TEMPEST PARALLELS: The Rarer Action Is In Virtue Than In Vengeance.
Elizabeth
Bacon believed in the duty of forgiveness. His Jesuit friend
Tobie Matthew, wrote of Bacon:
I can truly say that I never saw in him any trace of
vindictive mind, whatever injury was done him, nor
ever heard him utter a word to any man's disadvantage
which seemed to proceed from personal feeling against
him.
Dedicatory letter to the Italian translation
f Wisdom of the Ancients, 1617.
PROSPERO:
Though with their high wrongs I am struck
to the quick,
Yet with my nobler reason 'gaitist my fury
Do I take part: the rarer action is
In virtue than in vengeance: they being penitent,
The sole drift of my purpose doth extend
Not a frown further. Go release them, Ariel:
My charms I'll break, their senses I'll restore,
And they shall be themselves.
The Tempest V i 1623.
" . . . in taking revenge, a man is but even
with his enemy; but in passing it over,
he is superior . . . Some, when they take
revenge, are desirous the party should
know whence it cometh. This (forgivenesss) is
the more generous. For the delight seemeth to
be not so much in doing the hurt as in making
the party repent."
Of Revenge, Essays, 1625.
I would note that Bacon's temperment is suited to
the authorship of The Tempest.
The playbroker, on the other hand, was caught stalking
Sir Thomas Lucy's stepson William Wayte with intent to
do harm. This was clearly an act of revenge since Wayte
was a priest hunter and Lucy was responsible for the
execution of the playbroker's cousin Edward Arden, a man
who did no harm in the world and didn't deserve to be
drawn and quartered.
Oxford followed through on his threat to Lord Burghley that
he would destroy Anne Cecil if Lord Burghley refused to
intervene in the execution of the Catholic conspirator
Thomas Howard. A letter from a concerned friend of
Burghley's reported that 'Oxford is brutalizing his wife.'
I don't see either the playbroker or Oxford authoring
Prospero's forgiveness speech.
Quotes from Edwin Reed (1907).
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth wrote:
<<Bacon believed in the duty of *forgiveness* .
His Jesuit friend *Tobie Matthew* , wrote of Bacon:
I can *TRULY* say that I n*EVER* saw in him any trace of
vindictive mind, what*EVER* injury was done him, nor
*EVER* heard him utter a word to any man's disadvantage
which seemed to proceed from personal feeling against
him.
Dedicatory letter to the Italian translation
f Wisdom of the Ancients, 1617. >>
------------------------------------------------------------
*Tobie Matthew* : "TO BE Matthew"
------------------------------------------------------------
[Danish infinitive: VÆRE "TO BE"]
Hamlet: "Å VÆRE ELLER IKKE VÆRE"
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<Matthew: also known as Levi, was one of the two disciples who
wrote a Gospel account of the life of Jesus. Because he was a tax
collector when Jesus called him, his symbol includes *3 money bags*
The undifferenced arms of [BEN] Johnstone of That Ilk are
blazoned in heraldic language as Argent, a saltire Sable,
on a chief Gules, *3 cushions Or* , as illustrated here.
http://clanjohnston.org/jonson.html
<<A monument to Jonson was erected in about 1723 by the
Earl of Oxford and is in the eastern aisle of Poets' Corner.>>
Tax collectors were hated because they always cheated people.
When Jesus called Matthew, he left that way of life behind in
order to follow Jesus. He was not chosen because he was
deserving or worthy, but because Jesus saw his great need.
September 21 is the day for St. Matthew.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
September 21, 19 BCE, is the day that VIRGIL died.
-------------------------------------------------------
Suetonius: The Life of Vergil (PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/suet-vergil.html
<<In the fifty-second year of his age, wishing to give the final touch
to the " Aeneid," he determined to go away to Greece and Asia, and
after devoting three entire years to the sole work of improving his
poem, to give up the rest of his life wholly to philosophy. But having
begun his journey, and at Athens meeting Augustus, who was on his way
back to Rome from the Orients he resolved not to part from the emperor
and even to return with him; but in the course of a visit to the
neighbouring town of Megara in a very hot sun, he was taken with a
fever, and added to his disorder by continuing his journey; hence on
his arrival at Brundisium he was considerably worse, and died there on
the eleventh day before the Kalends of October, in the consulship of
Gnaeus Sentius and Quintus Lucretius [* Sept 21, 19 BCE]. His ashes
were taken to Naples and laid to rest on the via Puteolana less
than two miles from the city, in a tomb for which
he himself composed this couplet:
Mantua gave me the light, Calabria slew me; now holds me Parthenope.
I have sung shepherds, the country, and wars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Girolamo Cardano predicted he would live to the age of 75 but on
September 21, 1576, Cardano commited suicide 3 days early.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Oxford's association with the Venetian courtesan Virginia Padoana is
recorded in a letter written by Sir Stephen Powle to John Chamberlain,
21 September 1587, from Venice, now Bodleian Library.>>
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ITALY/Virginia.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://195.167.241.43/globe/education/distancelearning/distancelearni...
<<In 1909 a series of remarkable documents concerning the Globe
came to light. In the German-language journal of English philology,
Anglia, Dr. Gustav Binz published excerpts from a traveler's
account of a visit to England in 1599. Thomas Platter (b.1574),
a Swiss of the canton of Basle, had written:
Den 21 Septembris nach dem Imbissessen, etwan umb zwey uhren,
bin ich mitt meiner geselschaft über daz wasser gefahren, habin in
dem streüwinen Dachhaus die Tragedy vom ersten Keyer Julio Caesare
mit ohngefahr 15 personen sehen gar artlich agieren ....(Binz 458)
On September 21st after lunch, about two o'clock, I and my party
crossed the water, and there in the house with the thatched roof
witnessed an excellent performance of the tragedy of the
1st Emperor Julius Caesar with a cast of some *15 people* ....>>
(Schanzer, "Platter's Observations" 466-7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<King Tarquin had a special body of men,
(the *Quindecimviri* Sacris Faciundis,
*15 men* for celebrating the sacred rites),
appointed to inspect the Sibylline books.>>
ANCIENT ROMAN RELIGION BY FRANK PONTIFEX
http://members.aol.com/hlabadjr/Gelli.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
PROSPERO: Though with their high wrongs I am struck
to the quick,
Yet with my nobler reason 'gaitist my fury
Do I take part: the *RARER* action is
In virtue than in vengeance: they being penitent,
The sole drift of my purpose doth extend
Not a frown further. Go release them, Ariel:
My charms I'll break, their senses I'll restore,
And they shall be themselves.
-- The Tempest V i 1623.
..................................................
" . . . in taking revenge, a man is but even
with his enemy; but in passing it over,
he is superior . . . Some, when they take
revenge, are desirous the party should know
whence it cometh. This (forgivenesss) is
the more generous. For the delight seemeth
to be not so much in doing the hurt as
in making the party repent."
- Francis Bacon _Of Revenge, Essays, 1625.
-----------------------------------------------
Hamlet (Quarto 2, 1604-5): Act 5, Scene 2
Ham. Giue me your *PARDON* sir, I haue done you *WRONG* ,
But *PARDON* 't as you are a gentleman, this presence knowes,
Laer. Exchange *FORGIUENESSE* with me noble Hamlet,
----------------------------------------------------
<< {HEBE} was worshipped as a goddess of *PARDONs* or
*FORGIVENESS* ; freed prisoners would hang their chains
in the sacred grove of her sanctuary at Phlius.>>
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/hebe.html
----------------------------------------------------
_DiscoVERiEs_ by Ben Jonson (1640)
De Shakespeare *NOSTRAT*
http://my.execpc.com/~berrestr/jon-sha.html
<<But hee redeemed his vices, with his *VERtuEs*
There was *EVER* more in him to be praysed,
then to be *PARDONed* .>>
--------------------------------------------------------
http://westminster-abbey.org/library/burial/jonson.htm
<<One story says that he begged ' *18* inches of square
ground in Westminster Abbey' from King Charles I.
(At this period the design on the Nave floor included
several lines of stones measuring *18* inches square.)
The simple inscription '{O RARE} Ben Johnson', was said to have
been done at the expense of JACK *YOUNG* who was walking by when
the grave was cOVERed & gave the *MASON 18 pence* to cut it.>>
----------------------------------------------------
*HEBE* is the *YOUNG* -est daughter of Zeus & Hera and was
the goddess of YOUTH and the servant of the Greco-Roman gods.
http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Hebe.html
---------------------------------------------------
_______________ <= 18 =>
T O T H E O N L___ I E B E G E T T E R
O F T H E S E I N___ S U I N G S O N N
E T S M R W H A L L[H] A P P I N E S
S E A N D t H A T___ [E]T(E) R N I T I E
P R O M i S E D__ [B]Y O U(R) E V E R L
I V I n G P O____[E]T_W_I_S_H(E) T H T H
E W e L L W I S H i_ N_G_A____d(V)e N T
U r E R I N S E T t I_N_G_ f o r T H
------------------------------------------------------
PUCK: Who *IS HERE* ? WEEDS of Athens he doth *WEAR*
-------------------------------------------------------
[ECO]: *HERE* (Venetian)
"[E]dwardus [C]omes [O]xon{iensis}"
----------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1616 Francis Beaumont's non-Tomb in Westminster:
<<MORTALITY, behold and FEAR!
_____ What a change of flesh ____ *IS HERE* !
__ Think how many royal ____ [BO]NES
____ Sleep within this heap of ____ [STON]ES:>>
-------------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1616 William Shakspere grave in Stratford:
<<Good friend for Iesus sake F(orb)EAR(e)
__ To digg the dust encloased ____ HE(a)RE:
_______ Blest be ye man yt spares thes__[STON]ES
__ And CURST be he yt moves my [BO]NES.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
On the 14th anniversary of Anne Hathaway's death [August 6, 1637].
Ben Jonson was BURIED UPRIGHT leaning against the WALL
of his Westminster Abbey crypt as requested:
'TWO FEET BY TWO FEET WILL do for all I WANT'. - Ben Jonson
http://westminster-abbey.org/library/burial/images/jonson.
__________ [BE] [RE]
__________ [HE] [VE]
http://home.att.net/~mleary/gifs/GRAVE.GIF
__ GOOD FREND FOR IESVS' SAKE F{OR}[BE]{ARE},
___ TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED ____ [HE]{ARE}:
.
_- BLESTE BE Ye MAN TY SPA[RE]S THES *STONES* ,
__ AND CVRST BE HE TY MO[VE]S MY BONES.
--------------------------------------------------------------
{OR}{ARE} : *VERy RARE* / *VERy faire*
--------------------------------------------------------------
PVNT. A *VERy faire* coat, well charg'd, and full of armorie.
SOGL. Nay, it has as much VARiEtie of colours in it, as you haue
seene a coat haue, how like you the crest, sir ?
PVNT. I vnderstand it not well, what is't ?
SOGL. Mary, sir, it is your Bore without a head Rampant.
PVNT. A Boore without a head, that's *VERy RARE*!
CARL. I, and rampant too : troth, I commend the Heralds wit,
HEE has decyphered him well : A SWine without a head,
without braine, wit, any thing indeed, ramping to gentilitie.
You can blazon the rest, signior ? can you not ?
SOGL. O, I, I haue it in writing here of purpose,
it cost me two shillings the tricking.
CARL. Let's heare, let's heare.
...
SOGL. How like you 'hem, signior ?
PVNT. Let the word BEE, NOT WITHOUT MUSTARD;
your crest is *VERy RARE* , sir.
CARL. A frying pan, to the crest, had had no fellow.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
bookburn
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137061223.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is marvelous stuff, bringing out aspects of two attributed authors' lives
in relation to Tempest in terms of revenge motive. I had not even heard of
the Lucy-Wayte-Stratman conflict, which if true rings bells throughout the
whole canon. That Oxford would "destroy" wife Anne Cecil in revenge is worthy
of Titus.
I like the idea of bringing out the revenge motif in Tempus in the way you
characterize it. Prospero's getting off the island and returning to his lost
estate seems to depend on his sea change of attitude, rather than use of
magic. Revenge and use of magic would assert his dark side, but lock him into
predicament such as his creatures have. Perhaps his ministrations to his
daughter and her love make all the difference. bookburn
bookburn
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137061223.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> ________________________________________________________
Michael Wood's In Search of Shakespeare, at:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/heartofengland/shakespeareroots.htm
But I don't find the connection you refer to establishing Lucy's
responsibility for Arden's trial. The one encyclopedia source I find
describes the situation leading to persecution of the Arden family as follows.
(quote)
Edward Arden
Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM
Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly.
Get it here for only $29.95
An English Catholic, executed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, b. 1542
(?); d. 1583. He was the head of a family which had been prominent in
Warwickshire for six centuries, having succeeded to the estates on the death
of his grandfather, Thomas Arden, in 1563. In 1575 he was high sheriff of the
county. His father, William Arden, was a second cousin of Mary Arden of
Wilmcote, the mother of Shakespeare. In 1583, Arden was indicted in Warwick
for plotting against the life of the Queen, as were also his wife, his
son-in-law, John Somerville, and Father Hugh Hall, a chaplain whom he
maintained in the disguise of a gardener at his home, Park Hall. Somerville,
who was said to be weak-minded, was incensed over the wrongs of Mary, Queen of
Scots, and openly uttered threats against Elizabeth. He was arrested and when
put on the rack implicated the others in a conspiracy to assassinate the
Queen. They were arrested and Arden was taken to London, where he was
arraigned in the Guildhall, 16 December, 1583. He was convicted, chiefly on
the evidence of Hall, and was executed at Smithfield, 30 December, 1583.
