Edward de Vere died before publishing?

[Jim F.]

"A high school freshman asks the question, about accounting for de
Vere's authorship of Shakespeare, when he died before some plays were
out."

Edward de Vere organized Shakespeare circle together with the Herberts (https://youtu.be/vq5I4_vVd9M), an explanation for plays after 1604.

The Herberts harvested (and erased) Edward de Vere and continued to sustain Shakespeare until 1743 at least, shown in Wilton House's Shakespeare statue (https://youtu.be/gJH-2PWWy2Y).

The Herberts supported the Protestant (https://youtu.be/czDzFaKcK10), one of the reasons to use a front man William Shakespeare as a firewall to avoid cases like Ben Jonson's The Isle of Dogs or another Bloody Mary. The best front man should be illiterate (less traces) and sacrificable, for loyal poets are valuable assets to their master.

[John W Kennedy]

It’s so much easier, isn’t it, to win an argument by making up your own
facts?

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

[Margaret]

Absolutely. Look at how complicated the pre-Copernican astronomy had to get to maintain the fiction that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Very similar to the myriad extra elements that have to be added to maintain the fiction that ANYONE BUT WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE wrote what William Shakespeare wrote.

[Jim F.]

So John, Can you reason Robert Greene's Lamilia's Fable?

[Jim F.]

Margaret,

Can you give a reason why Wilton House erected Shakespeare's statue in 1743?

[John W Kennedy]

Copernican astronomy wasn’t much better, because he tried to maintain
the fiction that all orbits are circular (because circles are “perfect”,
and therefore suitable for the heavens). It was Kepler who cleaned up
the mess with his ellipses, and Newton and Halley who gave it a decent
theoretical background that eliminated those damned crystal spheres.

[John W Kennedy]

La, if you simply google “fox" "badger" "ewe" you will learn that, down
to this day, farmers complain that badgers kill sheep, but scientists
disagree, saying that a badger is far more likely to feed on a sheep
already killed by some other creature. It’s a pretty little pastiche of
Æsop, needing no conspiracy theorist to shake his head and say, “There’s
a double meaning in that.” Get yourself some new garters.

[John W Kennedy]

1743? Händel wrote a “Te Deum”; why should not Kent (whom the ninth Earl
had known for decades) design a statue? But according to Wikipedia, it
was done a commemorate a legend that Shakespeare had once performed in
the courtyard. Shakespeare’s reputation had already risen above its
reduced state following his death; look at the prologue to Theobald’s
“Double Falshood” (1728).

[Margaret]

On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 23:33:59 UTC+1, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/23/22 8:39 AM, Jim F. wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 3:46:48 PM UTC+8, Margaret wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 23:29:14 UTC+1, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On 5/22/22 9:22 AM, Jim F. wrote:
> >>>> "A high school freshman asks the question, about accounting for de
> >>>> Vere's authorship of Shakespeare, when he died before some plays were
> >>>> out."
> >>>>
> >>>> Edward de Vere organized Shakespeare circle together with the Herberts (https://youtu.be/vq5I4_vVd9M), an explanation for plays after 1604.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Herberts harvested (and erased) Edward de Vere and continued to sustain Shakespeare until 1743 at least, shown in Wilton House's Shakespeare statue (https://youtu.be/gJH-2PWWy2Y).
> >>>>
> >>>> The Herberts supported the Protestant (https://youtu.be/czDzFaKcK10), one of the reasons to use a front man William Shakespeare as a firewall to avoid cases like Ben Jonson's The Isle of Dogs or another Bloody Mary. The best front man should be illiterate (less traces) and sacrificable, for loyal poets are valuable assets to their master.
> >>> It’s so much easier, isn’t it, to win an argument by making up your own
> >>> facts?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> John W. Kennedy
> >>> Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
> >>> King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!
> >> Absolutely. Look at how complicated the pre-Copernican astronomy had to get to maintain the fiction that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Very similar to the myriad extra elements that have to be added to maintain the fiction that ANYONE BUT WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE wrote what William Shakespeare wrote.
> >
> >
> > Margaret,
> >
> > Can you give a reason why Wilton House erected Shakespeare's statue in 1743?

Presumably because Wilton House wanted to erect Shakespeare's statue in 1743. He was quite famous by then. And the First Folio had thanked the 'incomparable pair of brethren' for their support for him living.

[Jim F.]

Fox visits Gray. Together they persuade a wanton Ewe and her brother chief Bell-wether of sundry flocks to set up a "perpetual league." A young Whelp detects that and informs shepherds, "and ever since, between the Badgers and the dogs hath continued a mortal enmity."

Animals cap map to persons via imperfect anagrams; e.g. "bell-wether of sundry flocks" can spell "Wilton House Henry Herbert."

Fox — Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere
Gray — Robert Greene
Ewe — Mary Sidney
Bell-wether — Henry Herbert
Whelp — Thomas Walsingham (young as Francis Walsingham's new successor)
shepherds — authorities
dogs — censors
badgers — Wilton House poets

A fable's moral (profound or superficial) depends on its context. Lamilia's Fable corresponds to Greene's warning to three poets of an upstart Crow and Shake-scene.

Your "a pretty little pastiche of Æsop" may stand alone like an Aesop fable, but can that fit to Robert Greene's story of Roberto?

Isn't a perpetual league detected by a whelp signifying "conspiracy" as this fable's moral?

[Jim F.]

Wilton House's 1743 statue is the same as Westminster Abbey's in 1741 except the inscription. Why changed the inscription to "And then is heard no more!" if Shakespeare's reputation had already risen to a Westminster level?

The period in "And then is heard no more." in the 1623 folio is changed to exclamation mark in Wilton House.

[Jim F.]

> Presumably because Wilton House wanted to erect Shakespeare's statue in 1743. He was quite famous by then. And the First Folio had thanked the 'incomparable pair of brethren' for their support for him living.

This reason is better than wiki's "It commemorates an unproved legend that Shakespeare came to Wilton and produced one of his plays in the courtyard." Abductive reasoning, core of strong AI, is to find the best (not the only or right) explanation.

