Wood Strikes Back at Gary Taylor Over Catholic Bard
PWDBard
Gary Taylor whose embrace of the Catholic Bard theme put him in the
1990s at odds with his personal mentor the High Priest/Rabbi of Stratfordian
Orthodoxy (Stanley Wells)...lashed out at Wood in the Manchester Guardian last
July...which is ironic given Taylor shares Wood's enthusiasm for
contextualizing the Stratford man as a secret Roman Catholic.
Wells has also lashed out at Wood as I have reported but this was to be
expected since Wells is totally opposed to any Catholicization of the Stratford
man and even the father (John Shakespeare)...this being an extreme policy of
ethno-religious cleansing as seen in Bearman's Wells-sanctioned attempt in the
last volume of the Shakespeare Survey to show the father's Catholic style
"spiritual testament" was an 18th-century forgery.
So why did Taylor who broke with the High Priest Stanley of the
Stratfordian Temple over the Catholic Question last July attack Wood for his
best-selling BBC-financed book (at least in the UK) and high-profile
documentary film?
Taylor was in part jealous but expressed his dismay that Wood's views
would become "worldwide BBC orthodoxy" concerning Shakespeare and his inner
life or spirituality. But again why should Taylor be upset about the new BBC
orthodoxy?
This new Stratfordian religion which would drive the High Priest Stanley and
the other money-changers out of the Temple?
The answer was clear for Taylor. In extremely memorable words (please
see Taylor's review which I also quote in my long essay in The Oxfordian volume
six)
Taylor stated that the root cause of his dismay is that Wood tried to sex up a
basically dull biography by trying to make the Stratford man into someone as
exciting as Campion, Southwell or even Marlowe...courageous men who lost their
lives for what they believed. Taylor described Wood's Shakespeare as a man who
"never sacrificed anything for anybody". Those my friends are strong words.
Taylor was upset with the notion of a non-heroic, gutless secret Roman
Catholic who sold out to the Tudor regime for fame and money...a notion that
Wood openly admitted on page 164 of his book was indeed a legitimate
concern...was the Stratford man a "traitor to the Catholic cause?"...to raise
if you take the Catholic Question and data seriously as both Wood and Taylor
and more and more Stratfordians do.
Taylor's bitter attack on Wood which astonished many Stratfordians went
unanswered for months. But Wood finally responded about six weeks ago in the
same Guardian, which I take to be the Manchester Guardian.
You can read Wood's response to Taylor at the pro-Stratfordian site known
as www.shaksper.net run by a fellow named Hardy Cook. You can pull it up via a
search of the site using the key words: catholic wood michael.
I will save my personal comments on it at this point because I am in a
rush and also I should not sway your perceptions of it. But as you would
expect I am loving every minute...every second of this increasingly nasty
schism within the House of Stratford...a prediction which I made to Don
Oldenburg of The Washington Post in early 1998...six years ago. People laughed
at me...even some Oxfordians ridiculed me for focusing on this Catholic
Question...but I am having the last laugh...which as we all know is the best
laugh.
Enjoy, Peter
David L. Webb
pwd...@aol.com (PWDBard) wrote:
[PWDBard's latest _bête noire_ snipped]
> I will save my personal comments on it at this point because I am in a
> rush and also I should not sway your perceptions of it. But as you would
> expect I am loving every minute...every second of this increasingly nasty
> schism within the House of Stratford...a prediction which I made to Don
> Oldenburg of The Washington Post in early 1998...six years ago. People
> laughed
> at me...even some Oxfordians ridiculed me for focusing on this Catholic
> Question...
Don't worry -- people are still laughing at you.
[...]
PWDBard
non-substantive response from Webb of Dartmouth. A doctorate perhaps..or just
a resident of Hanover town with a high school diploma? It is hard to know
without your bona fides.
I will refrain from laughling at you until there is more illumination of your
mind.