Somerville, who was also condemned to die on the same day, was found strangled
in his cell the day before Mrs. Arden and Hall were released. It is generally
conceded that Arden was the innocent victim of a plot. He died protesting his
innocence and declaring that his only crime was the profession of the Catholic
religion. Dugdale, quoting from Camden's "Annals of Queen Elizabeth,"
attributes Arden's prosecution to the malice of Leicester, whose displeasure
he had incurred by open criticism of the Earl's relations with the Countess of
Essex before their marriage. He had further irritated Leicester by disdaining
to wear his livery and by denouncing him as an upstart. It is supposed that
Hall was suborned to involve Arden in the alleged plot. (unquote)
Elizabeth
> I had not even heard of
> the Lucy-Wayte-Stratman conflict, which if true rings bells throughout the
> whole canon.
In 'Shakespeare,' Michael Wood writes about Lucy's
arrest of Edward Arden and Thomas Somerville, Arden's
mentally impaired nephew or son-in-law? who went off his head after
reading an apocalyptic pamphlet, then started off to London to
'assassinate the Queen' loudly announcing his intentions along the way.
After he was arrested, Somerville implicated the innocent Arden in this
assassination fantasy. If Lucy had not been the magistrate Somerville
would probably have been put in an asylum but Lucy had earlier
announced that he was going to 'destroy Edward Arden' so Lucy used the
opportunity to arrest Arden, his wife and the priest Hugh Hall who was
posing as Arden's gardener.
Arden's wife and the priest Hall were released
but Arden and Somerville were tortured and under
torture Somerville described Arden's role in a plot
that didn't exist. In an act of mercy a sympathetic
Catholic strangled Somerville in his cell to spare
him from a horrible death. The innocent Arden wasn't spared.
Bacon, incidently, was an in-law to Sir Thomas Lucy
through Bacon's cousin William Cooke who married Joyce Lucy,
Sir Thomas Lucy's grandaughter and heiress to two fortunes.
> That Oxford would "destroy" wife Anne Cecil in revenge is worthy
> of Titus.
>
> I like the idea of bringing out the revenge motif in Tempus in the way you
> characterize it.
> Prospero's getting off the island and returning to his lost
> estate seems to depend on his sea change of attitude, rather than use of
> magic.
> Revenge and use of magic would assert his dark side, but lock him into
> predicament such as his creatures have. Perhaps his ministrations to his
> daughter and her love make all the difference. bookburn
That sums it up.
Ignoto
Ridiculous.
>
> The playbroker, on the other hand, was caught stalking
> Sir Thomas Lucy's stepson William Wayte with intent to
> do harm. This was clearly an act of revenge since Wayte
> was a priest hunter and Lucy was responsible for the
> execution of the playbroker's cousin Edward Arden, a man
> who did no harm in the world and didn't deserve to be
> drawn and quartered.
Irrelevant, even if true.
(A personality may possess contrary or even contradictory affections-
See Montaigne))
>
> Oxford followed through on his threat to Lord Burghley that
> he would destroy Anne Cecil if Lord Burghley refused to
> intervene in the execution of the Catholic conspirator
> Thomas Howard. A letter from a concerned friend of
> Burghley's reported that 'Oxford is brutalizing his wife.'
>
>
> I don't see either the playbroker [sic]
Which suggests you don't much understand people or art.
Elizabeth
His translator and editor Jonson, who knew him
well, thought a lot of him.
LXIX. - ON LORD BACON'S BIRTH-DAY.
Hail, happy GENIUS of this ancient pile !
How comes it all things so about thee smile ?
The fire, the wine, the men ! and in the midst
Thou stand'st as if some mystery thou didst !
Etc. (emphasis Jonson's).
What could Jonson, formerly Bacon's scribe,
possibly mean by 'in the midst / Thou stand'st
as if some mystery thou didst!'
And in Dominus Verulamiani
My conceit of his person was never increased
toward him by his place or honors. But I have
and do reverence him for the greatness that was
only proper to himself, in that he seemed to me ever,
by his work, one of the greatest men, and most
worthy of admiration, that had been in many ages.
Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University.
Elizabeth
Ignoto wrote:
>
> Irrelevant, even if true.
The Strat establishment didn't think so.
The first document was found by Hotson, the
others by Longworth. Their careers were essentially
ruined by these discoveries.. H.N. Gibson, an eminent
literary scholar from the University of London, wrote
a forward corroborating Longworth's sad story of
having the door slammed in her face by the Strats
after she found records they hadn't found and
destroyed.
The moral philosopher who wrote the Shakespeare
works didn't go about attempting to kill priest
hunters and he didn't brutalize his wife.
the moral philosopher of the Shakespeare
What was worse than murder to the Strats was
that he was proven A CATHOLIC by the
documents that Hotson and Longworth found in
the archives.
.
That was unforgiveable.
> (A personality may possess contrary or even contradictory affections-
> See Montaigne))
Right. It's called psychopathy.
> > Oxford followed through on his threat to Lord Burghley that
> > he would destroy Anne Cecil if Lord Burghley refused to
> > intervene in the execution of the Catholic conspirator
> > Thomas Howard. A letter from a concerned friend of
> > Burghley's reported that 'Oxford is brutalizing his wife.'
> >
> >
> > I don't see either the playbroker [sic]
Why do you think Jonson and the other playwrights
are so infuriated with this character? They call
him a Crow (thief), Sogliardo (filth), a Poet-Ape
etc.
It's not because he's an actor -- they would
have no quarrel with that --it's because they are
sweating to write playscripts for the public theatres
for a few pounds (a playscript went for as little as
two or three pounds) while this play thief is hanging
around the kitchen door of the palaces on the Strand
waiting for the footman to finish copying Hamlet and
then he makes a killing on a play he didn't write.
Jonson, et all were livid. In print.
The author did not write for the public theatre,
Ignoto. If he had he would have put his name on
his works, marketed all the quartos and printed them
often, and and would have exploited ALL the plays at
the Globe or Blackfriars, not just a fraction of them.
ALL the quartos would have been mint, not garbled as
some of them are (because servants weren't literate
scribes). Strats have been beating themselves over
the head over the bad quartos, the mysterious absence
of plays from the theatre records, the reason the
playbroker wasn't put on the rack (he didn't write
Richard II), why great, sophisticated plays are being
played at the Jacobean court while this nobody is
hoarding corn in Stratford.
John Andrews
*unequivocal* evidence that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and Bacon (or
whoever) did. Surely that's not too much to ask? (I'll offer the first Folio
and Shakespeare's name on a dozen or more plays plus V&A and Lucrece for
starters.)
John
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137389421.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Art Neuendorffer
> All deeply fascinating Elizabeth. To save time, just give one piece of
> *unequivocal* evidence that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and Bacon
>(or whoever) did. Surely that's not too much to ask? (I'll offer the
> first Folio and Shakespeare's name on a dozen or more plays plus V&A
> and Lucrece for starters.)
----------------------------------------------------------
*Unequivocal* evidence that Shake-speare wasn't simply a pen name????
--------------------------------------------------------
"WILHELM" "SHAKE" "Speare"
"HELMET" + "PALLAS" + "Spear"
----------------------------------------------------------
Chap. 14 : THIS STAR OF ENGLAND
by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Star/ch14.html
<<We shall...quote from Edwin Reed's Prefatory Address to the Folio:
"In Grecian mythology," he writes, "PALLAS [A]then[A] was the goddess
of wisdom, philosophy, poetry, and the fine arts. Her original name
simply *PALLAS* ...from PALLEIN, signifying to brandish or *SHAKE*
Athens, the home of the drama, was under the protection
of this spear-shaker." It may be added that the HELMET
she wore was supposed to convey INVISIBILITY.>>
------------------------------------------------
The Poems of Edward DE VERE
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/poemslny.htm
But who can leave to look on VENUS' face,
Or yieldeth not to Juno's high estate ?
What wit so wise as gives not *PALLAS* place ?
These virtues rare ech (sic) Gods did yield a mate;
------------------------------------------------------
_La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
[ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
http://www.sirbacon.org/sagessemysterie.htm
<<The Latin motto written on a scroll hoVERing
directly oVER [PALLAS ATHENA]'s head, reads:
______ *SIC FULGET IN UMBRAS*
which translates as "Thus it shines in the shadows"
-a hint that the light of truth shines in the shadows
of the world in an obscured & *VEILED* way.
.................................................
______ *SIC FULGET IN UMBRAS*
____________ {anagrams}
______ [ *USING SUBLIME CRAFT* ]
_____ [ *FRANCIS B.* TUS *MIGUEL* ]
______ TUS : your (Spanish)
______ TUS : hushed (French)
______ TUS : ink (Romanian)
______ TUS : men (Cornish)
...................................................
<<The wisdom of the ancients devised a way of inducing men
to study *TRUTH* by means of *PIOUS FRAUDS* , the delicate
Minerva secretly lurking beneath the mask of pleasure.>>
Richard de Bury, High Chancellor of England,
A Vindication of [Epic or Dramatic] Poetry.
-------------------------------------------------------
September 29 : MICHAELmas
--------------------------------------------------------
Sept.29, 106BC, Pompey born
______ 63BC, Pompey views 'holy of holies'
Sept.28, 48BC, Pompey assassinated at age 2 x 29.
Sept.29, 1066, William the Conqueror invades England
Sept.29, 1187, Saladin marches into Jerusalem
Sept.29, 1399, King Richard II, the first English monarch to
abdicate, was replaced by (the Earl of Derby)
Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV).
Sept.29, 1400, Last Chaucer record: He signs a receipt
for a tun of wine delivered to him.
Sept.29, 1402, Prince Ferdinand of Portugal born.
Sept.29, 1493, Christopher Columbus leaves Cadiz, Spain,
on his second voyage to the new world.
Sept.29, 1511, Unitarian MICHAEL SERVENTUS born in Spain.
Sept.29, 1513, Balboa discovers the Pacific Ocean.
Sept.29, 1530, John the Baptist painter Andrea del Sarto dies
Sept.29, 1547, Miguel(MICHAEL) de CERVANTES, born.
Sept.29, 1564, Robert Dudley becomes earl of Leicester
Sept.29, 1567, Huguenots try to kidnap king Charles IX
Sept.29, 1642, De Vere's son-in-law William Stanley (Derby) dies
Sept.29, 1829, Scotland Yard formed
-------------------------------------------------------
SPENSEr dedication in Fairie Queene (1590)
To the right Honourable the Earle of Oxenford,
Lord high Chamberlayne of England. &c.
Vnder a shady *VELE* is therein writ,
And eke thine owne long liuing MEMORY,
Succeeding them in TRUE nobility:
And also for the loue, which thou doest beare
To th'HELICONian ymps, and they to thee,
They vnto thee, and thou to them most deare:
------------------------------------------------
_La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
[ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
<<Inscribed on [PALLAS ATHENA]'s shield is a Latin motto,
_______ *OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS*
____________ {anagram}
_____ [ *BACON* SVS *NIL VERO VERIUS* ]
meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
the imagery on the shield-the central SUN representing
TRUTH and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
----------------------------------------------------
GOOD FREND FOR [IE]{SVS}' SAKE FORBEARE,
___ TO DIGG THE DV[ST] ENCLOASED HEARE:
BLESTE BE Ye MAN Yt SPA[RE]S THES STONES,
AND CVRST BE HE Yt MO[VE]S MY BONES.
http://library.thinkquest.org/5175/images/grave1.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> I think you've stumbled upon something really significant, Art
> -- "SVS" is the genus of the domestic swine (Sus scrofa),
> and we find the word "STIE" in close prOXimity!
> Could this possibly be a coincidence?
------------------------------------------------------
SVS: (Latin) "swine"
-------------------------------------------------------
STY, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {STIEd} (st[imac]d); p. pr. &
vb. n. {Stying}.] To shut up in, or as in, a STY. --Shak.
STY, n.; pl. {STIEs} [AS. stigu, fr. st[imac]gan
*TO RISE* ; originally, probably, a place into which
animals climbed or went up. cf. {STEWARD}.]
1. A pen or inclosure for swine.
2. A place of bestial debauchery.
To roll with pleasure in a sensual STY. --Milton.
-------------------------------------------------------
STY, v. i. [OE. STIEn, sti[yogh]en, AS. st[imac]gan to rise;
akin to D. stijgen, OS. & OHG. st[imac]gan, G. steigen,
Icel. st[imac]ga, Sw. stiga, Dan. stige, Goth. steigan,
L. vestigium footstep, Skr. stigh to mount.]
To soar; to ascend; to mount..
With bolder wing shall dare aloft to STY,
To the last praises of this Faery Queene. --Spenser.
-----------------------------------------------------
Romans Chapter 10, Verse 6
1395 Wyclif: Who schal STIE in to heuene?
that is to seie, to lede doun Crist;
1611 King James: Who shall ascend into heaven?
(that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Chapter 10, Verse 33
1395 Wyclif For lo! we STIEn to Jerusalem, and
mannus sone schal be bitraied to the princis of prestis,
1611 King James: Saying, Behold, we GO UP to Jerusalem; and
the Son of man shall be deliVERED unto the chief priests,
------------------------------------------------------
SUS: (Danish) flash, *KICK* , rush.