Some Shakespeare cruxes are being legended to rationalize them. How Falstaff dies is misread the most, which links Herne the Hunter (a legend?) with Henry VIII. Falstaff dies of transgender operation. He wants to be a woman (https://youtu.be/4xk-l-EXSqM).

[Jim F.]

What to answer "A high school freshman asks the question," accident, coincidence?

Some Oxfordians believe Edward de Vere wrote "A Lover's Complaint." It's partially right because the poem tells the story of Edward de Vere and Anne Cecil. (https://youtu.be/AVoxVT-Rv3g)

[Jim F.]

How Falstaff dies is an example how Shakespeare analysts create facts.

— "his Nose was as sharp as a Pen, and a Table of green fields."

Notes and Emendations to the Text of Shakespeare's Plays: writing-tables were no doubt at that period often covered with green cloth; and it is to the sharpness of a pen, as seen in strong relief on a table so covered, that Mrs. Quickly likens the nose of the dying wit and philosopher, "for his nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze."

— "I saw him fumble with the sheets and play with flowers and smile upon his fingers' end."

Oxford School Shakespeare: These were said to be classical signs of impending death.


Why Shakespeare let Falstaff die of transgender operation by Mistress Quickly?

[Jim F.]

> Wilton House's 1743 statue is the same as Westminster Abbey's in 1741 except the inscription. Why changed the inscription to "And then is heard no more!" if Shakespeare's reputation had already risen to a Westminster level?

In AYLI, Rowland's son Oliver is threatened by a "a green and gilded snake" and "a Lioness with udders all drawn dry."

AYLI is based on Thomas Lodge's Rosalynde. Shakespeare changed the name from "Bordeaux's son Saladyne, to Rowland's son Oliver. Oliver-Rowland can spell Edward de Vere.

Shakespeare changed Alinda alias Aliena, to Celia alias Aliena. Aliena-Celia can spell Anne Cecil.

The "green and gilded snake" reflects Edward de Vere's mistress Anne Vavasor. The "Lioness with udders all drawn dry" reflects Anne Cecil, who married Edward de Vere in 1571. She delivered five children from 1575 to 1587 and died in 1588. She was "all drawn dry" one year after her last delivery.

Rosalinde alias Ganimed (Ganymede) is unchanged in AYLI. Rosalinde can spell "Mary Sidney" with M from Ganimed; Ganimed can spell "anagram" with R from Rosalinde.

These anagrams follow the style of Philip Sidney's Philisides and Mira (Philip Sidney and Mary). Sidney anagrams always frame full names.

"And then is heard no more" can spell Mary Sidney. A Shakespeare statue erected, then Mary Sidney is heard no more, the last message Wilton House tried to tell the world in 1743.

[Jim F.]

To support Lamilia's fable, Greene made Roberto's tale right after the fable. Only two characters are named in the tale.

• an old squire — father of the bride
• the bride — the old squire's daughter
• the bridegroom — a peasant (farmer's son)
• a young gentleman — suitor of the bride
• Mother Gunby — friend to the young gentleman
• Marian — Mother Gunby's daughter

This naming list is unusual because Mother Gunby and Marian are not protagonists and they have no dialogue unlike others.

"Mother Gunby" can spell Henry Herbert.
"Marian" can spell Mary.
"Gunby's daughter Marian" can spell Mary Sidney Herbert.

This design matches the Ewe and Ewe's brother Bell-wether in Lamilia's fable.

Anagrams can well reason seemingly tedious lines and difficult words, and reveal William Shakespeare was just a front man. Anagrams together with riddles like Falstaff's death that scholars cannot solve shall make Shakespeare greater.

[marc hanson]

were anagrams common in 1600 London?

marc

[Jim F.]

1620: Thomas Middleton: "Thou breedest crickets, I think, and that will serve for the anagram to a critic." crickets => critic.

1609: Ben Jonson, Epicene: "Make anagrams of our names."

1594: Michael Drayton: "Meridianis sits within a maze." Meridianis==Mary Sidney.

1592: Christopher Marlowe: "Within this circle is Jehovah's name, forward and backward anagrammatized," a riddle of God and dog, similar to King Lear's Turlygod==Truly-dog. Edgar's disguise as poor Tom is truly like a dog.

1585: In Pembroke's Arcadia, Pyrocles names himself Cleophila to pursue Philoclea. Philoclea==Cleophila.

1577: Philisides and Mira => Philip Sidney and Mary. He considered himself a messenger of victory like Philippides.

***

How scholars interpret Turlygod

Cambridge: "Turlygod Unexplained. Oxford prefers Q uncorr. 'Tuelygod' and suggests some possible derivations for the word (Textual Companion, pp. 515-16)."

Longman: "Turlygod, another name for a beggar, is otherwise unknown."

Signet: "the names a Bedlam beggar."

Yale: Turlygod "(?)"

Alexander Dyce: "Turlygod is a name given to mad beggars; possibly a corruption of Turlupin, the name of a fraternity of naked beggars in the 14th century."

[marc hanson]

i guess that's it, William Shakespeare, gentleman, was a front all along...?

how do you going to erase, or invalidate, all the dozens of historical documents, over decades, from different people/sources, that say he was the legitimate author?
do you have a new twist to this answer, that hasn't already been brought up?

marc

[Jim F.]

I was wandering what kind of author will create the term Turlygod.

Find the best explanation is the principle of abductive reasoning. Collaboration of Shakespeare should be done in serial. The last author seals codes to assure consistency, and discredits traitors like Edward de Vere.

Turlygod may come from "God truly," a term appears three times in 1587 Geneva Bible of the same moral, and once in 1611 KJV but different. King Lear's 1608 quarto has already Turlygod. (Geneva Bible, Mark 12:14–17, Luke 20:21–25, and Matthew 22:16–21.)

Result of tracing "God truly" in Geneva: Render to Caesar that are Caesar's; to God that are God's. I believe this is what ragEd Edgar tries to tell the world, and somehow answers your question.

[Margaret]

[Margaret]

The fornix is a triangular area of white matter in the mammalian brain between the hippocampus and the hypothalamus.

"Oxfordians are bonkers" is an anagram of "Anoraks' fonix bedsore".