Buckeye Pete
David L. Webb
pwd...@aol.com (PWDBard) wrote:
> Ah...another firm indication of intellectual bankruptcy...another
> non-substantive response from Webb of Dartmouth.
That's because you have thus far proven to be utterly oblivious to
all substantive responses.
[...]
PWDBard
wanting to make a sustained argument that a secret Roman Catholic could have or
would have even wanted to write these works. My long essay summarizes the
typical arguments from literary evidence that have been made by Miward and
other Catholic Bard advocates and also gives the stated reasons by the orthodox
scholars have never been convinced with the few episodic hints of a Catholic
sensibility. If you have something specific to say about literary evidence in
favor of the Catholic theory then you should cite it for others to read. Or if
you reject the Catholic theory you should make that clear.
Peter
Tom Veal
subscribe to Oxenfordian periodicals can read it? Alternatively, you
could give us a hint or two as to why you believe that the authorship
of the plays by a Roman Catholic was *impossible*.
pwd...@aol.com (PWDBard) wrote in message news:<20040319145014...@mb-m25.aol.com>...
Art Neuendorffer
> Are you going to post your essay somewhere so that those who don't
> subscribe to Oxenfordian periodicals can read it? Alternatively, you
> could give us a hint or two as to why you believe that the authorship
> of the plays by a Roman Catholic was *impossible*.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Larque wrote (28 Feb 1997):
<<Looney began by making a list of all the characteristics
that he thought the real Shakespeare must have possessed.
[Looney] decided "Shakespeare" was :
1. A man with Feudal connections.
2. A member of the higher aristocracy.
3. Connected with Lancastrian supporters.
4. An enthusiast for Italy.
5. A follower of sport (including falconry).
6. A lover of music.
7. Loose and improvident in money matters.
8. Doubtful and somewhat conflicting in his attitude towards women.
9. Of probable Catholic leanings, but touched with scepticism.
--------------------------------------------------------
Of course the final versions of Shake-speare
were edited & published by Protestants long
after both Oxford & Shaksper were dead.
These posthumous publishing events made the Catholic leanings of the
original author so incredibly obscure that we may never fully understand
them. (But they are a great diversion from the relatively easy question of
authorship itself.)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
> > Are you going to post your essay somewhere so that those who don't
> > subscribe to Oxenfordian periodicals can read it? Alternatively, you
> > could give us a hint or two as to why you believe that the authorship
> > of the plays by a Roman Catholic was *impossible*.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Larque wrote (28 Feb 1997):
>
> <<Looney began by making a list of all the characteristics
> that he thought the real Shakespeare must have possessed.
>
> [Looney] decided "Shakespeare" was :
>
> 1. A man with Feudal connections.
> 2. A member of the higher aristocracy.
> 3. Connected with Lancastrian supporters.
> 4. An enthusiast for Italy.
> 5. A follower of sport (including falconry).
> 6. A lover of music.
> 7. Loose and improvident in money matters.
> 8. Doubtful and somewhat conflicting in his attitude towards women.
>
> 9. Of probable Catholic leanings, but touched with scepticism.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Of course the final versions of Shake-speare
> were edited & published by Protestants long
> after both Oxford & Shaksper were dead.
Yet there are quarto editions of many of the plays that date from
long before the "final VERsions" were "edited & published by
Protestants." But it would be just like the inimitable
aneuendor...@comicass.nut to surmise that no scholar had eVER
looked at the quartos.
> These posthumous publishing events made the Catholic leanings of the
> original author so incredibly obscure that we may never fully understand
> them. (But they are a great diversion
"Diversion"? "Di Ver -- Sion"? I'd be careful if I were you about
what I divulged in a public forum, Art -- the Priory is not a negligible
adVERsary.
> from the relatively easy question of
> authorship itself.)
It *does* seem to be relatively straightforward.