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Campbell's Creative Mythology:
http://www.gravity.org/mythology/myth_iframe2_5.html
<<With a *BLOW* of his hoof, the winged horse *PEGASUS*
- i.e. the Phoenix - causes the Hippocrene stream to
spring forth from Mt. HELICON. "*PEGASUS*" stems from
Greek words: PEGE ("fountain") + SUS ("up, sweet").>>
------------------------------------------------------------
<<The word *PEGASUS* derives from
the Phoenician *PAG-SUS* or *BRIDLED HORSE* >>
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/*PEGASUS*.html
<<Athena appeared to Bellerophon in a dream and gave him a magic
golden *BRIDLE* , Chalintis. He quickly left for Mt. HELICON,
to the fountain Peirene, sacred to the Muses & Aphrodite (located
behind her temple in Acrocorinth) where Bellerophon easily bridled
& mounted the fabulous winged horse. Armed with the golden sword,
Chrysoar, a gift from his father, Poseidon, they flew over the
Chimaera and stuffed the beast's jaws with lead. Proetus gave his
daughter, Philonoe, to be Bellerophon's wife, by whom he had three
children, Hippolochus, Isandrus & Laodameia. The end of Bellerophon's
life was most tragic. Two of his children, Laodameia & Isandrus, were
slain. Bellerophon mounted *PEGASUS* one last time, perhaps to claim
some perceived birthright or earned heroic merit he intently drove
straight toward the throne of Zeus: Mount Olympus. Affronted by such
conceit, Zeus formed the gadfly *BRIZE* & sent it to sting *PEGASUS*
under the tail, causing him to rear & sending his rider tumbling
to the earth. *PEGASUS*, however, completed the journey to Olympus
& was welcomed by all the gods. Homer tells us that Bellerophon
was left *LAME* and half blind. Odious to all Immortals,
Bellerophon wandered the earth, his heart consumed
with misery, alone, fleeing the haunts of men.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida (1609 Quarto) Act 1, Scene 3
NESTOR: ...Like *PERSEUS HORSE* ...
The heard hath more annoyance
by the *BRYZE* then by the Tyger,
<<Michael Wood is sensitive to William's use of
Warwickshire dialect words & farming terms:
"BREEZE" as a noun meaning gadfly>>
Wood's _Shakespeare_book (p.273)
shows the 1608 _Lear_ title page
with *PEGASUS* flying over a *FLEDGEd SPEAR*
----------------------------------------------------------
<<With the aid of Athena, Perseus slew & decapitated Medusa,
using a mirror to safely view her. With one blow, Perseus
struck off Medusa's head and the blood sinking into the
earth produced the magnificant winged horse, *PEGASUS* >>
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
> All deeply fascinating Elizabeth. To save time, just give one piece of
> *unequivocal* evidence that Shakespeare didn't write his plays and Bacon (or
> whoever) did. Surely that's not too much to ask? (I'll offer the first Folio
> and Shakespeare's name on a dozen or more plays plus V&A and Lucrece for
> starters.)
Bacon has three or four things in autograph manuscript that associate
him with the Shakespeare works; the commonplace book dated to the same
time the R & J was written with 112 notes for the play, most of those
notes unique or had not appeared elsewhere in print. Several very
bawdy.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/promus2.gif>
Two pages of binder's waste judged to be drafts
or actors parts for Henry IV were athenticated
by handwriting experts including Sotheby's, to
be in Bacon's handwriting. The one below, which
was withdrawn from auction when Bacon's, not the
playbroker's handwriting was found on it,
is a portion of the Pot 'o Gold scene.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/sothebys.jpg>
The other page found with it thought to have some
Falstaffian lines is in a collection administered
by the State of Norway.
<http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.3/437.html#1627>
Bacon's own copy of a 1582 first edition of
George Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia held by
the library of the University College of London.
The Buchanan is signed 'Francis Bacon, His Booke'
on the flyleaf.
<http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search2?coll_id=1475&inst_id=14&term1=buchanan>
Here's a snip from a 1952 Baconiana article that describes it:
On a page of Buchanan containing the story of Macbeth,
Bacon has written 'Macbethi, Macbetho, and Macbethus
Tyrannus, and Bancho rigiae caedis.' Many of the words in
the text are underlined. And in a copy of Boece dated
1575, Bacon has written the genealogy of the Scottish
Kings descended from Banquo 'to, and including James V,
comprising seven kings."
There's also the Northumberland Manuscript
now claimed by the Nevillians thanks to a
slanted lowercase scribble of 'nevile' on
the upper left hand side of the cover (Neville
was Bacon's nephew although the same age). The Northumberland is
significant as evidence
because of Bacon's trefoils drawn under his name
which in turn connect him with a 1582 Holinshed
Chronicles and a Halle's Chronicles, both filled
with Shakespearean marginalia.
The Oxfordians claim the latter two items for Oxford although both
Chronicles belonged to owners connected
to Bacon. The Oxfordians have no Shakespeare evidence
but they do have a very romantic narrative of Oxford's
little cousin Francis' evidence, one that fails to
mention that Oxford and Bacon were raised in the same family.
Art Neuendorffer
What makes him the author?????????
Art N.
------------------------------------------------------
John Andrews
Bacon come even close to the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship? (I don't
mind you wanting Bacon to be the author or imagining that he is the author
but it would be fairer for you to admit the equivocal nature of the kind of
evidence you have or probably ever will have.)news:1137480526....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Elizabeth
> Of course, Bacon is "associated" with the Shakespeare works.
>
> What makes him the author?????????
What makes Oxford the author????????
Looney's Romantic narrative of Bacon's evidence makes
Oxford the author. That and Looney's carving up Oxford's
letters to make Oxford look Shakespearean. If Oxfordians
weren't bestotted Oxford idolators--and I include you--Oxfordians
would take notice of Looney's misrepresentation of Oxford's
letters.
This involves an ethical issue in scholarship and
it needs to be addressed. It should be reported at
the next Oxfordian conference.
You're the one who kept spamming on the 'Oxford His
Booke' letter so it's probably your responsibility to
correct the record.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>Of course, Bacon is "associated" with the Shakespeare works.
>>
Elizabeth wrote:
> What makes Oxford the author????????
-------------------------------------------------------
13 people were burned at the stake on June 27, 1556
at STRATFORD atte Bowe [in London]. One of them:
"John Routh said, that he was convented
before the [16th] earle of Oxford,
and by him sent to the Castle of Colchester:"
____________________________________________
_____ STRATFORD atte Bowe
___ hand-WASHING GREAT
____ CHAMBERLAIN
_____ EALDORMAN/Bailiff
_______ John ----------- MARgerY
________ |
________ |
___ /-----------\ ___ m. OPALIA [Sonneteer]
MARY Oxford --------------- Anne
________________ | [b. 1556]
- [BROOKE House] | [only son dies]
______- [Oxford's Boys] |
______ [Oxford Gloves] |
____- [Thomas Trussell] |
___ [Sweet Oxford/Ned] |
______- [bent Spear crest] |
_______ [Golding's 'OVID'] |
__ [Golding's 'pregnancy of wit'] |
______ [Qu. of Scots Trial] |
__- [Yorke's Scounces] |
___ ["Gentleman" poet] |
- [NESTOR reference] |
|||||||||||||| [MERMAID grand-dam] |
___ ['For TRUTH is Truth'] |
______ [Paul's 'I am that I am'] |
[Hamlet's 'være eller ikke være'] |
__ [TINner of VEREland] |
_ [1604 deer park warden] |
__- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
__- [- Item, £10 unto a Beggar ] |
|| [(how)ARD plot/tower/exec.] |
____- [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
|| [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9] |
|||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?] ||| |
|| [Richard Field recognized 1589] ||| |
||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] ||| |
__________________ |
______ [ Henry Evans => |
_- 1583 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
Church Burial Record "X"ed |
__________________ |
______ Herbert (Philip) ----- SVSAN
|||||||| [b. St. LONGINUS day] [b. May 26]
_____________________________________________
_____STRATFORD upon Avon
_______ white-WASHING
_______ CHAMBERLAIN
________ ALDERMAN/Bailiff
_________________________ /----------------------\
______________ John ----- MARY MARgerY Webbe
_____ [wrote his 'marke'] | [wrote her 'marke']__[d. St.Adrian's]
__[bur. St.Adrian's Day]- | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
_________________ |
_______ /---------------\ ___________ [illiterate]
MARgerY Shakspere ------------ Anne
_______________ | [b. 1556]
_ [BROOK House] | [only son
____ [Shaxpere's Boys] | -- dies]
___- [Shaxpere Gloves] |
____ [Thomas Trussell] |
_ [Sweet Swan of Avon] |
____- [Bend Spear crest] |
_______- [Golding's 'OVID'] |
__ [Camden's: 'pregnant witt'] |
______ [Qu. of Scots Trial] |
__ [Yoricke's Scounce] |
___- ["Gentleman" poet] |
- [NESTOR reference] |
|||||||||| [MERMAID tAVERn] |
____ ['For TRUTH is Truth'] |
_____- [Paul's 'I am that I am'] |
|||||| [Hamlet's 'To Be or not To Be'] |
__ [TINer of AVERland] |
- [1586 deer park poacher] |
_-- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
_ [- Item, £10 unto the poore ] |
| [ARD(en) plot/tower/exec.] |
------___ [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
||||||| [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9] |
||||||||||||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?] |
|||||||||| [Richard Field recognized 1593] |
||||||||||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] |
________________ |
____ [ Henry Evans => |
|||| 1608 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
||||| Church Burial Record "X"ed |
________________ |
Hall M.D. -------- SVSANna
|||||||| [d. on Lope de Vega's 73rd birthday [b. May 26]
3 mo. after Lope dies] [could write name]
___________________________________________________
"I admit that some of them are not VERy important . . .
but look at the number of them"
- Sam Spade ( Maltese FALCON)
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
John Andrews wrote:
> Can you with intellectual honesty claim that these interesting links to
> Bacon come even close to the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship?
I'm guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' for posting Bacon's
authenticated manuscripts? The Buchanan marginalia is only
circumstantial evidence but the Henry IV was authenticated
by both literary and document/handwriting experts.
What about the grandiose Strat claims based on the total
of five words in manuscript left by the playbroker;
'by, me, cannot, bear, and Welcome,'
the first two possibly written by a clerk and the last three
quoted in Greene's diary 'he cannot bear the (expense of the)
Welcombe' (enclosure) meaning that the moral philosopher who
wrote the Shakespeare works did not want to risk his money
paying armed men to throw the cottagers living on his
tithe-holdings into the road. His partner Combes would have
to do that.
Strats are troubled by the fact that Greene
was critical of the moral philosopher's investment in tithe-
holdings. Why aren't Strats troubled by the imorality of
his character? The record shows he practiced pandering
(the Puritans eventually seized the Blackfriar's bawdy house),
usury (the wily Sturley and Quiney borrowed money from him
to pay off Coke to get a stop order on the Welcome enclosure --
Coke got cash and a 50-pound wheel of cheese), hoarding corn
during the worst famine of the century -- it rained for three
straight years -- he got his wife to sign a jointure on the
Blackfriar's Inn (inn = bawdy house) to keep her from claiming
her dower share. Fripp (Prof. U Liverpoole), Life Member,
Strat Trust), says 'she was given a chair by the fire at Judith's.'
Fripp poured over the Strat record for thirty years so he would
know.
The Strat record has been sequestered from any modern examination
by experts. As one critic put it, the Strat record has been
'authenticated by tradition.' Another said 'we may never know
what has been forged.' (We do know that the 'tree gold rings'
bequest in the Stratford will is a forged interpolation). Collier's
Simon Forman 'theatre diary' stinks of forgery but some Strats keep
relying on it.
> (I don't
> mind you wanting Bacon to be the author
I want the record to be corrected based on the evidence.
As I've said many times, if convincing new evidence appears,
I'll go with the evidence. At this point only Bacon and the
playbroker have any authorship evidence -- Oxfordians and
Marlovians have only romantic narratives of Baconian and Strat
evidence.
I find it repulsive to see Strats and Oxfordians
romantically smitten with dead Englishmen. This is science,
not necrophilia.
> but it would be fairer for you to admit the equivocal nature of the kind of
> evidence you have or probably ever will have.)
My guess is that you've never taken the time to
study and compare the evidence (or lack of) for
the four leading authorship candidates. Strats have
no manuscripts -- only the prima facie evidence of
printed title pages -- and no witnesses other than literary
allusions. See Kathman and Reedy's evidence webpage. All their
allusions are literary (poems, dedications mostly by
friends and relatives of Bacon) except for Meres
whose little insert on playwrights and players stuffed into
his work on religious aphorisms isn't written in
Mere's style.
Don't know why that beautifully written insert was
put in by the printer but it does coincide with
Hayward's incarceration for Raigne of Henry IV
(a work on Richard II).
bookburn
(snip)
>>
>> The playbroker, on the other hand, was caught stalking
>> Sir Thomas Lucy's stepson William Wayte with intent to
>> do harm. This was clearly an act of revenge since Wayte
>> was a priest hunter and Lucy was responsible for the
>> execution of the playbroker's cousin Edward Arden, a man
>> who did no harm in the world and didn't deserve to be
>> drawn and quartered.
I find the Lucy-Stratman conflict referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but
the part involving William Wayte seems very cloudy. The record is clear about
Wayte's 1596 attempt to use the courts to defend against Shakespeare and
several others attempt to do bodily harm, requiring a security bond--evidently
a measure to require the penalty payment provision of a loan designed as a
loophole in usury law. But one of the "others" is Francis Langley, who like
Stratman by 1597 had gone from rags to riches in London: in'97 Langley built
The Rose theater; by '97Stratman was able to purchase New Place in Stratford.