I think that is a proof of everything, don't you?

[Margaret]

Then again, it's also an anagram of "Brandon forsakes Roxie". Which gives a whole new line of enquiry...

or "Dixon forbears Koreans"

or "Doorknobs nix Seafarer"

While "Vast-earning monograph" is also an an anagram of "Anagrams prove nothing."

[marc hanson]

reminds me of data mining, where if you look long/hard enough, a pattern will emerge

marc

[marc hanson]

well, maybe it is actually data mining

marc

[John W Kennedy]

“Fornix” has a number of different meanings in English and Latin. One
Latin meaning is “brothel” (because they were often in the basement).
It’s where “fornicate” comes from.

[Jim F.]

Anagram is a tool. Use it properly, get proper result.

Anagram is one-level transformation, easy to make, fault tolerant to unfixed spelling.

Oxfordian's gematria is multi-level, precision sensitive:
- position shift (when needed);
- W to VV (when needed);
- letter to digit;
- digits to sum.
Each level more diverges the cipher's solidness.

[Jim F.]

Cycling inductive and abductive reasoning is the key of strong artificial intelligence.

[Margaret]

HAMLET: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?
POLONIUS: By th’ mass and ’tis, like a camel indeed.
HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.
POLONIUS: It is back’d like a weasel.
HAMLET: Or like a whale.
POLONIUS: Very like a whale.

[Jim F.]

Cambridge comments these lines as "A cloud is whatever you think it to be." Longman says "Hamlet now shows how easily he can play on Polonius." No version explains why camel, weasel, and whale are selected.

So why these three animals, not others?

[John W Kennedy]

They all possess (at least sometimes) a humpback profile. I don’t think
it MEANS anything, but I can visualize Shakespeare imagining a cloud (or
actually seeing one) and then thinking of animals that it might
resemble. (Hamlet does not, after all, see an elephant, a cameleopard,
and a lobster.)

[Jim F.]

Camel, Weasel, Whale, each has exactly four letters in Hamlet:
cAMEL, wEAsEL, wHALE.

Hamlet "will come by and by" his revenge. He needs their natures but lacks letter
h and t for Camel (endurance) to spell Hamlet,
m, t, h for Weasel (shrewdness),
m and t for Whale (valuables within).

This dialogue is to notify Hamlet to meet his mother. The meeting will complete Hamlet with m, t, h, by MoTHer.

HAMLET.
Then will I come to my Mother, by and by:
They fool me to the top of my bent.
I will come by and by.

Hamlet == Amleth, original name of the story.
Hamlet itself is a hint on playing anagram in this play.

[Margaret]

God give me strength!

[Paul Crowley]

On Saturday 16 July 2022 at 19:04:43 UTC+1, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:

>> So why these three animals, not others?
>
> They all possess (at least sometimes) a humpback profile. I don’t think
> it MEANS anything, but I can visualize Shakespeare imagining a cloud (or
> actually seeing one) and then thinking of animals that it might
> resemble. (Hamlet does not, after all, see an elephant, a cameleopard,
> and a lobster.)

Shakespeare (i.e. Oxford) rarely wrote anything
empty of meaning. He had a lot to say, and
nearly always took the opportunity.

Lilian Winstanley, a Stratfordian, in her 1921
book explained the relevance of the first two
comparisons. (Btw, she readily accepted that
Polonius=Burghley. Modern academics hold
their noses at this, realising the dangerous
implications.)

Winstanley: Hamlet, and the Scottish Succession; (1921) p. 125.

=================== p. 125.
Yet more curious parallels may be quoted. In a
strange letter to Essex, Lord Henry Howard exults that
“ the dromedary that would have won the favour of the
Queen of Sabez is almost enraged” (meaning Burleigh by
the dromedary), and asks the earl whether “ he cannot
drag out the old leviathan and his cub” (meaning the
two Cecils). We may surely compare this with Hamlet’s
conversation with Polonius :

HAM. Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a
camel?
POL. By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.
HAM. Methinks it is like a weasel.
POL. It is backed like a weasel.
HAM. Or like a whale?
POL. Very like a whale.

When we remember that Shakespeare would, in all
human probability, have had access to the Essex corre-
spondence shown by Essex himself, we can see the point
still more strongly.
It is hardly necessary to show, how, in the corre-
spondence of the time, such as that of Standen and
Anthony Bacon, Burleigh is continually alluded to with
contempt. Thus Standen writes to Anthony Bacon,
March I 595, that the queen paid no heed to Burleigh,
when he protested against the expedition to Cadiz:
“ When she saw it booted not to stay him, she said he
was a ‘ froward old fool.’ ”

end of quote ================

Full credit is due to Winstanley for identifying
the camel (the 'dromedary') and the whale
(the 'leviathan'). I don't know how she
imagined that the Stratman would have "in all
human probability" got access to the Essex
correspondence.

The real story must be that Burghley had
long been known by a variety of derogatory
nicknames among the jealous, usually
opposing noble courtiers. This passage in
Hamlet could have been written at almost
any time during Elizabeth's reign.

The Ogburns, who picked up these references,
suggested that 'weasel', employed here by
Oxford, was just another passing insult. But it
could well be more, and have been in general
use by courtiers, as Burghley had been long in
favour of the Queen's marrying (to a
Frenchman, if necessary) and weasels were
then associated with fertility.

https://beforethesecondsleep.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/the-sexy-weasel-in-renaissance-art-by-carol-mcgrath/

[Jim F.]

Polonius > Burleigh > dromedary > camel
Polonius > Burleigh > leviathan > whale
Polonius > Burleigh > passing insult or fertility > weasel

Transformed three times.
Weasel has different logic than camel and whale.
Polonius or Burleigh can fit camel + whale + weasel?

[Paul Crowley]

On Tuesday 19 July 2022 at 04:15:25 UTC+1, Jim F. wrote:

> Polonius > Burleigh > dromedary > camel
> Polonius > Burleigh > leviathan > whale
> Polonius > Burleigh > passing insult or fertility > weasel
>
> Transformed three times.
> Weasel has different logic than camel and whale.
> Polonius or Burleigh can fit camel + whale + weasel?

