, <= 57 =>
.
WetookakindleaveofeachotherandImadehimpromi {S}e h e w o u l[D] comet
oseemeatmyhouseinRedriffIhiredahorseandguid {E}f o r f i v[E]s hilli
ngswhichIborrowedofthecaptainAsIwasontheroa [D]o b s e r[V]i n gthel
ittlenessofthehousesthetreesthecattleandthe p[E]o p l[E]I b e ganto
thinkmyselfinLilliputIwasafraidoftramplingo n e[V]e[R]y t r a velle
rImetandoftencalledaloudtohavethemstandouto f t h[E]w a y s o thatI
hadliketohavegottenoneortwobrokenheadsformy i m p e[R]t i n e nceWh
enIcametomyownhouseforwhichIwasforcedtoinqu i r e o n[E]o f t heser
vantsopeningthedoorIbentdowntogoin
[DE VERE] 56,58 : Prob. both near end of first half ~ 1 in 100,000
......................................................................
(like a goose under a gate,) for fear of striking my head. My wife run out to embrace me, but I stooped lower than her knees, thinking she could otherwise never be able to reach my mouth. My daughter kneeled to ask my blessing, but I could not see her till she arose, having been so long used to stand with my head and eyes erect to above sixty feet; and then I went to take her up with one hand by the waist. I looked down upon the servants, and one or two friends who were in the house, as if they had been pigmies and I a giant. I told my wife, “she had been too thrifty, for I found she had starved herself and her daughter to nothing.” In short, I behaved myself so unaccountably, that they were all of the captain’s opinion when he first saw me, and concluded I had lost my wits. This I mention as an instance of the great power of habit and prejudice.
In a little time, I and my family and friends came to a right understanding: but my wife protested “I should never go to sea any more;” although my evil destiny so ordered, that she had not power to hinder me, as the reader may know hereafter. In the mean time, I here conclude the second part of my unfortunate voyages.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
A LETTER FROM CAPTAIN GULLIVER TO HIS COUSIN SYMPSON.
Written in the Year 1727.
I hope you will be ready to own publicly, whenever you shall be called to it, that by your great and frequent urgency you prevailed on [M]e to publish a very loose and uncorrect account of my travels, with directions t[O] hire some young gentleman of either university to put them in order, and correc[T] the style, as my cousin Dampier did, by my advice, in his book called “A Voyage round [T]he world.” But I do not remember I gave you power to consent that any thing should b[E] omitted, and much less that any thing should be inserted; therefore, as to the latter, I do here renounce every thing of that kind; particularly a paragraph about her majesty Queen Anne, of most pious and glorious memory; although I did reverence and esteem her more than any of human {S}pecies. But you, {O}r your interpo{L}ator, ought to h{A}ve considered, {T}hat it was not my inclination, so was it not decent to praise any animal of our composition before my master Houyhnhnm: And besides, the fact was altogether false; for to my knowledge, being in England during some part of her majesty’s reign, she did govern by a chief minister; nay even by two successively, the first whereof was the lord of Godolphin, and the second the lord of Oxford; so that you have made me say the thing that was not. Likewise in the account of the academy of projectors, and several passages of my discourse to my master Houyhnhnm, you have either omitted some material circumstances, or minced or changed them in such a manner, that I do hardly know my own work. When I formerly hinted to you something of this in a letter, you were pleased to answer that you were afraid of giving offence; that people in power were very watchful over the press, and apt not only to interpret, but to punish every thing which looked like an innuendo (as I think you call it). But, pray how could that which I spoke so many years ago, and at about five thousand leagues distance, in another reign, be applied to any of the Yahoos, who now are said to govern the herd; especially at a time when I little thought, or feared, the unhappiness of living under them? Have not I the most reason to complain, when I see these very Yahoos carried by Houyhnhnms in a vehicle, as if they were brutes, and those the rational creatures? And indeed to avoid so monstrous and detestable a sight was one principal motive of my retirement hither.
Thus much I thought proper to tell you in relation to yourself, and to the trust I reposed in you.