If Lucy's son in law, Wayte, was a rogue, compare him to Langley, described in
the following review of William Ingram's biographical sketch. Makes me wonder
how scrupulous Stratman was, and who are the three women also named in Wayte's
Writ of Attachment? Was Susan Holloway's brothel involved? bookburn
(quote)
St. Ives Historical Society
A London Life in the Brazen Age, Francis Langley; 1548-1602
William Ingram
London 1500-1700: The Making of the Metropolis
Edited by A.L. Beier & Roger Finlay
Reviews by Deward Hastings
Francis Langley was a piece of work . . . a slimeball, a scumbag, and for most
of his life an immodest success at it. Come to London as a youth with but a
few pounds and an uncle's address in his pocket, apprenticed with no desire as
a Draper, he became over the next few decades one of the City's more
significant moneylenders. At a time when usury laws limited "interest" to ten
per cent, Langley, though not the inventor of it, became a master of the "late
payment penalty", or "bond" as it was then called (often in amounts twice
exceeding the original loan), and prospered by lending to those who, while
still possessed of redeemable assets, were unlikely to be able to timely
repay. Dirty money then being no different from dirty money now this left
Langley with his fingers in the whole wide range of Elizabethan London's
unsavory pies.
He may have had some social skill beyond those of the abusive manipulator, for
he seems to have managed a few "friends" (at least briefly), and a number of
"associates", but his enemies far outnumbered them. In the end his world
divided into two parts; those who detested him but spoke well of him publicly
either out of need for his service or because he had some "dirt" on them, and
those who loathed him and made no secret of it.
Langley's name is known today, to those few who do know it, not for his vices,
though they were many, not because he crossed paths with Burghley or the
Cecils, not for his numerous appearances in Chancery (and other) Court(s), not
for his being neighbor and possibly landlord to Susan Holloway's brothel, but
for two almost incidental of his endeavors . . that he had built on his land
at Paris Garden the Swan playhouse, and that he, for a while at least, held
part interest in the Boars Head Inn and theatre. Most histories go no further
. . . William Ingram's "A London Life in the Brazen Age, Francis Langley,
1548-1602" does. It does not present us a "complete life" or an in depth
presentation of the man. You will not come away knowing how he dressed, what
foods he ate, or any detail at all of his private or personal life. This
rather short book follows him only from court to court, parish to parish,
following the paper trail of his economic and near criminal endeavors. It's
value lies more in the exposing one particular nasty side of London's economic
affairs, of fleshing out just another small part of the puzzle of what
Elizabethan life was really like, than in introducing us to a man who none of
us would have liked, or wanted to know.
(snip rest of review)
(unquote)
Elizabeth
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, Bacon is "associated" with the Shakespeare works.
> >>
> >>What makes [Bacon] the author?????????
>
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > What makes Oxford the author????????
> -------------------------------------------------------
The crap below -- which I almost nEVER read and wish
you would keep out of my threads -- does not answer
the question of why Oxfordians are not dealing with
Looney's clear interference with Oxford's letters.
In lieu of actual authorship evidence, the whole
Oxfordian claim rests on the argument that Oxford's
letters are
LIKE
the Shakespeare works but as it turns out it's
Looney's redaction of Oxford's letters that is
MOST LIKE
the Shakespeare works. Looney apparently found
Oxford's letters
UNLIKE
the Shakespeare works or he wouldn't have slashed
70% of Oxford's text and reworded the rest.
Since this is the foundation of the Oxfordian claim,
it should be investigated to determine the extent
of Looney's destruction of Oxford's texts.
If the Oxfordians are not going to address this
question, it should be taken up at the next conference.
You raised the question, now you know that Looney
carved up Oxford's letter so it's your responsibility
as an Oxfordian to follow it up.
Elizabeth
> "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> >
> > "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1137061223.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> (snip)
> >>
> >> The playbroker, on the other hand, was caught stalking
> >> Sir Thomas Lucy's stepson William Wayte with intent to
> >> do harm. This was clearly an act of revenge since Wayte
> >> was a priest hunter and Lucy was responsible for the
> >> execution of the playbroker's cousin Edward Arden, a man
> >> who did no harm in the world and didn't deserve to be
> >> drawn and quartered.
>
> I find the Lucy-Stratman conflict referenced in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but
> the part involving William Wayte seems very cloudy.
I just found the section from Hotson's Shakespeare
Versus Shallow (1931) that applies to the peace warrant
(actually an arrest warrant according to Hotson).
William Wayte turns out to be the stepson of Justice Silence,
not Justice Shallow. Justice Silence, William Gardiner, married
the widow Frances Lucy Wayte, daughter of Robert Lucy,
a London merchant. She's referred to as 'a Lucy heiress' by
Strats who want a connection to Sir Thomas Lucy but but I saw
no connection between Frances Lucy and Sir Thomas Lucy of
Warwickshire. On the other hand Bacon's second cousin
William Cooke married the young heiress Joyce Lucy, the
grandaughter of Sir Thomas Lucy (Judge Shallow). The
Lucy-Cooke marriage took place about the time MWW is
thought to have been written so I was thinking the 'luces'
reference was to the heiress Joyce Lucy which would make
a connection to Sir Thomas Lucy and Bacon.
On the other hand, this whole thing is probably irresolvable.
The future justice Gardiner arrived in London with a criminal
record, mostly petty crimes, and turned his experience to
various businesses including lending money at illegal rates.
Shortly after his marriage to Lucy, he had suceeded in
cheating all her children out of their inheritances, all whilst
Gardiner is serving on the bench. Francis Langley had tangled
with Gardner in court, then allegedly 'defamed' Gardiner.
Gardiner sued for several hundred pounds but Langley
was able to prove that Gardiner was the scoundrel he claimed
him to be (there were those court records back home) so
there was bad blood between them. All these records were
peiced together by the brilliant Hotson and for that the
Strats shunned him.
The problem is those two women named on the warrant.
Hotson writes:
. . . Shakespeare,
hitherto known only as a poet and player affable
and unobtrusive, now for the first time steps out
from the dusty records of the past as protagonist
in a turbulent scene of raw Elizabethan life.
This is what so upset the Stratfordians. They wanted
the playbroker to be seen as the affable and unobrusive
poet and player but thanks to Hotson he's suddenly
named on a warrant for arrest for attempted murder.
Hotson knew nothing about Soer and Lee whom he called
'unknown women,' but then Longworth came along
and found documents that identifed Soer and Lee as
recusant Catholics actively concealing priests.
What could be worse for the Strat myth than the team of
Hotson and Longworth (they actually didn't agree with
each other but their documents were damaging in
themselves).
I think this is hopeless but to conclude, Francis Langley
and the playbroker were 'joined,' presumably in business.
Hotson says that the fact that the playbroker's name is
listed first on the warrant makes him the most significant
party so it's possible that the playbroker was the businessman
and Langley was fronting for him. I can't remember which
Strat said this -- Park Honan? -- but the other signators
to the Blackfriars deed were probably also fronts.
If it were only the playbroker and Langley on the warrant,
the facts would sort themselves out but it's the two women
named on the warrant that makes this such a knotty problem.
Why are two respectable women -- these were probably
former nuns, not whores -- Dorothy Soer and Anna Lee
named on arrest warrants with the likes of Francis Langley and
the playbroker? Why do these women want to do bodily
harm to William Wayte? While it's true that Soer and Lee
were guilty of concealing priests they went to their death
like martyrs. I think I saw their names on the list of beatified
English Catholics along with that of the priest they were hiding.
The only thing I can think of is that William Wayte, having
been deprived of his share of his father's fortune by his
stepfather William Gardiner, was moonlighting as
a priest-catcher but that doesn't explain why Francis
Langley's or for that matter the playbroker's names are
on the same warrant as Soer and Lee.
Peter Farey
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> John Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Can you with intellectual honesty claim that these
> > interesting links to Bacon come even close to the
> > evidence for Shakespeare's authorship?
There is no unequivocal evidence for any author other
than Shakespeare himself. It is nevertheless possible
to reach a quite rational conclusion based upon such
evidence as does exist that the works were written
mainly by someone other than Shakespeare, and I think
that I have.
> I'm guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' for posting
> Bacon's authenticated manuscripts? The Buchanan
> marginalia is only circumstantial evidence but the
> Henry IV was authenticated by both literary and
> document/handwriting experts.
One more time. The document Elizabeth refers to has
nothing to do either with *Henry IV* or any other play
attributed to Shakespeare. This is what the only copy
we have ever seen says (with line numbers added):
1. Had(?) yt not bene at this gentlemans request
2. I(?) wold not have taken yt
3. Therefore I ame much beholding to you sir
4. But whatis to pay;
5. Syxe pence & you are welcome.
6. Wee'le pay the when we doo returne agayne.
7. As you please Mr George
8. Ile take yo(u)r wordfor more then that comes to
9. Nowe you may see I maybe creadited
10. This(?) honest boon companion tells me soe
11. [] I will requite the good fellow(?)
12. If(?) that these hands & blade of mine doe last
13. [] beinge
14. []
15. []
16. Noe noe I warrant you he is in the house
17. and I will send him packing presentlye
18. Come(?) let us hast to watch his passing bye
19. But doe you here Mr George
20. you will remember me
21. we shall see you againe sone
22. Well syr Exit
23. [] I I warrant y(ou?) wolde(?) []
24. but not one crosse of silver that (th)ou getst
25. (?) if thou dost chopp of this head of mine
26. to make a bot[]le or a footeball of
27. Did(?) I not gull him finely of his beere
28. In faith most gallantlye
29. but is he not acquaynted w(it)h the well
30. (I?) never sawe him in my life before
31. but once at shorditch in a bawdye house
32. what dam bred whore they be to tell my name
33. Before the lord Ile slitt there noses of
The problem with the original is that, because it was
used as an end-paper for another publication, most
of the left-hand margin (and therefore any speech
headings) have been destroyed. Tt might help, therefore,
if I offer my best attempt at recreating what the original
might have been, with added directions and with spelling
and punctuation modernized.
MR GEORGE
1. Had it it not been at this gentleman's request
2. I would not have taken it,
3 (to Gentleman) Therefore I am much beholding
to you, sir.
4. (to Landlord) But what is to pay?
LANDLORD
5. Sixpence, and you are welcome.
MR GEORGE
6. We'll pay thee when we do return again.
LANDLORD
7. As you please, Mr George.
8. I'll take your word for more than that comes to.
MR GEORGE
9. [to Gentleman] Now you may see I may be credited -
10. This honest boon companion tells me so!
11. [to Landlord] I will requite thee good fellow,
12. If that these hands & blade of mine do last
13. [] being
14. []
15. []
LANDLORD
16. No, no, I warrant you he is in the house
17. and I will send him packing presently.
18. Come, let us haste to watch his passing by.
19. But do you hear, Mr George?
20. You will remember me.
MR GEORGE
21. We shall see you again soon.
LANDLORD
22. Well, sir. Exit
MR GEORGE
23. Ay, I warrant you would!
24. But not one cross of silver that thou gettest
25. [Even] if thou dost chop off this head of mine
26. to make a bottle or a football of!
27. (to Gentleman) Did I not gull him finely of his
beer?
GENTLEMAN
28. In faith, most gallantly.
29. But is he not acquainted with thee well?
MR GEORGE
30. I never saw him in my life before
31. But once, at Shoreditch in a bawdy house.
32. What dam-bred whores they be to tell my name!
33. Before the Lord, I'll slit their noses off!
Other than the words "send him packing" (1H4 2.4) I
see nothing at all to connect this with *Henry IV*.
<snip>
> I want the record to be corrected based on the evid-
> ence. As I've said many times, if convincing new
> evidence appears, I'll go with the evidence.
That's what 'convincing' does for you.
> At this point only Bacon and the playbroker have any
> authorship evidence -- Oxfordians and Marlovians have
> only romantic narratives of Baconian and Strat
> evidence.
I believe that there is one contemporary document
which actually *says* that Marlowe wrote 'Shakspeare'.
Unfortunately, it was *designed* to be equivocal!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > Ignoto wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Irrelevant, even if true.
> >
> > The Strat establishment didn't think so.
>
>
> > The first document was found by Hotson, the
> > others by Longworth. Their careers were essentially
> > ruined by these discoveries.. H.N. Gibson, an eminent
> > literary scholar from the University of London, wrote
> > a forward corroborating Longworth's sad story of
> > having the door slammed in her face by the Strats
> > after she found records they hadn't found and
> > destroyed.
>
> one.
Longworth wept in the foreward to her book after the
Strats slammed the door in her face. Gibson corroborated
that fact.
Hotson had a rough career after he published Shakespeare
and Shallow. He was eventually fired from the university
where he taught. I don't know the specifics.
Do you really think that the Strat establishment, which
is essentially the British establishment, doesn't go
to great lenghths to keep the Strat myth going? The
British are all about face.
Why are you so irritable. Has it rained?
> If you are going to make such claims I suggest you back it up with
> solid evidence. Do you have any references?
I just posted on this to bookburn. I forgot to
cite the references so I'll put them here.
Longworth's work is Shakespeare Rediscovered by Means
of Public Records: Secret Reports & Private Correspondence
Newly Set Forth as Evidence on His Life & Work. Scribner's
& Sons. 1938.
and
Shakespeare Versus Shallow. Leslie Hotson. Little, Brown,
and Company. Boston. 1931.
And that should be G. B. Gibson in this instance.
> > The moral philosopher who wrote the Shakespeare
> > works
>
> Umm is there a fiction writer that isn't a 'moral philosopher'?
Philosophers are the rarest of humans. The US has yet to
produce a one. Bacon was the first English philosopher
after Occam but his Novum Organum (while flawed) provoked
an explosion of philosophers including Descartes and Kant
(Kant dedicated the First Critique to Bacon).