Lord Henry Howard tells us that
Burghley was known, within the English
court, as 'the dromedary' and as 'the
leviathan'. It's not unreasonable to
assume that he was also known as 'the
weasel'. It's quite likely that most of
the courtiers using such terms did not
know their origin. I named (i.e. with a
nickname) a new teacher at my school.
Twenty years later, a nephew attended
the same school, and I learned that he
was still there, known by all with that
nickname. My nephew simply didn't
believe me when I told him. It was as
though I was claiming to have named
'Wednesday' or 'the Sun'. The reasons
for the appropriateness of the nick-
name were, of course, completely
forgotten. Indeed, they were never
considered.

Burghley was round-shouldered with
a hump -- which MIGHT explain 'the
camel'. And 'the whale' MIGHT have
been associated with the 'fishmonger'
slur (based presumably on his
introduction of two 'fish-days' in the
week).

[Jim F.]

Anagram is a tool. Shakespeare's view on tool:

FALSTAFF.
my Sword hacked like a Hand-saw. (Henry IV, Part 1)

The word handsaw appears just twice in the 1623 folio. The other in Hamlet:

HAMLET.
I am but mad North, North-West: when the
Wind is Southerly, I know a Hawk from a Handsaw.

Hawk in OED: (1548) "Applied to a person, in various senses derived from the nature of the bird of prey."

Hamlet can know a preyer (hawk) from his handsaw, a tool or a hacked sword.

Hawk may be inspired by "sword (words) hacked" and "handsaw." Hamlet is hacked from Amleth. Hack the word hamlet will get imperfect camel, weasel, whale; cloud can be shaped imperfectly like letters be anagrammatized.

[Margaret]

Anagrams are silly games that can be used to "prove" any old nonsense. As Shakespeare knew. "M. A. O. I. .. - what should that alphabetical position portend? If I could make that resemble something in me. .."

And a hawk, like a handsaw, is a tradesman's tool https://www.wonkeedonkeetools.co.uk/plasterers-hawks/what-is-a-plasterer-s-hawk

[Paul Crowley]

On Thursday 21 July 2022 at 22:06:32 UTC+1, Margaret wrote:

Questions on Twelfth Night

1) How Olivia a countess? She was never
married, and females NEVER inherited
titles of nobility.

2) Malvolio hoped (on marrying Olivia)
to become 'Count'. How was that
conceivable? If a female has acquired
a title (i.e. by being a widow of a noble)
a future husband won't get one.

[Jim F.]

Margaret,

Thomas Middleton's crickets to critic anagram mocks at critics. Shakespeare's Hamlet is an anagram of Amleth. Are they silly?

You didn't notice I put "Hawk in OED: (1548)." Hawk as a tradesman's tool is recorded in OED since 1700. Can you find that usage before 1604?

[Margaret]

Crickets to critics is silly yes. Shakespeare's Hamlet isn't an anagram of anything - he just copies [Kyd's?] earlier Hamlet. "whole Hamlets, I should say handfuls, of tragical speeches" (Thomas Nashe, 1598); "looks as pale as the vizard of the ghost which cried so miserably at the Theatre, like an oyster-wife, 'Hamlet, revenge!' " (Thomas Lodge, 1596)

The OED finds it recorded (ie written down) in 1700. You think it was a neoligism invented by a writer? No, it was common parlance among plasterers for years before that, along with trowel https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A51548.0001.001/1:28.1.6?rgn=div3;view=fulltext
As in "that was laid on with a trowel". (As You Like It)
Shakespeare was familiar with both words. Perhaps he knew a plasterer.

[Margaret]

Paul Crowley
unread,
00:02 (3 hours ago)
to

1. This was Illyria. Foreigners can do all sorts of things. Shakespeare hadn't been to the Balkans and neither has his audience. He could make things up. He was good at making things up.

2. And the British Isles had plenty of countesses in their own right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_created_for_women

[Jim F.]

Margaret,

Anagram is a tool. The wise use it wisely.

John Davies (1565–1618) made
John Davies==His od vaine, in epigram 293.

Josuah Sylvester (1563-1618) made
James Stuart==A Just Master, to praise King James.

Are they silly?

[Paul Crowley]

On Friday 22 July 2022 at 03:08:53 UTC+1, Margaret wrote:

> 2. And the British Isles had plenty of countesses in their own right.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_created_for_women

As it states in the article:
" . . . Prior to the regular creation of life peerages, the great majority of
peerages were created for men. Suo jure peeresses are known from an
early period; however, most of them were women to whom a peerage
had passed as an inheritance. It was very rare for a woman to be
created a peeress before the 17th century. . . ."

What I stated was the case. Females did
not inherit titles of nobility. The title
AND the property went to the nearest
living MALE relative.

> This was Illyria.

All the characters were, in effect, English,
and accepted as such. No one thought of
adopting a fake "Illyrian accent". But this
was the theatre. Audiences suspended
disbelief. Almost any story went
unquestioned.

> Foreigners can do all sorts of things.

Almost every educated member of the
audience would have known that, if
anything, females had an even lower
status than in England. E.g. Salic law,
discussed at length in Henry V. Laws
that allowed noble females to inherit
titles -- OR grant them by marriage --
would have been rightly seen as
nonsensical -- if anyone had stopped
to think.

> He could make things up. He was good at making things up.

There's not a lot 'made up' in Twelfth
Night -- or not in the way Strats have to
imagine. He based his works on reality --
on real people in real (if somewhat
distorted circumstances). That's why
they ring so true. That's what great
artists do -- as a matter of course. Joyce's
"Molly Bloom" was a real woman, even if
far from a 100% accurate depiction.
Twelfth Night is the Elizabethan court in
late 1579 -- translated to Illyria for comic
effect.

[John W Kennedy]

On 7/21/22 7:02 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Thursday 21 July 2022 at 22:06:32 UTC+1, Margaret wrote:
>
> Questions on Twelfth Night
>
> 1) How Olivia a countess? She was never
> married, and females NEVER inherited
> titles of nobility.