I do, in the next place, complain of my own great want of judgment, in being prevailed upon by the entreaties and false reasoning of you and some others, very much against my own opinion, to suffer my travels to be published. Pray bring to your mind how often I desired you to consider, when you insisted on the motive of public good, that the Yahoos were a species of animals utterly incapable of amendment by precept or example: and so it has proved; for, instead of seeing a full stop put to all abuses and corruptions, at least in this little island, as I had reason to expect; behold, after above six months warning, I cannot learn that my book has produced one single effect according to my intentions. I desired you would let me know, by a letter, when party and faction were extinguished; judges learned and upright; pleaders honest and modest, with some tincture of common sense, and Smithfield blazing with pyramids of law books; the young nobility’s education entirely changed; the physicians banished; the female Yahoos abounding in virtue, honour, truth, and good sense; courts and levees of great ministers thoroughly weeded and swept; wit, merit, and learning rewarded; all disgracers of the press in prose and verse condemned to eat nothing but their own cotton, and quench their thirst with their own ink. These, and a thousand other reformations, I firmly counted upon by your encouragement; as indeed they were plainly deducible from the precepts delivered in my book. And it must be owned, that seven months were a sufficient time to correct every vice and folly to which Yahoos are subject, if their natures had been capable of the least disposition to virtue or wisdom. Yet, so far have you been from answering my expectation in any of your letters; that on the contrary you are loading our carrier every week with lib[E]ls, and keys, and reflections, and memoirs, and second pa[R]ts; wherein I see myself accused of reflecting upon gr[E]at state folk; of degrading human nature (for so they ha[V]e still the confidence to style it), and of abusing the f[E]male sex. I find likewise that the writers of those bun[D]les are not agreed among themselves; for some of them will not allow me to be the author of my own travels; and others make me author of books to which I am wholly a stranger.
............................
[DEVERE] -45
............................
I find likewise that your printer has been so careless as to confound the times, and mistake the dates, of my several voyages and returns; neither assigning the true year, nor the true month, nor day of the month: and I hear the original manuscript is all destroyed since the publication of my book; neither have I any copy left: however, I have sent you some corrections, which you may insert, if ever there should be a second edition: and yet I cannot stand to them; but shall leave that matter to my judicious and candid readers to adjust it as they please.
I hear some of our sea Yahoos find fault with my sea-language, as not proper in many parts, nor now in use. I cannot help it. In my first voyages, while I was young, I was instructed by the oldest mariners, and learned to speak as they did. But I have since found that the sea Yahoos are apt, like the land ones, to become new-fangled in their words, which the latter change every year; insomuch, as I remember upon each return to my own country their old dialect was so altered, that I could hardly understand the new. And I observe, when any Yahoo comes from London out of curiosity to visit me at my house, we neither of us are able to deliver our conceptions in a manner intelligible to the other.
If the censure of the Yahoos could any way affect me, I should have great reason to complain, that some of them are so bold as to think my book of travels a mere fiction out of mine own brain, and have gone so far as to drop hints, that the Houyhnhnms and Yahoos have no more existence than the inhabitants of Utopia.
Indeed I must confess, that as to the people of Lilliput, Brobdingrag (for so the word should have been spelt, and not erroneously Brobdingnag), and Laputa, I have never yet heard of any Yahoo so presumptuous as to dispute their being, or the facts I have related concerning them; because the truth immediately strikes every reader with conviction. And is there less probability in my account of the Houyhnhnms or Yahoos, when it is manifest as to the latter, there are so many thousands even in this country, who only differ from their brother brutes in Houyhnhnmland, because they use a sort of jabber, and do not go naked? I wrote for their amendment, and not their approbation. The united praise of the whole race would be of less consequence to me, than the neighing of those two degen[E]rate Houyhnhnms I keep in my stable; because from these, degenerate as [T]hey are, I still improve in some virtues without any mixture of vice.