Art Neuendorffer
> Gary Taylor whose embrace of the Catholic Bard theme put him in the
> 1990s at odds with his personal mentor the High Priest/Rabbi of
Stratfordian
> Orthodoxy (Stanley Wells)...lashed out at Wood in the Manchester Guardian
> last July...which is ironic given Taylor shares Wood's enthusiasm for
> contextualizing the Stratford man as a secret Roman Catholic.
> Taylor stated that the root cause of his dismay is that Wood tried to sex
up a
> basically dull biography by trying to make the Stratford man into someone
as
> exciting as Campion, Southwell or even Marlowe...courageous men who lost
their
> lives for what they believed.
> Taylor described Wood's Shakespeare as a man who
> "never sacrificed anything for anybody".
>
> Taylor was upset with the notion of a non-heroic, gutless secret
Roman
> Catholic who sold out to the Tudor regime for fame and money...a notion
that
> Wood openly admitted on page 164 of his book was indeed a legitimate
> concern...was the Stratford man a "traitor to the Catholic cause?"...to
raise
> if you take the Catholic Question and data seriously as both Wood and
Taylor
> and more and more Stratfordians do.
>
> Taylor's bitter attack on Wood which astonished many Stratfordians
went
> unanswered for months. But Wood finally responded about six weeks ago in
the
> same Guardian, which I take to be the Manchester Guardian.
>
> You can read Wood's response to Taylor at the pro-Stratfordian site
known
> as www.shaksper.net run by a fellow named Hardy Cook. You can pull it up
> via a search of the site using the key words: catholic wood michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<Television is a popular medium, and I would be the first to admit
that the compromises one makes with complex subjects are not
always happy ones. Shakespeare's biography is a difficult subject,
and it may be that not all the devices we used
to try to bring it to life came off.
But the goal was to excite and interest a general audience.
Oh, and by the way - given that my old shoulder bag raised Taylor's
hackles - whether in the Andes or the Cotswolds, we have a
small crew, and I always carry my own bag, with books, notes
and dried fruit and nuts.>> -- Michael Wood. London
---------------------------------------------------------------
15 years ago after the Frontline _Shakespeare Mystery_
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/update/andersondoc.html
people were arguing over whether Oxford or Shakspere wrote the works.
Now we are arguing over Michael Wood's shoulder bag!!!
"PWDBard" <pwd...@aol.com> wrote
> I am loving every minute...every second of this increasingly nasty
> schism within the House of Stratford...a prediction which I made to Don
> Oldenburg of The Washington Post in early 1998...six years ago. People
laughed
> at me...even some Oxfordians ridiculed me for focusing on this Catholic
> Question...but I am having the last laugh...
So tell us, Peter, what is your opinion on Michael Wood's shoulder bag?
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Are you going to post your essay somewhere so that those who don't
> > > subscribe to Oxenfordian periodicals can read it? Alternatively, you
> > > could give us a hint or two as to why you believe that the authorship
> > > of the plays by a Roman Catholic was *impossible*.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Thomas Larque wrote (28 Feb 1997):
> >
> > <<Looney began by making a list of all the characteristics
> > that he thought the real Shakespeare must have possessed.
> >
> > [Looney] decided "Shakespeare" was :
> >
> > 1. A man with Feudal connections.
> > 2. A member of the higher aristocracy.
> > 3. Connected with Lancastrian supporters.
> > 4. An enthusiast for Italy.
> > 5. A follower of sport (including falconry).
> > 6. A lover of music.
> > 7. Loose and improvident in money matters.
> > 8. Doubtful and somewhat conflicting in his attitude towards women.
> >
> > 9. Of probable Catholic leanings, but touched with scepticism.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Of course the final versions of Shake-speare
> > were edited & published by Protestants long
> > after both Oxford & Shaksper were dead.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Yet there are quarto editions of many of the plays that date from
> long before the "final VERsions" were "edited & published by
> Protestants." But it would be just like the inimitable
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut to surmise that
> no scholar had eVER looked at the quartos.
The "scholar" involved here who assures us that
the writer Shake-speare could NOT possibly be Catholic
is Buckeye Pete - a man almost totally obsessed
with Jacobian politics and the publication of the Folio.