Not “never". It generally depends on the terms of the original creation,
but it is definitely possible throughout Europe for a woman to possess a
title suo jure. For example, Anne Boleyn was only a queen consort, but
was Marquess of Pembroke in her own right. (In Hungarian, in fact,
there are two different words; a “grófnő” has the title in her own
right, while a “grófné” is the wife of a gróf.

> 2) Malvolio hoped (on marrying Olivia)
> to become 'Count'. How was that
> conceivable? If a female has acquired
> a title (i.e. by being a widow of a noble)
> a future husband won't get one.

That also is variable. Where it happens the term is “jure uxoris”.

[John W Kennedy]

The first thing he seems to have made up is Illyria. Allthough there is
a /place/ by that name (roughly, the coast of modern-day Croatia), and
Illyrian tribes existed in classical times, the only person I know who
actually identifies as “Illyrian” is the actress Stana Katic (though her
actual citizenship is Canadian/American).

But none of this matters, since, as I have already remarked, the
possibility of a woman inheriting a title and the possibility of a
husband receiving some share in that title were both perfectly ordinary
in Europe.

[Jim F.]

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 9:57:54 AM UTC+8, Margaret wrote:
> The OED finds it recorded (ie written down) in 1700. You think it was a neoligism invented by a writer? No, it was common parlance among plasterers for years before that, along with trowel https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A51548.0001.001/1:28.1.6?rgn=div3;view=fulltext
> As in "that was laid on with a trowel". (As You Like It)
> Shakespeare was familiar with both words. Perhaps he knew a plasterer.

Quote OED's year, the usage is solid. Assuming hawk as a tool before 1604 and known by Shakespeare, unsolid but respected (as any assumption). How to fit that to the context is the key.

HAMLET.
I am but mad North, North-West: when the
Wind is Southerly, I know a Hawk from a Handsaw.

Subject is that Hamlet can identify fake friends (as hacked sword to fake handsaw). Use of North, West, Southerly, and Wind may suggest Greek gods of winds. Their natures can fit the context, same reason to use camel, weasel, and whale.

North, Boreas: cold, severe, frightening.
West, Zephyrus: gentle, fructifying, pleasant.
South, Notus: hot, stormy, destroying.

Shakespeare used often the wind's nature:
"Boreas once enrage" (Troilus and Cressida)
"gentle as Zephyrs blowing" (Cymbeline)
"Southern wind ... Foretells a Tempest" (Henry IV, Part 1)

CLAUDIUS.
What Gertrude? How does Hamlet?

GERTRUDE.
Mad as the Seas, and wind, ...

"There is Method in" Hamlet's madness, a tip from Shakespeare. Hawk as a tool simplifies Shakespeare.

[Paul Crowley]

On Saturday 23 July 2022 at 00:56:48 UTC+1, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:

>> 1) How Olivia a countess? She was never
>> married, and females NEVER inherited
>> titles of nobility.
>
> Not “never". It generally depends on the terms of the original creation,
> but it is definitely possible throughout Europe for a woman to possess a
> title suo jure. For example, Anne Boleyn was only a queen consort, but
> was Marquess of Pembroke in her own right.

Your 'exception' proves the rule. The
raising of the status of Anne Boleyn to
Marquess was all smoke and mirrors
-- important to the participants but, in
reality, fooled no one. It was the will
of the monarch. She got the title (and
and the lands) in September. They
married in November, and all the
property became the king's.

Other 'exceptions' follow much the
same pattern and, in most cases,
involved royalty, essentially twisting
the rules for dynastic purposes.

Within the play, Duke Orsino could
theoretically have changed the rules
to make Olivia a countess, but there's
no reason why he should have, and it
would have been clear in the play.
Likewise, the notion that Malvolio
could have become count just by
marriage is unthinkable. He'd have
had to be of much higher status AND
marrying a properly-established
countess AND been specially favoured
by the ruler (in this case, Duke Orsino)
-- so not on, not in any respect.

> But none of this matters, since, as I have already remarked, the
> possibility of a woman inheriting a title and the possibility of a
> husband receiving some share in that title were both perfectly ordinary
> in Europe.

There were thousands of 'counts' (or
similar) across Europe. Their wives
became 'countesses'. But no never-
married female attained that status
-- without the monarch's intervention
and in highly peculiar circumstances,
such as those with Anne Boleyn.

[John W Kennedy]

On 7/24/22 9:41 AM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Saturday 23 July 2022 at 00:56:48 UTC+1, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> 1) How Olivia a countess? She was never
>>> married, and females NEVER inherited
>>> titles of nobility.
>>
>> Not “never". It generally depends on the terms of the original creation,
>> but it is definitely possible throughout Europe for a woman to possess a
>> title suo jure. For example, Anne Boleyn was only a queen consort, but
>> was Marquess of Pembroke in her own right.
>
> Your 'exception' proves the rule. The
> raising of the status of Anne Boleyn to
> Marquess was all smoke and mirrors
> -- important to the participants but, in
> reality, fooled no one. It was the will
> of the monarch. She got the title (and
> and the lands) in September. They
> married in November, and all the
> property became the king's.

I said "example", not "exception". Here’s a list of British women alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_inherited_by_women

> Other 'exceptions' follow much the
> same pattern and, in most cases,
> involved royalty, essentially twisting
> the rules for dynastic purposes.

No, you’re simply wrong. Inheritance law is much more complex than you
imagine, as you can easily discover from any encyclopedia. And, in the
particular case of Olivia, we KNOW she has a dead brother, and that the
play supplies him with neither a widow nor children, which makes that
much more likely that she is his heir.

[Paul Crowley]

On Sunday 24 July 2022 at 20:23:18 UTC+1, john.w....@gmail.com wrote:

> I said "example", not "exception". Here’s a list of British women alone:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_inherited_by_women

Thanks for that list. Very interesting reading
(especially on the linked websites)

The issues are (a) How would the play have
been understood by its intended audience?
(b) What did the playwright imply by giving
Olivia these attributes and mocking Malvolio
(whether or not his intentions varied from
what he expected in (a) above). . . ?

Given the 'suspension of disbelief', the pace
of the play, it should be no surprise that
Manningham thought Olivia was a rich
widow. No doubt he's quite representative
of public audiences.