If a philosopher had emerged from Stratford or Hedingham
the world would know of it.
You've probably seen the saying 'the whole of philosophy
is but a meditation on Shakespeare.' The EMLS site at
U of Toronto has several good articles on philosophy in
Shakespeare.
> > didn't go about attempting to kill priest
> > hunters and he didn't brutalize his wife.
> > the moral philosopher of the Shakespeare
> > What was worse than murder to the Strats was
> > that he was proven A CATHOLIC by the
> > documents that Hotson and Longworth found in
> > the archives.
>
> The documentary proof that will shakespeare was a catholic is inferior
> to the proof that he was the author of the shakespeare canon. (Yet you
> enthusiatically (voraciously) accept the former and reject the latter-
> this says a good deal, no?)
I've cross checked Longworth against Hotson and
have come to the conclusion that we will never
understand the warrant for arrest. It seems impossible
that Frances Langley (a hustler in partnership with
the playbroker) and two recusant Catholic martyrs who
went peacefully to their hanging should be named
on the same warrant.
> > That was unforgiveable.
> >
> >
> > > (A personality may possess contrary or even contradictory affections-
> > > See Montaigne))
> >
> > Right. It's called psychopathy.
>
> Nope. It's called observation. Shakespeare knew it. So did Montaigne:
>
> "Such as make it their business to oversee human actions, do not find
> themselves in anything so much perplexed as to reconcile them and bring
> them into the world's eye with the same lustre and reputation; for they
> commonly so strangely contradict one another that it seems impossible
> they should proceed from one and the same person. We find the younger
> Marius one while a son of Mars and another a son of Venus. Pope
> Boniface
> VIII. entered, it is said, into his Papacy like a fox, behaved himself
> in
> it like a lion, and died like a dog; and who could believe it to be the
> same Nero, the perfect image of all cruelty, who, having the sentence
> of
> a condemned man brought to him to sign, as was the custom, cried out,
> "O that I had never been taught to write!" so much it went to his heart
> to condemn a man to death. All story is full of such examples, and
> every
> man is able to produce so many to himself, or out of his own practice
> or
> observation, that I sometimes wonder to see men of understanding give
> themselves the trouble of sorting these pieces, considering that
> irresolution appears to me to be the most common and manifest vice of
> our
> nature..."
What a windy writer. Did you know that Anthony Bacon was
Montaigne's intimate friend, shall we say, and that Bacon
got a copy of the Essais in French years before they were
printed in English? Scholars have found that the author
of the Shakespeare plays used the French, not English
version of Montaigne.
> > > > Oxford followed through on his threat to Lord Burghley that
> > > > he would destroy Anne Cecil if Lord Burghley refused to
> > > > intervene in the execution of the Catholic conspirator
> > > > Thomas Howard. A letter from a concerned friend of
> > > > Burghley's reported that 'Oxford is brutalizing his wife.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see either the playbroker [sic]
> >
> >
> > Why do you think Jonson and the other playwrights
> > are so infuriated with this character? They call
> > him a Crow (thief), Sogliardo (filth), a Poet-Ape
> > etc.
>
> I don't think that.
You were there?
>
> >
> > It's not because he's an actor -- they would
> > have no quarrel with that
>
> Evidenceless assertion.
What competition would Jonson et al have if the
playbroker was merely an actor. They weren't
competing with actors, they were competing with
the scripts brought in by these literary thieves.
> > --it's because they are
> > sweating to write playscripts for the public theatres
> > for a few pounds (a playscript went for as little as
> > two or three pounds) while this play thief is hanging
> > around the kitchen door of the palaces on the Strand
> > waiting for the footman to finish copying Hamlet and
> > then he makes a killing on a play he didn't write.
>
> Evidenceless assertion.
Henslowe's diaries and Greene identifies him as
a 'play thief,' a broker who fences stolen plays
(beautified in our feathers) and poses as the
author. He supposes he's the Onely playwright.
Thomas Edwards writes a long verse about the
'Onely playwright,' the playwright that stands
above the rest. According to Edwards, he wrote
behind Spenser and Marlowe. Marston and Hall
indicate the same.
> > Jonson, et all were livid. In print.
>
> And yet you cannot find one objective evidence to support this
> supposition.
You don't read much criticism, do you.
> > The author did not write for the public theatre,
> > Ignoto. If he had he would have put his name on
> > his works, marketed all the quartos and printed them
> > often, and and would have exploited ALL the plays at
> > the Globe or Blackfriars, not just a fraction of them.
>
> Evidenceless assertion.
There's a strong case that this character was a greedy
bastard, hoarder, usurer, panderer, encloser, cheated
his wife out of her dower share, etc.
The question is, why was he so completely indifferent
to making money on 'his' hugely popular plays?
>
> >
> > ALL the quartos would have been mint, not garbled as
> > some of them are (because servants weren't literate
> > scribes). Strats have been beating themselves over
> > the head over the bad quartos, the mysterious absence
> > of plays from the theatre records, the reason the
> > playbroker wasn't put on the rack (he didn't write
> > Richard II), why great, sophisticated plays are being
> > played at the Jacobean court while this nobody is
> > hoarding corn in Stratford.
>
> Evidenceless assertion.
Read J. Dover Wilson who wrote the best book ever written
on the problem of the quartos. Wilson was the closest
thing to a genius the Strats ever had but Wilson is stumped.
He can critique the errors of his colleagues but he can't
explain the quartos. Said so. (Had the wrong author).
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > John Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you with intellectual honesty claim that these
> > > interesting links to Bacon come even close to the
> > > evidence for Shakespeare's authorship?
>
> There is no unequivocal evidence for any author other
> than Shakespeare himself.
What evidence for 'Shakespeare himself' is unequivocal?
Only direct evidence is 'unequivocal' and printed title
pages are not direct evidence because they have no
witnesses.
> It is nevertheless possible
> to reach a quite rational conclusion based upon such
> evidence as does exist that the works were written
> mainly by someone other than Shakespeare, and I think
> that I have.
It has to have a witness.
> > I'm guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' for posting
> > Bacon's authenticated manuscripts? The Buchanan
> > marginalia is only circumstantial evidence but the
> > Henry IV was authenticated by both literary and
> > document/handwriting experts.
>
> One more time. The document Elizabeth refers to has
> nothing to do either with *Henry IV* or any other play
> attributed to Shakespeare.
One more time, Farey. The experts and Sotheby's
and at Norway's Schoyen collection think otherwise.
MS 1627
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: HENRY IV, PART 1, ACT II,
SCENES 1 AND 3. A LITERARY PARALLEL OR ACTOR'S
PART
<http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.3/437.html#1627>
> This is what the only copy
> we have ever seen says (with line numbers added):
Pardon me, but I relied on expert opinion cited in
the London newspaper when the two manuscript pages
were auctioned by Sotheby's.
You're the one who realized that there was more
than one page.
We don't have the 'pot of gold' scene that was
described in the newspaper other than in the side-by-side
with Bacon's letter on one side and the manuscript on the other.
The photo was printed in Sotheby's auction catalogue.
Have you ever read George Peele's book of jestes or
whatever it's called. Peele's adventures are supposed
to be the basis for Falstaff. The book of jestes reads
a lot like this draft page.
> Other than the words "send him packing" (1H4 2.4) I
> see nothing at all to connect this with *Henry IV*.
Take it up with the experts at Sotheby's and the
curators at the Schoyen, Farey. I have no expertise
in this area. I have to rely on the opinion of experts.
> <snip>
>
> > I want the record to be corrected based on the evid-
> > ence. As I've said many times, if convincing new
> > evidence appears, I'll go with the evidence.
>
> That's what 'convincing' does for you.
I'm not representing the pages as anything more than
what the experts characterized. I have no idea where the
manuscript landed. These things have a way of dropping
off the map. I don't know whether the boxes of commonplace
books and annotated books written by Bacon are still locked
up in the basement of the Folger eighty years after they were
purchased by Folger. Maybe they were taken to a land
fill. Maybe they're in the catacombs under the Vatican.
How frustrated would you be if you knew that Marlowe's
manuscripts were uncatalogued in boxes in the basement
of the Folger?
> > At this point only Bacon and the playbroker have any
> > authorship evidence -- Oxfordians and Marlovians have
> > only romantic narratives of Baconian and Strat
> > evidence.
>
> I believe that there is one contemporary document
> which actually *says* that Marlowe wrote 'Shakspeare'.
> Unfortunately, it was *designed* to be equivocal!
>
What document?
Peter Groves
Here's an idea: why not read <Henry IV>? I know it's a bit radical, but
having done that you might be able to explain what relationship you think
there is between this MS and the play. Those of us who have read <Henry
IV> can't find one.
Peter G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>>>Can you with intellectual honesty claim that these
>>>>interesting links to Bacon come even close to the
>>>>evidence for Shakespeare's authorship?
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
>>There is no unequivocal evidence for any author other
>>than Shakespeare himself.
>
Elizabeth wrote:
> What evidence for 'Shakespeare himself' is unequivocal?
> Only direct evidence is 'unequivocal' and printed title
> pages are not direct evidence because they have no
> witnesses.
The BEST written evidence involves eye witnesses who are
ALSO under oath. However, there is quite a bit of this sort
of evidence for extra terrestrial encounters (of all kinds).
Hence, "unequivocal evidence" REQUIRES A COMBINATION of:
1) direct eye witnesses AND
2) direct physical evidence
in ABUNDANCE & all of which is consistent with each other.
There exists such "unequivocal evidence" for major wars,
the Holocaust, the Roman empire, etc...
Art Neuendorffer
John Andrews
documents you like. They're interesting, I said so. What I query is that you
seem to think that they constitute a stronger case for Bacon's authorship
than the evidence we have for Shakespeare's authorship. On any measure that
can't be right. Feel free to dismiss, explain away, argue round, through,
over, under (or more likely beside) the point but have the honesty to admit
that the case for Shakespeare's authorship based on the evidence we have now
or are ever likely to have is stronger than that for Bacon or anyone else.
That is unlikely ever to change. The argument you put forward is therefore
based on your own feelings about Shakespeare and his works rather than on
evidence. Admitting this will give you a great sense of peace and ease and
allow you to get on with other things in your life: writing a book or some
poetry, painting (if you don't already). And that would be a *GOOD THING*.
John Andrews
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137537709.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Elizabeth
> > What evidence for 'Shakespeare himself' is unequivocal?
> > Only direct evidence is 'unequivocal' and printed title
> > pages are not direct evidence because they have no
> > witnesses.
>
> Wrong. It is direct evidence.
Wrong, printed title pages are not direct
evidence. If printed title pages were direct
evidence there would be no Shakespeare
authorship dispute.
> A few observations.
>
> 1. Strictly, in court, a document is hearsay unless it is proven to be
> what it purports to be by a witness. A hearsay document is generally
> not admissible.
Huh? Thre are no 'hearsay documents,' only 'hearsay
witnesses' which technically speaking are
not witnesses at all.
A witness is one with direct knowledge who has personally
observed something relevant to the question.
The court, not the document or the witness, determines what
is 'hearsay' or 'direct' a process usually prompted by the
defendant's lawyer.
You're trying to invent a new category of evidence
to cover Strat butts but it's not gonna work, Cato.
> However exceptions to hearsay apply in circumstances
> where eg the witnesses are all dead
The printer, Cato, was never a witness and could not
be a witness because the playbroker did not register
the plays he was fencing. The Shakespeare works, so-called,
are registered under the names of other men.
The printers bought manuscripts, often stolen,
and the instant the money changed hands, the printer
was in total control of the property (subject to ecclesiastical
censorship).
If, for example, a printer wanted to maximize his
profits, he would put the name 'William Shakespeare'
or 'William Shake-speare' on the property.
Why?
Because Venus & Adonis was the runaway best seller
of the late 16th and early 17th century. It went
through seventeen printings before 1600 and continued
to sell briskly until the Puritans imposed censorship.
For this reason, the name 'William Shakespeare'
was put on many pamphlets.
There's no reason to believe that the playbroker
was anything more than that. His personal records
show that he was a greedy bastard who would go
so far as fight the Stratford Corporation to enclose
titheholdings (a crime against humanity), engage
in pandering and corn hoarding
Y E T
he does not exploit his best selling works for his
own financial benefit.
Most of the plays are never printed in quarto or
were played in the public theatres. The Stationer's
Registry has probably never come under the hands
of Strat forgers but other records have been forged
or destroyed, i.e., Simon Forman's alleged diary
which many Shakespeare critics reject as Collier's
forgery (since it was first printed in Collier's
book and it reads like broken 19th century English,
not Elizabethan English) and Halliwell-Phillipps'
outrageous cutting up and repasting of 16th c.
theatre records into a scrapbook.
What did Halliwell-Phillip's leave out? We'll
never know but that pattern is typical of documents
connected to the authorship question that have
been forged, defaced or sequestered.
> or for business records and the
> like.
No, you're wrong there. If the owner is not qualified
to testify to the record an expert witness (board certified
and registered with the court with famous exceptions such
as the landmark case in which an FBI agent with twenty
years of experience in forensics was found to be more
qualified than a board certified handwriting analyst) is
brought in by one of the lawyers to testify.
That expert witness is considered to be qualified to
give
DIRECT TESTIMONY.
The authenticators of the Henry IV fragments did not
have to be there when they were written. Their testimony
had the
SAME WEIGHT
as if the author himself had testified.
< The hearsay rule obviously would not (could not) apply in cases
> of historical investigation.
What do you mean by 'historical investigation?' I thought
we were using a court analogy here.