(In any event, Protestant F. Bacon was certainly
heavily involved with the editing & publishing
of many if not most of the quartos.)
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > These posthumous publishing events made the Catholic leanings of the
> > original author so incredibly obscure that we may never fully understand
> > them. (But they are a great diversion
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "Diversion"? "Di Ver -- Sion"? I'd be careful if I were you about
> what I divulged in a public forum, Art -- the Priory is not a negligible
> adVERsary.
But, you already assured me that I was safe in my dotage, Dave!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > from the relatively easy question of authorship itself.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> It *does* seem to be relatively straightforward.
Indeed:
---------------------------------------------------------------
--- White-WASHING --------- /----------------------\
CHAMBERLAIN John ----- MARY MARgerY Webbe
[could write | [could write ----[d. St.Adrian's Day]
his 'marke'] -- | her 'marke']
[bur. St.Adrian's Day] | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
___|___________
/---------------\ [illiterate]
MARgerY Shakspere ------------ Anne
- [BROOK House] | [b. 1556]
-------- [Shaxpere's Boys] | [ only
--- [Shakspere GLoves] | son died]
--------- [Golding's 'OVID'] |
----- [Stratford upon Avon] |
--------- [God's 'I am that I am'] |
[1586 deer park poacher] |
--- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
[Hothead Gastrell:Esdras 6:9] |
------ [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
|||||||||||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] |
---------- [ Henry Evans => |
||| 1608 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
-------------------------------- |
Hall M.D. -------- SUSANna
|||||||| [d. on Lope de Vega's 73rd birthday [b. May 26]
3 mo. after Lope dies] [could write name]
---------------------------------------------------------------
--- Hand-WASHING
GREAT CHAMBERLAIN John ----------- MARgerY
------------ |
______|____
/-----------\ m. OPALIA(1571) [Sonneteer]
MARY Oxford --------------- Anne
[BROOKE House] | [b. 1556]
------------ [Oxford's Boys] | [only son died]
- [Oxford GLOVES] |
--------- [Golding's 'OVID'] |
-------- [Stratford atte Bowe] |
--------- [God's 'I am that I am'] |
[1604 deer park warden] |
--- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
[Hothead Gastrell:Esdras 6:9] |
------ [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
||||||||||[Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598]|||||||| |
---------- [ Henry Evans => |
||| 1583 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
-------------------------------- |
---- Herbert (Philip) ----- SUSAN
|||||||| [b. St. LONGINUS day] [b. May 26]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
*Not even you* could eVER mistake Buckeye Pete for scholar, Art! (On
second thought, perhaps you could -- in view of your Peter Gay gaffe,
<http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/engl/faculty/mdixon.html>
might VERy well furnish sufficient fodder for farce.) NeVERtheless,
your claim that any Catholic tendency in Shakespeare's work is
imperceptible because of later Protestant whitewashing is untenable --
except, of course, to a moron who is unaware of quarto editions of the
plays, or who surmises that scholars have merely disregarded the quartos.
> - a man almost totally obsessed
What do you mean "almost"? EVER since PWDBard abandoned his
obsession about Shakespeare's place of burial, he has been *totally*
obsessed by another in his succession of all-consuming manias.
> with Jacobian [sic] politics
"Jacobian politics"? Do you mean, the strife between Jacob and Esau,
Art? Or do you mean the rivalry between Abel and Jacobi in the theory
of elliptic functions?
> and the publication of the Folio.
>
> (In any event, Protestant F. Bacon was certainly
> heavily involved with the editing & publishing
> of many if not most of the quartos.)
Evidence? Or is crackpot cryptography the basis for your assertion?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > These posthumous publishing events made the Catholic leanings of the
> > > original author so incredibly obscure that we may never fully understand
> > > them. (But they are a great diversion
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > "Diversion"? "Di Ver -- Sion"? I'd be careful if I were you about
> > what I divulged in a public forum, Art -- the Priory is not a negligible
> > adVERsary.