Four noblewomen with inherited peerages
are listed for the 16th century. We would
hardly expect the playwright (as you see him)
or the actors in his company, let alone the
public audiences, to know much about them.
They'd know even less about those from
earlier centuries.

1513 - 1539 8th or 2nd Countess of Salisbury Margaret Pole
1526 - 1580 12 Baroness Willoughby de Eresby Catherine Willoughby (Brandon) (Bertie) Duchess of Suffolk
1540 - 1543 7th Baroness Bourchier Anne Bourchier (Parr)
1587 - 1591 16th Baroness de Ros Elizabeth (Manners) Cecil

(All taken from Wikipedia, with some editing)

1) Countess of Salisbury Margaret Pole
She was the most famous, executed in 1541 by Henry VIII for being the mother of Cardinal Pole.
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury (14 August 1473 – 27 May 1541) was the only surviving daughter of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, a brother of Kings Edward IV and Richard III (all sons of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York), by his wife Isabel Neville. Margaret was one of just two women in 16th-century England to be a peeress in her own right without a husband in the House of Lords. (ODNB; the other was Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke. The ODNB does not qualify the assertion, but is discussing sixteenth-century usage; sources which apply modern law retroactively will consider some women peeresses in their own right when their husbands sat in Parliament with their father's style and precedence.)

2) Catherine Willoughby (Brandon) (Bertie)
Katherine is said to have been 'one of the greatest heiresses of her generation'. However her inheritance became a subject of dispute for many years, as there was doubt as to which lands had been settled on the heirs male and which on the heirs general.
She married Charles Brandon -- a great favourite of Henry VIII, who made him Duke of Suffolk.
Following Charles Brandon's death in 1545, it was rumoured that King Henry had considered marrying Katherine as his seventh wife, while he was still married to his sixth wife, Catherine Parr, who was Katherine's close friend.
The Duchess of Suffolk was appointed guardian (of Cartherin Parr's infant) after Parr's death.
"The Duchess could not support the young infant so she wrote to Sir William Cecil, asking for funds. The letter reflects her resentment towards the child. The letter was obviously taken into account for in January 1550, an act in Parliament was passed restoring Mary to what was left of her father's property."
She married her second husband, Richard Bertie (25 December 1516 – 9 April 1582), a member of her household, out of love and shared religious beliefs, but she continued to be known as the Duchess of Suffolk, and her efforts to have her husband named Lord Willoughby de Eresby were unsuccessful.

3) Baroness Bourchier Anne Bourchier (Parr)
Anne was related to three queen consorts of Henry VIII; Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Catherine Howard who all shared the same great-grandmother Elizabeth Cheney

4) Elizabeth Manners
On her father's death the Earldom of Rutland devolved upon his brother, the Barony of Ros passed to his daughter, Elizabeth.
Married a grandson of Lord Burghley (a son of Thomas) and became Elizabeth Cecil.

The first of these ladies had royal blood; the
second close relations with the monarch; the
third and fourth just high nobility. The 'de jure'
titles they inherited did not go along with
property, and most endured poverty (at least
relative to their status) at some points in their
lives. These titles are rarely inherited by
females, and are little more than decoration

>> Other 'exceptions' follow much the
>> same pattern and, in most cases,
>> involved royalty, essentially twisting
>> the rules for dynastic purposes.
>
> No, you’re simply wrong. Inheritance law is much more complex than you
> imagine,

A nightmare. 'Bleak House' multiplied
100k. It's what those with money fought
over in the courts all the time. A lot of
lawyers made a good living from all that.

> as you can easily discover from any encyclopedia. And, in the
> particular case of Olivia, we KNOW she has a dead brother, and that the
> play supplies him with neither a widow nor children, which makes that
> much more likely that she is his heir.

Quote an example of an EM rich, never-
married noble female inheriting proper
titles and running her own estates. The
brother would, in 99.9% of cases, be
prevented (by tradition, custom, relatives
-- or lawyers) from passing on titles and/
or property to a female. If he died
without making a will it would all go to
the nearest male relative.

Likewise for a household servant
becoming 'a count' merely by marriage.

The playwright did not put nonsense
into plays on a whim. He was clearly
saying something.

[Margaret]

Shakespeare knows something of the Countess of Salisbury: she's onstage in Richard III. As a child. But he takes the trouble to include her.

ACT IV
SCENE I. Before the Tower.
Enter, on one side, QUEEN ELIZABETH, DUCHESS OF YORK, and DORSET; on the other, ANNE, Duchess of Gloucester, leading Lady Margaret Plantagenet, CLARENCE's young Daughter
DUCHESS OF YORK
Who meets us here? my niece Plantagenet
Led in the hand of her kind aunt of Gloucester?
Now, for my life, she's wandering to the Tower,
On pure heart's love to greet the tender princes.
Daughter, well met.

[Jim F.]

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 5:06:32 AM UTC+8, Margaret wrote:

> Anagrams are silly games that can be used to "prove" any old nonsense. As Shakespeare knew. "M. A. O. I. .. - what should that alphabetical position portend? If I could make that resemble something in me. .."
>

If you read it further, Malvolio's statement "every one of these Letters are in my name" tells the method of imperfect anagram. Four letters M.O.A.I. in Malvolio's name is similar to four letters of Camel Weasel Whale in Hamlet's name.

MALVOLIO.
What should that Alphabetical position portend, if I could make that resemble something in me? Softly, _M.O.A.I._
. . .
_M,O,A,I._ This simulation is not as the former: and yet to crush this a little, it would bow to me, for every one of these Letters are in my name.

[Paul Crowley]

On Tuesday 26 July 2022 at 23:01:36 UTC+1, Margaret wrote:

> Shakespeare knows something of the Countess of Salisbury: she's
> onstage in Richard III. As a child. But he takes the trouble to include her.
>
> ACT IV
> SCENE I. Before the Tower.
> Enter, on one side, QUEEN ELIZABETH, DUCHESS OF YORK, and DORSET; on the other, ANNE, Duchess of Gloucester, leading Lady Margaret Plantagenet, CLARENCE's young Daughter
> DUCHESS OF YORK
> Who meets us here? my niece Plantagenet
> Led in the hand of her kind aunt of Gloucester?
> Now, for my life, she's wandering to the Tower,
> On pure heart's love to greet the tender princes.
> Daughter, well met.