Any 16th century autograph manuscript has at least two
direct witnesses, the author and the expert witness. In
some cases, such as a letter written by Jonson which
says, in effect, that he saw a friend writing some literary
work -- this is a rare letter of its kind but it exists -- then
the Court would have three credible witnesses. Maybe
four if another expert on Jonson was required to give
testimony.,
(That, as far as I know, is Jonson's only straight piece of
writing by the famous parodist and satirist).
Neither of those circumstances is possible with
printed title pages because the 1) 'author' cannot be
a witness -- typeset does not convey autograph handwriting
and 2) experts on early printed material have nothing
to say about any given authorship because that's not
their field.
> 2. Direct evidence that has no witnesses is still direct evidence
> one would attack it as unreliable, not as no longer
> being direct evidence for want of a witness.
Cato, it's called a 'trial' because the defendant, the
evidence and the witnesses are all 'tried.'
'Stuff' we carelessly call 'evidence' is brought forward
to be 'tried.' The prosecutor may claim that it's direct
evidence but the judge won't buy it until the defendant's
lawyer has an opportunity to try both the 'stuff' and the
witness. If the testimony stands up and the witness has
credible first hand knowledge THEN the court accepts
it as direct evidence (subject to appeal).
> (Direct evidence has a character or form that is not dispersed merely
> by the absence of witnesses).
LOL! You're makin' this up.
> If direct evidence was admitted to court
> without a witness,
You can't characterize prospective evidence as
'direct evidence' until a witness with direct knowledge
has finished his or her testimony which connects
it to the question.
Lab test dna results are just pieces of paper until a
qualified expert testifies to the question of whether or
not those results match the defendant's dna.
> 3. Requiring historical documents to be witnessed is silly
So silly that the British and American Court systems
take care to qualify expert witnesses. There's a landmark case
on this question involving the credentials of an
experienced FBI agent with forensic training versus
a handwriting expert who was trained at a school.
> (proper
> witness evidence needs to be sworn) and unrealistic (Absent legal
> records virtually no historical documents are going to be sworn to be
> valid by witnesses).
What are 'historical documents?' That term is usually
reserved for documents that have some historical importance.
It doesn't apply to the Henry IV fragment which has literary
but not historical interest.
There are two broad reasons for authenticating
documents. The first is the Sotheby's/Schoyen situation
in which collectors do not want to invest in bogus goods --
Sotheby's had to protect its reputation and Martin Schoyen
his investment.
The second is when manuscripts are taken to court in
copyright suits or private suits.
The same court-ceritifed, board-certified experts are used
in both cases. Court certification is just a higher level of
certification. The Royal Law Society also certifies experts.
At least one of the experts who authenticated the Henry IV
MS had those credentials.
> 4. The first folio is, in any case, witnessed (insofar as historical
> documents can be).
The case for the First Folio is circumstantial,
not direct.
This problem is accerbated by the fact that ALL
the indirect evidence is in the form of literary
allusions, not presented as fact.
Jonson never writes a letter about the playbroker,
he only satirizes him in verse. Jonson never writes
anything about the playbroker that doesn't contain
a contradiction and I'm quoting Annabel Patterson,
Stirling Professor of Literature, Yale.
Jonson has a history of being a trickster and
practical jokester, so he's not a credible witness.
He was a professional satirist and parodist.
The First Folio is a still a major problem in literary scholarship.
That scholarship has never been done. I dare you to find an
academic paper on Jonson's To The Memory of My Beloved.
Scholars admit that this is one of the great poems in the English
canon but they won't touch it. One honest scholar who wrote
an entire book on Elizabethan dedications stated that she
wasn't going to deal with the First Folio because it had
too many problems. Can't think of her name but her
book was published by the University of Chicago Press.
> 5. Insofar as historical persons caused the name of an actual person to
> be placed on a title page
LOL. That translates as 'the printer put a highly saleable
name on a title page because he wanted to turn a profit.'
> and other persons assented (failure to
> register an objection may be taken as assent) to the attribution on
> title pages,
You're mired down in historical revisionism. The
instant the printer exchanged money for a text
that ended the playbroker's relationship with the
printed text or manuscript. The printer did whatever
he wanted with the material subject to ecclesiastical
censorship. There were no authorial rights.
The only exception was a law and apparently this had
nothing to do with printers per se -- probably
ecclessiastical law since it constituted censorship --
that allowed an anonymous author to sue anyone who
attached his name to the anonymous work. It was
not a copyright law, it was a 'protection of anonimity
law.'
Jonson was twice either sued or threatened with suit
by a lawyer who was a concealed poet/playwright
who did not want his name revealed. The 'verse letter'
from FB to Jonson refer to these facts. Jonson
writes two nasty pieces -- an epigram and a poem --
about this 'cheveril lawyer' who threatened him with
lawsuits if Jonson came too close to naming him.
Jonson's attacks on the author of the Shakespeare
works (whether the playbroker or a lawyer and concealed
poet) are notorious. Strats deal with this by not writing
about the War of the Theatres or the Poetomachia, one of
the most famous episodes in literary history which has
produced only two books in the past hundred and four
years.
> those title pages are also witnessed (using witness in a
> looser sense than is required in court).
The same standard applies to evidence in or
out of court.
How do you think they treat evidence in science? Exactly
as they do in Court thanks to Bacon's scientific method
which he derived from the processes of the common law.
Bacon is the reason that we call experimentation 'scientific
trials.' Scientists 'try' the evidence just as lawyer's
'try' the evidence.
Strats and Oxfordians will not 'try' the evidence
because Strats have a lot of forged records thanks
to early 19th century forgers. Oxfordians have nothing
to 'try' except Looney's redactions which have the
same effect as forgeries in the sense that Looney
intended to misrepresent Oxford's records.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>>>Of course, Bacon is "associated" with the Shakespeare works.
>>>>
>>>>What makes [Bacon] the author?????
>>>
>>
>>>What makes Oxford the author?????
>>
-------------------------------------------------------
>>-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> [This crap] -- which I almost nEVER read and wish
> you would keep out of my threads -- does not answer
> the question of why Oxfordians are not dealing with
> Looney's clear interference with Oxford's letters.
But you asked: What makes Oxford the author?????
Most Oxfordians would say it is because so much
of Shake-speare is about Oxford; but Oxford
could have paid someone to write about him.
Therefore, Oxford is Shake-speare because
Shake-speare is obviously a metaphor for Oxford.
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> In lieu of actual authorship evidence, the whole
> Oxfordian claim rests on the argument that
> Oxford's letters are LIKE
> the Shakespeare works
Most of Oxford's letters to *spymaster*
Burghley are probably ciphered spy messages.
It's hard to wax poetic with ciphered spy messages.
However, books have been written comparing
Oxford's juvenile poetry to that of Shake-speare.
As for Bacon:
----------------------------------------------
Christian Lanciai wrote:
> Already a century ago, doctor Mendenhall came up with primitve manual
> "computer" investigation results clearly indicating that the works of
> Marlowe and Shakespeare were by the same hand while the works of Bacon
> were not by that hand. This remarkable investigation was sponsored
> by a Bacon admirer who wanted to have it proved that Bacon wrote
> Shakespeare. The results proved the opposite, while accidentally
> they indicated that Marlowe and Shakespeare were identical.
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
seaker
research and research done for a legal trial. It is clear that you do
not know or understand the difference. 99.99999999% of the time,
literary research does not need to stand up in court. To learn
something about literary research, I suggest you read "The Art of
Literary Research" by Richard D. Altick. It's a classic I used in my
studies.
In my opinion, you appear to have a limited understanding of publishing
during the Elizabethan/Jacobean period. I suggest you read "Shakespeare
and The Book" by David Scott Kasten.
While "To The Memory of My Beloved" is a good poem, I doubt if many
English Literature scholars would rank it as one of the greatest in the
canon.
Peter Farey
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
<snip>
> Pardon me, but I relied on expert opinion cited in
> the London newspaper when the two manuscript pages
> were auctioned by Sotheby's.
No doubt. 'Expert opinion' is also fairly unanimous in
claiming that the works of Shakespeare were written by
someone of that name or similar. No problem with that?
> You're the one who realized that there was more
> than one page.
I think that was Rita Lamb, not I. But until I see a
little more than the minute fragment of this 'lost'
manuscript which has been revealed so far, and hear
from someone rather more qualified in the study of
16th and 17th century handwriting than either Mrs.
Ward-Gandy or the Sotheby's "graphologist" would
appear to be, I'll continue to agree with Rita's
conclusion that it was neither anything to do with
*Henry IV*, nor written by Francis Bacon.
<snip>
> > I believe that there is one contemporary document
> > which actually *says* that Marlowe wrote 'Shakspeare'.
> > Unfortunately, it was *designed* to be equivocal!
>
> What document?
You're kidding! Have you read nothing of mine for the
past few years? The epigraph on the 'Shakspeare'
monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, of course.
Elizabeth
> You're kidding! Have you read nothing of mine for the
> past few years? The epigraph on the 'Shakspeare'
> monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, of course.
Ciphers make my eyes glaze over.
I like the anagrams that Elizabethans used as word
games before Scrabble was invented. The ones hidden in
books and playscripts (which were copied and circulated
like books) always have some personal meaning. I just found
another good one in Lucrece (a German publisher found it,
I only saw it in a book).
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth - There is a difference between literary and historical
> research
Yes, I know. Historians have a scientific methology,
historiography, while lit studies have only the medieval
methodology of theology, citing chains of authorities. Risky,
because one wrong authority and your thesis is void. Bacon
expressly warned about trying to do science by citing chains
of authority. The Authorship Dispute is science, not lit.
Sidebar: Lit studies and theology are the last unscientific
disciplines left in academia. I support the movement
to shut down lit departments, distribute literature through
all the disciplines and return to the
English department
of the 19th century. Teach grammar, philology,
rhetoric, and whatever else was taught when
people could still read and write.
> and research done for a legal trial. It is clear that you do
> not know or understand the difference. 99.99999999% of the time,
> literary research does not need to stand up in court.
Why shouldn't it? I'd like to take Greenblatt and
Bloom to court and make them admit that their
rommmmmmmantic narratives do not describe
the Strat evidence.
Literary research has a standard of evidence --
citing authorities -- that would be acceptable
in a medieval ecclesiastical court but even a medieval
common law court would expect to see evidence
based on first hand observation (yes, your worship,
she took the cudgel and struck him on the head).
Strats don't have any evidence or witnesses as good
as that.
The authorship dispute is about real evidence and
credible witnesses.
> To learn
> something about literary research, I suggest you read "The Art of
> Literary Research" by Richard D. Altick. It's a classic I used in my
> studies.
I did ten credit hours of research methodolgy which turned
into 400 hours at the library.
The main reason the Authorship Dispute is not analogous
to literary research is that there are three or four parties to
the dispute (authorship factions) pitted against each other
as in the adversarial legal system. Lit scholars have peer
review which is judicial, not adversarial.
The problem with the Authorship Dispute as it stands
now is that the adversaries come from lit studies and don't
understand that the authorship question is not going to
be resolved with a term paper.
> In my opinion, you appear to have a limited understanding of publishing
> during the Elizabethan/Jacobean period. I suggest you read "Shakespeare
> and The Book" by David Scott Kasten.
I've browsed it. It is a good book.
> While "To The Memory of My Beloved" is a good poem, I doubt if many
> English Literature scholars would rank it as one of the greatest in the
> canon.
It's a great piece of writing if you understand, as
does Prof. Annabel Patterson, Stirling Prof. Lit, Yale,
that Jonson is writing on more than one level. Jonson
writes in rhetorical double speak. He's satirizing the
Senecan mock encomium. In that sense it's a masterpiece
equal to anything written by Juvenal. If you read it as
mere poetry it's a great poem but only a poem.
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth - read what I wrote more carefully. You can post whatever
> documents you like. They're interesting, I said so. What I query is that you
> seem to think that they constitute a stronger case for Bacon's authorship
> than the evidence we have for Shakespeare's authorship.
Strats have a wonderful narrative of the evidence,
polished over three centuries by some of the great
writers of English prose, but that narrative is largely
taken from the Shakespeare works, it doesn't describe
the problematic evidence.
>On any measure that
> can't be right.
Your candidate left no paper trail. Nearly
all his contemporaries left evidence that they were
writers but yours left not a page; no books, no notebooks,
no bequests of books and papers, no drafts, no playscripts,
no ephemera, no manuscripts, no personal letters,
no business letters, no documents of any kind, not a
scrap of paper except the will not in his hand.
The picture is one of a local merchant
tradesman who wrote no literary works, least of all
the million words of the First Folio. Some critics
think that the FF contains references to thousands,
not hundreds of books. I read footnotes so I know
that critics frequently posit sources outside Bullough.
Yet this person seems to have never owned a book.
He could not have owned a bible because the Papal
Index prohibited Catholics from reading even the
Vulgate.
I've never heard an explanation from Strats to explain
this great void of evidence. New Place escaped the Stratford
fire and Warwickshire was more or less bypassed by the
English Civil War.
This individual left nothing. He wasn't known as a poet
in his home town and the locals are on record as being
puzzled by all the tourist traffic.
Elizabeth
> I don't have time to write a point by point reply. So here's a quick
> summary of the major issues:
>
> 1. Hearsay applies to representations. it does not matter if those
> representations are written or spoken.
After four hundred years, all we have is 'written representations.'
I apply the hearsay test to all evidence, so I don't disagree with
your point.
> 2.
>
> A/. An expert is only competent to give evidence in his or her area of
> expertise. So for instance a graphologist may give evidence as to
> whether some piece of writing is in the handwriting of some particular
> person.