> But, you already assured me that I was safe in my dotage, Dave!
Yes, but there is a difference between dotage and doltage.
And what is the above lunatic logorrhea supposed to mean, Art? I
said straightFORWARD, not straitJACKETED.
Art Neuendorffer
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The "scholar" involved here who assures us that
> > the writer Shake-speare could NOT possibly
> > be Catholic is Buckeye Pete
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> *Not even you* could eVER mistake Buckeye Pete for scholar, Art!
I cannot respond to this unemotionally.
After all, the man just called me "unuseful!"
> > - a man almost totally obsessed with Jacobian [sic] politics
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "Jacobian politics"? Do you mean, the strife between Jacob and Esau,
> Art? Or do you mean the rivalry between Abel and Jacobi in the theory
> of elliptic functions?
I admit that I know much more about Jacobians than Jacobeans. I'll try
to remember next time.
> > and the publication of the Folio.
> >
> > (In any event, Protestant F. Bacon was certainly
> > heavily involved with the editing & publishing
> > of many if not most of the quartos.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------
_La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
[ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
<<Inscribed on Athena's shield is a Latin motto,
"OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS",
meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
the imagery on the shield-the central sun representing TRUTH
and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
{anagram}
"OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
"BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > These posthumous publishing events made the Catholic leanings of
the
> > > > original author so incredibly obscure that we may never fully
understand
> > > > them. (But they are a great diversion
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > "Diversion"? "Di Ver -- Sion"? I'd be careful if I were you about
> > > what I divulged in a public forum, Art -- the Priory is not a
negligible
> > > adVERsary.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > But, you already assured me that I was safe in my dotage, Dave!
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Yes, but there is a difference between dotage and doltage.
Dolts = Imps x Gnomes
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> And what is the above lunatic logorrhea supposed to mean, Art?
It means that Shaksper's life was primarily based upon Oxford's life.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
Vacuously.
OM's law, Art?
Huh?! Why does it mean that?
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > But, you already assured me that I was safe in my dotage, Dave!
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Yes, but there is a difference between dotage and doltage.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Dolts = Imps x Gnomes
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> OM's law, Art?
Yes, I couldn't resist.
(Ergo: My doltage should be low inspite of my impishness.)
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > It means that Shaksper's life was primarily based upon Oxford's life.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Huh?! Why does it mean that?
Elementary, my dear Webbson, elementary.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > But, you already assured me that I was safe in my dotage, Dave!
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Yes, but there is a difference between dotage and doltage.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Dolts = Imps x Gnomes
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > OM's law, Art?
> Yes, I couldn't resist.
But Art -- a dolt is a fool per cool-OM.
> (Ergo: My doltage should be low inspite of my impishness.)
Did you misspell "chimpishness," Art?
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > And what is the above lunatic logorrhea supposed to mean, Art?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > It means that Shaksper's life was primarily based upon Oxford's life.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Huh?! Why does it mean that?
> Elementary, my dear Webbson, elementary.
But Art -- Holmes explains his inferences. Can you explain your
"reasoning"? I thought not.
Art Neuendorffer
---------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dwebb wrote:
> Can you explain your "reasoning"?
--------------------------------------------------------
OK. Let's start with "I AM THAT I AM":
--------------------------------------------------------
"I AM THAT I AM"
1) God: Exodus 3:14
2) Malta's St. Paul: 1 Cor. 15:1-11 (Geneva Bible)
3) Oxford's minion: John LYLY's *Euphues*, 1578
4) Brian Melbancke's *Philotimus*, 1583.
5) Knight of Malta's Edward de Vere's postscript
to his October 30, 1584, letter to Burghley.
6) William Perkins's *salve for a Sicke Man* (1597):
"The word of God must be our RULE & SQUARE,
whereby we are to frame and fashion all our actions."
7) Shakespeare's sonnet 121 (printed 1609).