Did Shake-speare expect the public audiences
at the Globe to get the point here? This lady
was well-known during her life and for some
time after her execution in 1541. She
became venerated by the Catholic church,
which hardly made her popular with the
ruling class or other non-Catholics in England.

That the poet went our of his way to bring
her in suggests to me that he loved the
history, and was aiming his work at the those
highly-educated few who shared that love,
understood her role, and discussed that
period at length and in detail.

[Jim F.]

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 9:57:54 AM UTC+8, Margaret wrote:

> Shakespeare's Hamlet isn't an anagram of anything - he just copies [Kyd's?] earlier Hamlet. "whole Hamlets, I should say handfuls, of tragical speeches" (Thomas Nashe, 1598); "looks as pale as the vizard of the ghost which cried so miserably at the Theatre, like an oyster-wife, 'Hamlet, revenge!' " (Thomas Lodge, 1596)

Shakespeare's Hamlet is based on The Life of Amleth by Saxo, where the prince is called Amleth, his mother Geruth (Gertrude in Hamlet). Author of the so-called Ur-Hamlet is unknown, possibly Shakespeare.

Hamlet is an anagram of Amleth, a fact.
Can you find a solid reason how Shakespeare named Hamlet?

Gertrude==gret-rude; gret is an obsolete form of great (OED).
GERTRUDE. "What have I done, that thou dare'st wag thy tongue, in noise so RUDE against me?"

Fortinbras==a-firstborn.
HAMLET. "I do prophesy the election lights on Fortinbras ..."
Hamlet's prophesy of election is a hint to affirm this anagram.

Anagrams should FIT the context, else have no true value.

PROTH. But what said she?
SPEED. I.
PROTH. Nod-I, why that's noddy. (The Two Gentlemen of Verona)

Nod-I is an imperfect anagram of noddy. Some editions remove the hyphen and change "I" to Ay, and destroy Shakespeare's design. The hyphen is a hint to merge, similar design appeared in M.O.A.I. The audience won't know any hyphen.

Camel Weasel Whale, Hawk Handsaw, etc. target not the audience but riddlers. Falstaff's hacked sword shaping Handsaw is the only clue to solve Hawk and Handsaw. Shakespeare is more than a playwright.

[Paul Crowley]

On Thursday 28 July 2022 at 03:36:11 UTC+1, Jim F. wrote:

> Hamlet is an anagram of Amleth, a fact.
> Can you find a solid reason how Shakespeare named Hamlet?

He wanted to make this joke -- this beautiful
play on words.

Rowe's 1709 edition of the works. Discussing
Shakespeare as an actor in his prefatory 'Life',
Rowe states that he "could never meet with any
further Account of him this way, than that the top
of his Performance was the Ghost in his own
Hamlet".

Thomas Nashe, in his introduction to Greene’s
Menaphon (1589), writes in a similar riddling
way: "if you entreat him fair in a frosty morning,
he will afford you whole Hamlets"

It means that the poet was aware of the scheme
to involve the Stratman (or perhaps someone
similar) as early as 1589 -- someone who would
stay quietly in some remote hamlet, nominally
(and only nominally) pretending to be the great
author.

[Jim F.]

On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 6:02:44 PM UTC+8, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2022 at 03:36:11 UTC+1, Jim F. wrote:
>
> > Hamlet is an anagram of Amleth, a fact.
> > Can you find a solid reason how Shakespeare named Hamlet?
> He wanted to make this joke -- this beautiful
> play on words.
>

The background of Amleth Hamlet is Touchstone's "Jove in a thatched house" (As You Like It). If poor poets can serve their disguised patrons well, like Baucis and Philemon served disguised Jove and Mercury, gods (nobles) will turn the poor's hamlets to palace.

Thomas Nashe knew the secret of Shakespeare as a member of the "perpetual league" in Lamilia's fable. Amleth to Hamlet is a hint to solve Shakespeare's secret via anagrams.

Lamilia==il-Lamia (ill-Lamia); il is an obsolete form of ill appeared often in the 1623 folio. Lamia is a child-eating monster in Greek mythology. To affirm this anagram, Greene compared Lamilia with Scylla, Lamia's daughter. Robert Greene was complaining his patroness, Lamilia the courtesan, devoured his creations (children). Courtesan is an imperfect anagram of Countess.

[bookburn]

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-8, Jim F. wrote:

> On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 3:15:42 PM UTC+8, Margaret wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 08:05:07 UTC+1, Margaret wrote:
> > > The fornix is a triangular area of white matter in the mammalian brain between the hippocampus and the hypothalamus.
> > >
> > > "Oxfordians are bonkers" is an anagram of "Anoraks' fonix bedsore".
> > >
> > > I think that is a proof of everything, don't you?
> > Then again, it's also an anagram of "Brandon forsakes Roxie". Which gives a whole new line of enquiry...
> >
> > or "Dixon forbears Koreans"
> >
> > or "Doorknobs nix Seafarer"
> >
> > While "Vast-earning monograph" is also an an anagram of "Anagrams prove nothing."

> Anagram is a tool. Use it properly, get proper result.
>
> Anagram is one-level transformation, easy to make, fault tolerant to unfixed spelling.
>
> Oxfordian's gematria is multi-level, precision sensitive:
> - position shift (when needed);
> - W to VV (when needed);
> - letter to digit;
> - digits to sum.
> Each level more diverges the cipher's solidness.

I would suggest that along with "unfixed spellings" and assuming that intentional anagrams are a consequence, that the concept of "reverse speech" be considered.

" . . . theory that during spoken language production, human speakers subconsciously produce hidden messages that give insights into their innermost thoughts." Evidently, can make out underlying subconscious thoughts by reversing speech order?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_speech

[Jim F.]

Shakespeare exhausted rhetorical devices in his work. Boustrophedon is one close to _reverse speech_. Boustrophedon can be applied to Shakespeare's epitaph and monument. The term "passenger" is a hint. For a passenger to _walk_ through lines like a road, these lines must be linked to make multiple S-turns, which will _reverse_ the normal reading.