That's my problem with the literary critics who think they
have enough expertise in 'handwriting analysis' to
make the call on the Sir Thomas More manuscript.
> B/. Such an expert may not however give evidence on an area outside his
> or her expertise. So for instance a graphologist would not be qualified
> to determine whether a written fragment from elizabethan times of is or
> is not part of a play.
We don't have to worry about that. The board certification
of 'graphologists,' at least in Britain, means that graphologists
have passed the board exams of professional societies.
This woman had passed all the applicable boards and
was registered with the Royal Society of Law or whatever
it was called. That qualified her as an expert witness.
> A determination of whether a fragment is or is
> not part of a play would properly be made by an expert in elizabethan
> drama- Which puts pay to the bacon ''henry IV fragment'' (which i so
> name for the sake of conveniency, not for its representation of truth).
What does 'put pay to' mean? Are you saying that Sotheby's
just put the Henry IV fragments on the auction block without
submitting them to documents examiners? Sotheby's keeps
experts on staff. And finds like that don't fall out of bindings
of 16th c. books every day.
> C/. I should also point out that expert evidence needs to be reliable.
I checked her credentials. She was qualified in forensics,
document examination and hand writing analysis. She had
qualification in historical documents.
> Given the huge amount of writing that would need to be examined,
It's barely two pages and there were two examiners..
> the
> fact that writing changes over time, the fact that many examples of
> hand writing from the elizabethan era are no longer avaliable,
There's no dearth of Elizabethan documents.
> I think
> it quite apparent that the determination made by the graphologists as
> to the identity of the author of the Henry IV fragment is not reliable-
> there are too many factors not accounted for.
You wish.
> D/. An expert only gives an account of what is probable.
That's how science works Cato the Censor. There are
no absolutes in science. There's always the possibility
that some new piece of evidence will turn up.
That's why I do not invest myself in one of history's most
fascinatin' characters, Francis Bacon. I'm not a Looney
Moonie or a Bardolator.
> So for
> instance in the case of the Bacon Henry IV fragment they do not
> determine absolutely whether it is in Bacon's hadwriting. Due to
> questions of reliability that I have already covered that probability
> is very low.
That is true. There is no absolute certainty but your
candidate's handwriting was one of the samples and HE
FLUNKED.
Had the Henry IV been the playbrokers it would have gone for
millions.
Armies of Strats have been searching for that elusive manuscript
for hundreds of years, millions of Strat-hours spent pawing through
the dust and book mites and ha! the experts say it was written by
Bacon (irony is sometimes luscious).
> E/. Of course if there were an unambiguous autograph or other
> identifying feature then an inference about the idenity of the author
> of the fragment could usually be made to a much stronger degree of
> probability (assuming all the required comnparisons were avlaiable).
Or you could hire an expert witness.
> F/. As an expert is only competent to give evidence in his or her field
> of expertise an expert generally cannot give evidence as to the
> representations contained in a document, unless that content falls
> within his or her field of expertise.
The experts were qualified. I don't have the Sotheby's
expert's credentials but we can assume that he wasn't
hauled in off the street.
> A/. The fact that a document is written by hand and certified by an
> expert as being by a particular person does not make the
> representations made in that document infalliable. The expert only
> testifies as to the (probable) authenticity of the document (ie as
> being really by somebody). An authentic hand written docment may still
> contain lies, misrepresentations, inaccuracies, fantasies, delusions
> etc. So we have a paralell here between the potential inaccuracies of a
> printed title page and the potential inaccuracies of a hand written
> document.
An authentic hand written document 'may still contain . . .
delusions?' What, are we talking about Freud's therapy
notes? Those would be worth some cash although
somewhat devalued since Freud has been debunked.
> B/. The representations contained in a contemporary written document
> may be put to proof by an examination of witnesses (ie examination,
> cross examination).
That goes without saying. Do you think Sotheby's would
sent out the publicity before they vetted the documents?
> Such witnesses have direct knowledge of the
> circumstances relevant to the representations made in the written
> document. The reliability of the evidence given by such witnesses will
> be assessed by the court.
Well, here the 'court' is the experts the collectors
bring in to examine the document before they write
the check.
> No such examination may be made in the case
> of historical documents.
What?!? What are documents examiners and
paleographers for?
> There are no living witnesses that may be
> examined to demonstrate the truth of representations contained in a
> written document.
Expert witnesses get the same fee whether they authenticate
a document or find it not genuine so you have a disinterested
witness, the best kind.
Peter Farey
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > past few years? The epigraph on the 'Shakspeare'
> > monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, of course.
>
> Ciphers make my eyes glaze over.
It's not a cipher. It's a riddle containing a rebus.
> I like the anagrams that Elizabethans used as word
> games before Scrabble was invented. The ones hidden in
> books and playscripts (which were copied and circulated
> like books) always have some personal meaning. I just found
> another good one in Lucrece (a German publisher found it,
> I only saw it in a book).
Are you going to tell us what it is?
John Andrews
such as you waste your time on this stuff. It is possible to present the
facts of Shakespeare's life in many different ways. You choose an
interpretation based on your feelings about Shakespeare, Bacon and the works
but don't delude yourself that they are based on worthwhile evidence. Your
case boils down to "we don't know anything about Shakespeare so he couldn't
be the person who wrote the plays" which is simply illogical. It's not
truthful, anyway, to suggest that there isn't documentary evidence of
Shakespeare's life and powerful evidence of his authorship. Shakespeare
isn't a "candidate" - no one questioned his authorship until 350 years after
his death and when they did there was never, has never been and never will
be any convincing evidence to question his authorship.
When it comes to your claims for Bacon's authorship you simply don't have
worthwhile evidence. I'm thinking of evidence such as letters where Bacon
discusses his plays; drafts of the plays in Bacon's handwriting; documentary
evidence of Bacon's involvement and collaboration with the co-authors of
Shakespeare's plays. There is, you see, a good paper trail for Bacon,
unlike Shakespeare, and it's not unreasonable to expect evidence of this
nature. It would take evidence of this kind to make your case worth making.
Anything less and the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship simply
overwhelms you. You'd also need to explain convincingly why Bacon never
claimed that the plays were his and never published them (or extracts from
them) as his.
Don't waste your time. Enjoy the plays we have and do something more
creative with your life.
John
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137714118....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Elizabeth
> Dear Elizabeth - it's really sad to me that an obviously intelligent person
> such as you waste your time on this stuff. It is possible to present the
> facts of Shakespeare's life in many different ways. You choose an
> interpretation based on your feelings about Shakespeare, Bacon and the works
> but don't delude yourself that they are based on worthwhile evidence.
On one level it's a total waste of time because Bacon will
never be Shakespeare -- it isn't on the former British empire's
to do list-- but it's personally satisfying because Bacon is
like a window into the English Renaissance and Early Modern
period. He knew everyone. Everyone (except his Puritan
enemies) was in love with him, women and men.
Unlike Oxford who was something under five feet tall --
Nashe called him a 'small man' -- with disfiguring birthmarks and an
uncontrollable temper, Bacon was a 'comely man,' notoriously kind,
called 'sweet' by his friends and relatives. He had a notoriously
bawdy wit, could do all the accents of the shires (from being raised
with Burghley's wards) and would entertain his friends with storiesk,
doing all parts in accents. He was an actor (he's in the Gray's Inn
record for playing the role of Sorcerer (Prospero? Faust?) an
accomplished musician, a singer, a painter -- he painted his
self-portrait, he wrote masques, at least two sonnets per the record,
called himself a concealed poet on at least two occasions. He was a
complete genius except for math, a common problem among verbal geniuses
explained by recent brain studies.
We have no good images of Bacon when he was young but
I think this unidentified Englishman with the comely features
may be Bacon in his lawyer's robes -- he's holding his degree,
judging by the sitter's age, probably his Double Reader (LLD).
The sitter has Bacon's check list of features including
the large round 'Hebe chin' considered to be a thing of beauty in
that era --'Hebe' after the Greek goddess of beauty. Elizabeth
had the same Hebe chin. Anne Boleyn had it too and she was a
beauty.
<http://phoenixandturtle.net/excerptmill/eximgs/englishm.jpg>
Here's the same lawyer's robe on Bacon's statute at Gray's Inn.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/statueclose.jpg>
> Your
> case boils down to "we don't know anything about Shakespeare so he couldn't
> be the person who wrote the plays" which is simply illogical.
Not so, John. My eyes were opened when I
started reading Fripp's two-volume work on the Stratford
record. Fripp, a prof. at Liverpoole University ca 1920s-
1950s? wrote a two-volume work that praises Shakespeare
while burying him.
Fripp was a Life Member, Stratford Trust for thirty years.
Fripp went beyond the 'Birthplace' records (what is this
capitalization of 'Birthplace' -- is this a cult?) to the Stratford
town archives and used those records to interpret the
Trust records.
Fripp doesn't say an unkind word, he lets the records speak
for themselves.
My gripe is not with a dead tradesman, it's with the Strat
biographers including the artiste Greenblatt who publish
smooth lies about a cultural idol whose real character was
far from that of a moral philosopher.
I'm writing a post on something I found in Sir Sidney
Lee's (still relevant!) biography of the tradesman. I dislike
Lee for essentially ending the Baconian movement by
calling Baconians 'psychotics' and 'psychopaths' in the
London Times Literary Supplement (this was when Lord
Penzance, one of the greatest legal scholars in British
history, was writing thinly veiled Baconian works) but I
have to give Lee credit for the quality of his scholarship.
I'll post on Lee's correction of the Strat reading
of Thomas Greene's diary in which Green quotes
J. Greene (his brother) quoting Shakespeare, a line
which Lee shows was deliberately twisted by Strats
in order to excuse this shady businessman from charges
of plotting against the (republican) Stratford Corporation
and collusion with Combes. NEITHER will Strats publish
that the Stratford Corporation sent this shady character
a remonstrance for attempting to enclose Welcombe
even though that is in the record. Strats ignore it. Why?
The Shakespeare plays are against enclosure.
I probably don't have to explain to you how enclosure
was right up there with the Holocaust on the list of
crimes against humanity. Bacon, like the author, opposed
enclosure and wrote the Tillage Bill to try to reform the
Enclosure Act. Bacon made a famous oration, the Tillage Bill
passed and Elizabeth rewarded Bacon with a lease on an estate
at Cheltenham which I believe was near the village of
Tewkesbury upon Avon. Twenty-five miles from the
Birthplace. It seems that the Tudors had one redeeming
quality -- Henry VIII also tried to stop enclosure.
> It's not
> truthful, anyway, to suggest that there isn't documentary evidence of
> Shakespeare's life and powerful evidence of his authorship.
Right, one bundled in a very powerful narrative that claims to
describe the evidence. If I can fend off the Baconian romanticization
of Bacon and the Oxfordian idolatry of Oxford while I'm studying
the evidence, you can take a disinterested look at your candidate's
record.
> Shakespeare
> isn't a "candidate" - no one questioned his authorship until 350 years after
> his death and when they did there was never, has never been and never will
> be any convincing evidence to question his authorship.
Printed title pages are prima facie evidence only
until challenged.
> When it comes to your claims for Bacon's authorship you simply don't have
> worthwhile evidence. I'm thinking of evidence such as letters where Bacon
> discusses his plays; drafts of the plays in Bacon's handwriting; documentary
> evidence of Bacon's involvement and collaboration with the co-authors of
> Shakespeare's plays.
The Baconians are wrong. There was never a Baconian
conspiracy. The simple fact is that Bacon, a bastard
as it came out after his half-brother sued the estate,
(and took Bacon's estates) wrote for patronage for
twenty-five years while waiting for the office he
was trained from birth to hold.
Forget conspiracies, that's the correct Baconian theory.
Bacon was a literary genius, he did write poetry (skeptical
early Strats simply gave Bacon LLL because of its
philosophical sophistication and high English) but he
could not attach his name to his own works because he
was waiting to serve England. Of all the opportunists
and turncoats in the aristocracy, Bacon never lost his
passion for England nor his doglike loyalty to the Queen.
Plus he saw his dad get out of bed everyday and go off
to give great service to his country.
Bacon was rasied to be a 'man of duty,' an official,
in service of the Sovereign. History has shown that
Bacon was overqualified but the Cecils, who were massively
in debt, had to sell offices (and take bribes from the
Genoans and Spanish) so could not afford not to give
an office to the impoverished Bacon that they could
sell for several thousand pounds to another man.
(Nineteenth c. historians uncovered Cecil corruption,
20th c. historians greatly expanded the scope of Cecil
corruption -- Encyclopedia Britannica covers some of it).
So Bacon was stuck until he wrote Advancement of
Learning, arguably the greatest work in English
prose -- pages of it are in the most sublime English -- which
James I awarded with the Solicitor Generalship. James would
start selling offices the following year so Bacon got there
just in time.
> There is, you see, a good paper trail for Bacon,
> unlike Shakespeare, and it's not unreasonable to expect evidence of this
> nature.
That's factually true.
> It would take evidence of this kind to make your case worth making.
So John, when did you take off a couple of weeks to
delve into Bacon's evidence? I've been looking at
it part-time for about five years (Bacon is a an
interdisciplinary discipline in himself) and I haven't
seen the half of it. I find new authorship evidence
all the time. I'll post on Bacon's anagrams in the Dedication
to Lucrece that I just found in an old book. You can try
to debunk them.
Bacon's biography was written by Dostoevsky. Bacon
had a very troubled life from the moment his father died and
he was thrown on the (nonexistant) mercies of the Cecils.