Do [T]hese miserable animals presume to think, that I am so degenerated as t[O] defend my veracity? Yahoo as I am, it is well known through all Houyhnhn[M]land, that, by the instructions and example of my illustrious master, I was able in the compass of two years (although I confess with the utmost difficulty) to remove that infernal habit of lying, shuffling, deceiving, and equivocating, so deeply rooted in the very souls of all my species; especially the Europeans.
I have other complaints to make upon this vexatious occasion; but I forbear troubling myself or you any further. I must freely confess, that since my last return, some corruptions of my Yahoo nature have revived in me by conversing with a few of your species, and particularly those of my own family, by an unavoidable necessity; else I should never have attempted so absurd a (P)r(O)j(E)c(T) a(S) that of reforming the Yahoo race in this kingdom: But I have now done with all such visionary schemes for ever.
April 2, 1727
---------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
May 15, 2018, 2:36:05 PM5/15/18
to
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 9:21:39 AM UTC-4, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> W. H. Auden - 'Family Ghosts'
> http://tinyurl.com/28usvlr
That link doesn't work, Art -- as usual for you.
> W. H. Auden - 'Family Ghosts'
> http://tinyurl.com/28usvlr
> Rev. Thomas Swift
> Birth: 1595
> Death: 1658;(Age 63)
>
> Occupation: Vicar of Goodrich, Herefordshire
>
> Event: A staunch Royalist,
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Jonathan Swift’s royalist grandfather, Thomas Swift, of a Yorkshire
> family, was vicar of Goodrich, and married Elizabeth Dryden, niece of
> Sir Erasmus Dryden, the poet’s grandfather. The eldest of his large
> family, Godwin, a barrister, went to Ireland, where he became wealthy;
> and some of his brothers followed him. One of them, Jonathan, who had
> married Abigail Erick, was made steward of the king’s inns, Dublin,
> but he did not live long, and, seven months after his death, on 30
> November, 1667, his only son, Jonathan, was born. The widow was left
> dependent mainly on her husband’s brother, Godwin. A nurse took the
> child to Whitehaven, and kept him there three years; and, not long
> after his return to Dublin, his mother returned to her relatives in
> England, leaving the boy in his uncle’s care. He was sent to Kilkenny
> school, where he met Congreve; and, when he was fourteen, he was
> entered as a pensioner at Trinity College, Dublin. Why he afterwards
> felt so much resentment against his relatives is not clear;
> for his uncle gave him, not “the education of a dog,” but
> the best obtainable in Ireland.
> Swift was often at war with
> the college authorities;
> but he got his degree in 1685.>>
> . <= 15 =>
> .
> . U b i s æ[V]a I n d i g n a t
> . i o U l t[E R I U S]C o r l a
> . c e r a r[E]n e q u i t,A b i
> . V i a t[O R]E t i m i t a r e,
> . s i p o t[E]r i s,S t r e n u
> .{U}m p r o[V]i{R}i l i
> .
> [V E(R E)E V] -15
> [VER/O] -15
The string "VERO" does not occur as an equidistant letter sequence of skip -15 -- or for that matter, as an equidistant letter sequence of *any* skip -- in the above text, Art. In any event, a four-letter equidistant letter sequence involving commonly occurring letters is utterly unremarkable and unimpressive.
> [VE/RIUS] 15
The string "VERIUS" does not occur as an equidistant letter sequence of skip 15 -- or for that matter, as an equidistant letter sequence of *any* skip -- in the above text, Art.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> . <= 7 =>
> .
> . T h [Y] b a r k
> . a b [E] a n s h
> . e l [L],a n d a
> . s t [R] a w t h
> . y o [A] r?O r i
> . n t [H] y b{O X}
> . n o w b o u n
> . d i n g o n t
> . h e m a i n,
> .
> [HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> https://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/expanding-the-question/vizualizing-shakespeare-a-tale-of-two-portraits/george-vertue-and-shakespeares-face/
That's a nutcase source, Art. It's *VERy* funny, though!