Hamlet's "a Hawk from a Handsaw" has nothing to do with authorship or anagram. Meaning of hawk is easy to catch, but the audience can hardly connect hawk with handsaw quickly, unless Hamlet takes a hacked sword and swings it along with the word handsaw. It's a riddle for riddler.

[bookburn]

Or consider that Shakespeare was connecting thoughts metaphorically, as we all might do occasionally, and in the case of "a Hawk from a Handsaw" might be projecting a memory of being in school as a child, when they brought lanterns on dark days and could use hands near lanterns to create images, like a hawk. Point then could be about knowing difference between reality and its shadow, sort of like Plato did with his cave allegory.

https://www.google.com/search?client=avast-a-1&q=Plato%27s+cave+metaphore&oq=Plato%27s+cave+metaphore&aqs=avast..69i57j0l7.12442j0j1&ie=UTF-8

[Jim F.]

> The background of Amleth Hamlet is Touchstone's "Jove in a thatched house" (As You Like It). If poor poets can serve their disguised patrons well, like Baucis and Philemon served disguised Jove and Mercury, gods (nobles) will turn the poor's hamlets to palace.
>
> Thomas Nashe knew the secret of Shakespeare as a member of the "perpetual league" in Lamilia's fable. Amleth to Hamlet is a hint to solve Shakespeare's secret via anagrams.
>

First line of _Greene's Arcadia or Menaphon_ says Jove wrapped Arcadia: "After that the wrath of mighty Jove, had wrapt Arcadia with noysome pestilence."

Robert Greene didn't tell why Jove punishes Arcadians. One of the legends is Philemon and Baucis. The poor should serve their disguised masters well, else they will be punished.

Reference to Philemon and Baucis appears later in how shepherd Menaphon treats disguised princess Sephestia: "ye shall have such welcome and fare as Philemon and Baucis gave to Jupiter."

_Greene's Arcadia or Menaphon_ has a happy ending similar to _The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia_.
Menaphon: a shepherd in Arcadia
Sephestia: daughter to King of Arcadia, wife to Maximius, alias Samela.
Maximius: husband to Sephestia, alias Melicertus.
Pleusidippus: son to Sephestia.
Carmela: sister to Menaphon.
Doron: Menaphon's neighbour, married to Carmela.
Pesana: a herdsman's daughter, married to Menaphon.

[Jim F.]

>
> Nod-I is an imperfect anagram of noddy. Some editions remove the hyphen and change "I" to Ay, and destroy Shakespeare's design. The hyphen is a hint to merge, similar design appeared in M.O.A.I. The audience won't know any hyphen.
>

"Nod-I, why that's noddy" can be reasoned by anagram.
Hyphen plays a key role here.
Scholars change "Nod-I" to "Nod Ay" for easy reading
but simplify Shakespeare.

The riddle M.O.A.I. has similar design.
The term appears 4 times in the script,
first three with period as M.O.A.I. and
the last one with comma as M,O,A,I.
A printer error or smart design?
The audience won't know the difference.

Period breaks. Comma suggests linkage.
M.O.A.I. play for shape and sound.
M,O,A,I. plays for anagram: "I am O."
Direct reading: MALVOLIO. "I am nothing."
Indirect reading is to match M.O.A.I.

[Jim F.]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 3:57:39 AM UTC+8, Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> The playwright did not put nonsense
> into plays on a whim. He was clearly
> saying something.

"He was clearly saying something."

To title Olivia countess, Shakespeare let her
brother die shortly after her father's death.
The key is, Olivia abjures men for seven years
is for love of her brother, not father.

ORSINO.
O she that hath a heart of that fine frame
To pay this debt of love but to a brother,

Countess of Pembroke, Mary Sidney Herbert,
her father Henry Sidney died on May 5, 1586.
Five months later her brother Philip Sidney died.

VIOLA.
And what should I do in Illyria?
My brother he is in Elysium,
Perchance he is not drowned:

Shakespeare granted the Countess' wish to let
Philip Sidney lives in Elysium, her drama world,
and what should she do in this illy air?

Illyria (not italicized) is a perfect anagram of
illy air.

Spelling of Viola is within Olivia. Olivia= I, Viola.

[Margaret]

This proof of some other writer happened in 1586?

Twelfth Night was written 1600-2.
Hamnet Shakespeare died in 1596.
Susanna Shakespeare thus became William Shakespeare's heir.
William bought 105 acres of land in 1602.
His pursuit of his father's claim to be a gentleman was probably to ensure she and Judith were gentlemen's daughters when it came to marriage.
Susanna didn't marry till 1607, when she was 24.
And it is reasonable to assume that she mourned her brother.

Alternatively, feel free to make up any old nonsense.

[Jim F.]

Margaret,
Olivia is titled countess for her brother and father
both died. Susanna's brother died at age 11 when she
was 13, but their father William Shakespeare was still
alive. How you reason that?

[Jim F.]

>
> Illyria (not italicized) is a perfect anagram of
> illy air.
>
> Spelling of Viola is within Olivia. Olivia= I, Viola.

What happens to Viola's brother?

CAPTAIN.
Where like _Orion_ on the Dolphines backe,
I saw him hold acquaintance with the waues,
So long as I could see.

VIOLA.
For saying so, there's Gold:

It was Arion on dolphin's back being saved, not Orion.
A printer error, Shakespeare's fault, or a hint?

Viola marries Orsino at the end. Orsino = Orion's.

"Dolphines" can spell Philip Sidney except letter d.
"Gold" giving by Viola completes her brother's name and
makes him alive in the literary world. This design is
similar to Camel Weasel Whale.

[bookburn]

Shakespeare likes the dolphin image, it seems, and employs it elsewhere, too, suggesting an allegory between the way dolphins and porpoises go between sea and air as they breath, and the way we use metaphors My guess is that it's this capacity to flourish with unending metaphors that Ben Jonson refers to when criticizing Shakespeare, saying, "He flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. 'Sufflaminandus erat,' as Augustus said of Haterius."