Sonnet 121 = (11th Sunday after Trinity)²
8) 1559 Books of Common PRAYER
¶ The xi Sonday. "after Trinity" [August 30th in 1584]
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Readings_TrinityB_1549.htm
But by the grace of God, I AM THAT I AM.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"I AM'S" for "AMIS"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript of a letter in Oxford's handwriting, dated October 30th, 1584.
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/library/barrell/05Sonnets6.htm
My Lord, This other day your man, Stainner, told me that you sent for
AMIS, my man, and that if he were absent that LYLY should come unto you.
I sent AMIS, for he was in the way. And I think (it) very strange that your
Lordship should enter into that course towards me; whereby I must learn that
(which) I knew not before, both your opinion and good will towards me.
BUT I PRAY, my Lord, leave that course, for
I mean not to be your ward nor your child.
I serve Her Majesty, and I AM THAT I AM;
and by alliance near to your Lordship, but free; and scorn
to be offered that injury to think I am so weak of government
as to be ruled by SERVANTS, or not able to govern myself.
If your Lordship take and follow this course you deceive yourself,
and make me take another course that I have not yet thought of.
Wherefore these shall be to desire your Lordship, if that I may make account
of your friendship, that you will leave that course as hurtful to us both.
----------------------------------------------------------
April 6, 1520, RAPHAEL dies on his 37th birthday.
April 6, 1528, DURER dies in Nürnberg
----------------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 3, Scene 2
LUCIO: Does BRIDGET paint still, Pompey, ha?
----------------------------------------------------------
April 6, 1584, BRIDGET VERE is born.
April 6, 1584, CARAVAGGIO apprenticed to painter
SIMONe PETER-zano
April 6, 1588, CARAVAGGIO ends apprenticeship to
SIMONe PETER-zano
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON PETER Bar-Jona
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/05/28ceras.html
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/11/72denial.html
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/caravaggio/st_peter.jpg.html
Geneva: John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus beheld him, and said,
Thou art SIMON the son of Jona:
thou shalt be called CEPHAS,
which is by interpretation, a STONE.
---------------------------------------------------------
CEPHAS Burns: Stone MASON
http://ecosystems.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/rivers02/westernpondA/cephas.htm
<<Cephas (meaning stone) was born in Oxford in 1871, a grandson of freed
slaves. He learned the trade of masonry from his father, who had also worked
in stone. One of the things that makes the stonework on Western Campus
unique is the particular "cannonball" stones that were used for many of the
constructions. These were spherical stones of varying colors that Cephas
personally collected from the local Four Mile Creek, Harker's Run and
Collin's Run. A truly caring worker, Cephas washed the stones by hand
as he worked with them & allowed his mortar to set for thirty days. >>
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rock / The Cornerstone http://www.mgr.org/rock.html
<< In John 1:42 we read:
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said,
"You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas (or Cephas)."
"Kephas" & "Cephas" do not have the same meaning but their
spelling has allowed much latitude for confusion or outright deceit.
"CEPHAS" = head
"KEPHAS" = stone/rock>>
-------------------------------------------------------
{anagram}
SHAKESPEARE
ERASE KEPHAS
KEPHAS: A SEER
----------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 5, Scene 1
BUCKINGHAM
THAT high All-SEER that I dallied with
HATH TURN'd MY FEIGNED PRAYER ON MY HEAD
And given in earnest what I begg'd in jest.
Thus doth he force the swords of wicked men
to turn their own points on their masters' bosoms:
---------------------------------------------------------------
1559 Books of Common PRAYER
-----------------------------------------------------------------
¶ The xi Sonday. "after Trinity" [August 30th in 1584]
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1549/Readings_TrinityB_1549.htm
Dejecit. Psalm cxix. [Psalm 119:81-88]
MY soule hath longed for thy sahvacion :
and I have a good hope, because of thy worde.
My iyes long soore for thy worde, saying;
O when wilt thou comforte me?