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> There can be no doubt
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> I propose that Vertue based his engraving of Shakespeare with a collar on a
> portrait of de Vere,
> painted in his fifties, that Vertue had access to at
> that time through Henrietta Holles, Countess of Oxford (by the second
> creation), that is now lost or at least is not presently accessible,
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> ---------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 15, 2018, 3:26:47 PM5/15/18
to
-------------------------------------------
http://www.bartleby.com/203/87.html
Alexander Pope (1688–1744). Poems Suggested by Gulliver: 1727
II. The Lamentation of Glumdalclitch for the Loss of Grildrig
A Pastoral
Hast thou for these now ventured from the shore,
Th[Y] bark a b[E]an shel[L], and a st[R]aw thy o[A]r?
Or in t[H]y box now bounding on the main,
Shall I ne’er bear thyself and house again?
............................................
http://www.bartleby.com/203/87.html
Alexander Pope (1688–1744). Poems Suggested by Gulliver: 1727
II. The Lamentation of Glumdalclitch for the Loss of Grildrig
A Pastoral
Hast thou for these now ventured from the shore,
Th[Y] bark a b[E]an shel[L], and a st[R]aw thy o[A]r?
Or in t[H]y box now bounding on the main,
Shall I ne’er bear thyself and house again?
............................................
. <= 7 =>
.
. T h [Y] b a r k
. a b [E] a n s h
. e l [L],a n d a
. s t [R] a w t h
. y o [A] r?O r i
. n t [H] y b{O X}
. n o w b o u n
. d i n g o n t
. h e m a i n,
.
[HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
-------------------------------------------
.
. T h [Y] b a r k
. a b [E] a n s h
. e l [L],a n d a
. s t [R] a w t h
. y o [A] r?O r i
. n t [H] y b{O X}
. n o w b o u n
. d i n g o n t
. h e m a i n,
.
[HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
Lea wrote:
<<Let me know when you find "Harley-Davidson", Art.>>
I once went on a blind date with a girl from "Harley-Davidson."
<<Let me know when you find "Harley-Davidson", Art.>>
It turned out that she was actually from "Fairleigh Dickinson."
(Close enough for government work.)
Art N
nordicskiv2
May 17, 2018, 7:53:45 AM5/17/18
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 3:26:47 PM UTC-4, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> . <= 7 =>
> .
> . T h [Y] b a r k
> . a b [E] a n s h
> . e l [L],a n d a
> . s t [R] a w t h
> . y o [A] r?O r i
> . n t [H] y b{O X}
> . n o w b o u n
> . d i n g o n t
> . h e m a i n,
> .
> [HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
> -------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Let me know when you find "Harley-Davidson", Art.>>
> I once went on a blind date with a girl from "Harley-Davidson."
>
> It turned out that she was actually from "Fairleigh Dickinson."
In the face of such a colossal -- and therefore entirely typical -- Noonedafter misunderstanding, one is tempted to ask: although she was not a Haley, did you attempt to ride her anyway, Art?
> (Close enough for government work.)
Only for the purposes of the current administration, whose unprecedented aVERsion to objectively VERifiable fact would make you feel right at home, Art -- have you sent in your resumé yet? If not, let me exhort you to do so without further delay -- Trump may be in need of a new lawyer, and nothing would please me more than the knowledge that you were advising him, Art!
> Art N (aka Noonedafter)
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> . <= 7 =>
> .
> . T h [Y] b a r k
> . a b [E] a n s h
> . e l [L],a n d a
> . s t [R] a w t h
> . y o [A] r?O r i
> . n t [H] y b{O X}
> . n o w b o u n
> . d i n g o n t
> . h e m a i n,
> .
> [HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
> -------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Let me know when you find "Harley-Davidson", Art.>>
> I once went on a blind date with a girl from "Harley-Davidson."
>
> It turned out that she was actually from "Fairleigh Dickinson."
> (Close enough for government work.)
> Art N (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 17, 2018, 8:06:19 AM5/17/18
to
-------------------------------------------
<<In the face of such a colossal -- and therefore entirely typical -- Noonedafter misunderstanding, one is tempted to ask: although she was not a Haley [sic], did you attempt to ride her anyway, Art?>>
I remained faithful to my 160cc Honda.
> (Close enough for government work.)
... like the Birthplace Trust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJS-NWZ7Ns
Art N.
> . <= 7 =>
> .
> . T h [Y] b a r k
> . a b [E] a n s h
> . e l [L],a n d a
> . s t [R] a w t h
> . y o [A] r?O r i
> . n t [H] y b{O X}
> . n o w b o u n
> . d i n g o n t
> . h e m a i n,
> .
> [HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
> -------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Let me know when you find "Harley-Davidson", Art.>>
> I once went on a blind date with a girl from "Harley-Davidson."
>
> It turned out that she was actually from "Fairleigh Dickinson."
Lea wrote:
> .
> . T h [Y] b a r k
> . a b [E] a n s h
> . e l [L],a n d a
> . s t [R] a w t h
> . y o [A] r?O r i
> . n t [H] y b{O X}
> . n o w b o u n
> . d i n g o n t
> . h e m a i n,
> .
> [HARLEY] -7 : Prob. in poem ~ 1 in 610
> -------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Let me know when you find "Harley-Davidson", Art.>>
> I once went on a blind date with a girl from "Harley-Davidson."
>
> It turned out that she was actually from "Fairleigh Dickinson."
<<In the face of such a colossal -- and therefore entirely typical -- Noonedafter misunderstanding, one is tempted to ask: although she was not a Haley [sic], did you attempt to ride her anyway, Art?>>
I remained faithful to my 160cc Honda.
> (Close enough for government work.)
Lea wrote:
<<Only for the purposes of the current administration, whose unprecedented aVERsion to objectively VERifiable fact would make you feel right at home, Art -- have you sent in your resumé yet? If not, let me exhort you to do so without further delay -- Trump may be in need of a new lawyer, and nothing would please me more than the knowledge that you were advising him, Art!>>
They need folks skilled in putting out fake-news
<<Only for the purposes of the current administration, whose unprecedented aVERsion to objectively VERifiable fact would make you feel right at home, Art -- have you sent in your resumé yet? If not, let me exhort you to do so without further delay -- Trump may be in need of a new lawyer, and nothing would please me more than the knowledge that you were advising him, Art!>>
... like the Birthplace Trust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJS-NWZ7Ns
Art N.
nordicskiv2
May 17, 2018, 10:26:44 AM5/17/18
to
> > (Close enough for government work.)
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Only for the purposes of the current administration, whose unprecedented
> aVERsion to objectively VERifiable fact would make you feel right at home,
> Art -- have you sent in your resumé yet? If not, let me exhort you to do
> so without further delay -- Trump may be in need of a new lawyer, and
> nothing would please me more than the knowledge that you were advising
> him, Art!>>
> They need folks skilled in putting out fake-news
While nobody doubts that you can generate fake news with the best of them, Art, that's not why I have such hopes for you in the Trump administration. It is your obliviousness to objectively VERifiable fact that would make you such a valued addition to the team -- nobody in the administration, short of Trump himself, has developed this trait to the virtuoso level that you exhibit, Art.
MoreoVER, the Trump administration has embraced farcical incompetence, from an education secretary who has no experience in or knowledge of public education to a complete scientific ignoramus in charge of important science policy decisions. That's why I feel that you would be a perfect choice as Trump's lawyer -- and as I said, nothing would please me more than knowing that Trump was relying upon you for legal advice.
> ... like the Birthplace Trust:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJS-NWZ7Ns
Now *there's* a perfect example -- and Waugh is a VERy funny one indeed -- of a generator of fake news, Art!
> Art N. (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
May 17, 2018, 11:21:02 AM5/17/18
to
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJS-NWZ7Ns
Lea wrote:
<<Now *there's* a perfect example -- and Waugh is a VERy
funny one indeed -- of a generator of fake news, Art!>>
Give one example of fake news in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJS-NWZ7Ns
Art Neuendorffer
Lea wrote:
<<Now *there's* a perfect example -- and Waugh is a VERy
funny one indeed -- of a generator of fake news, Art!>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJS-NWZ7Ns
Art Neuendorffer
0 new messages