For I am become like a botle in the smoke :
yet doe I not forget thy statutes.
Howe many are the dayes of thy SERVAUNTE?
when wilt thou be avenged of them that persecute me?
The proude have digged pittes for me :
which are not after thy lawe.
All thy commaundementes are true :
They persecute me falsely; O be thou my helpe.
They had almoste made an ende of me upon earthe :
but I forsoke not thy commaundementes.
O quicken me after thy lovyng-kyndnes and so
shall I kepe the testimonies of thy mouth.
Glory be to the father, and to the sonne, &c.
As it was in the beginning, is nowe, &c.
The Collect.
GOD, which declarest thy almighty power, most chiefly in shewyng mercy and
pitie; Geve unto us abundauntly thy grace, that we, running to thy promises,
may be made partakers of thy heavenly TREASURE;
through Jesus Christe our Lorde.
The Epistle. 1 Cor. xv. [1 Cor. 15:1-11]
BRETHREN, as perteyning to the Gospell, whiche I preached unto you, whiche
ye have also accepted, and in the whiche ye continue, by the whiche also ye
are saved; I doe you to wete [=know] after what maner I preached unto you,
yf ye kepe it, excepte ye have beleved in vayne. For fyrste of all I
delyvered unto you that whiche I receyved, howe that Christe dyed
for our synnes, agreyng to the scriptures; and that he was buryed;
and that he arose agayne the thirde daye, accordyng to the scriptures;
And that he was seen of CEPHAS, then of the xii. After that was he
seen of moe [more] than fyve hundreth brethren at once, of whiche many
remaine unto this daye, and many are fallen aslepe.
After that appeared he to James, then to all the Apostles. And last of
al he was seen of me, as of one that was borne out of due time. For I am the
least of the Apostles, whiche am not worthy to bee called an Apostle,
because I have persecuted the congregacion of God.
But by the grace of God, I AM THAT I AM.
And his grace whiche is in me; was not in vaine.
But I labored more aboundantly then they all, yet not I,
but the grace of God, whiche is with me. Therfore,
whether it wer I or they, so we preached, and so ye have beleved.
The Gospell. Luke xviii.
CHRISTE tolde this parable unto certaine whiche trusted in themselves, that
they were perfect and despised other. Two men wente up into the temple to
pray, the one a Pharise, and the other a Publican [=tax collector]. The
Pharise stode and prayed thus with himselfe. God, I thanke thee, that I am
not as other men are, extorcioners, unjust, adulterers, or as this Publican.
I fast twise in the weke: I geve tythe [=a tenth] of al that I possesse. And
the Publican, standing afarre of, would not lyft up his eyes to heaven, but
smote upon his brest, saying; God be mercifull to me a sinner. I tell you,
this man departed home to his house justifyed more then the other.
For EVERy man that exalteth hymselfe shalbe brought lowe:
And he that humbleth himselfe shalbe exalted.
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
<<We know that "I AM THAT I AM" appeared in Exodus and
(in a different sense) in 1 Corinthians. It also occurred
in the Book of Common Prayer -- see the epistle for the
11th Sunday after Trinity, which is from 1 Corinthians.
The phrase appears among JOHN KNOX's dying words,
according to William Perkins's *salve for a Sicke Man* (1597):
"He [KNOX] lay on his death bedde silent for the space of four hours,
very often giving great sighes, sobbes, and grones, so as the standers
by well perceived that he was troubled with some grievous
temptation: and when at length he was raised in his bedde,
they asked him how he did, to whome he answered thus: that
in his life he had indured many combates and conflicts with Satan,
but that now most mightily the roaring lyon had assaulted him:
often (said he) before he set my sinnes before mine eyes,
often he urged me to desperation, often he laboured to intangle me
with the delights of the world, but being vanquished by the sword
of the spirit, which is the word of God, he could not prevaile.
But now he assaults me another way:
for the wily serpent would perswade me that I shall merit eternall life
for my fidelitie in my ministrie. But blessed be God which brought to
my minde such Scriptures whereby I might quench the fierie darts of
the devill, which were, What hast thou that thou hast not received:
and, By the grace of God, I am that I am: and, not I but the
grace of God in me: and thus being vanquished he departed.">>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
November 24, 1572, Scottish preacher JOHN KNOX dies.
In the nursery rhyme, JOHN KNOX is the spider
that chases Miss Muffit (Mary Queen of Scots) away.
On July 23, 1567, at Lochleven, Mary Queen of Scots had
to sign an act of withdrawal in favor of her one year old son,
who was crowned as James VI five days afterward at Scone
and was harangued by a long speech from JOHN KNOX.
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<On 23 July, 1567, while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam,
a TAILOR, in the backyard of CECIL's house in the Strand,
the 17-year-old Oxford killed an unarmed undercook named
.
THOMAS BRINCKNELL
.
with a thrust to the THIGH. A packed jury instructed
by CECIL found that Brincknell had caused his own death
by wilfully hurling himself on Oxford's rapier.
.
Condemned as a suicide, BRINCKNELL was denied Christian burial,
.
and his pregnant widow AGNES & three-year-old son QUYNTYN
.
were stripped of their assets & abandoned to
her relatives and parish church.>> -- Prof. Alan Nelson
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLOW, n. [Cf. {WILLY}.] "to BEND" or "to yield"
-------------------------------------------------------------
QUEEN GERTRUDE: There is a WILLOW grows aslant a BROOK,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;
There with fantastic GARLANDS did she come
There, on the PENDENT boughs her coronet weeds
CLAMBERING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE
--------------------------------------------------------
"CLAMBERING TO HAN(G, AN E)NVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
------------------ L
------------------ E
------------------ N
------------------ K
------------------ C
------------------ N
------------------ I
------------------ R
------------------ B
----- A G N E S B O G A
------------------ A
------------------ M
------------------ O
------------------ H
------------------ T
--------------------------------------------------
BOW, v. i. [OE. BOWe, boge, AS. BOGA]
To BEND the head, knee, or body, in token of submission;
O come, let us worship and BOW down --Ps. xcv. 6.
-------------------------------------------------------
OX-BOW: The U-shaped piece which embraces
the neck of an OX and fastens it to the YOKE.
"The OX HATH therefore stretch'd his YOKE in vain"
-Titania, AMND, II, i
------------------------------------------------------
_______________ [13]---------------[5]
-------- WillS hake spea [r] eAvgP
-------- hilip sHen Cond [e] lWill
----- SlyWi llKe mpeR [i] cBvrb
------ adgeI ohHe ming [s] ThoPo
peChr *BEES* tonI [o] hDvke
-------------------------------------------------------------
THESPRIO: You shall know; two lictors two OSIER bundles of twigs.
-------------------------------------------------------------
____________ [23]-----------------[5]
(T) HESEINSUINGSONNETSM [r] WHALL
--- HAPPINESSEANDTHATET [E] RNITI
- EPROMISEDBYOUREVERL [I] VINGP
- OETWISHETHTHEWELLWI [S] hINGA
---- DVENTURERINSETTINGF [O] rtHTT
------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> one species of willow is the osier (Salix viminalis)
> and "OSIER" is a perfect anagram of "Sir E.O."
------------------------------------------------------
_SABRINA_ by JOHN MILTON 1608-1674
By the rushy fringed bank,
Where grows the WILLOW and the OSIER dank,
My sliding Chariot stayes,
Thick set with Agat, and the azurn SHEEN
Of Turkis blew, and Emrauld GREEN
That in the channell strayes,
Whilst from off the waters fleet
Thus I set MY PRINTLESS FEET
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
[Many screenfuls of lunatic logorrhea snipped]
I'll take that as a no, Art.
Art Neuendorffer
> I'll take that as a no, Art.
I'll take that as a sign of your ignorance, Dave.