The Cecils ruined Oxford's life not to speak of Essex'.
'Essex was tricked to his death' as Ralegh said seconds
before the axe fell. I think had they inherited great wealth,
the Cecils probably would have been virtuous men but they
were commoners so they had to steal the money to
buy the seven lavish estates-- Theobalds is still the largest
private home in England-- it looks like a medieval town --
to keep up apperances (the Shakespeare works wage war
on 'appearances) and there were only so many monopolies
to go around.
> Anything less and the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship simply
> overwhelms you. You'd also need to explain convincingly why Bacon never
> claimed that the plays were his and never published them (or extracts from
> them) as his.
He was an official-in-waiting for twenty-five years.
The gate through which he would have to pass to get an
office was his uncle Lord Burghley, a (hypocritical)
Calvinist Puritan who published an ENTIRE pamphlet warning
young men not to write waste their time writing poetry
and plays. What else were they to do? The Tudors tripled
enrollment at the Universities in the hope of creating a
class of Anglican allies but the universities went Calvinist.
Calvinists are always angry so the result was a class of
jobless angry young men. A few made a pittance
writing plays for the public theatre.
Bacon had many dozens of aristocratic relatives through
the well-connected Cooke sisters so for eighteen years
Bacon spied for Walsingham, probably in the great houses
of ultra Catholic Lancashire -- Bacon was related to the Stanley
earls -- and wrote plays for their fine private theatres --
the Stanley's had a private theatre on the Italian scale
in a northern town -- Lancaster? for patronage. And
starved. Strats can't explain how the Shakespeare plays
emerge ful blown from the Stanley company in 1588.
Peter Groves
news:dqrcn0$ec0$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
She's pretty creative as it is.
Peter G.
Mark Cipra
[snip]
Insignificant correction ...
> evidence of his authorship. Shakespeare isn't a "candidate" - no one
> questioned his authorship until 350 years after his death and when
350? A typo?
There was an unpublished question raised sometime around 1800 by someone
whose name I can't dredge up at the moment, then Delia and the other
Baconians started up in earnest in the latter half of the 19th C, so 250
years is more accurate.
Otherwise, as always, you're right on the money.
[snip]
--
Mark Cipra
"Arguments about the dating of [Shakespeare's Sonnets] are almost as
numerous and contradictory as those about who is dating whom *in* the
poems ..." - Russ McDonald
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.
Alan Jones
> [...]Theobalds is still the largest
> private home in England-- it looks like a medieval town --{...]
"Is"? "Looks"? Theobalds fell into disrepair and was finally demolished
during the Protectorate. The present Theobalds Park is a late 18th century
mansion in the former Theobalds grounds. Did you mean Hatfield?
>[...] Bacon was related to the Stanley
> earls -- and wrote plays for their fine private theatres --
> the Stanley's had a private theatre on the Italian scale
> in a northern town -- Lancaster? [...]
Can you tell us about any of these plays? Or about the Stanleys' "fine
private theatres"? What does "on the Italian scale" mean exactly? Do any
descriptions exist of them, or drawings? I was aware that some noblemen
employed, or at least entertained, companies of actors, but not that they
had theatres.
Alan Jones
John Andrews
him the author of the plays. As I said in an earlier post I've been teaching
Bacon to students for nearly twenty years and his biography is well known to
me. He's a genius. Shakespeare may have been mean, vindictive, an encloser
or whatever you like but that doesn't affect the evidence for him as author
of his plays. I have other reasons for not believing Bacon to be the author
based on style and language - Bacon's natural genius lies in areas other
than drama. His prose style is highly distinctive and I for one don't see in
it any of the characteristics of Shakespeare's style. Both writers have
large opuses and no doubt it is possible to find correspondences between
them but nothing significant and nothing that can't easily be accounted for
by shared cultural experiences. That, however, is really beside the point.
The evidence for Shakespeare's authorship isn't equivocal although sceptics
may dispute it. Where is the unequivocal evidence for Bacon? Baconians have
had 150 years to find it and there's plenty of paperwork to look through. I
doubt that the ephemera of any period has been so combed through as that
between 1590-1616. If it hasn't been found to date, it never will be. So
what's the point? And how can you write with such certainty about your
beliefs without evidence at least as strong as that for Shakespeare himself?
It simply doesn't make any sense for Bacon not to have claimed the plays if
they were his...or the poems...or the sonnets. And then before you know it
you have to start constructing the conspiracy theories that account for the
fact that Bacon was the greatest poet and playwright of the age but no one
mentions it - EVER, not even himself. Ridiculous!
Best wishes
John
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137794910.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John Andrews
John
"Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:a3tAf.21005$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Elizabeth
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137794910.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]Theobalds is still the largest
> > private home in England-- it looks like a medieval town --{...]
>
> "Is"? "Looks"? Theobalds fell into disrepair and was finally demolished
> during the Protectorate.
Apparently.
<http://www.leevalley-online.co.uk/images/theobalds.jpg>
> The present Theobalds Park is a late 18th century
> mansion in the former Theobalds grounds.
The article I read mentioned an 18th century addition
but it didn't say the buildings were demolished in
the Civil War.
Is this Gothic Revival or the original?
<http://www.heritagesites.eu.com/england/theobal.jpg>
> Did you mean Hatfield?
No.
> >[...] Bacon was related to the Stanley
> > earls -- and wrote plays for their fine private theatres --
> > the Stanley's had a private theatre on the Italian scale
> > in a northern town -- Lancaster? [...]
> Can you tell us about any of these plays?
Some of the apocrypha may be early plays.
Strats are debating Edward III. The only
thing that keeps some of them from being
added to the Canon is the Strat timetable.
The butcher lad fled to London (I think to
avoid the draft in 1588 since Catholics could
not defend the Queen in war thanks to Gregory
XIII's addendum to the Regnans In Excelsis --
Lucy was also head of the local draft board)
therefore everything was written before 1588
must be disregarded even though early plays
tantalize us with their Shakespearean qualities.
Nineteenth c. Strats moved the date of LLL back
and one or two of them --Fleay? Furnivall?
simply handed the play over to Bacon based on
the sophistication of its philosophy and language.
Only a maystic would believe that as one Strat put
it, 'the future playwright arrived in London with
the V & A in his pocket.' The V & A is written in high
English, a Cambridge East Midlands dialect and even
Strats like Nelson admit that it would have taken a least
a little time for a tradesman with a thick Warwickshire
dialect (incomprehensible to Londoners even in the 19th
century) to learn to speak and write the dialect of
the Shakespeare plays. Could he write.
That is just another example of how unscientific
Stratfordianism is. History's greatest literary
genius skips the critical period of language
acquisition and masters a 29,000-word vocabulary
in adulthood to write plays in a dialect very
unlike his own. Adults lose their dialects
with difficulty.
The only author that meets the scientific criteria
in studies on early childhood learning is Francis
Bacon. Bacon's verbal genius (he's up to 19,000+
words in only five short English works) was made
in the nurseries of the linguistically-gifted
Cooke sisters.
Stratfordinaism boils down to the dimme light of
Nature theory. A beam of light from above, one
which F.B. and Jonson ridiculed in their verse
letter.
> Or about the Stanleys' "fine
> private theatres"? What does "on the Italian scale" mean exactly?
I couldn't find the one I saw but I found another
by Richard Wilson (the 'Catholic Bard' Shakespeare critic
and author of the influential 'Voyage to Tunis' which
relocates The Tempest to the Mediterranean), states:
The Stanleys, we know, built a plush playhouse at Knowsley
near Liverpool, where performances were given by troupes
such as the Queen's Men, who in 1589 went straight from
there to the King of Scotland; and tradition has it that
Shakespeare's early plays were staged in this princely
Court theatre. In the comedy, Ferdinand calls his Court
'a little academe' )1.1.13) or rival to the universities; and,
with Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe in his pay, his
namesake had a similiar ambition.
Then he writes:
As Ernst Honigmann concludes, it was Stanley sponsorship
that may therefore explain both Shakespeare's 'lost years' in
the 1570s and the 'apparent suddenness of his conquest of
the theatrical world.'
And
What it begs, of course, is how the Stratford boy
came to be such a favoured beneficiary of England's
de facto crown prince.
Theatre And Religion: Lancastrian Shakespeare.
Manchester University Press, p. 20.
Wilson is referring to the fact that Lancaster was a duchy and that
the Stanleys were in line for the English throne, the reason Campion
was so dangerous to the Queen when he
was with the Stanleys in Lancashire.
The Strat timetable has difficulty getting Shakeshafte
back to Stratford to impregnate Hathaway.
Bacon, on the other hand, was cousin to the Stanleys
through the Spencer of Althorpe sisters by Jane Spencer
of Althorpe who married into the Cooke line. Baconians
found records that indicated Bacon had a relationship
with Strange. I'll see if I can find them.
Bacon was also related to Chandos through William Stanley's
daughter and to the younger William Stanley through Anne Cecil's
daughter Elizabeth Vere. Some Strats think MSND was written for her
wedding. All these relations would mean little except Bacon was forced
to write for patronage for twenty-five years while he waited for an
office. He had no income at all but he could write for a meal at the
great houses of his relatives.
He was never a scribe, his hand is found on drafts in the Sidney
papers, in the Cecil papers and on speeches and orations written
for the Queen. Bacon drafted the famous Tilbury speech that
sounds so Churchillian.
And what are the Shakespeare speeches but great orations?
Being resolved, in the midst and heat of battle,
To live and die amongst you all;
To lay down for my God, and for my kingdom,
And my people, my honour and my blood
Even in the dust.
I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman,
But I have the heart and stomach of a king,
And of a king of England too.
Elizabeth
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137794910.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]Theobalds is still the largest
> > private home in England-- it looks like a medieval town --{...]
>
> "Is"? "Looks"? Theobalds fell into disrepair and was finally demolished
> during the Protectorate.
Apparently.
<http://www.leevalley-online.co.uk/images/theobalds.jpg>
> The present Theobalds Park is a late 18th century
> mansion in the former Theobalds grounds.
The article I read mentioned an 18th century addition
but it didn't say the buildings were demolished in
the Civil War.
Is this Gothic Revival or the original?
<http://www.heritagesites.eu.com/england/theobal.jpg>
> Did you mean Hatfield?
No.
> >[...] Bacon was related to the Stanley
> > earls -- and wrote plays for their fine private theatres --
> > the Stanley's had a private theatre on the Italian scale
> > in a northern town -- Lancaster? [...]
> Can you tell us about any of these plays?
Some of the apocrypha may be early plays.
Strats are debating Edward III. The only
thing that keeps some of them from being
added to the Canon is the Strat timetable.
The butcher lad fled to London (I think to
avoid the draft in 1588 since Catholics could
not defend the Queen in war thanks to Gregory
XIII's addendum to the Regnans In Excelsis)
therefore everything was written before 1588
must be disregarded even though early plays
tantalize us with their Shakespearean qualities.
Nineteenth c. Strats moved the date of LLL back
to at least 1588 and one or two of them --Fleay?
Furnivall? simply handed the play over to Bacon
based on the sophistication of its philosophy and
rhetoric.
Only a mystic would believe that as one Strat put
it, 'the future playwright arrived in London with
the V & A in his pocket.' The V & A is written in high
English, a Cambridge East Midlands dialect. Even
Strats like Nelson admit that it would have taken
some time for a tradesman with a thick Warwickshire
dialect (incomprehensible to Londoners even in the 19th
century) to learn to speak and write the dialect of
the Shakespeare plays. Could he write.
That is just another example of how unscientific
Stratfordianism is. History's greatest literary genius
skips the critical period of language acquisition and
masters a 29,000-word vocabulary in adulthood to
write plays in a dialect very unlike his own. In the
real world adults lose their dialects with difficulty if
at all.
The only author that meets the scientific criteria
in studies on early childhood learning is Francis
Bacon. Bacon's verbal genius (he's up to 19,000+
words in only five short English works) was made
in the nurseries of the linguistically-gifted
Cooke sisters.
> Or about the Stanleys' "fine
> private theatres"? What does "on the Italian scale" mean exactly?
I couldn't find the paragraph I saw but I found another
by Richard Wilson (the 'Catholic Bard' Shakespeare critic
and author of the influential 'Voyage to Tunis' which
relocates The Tempest to the Mediterranean):
The Stanleys, we know, built a plush playhouse at Knowsley
near Liverpool, where performances were given by troupes
such as the Queen's Men, who in 1589 went straight from
there to the King of Scotland; and tradition has it that
Shakespeare's early plays were staged in this princely
Court theatre. In the comedy, Ferdinand calls his Court
'a little academe' )1.1.13) or rival to the universities; and,
with Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe in his pay, his
namesake had a similiar ambition.
He writes:
As Ernst Honigmann concludes, it was Stanley sponsorship
that may therefore explain both Shakespeare's 'lost years' in
the 1570s and the 'apparent suddenness of his conquest of
the theatrical world.'
And
What it begs, of course, is how the Stratford boy
came to be such a favoured beneficiary of England's
de facto crown prince.
Theatre And Religion: Lancastrian Shakespeare.
Manchester University Press, pp. 18-20.
Wilson is referring to the fact that Lancaster was a duchy and
that the Stanleys were in line for the English throne, the reason
Campion was so dangerous to the Queen when he was with
the Stanleys in Lancashire.
The Strat timetable has difficulty getting Shakeshafte
back to Stratford to impregnate Hathaway.
Bacon, on the other hand, was cousin to the Stanleys
through the Spencer of Althorpe sisters by Jane Spencer
of Althorpe who married into the Cooke line. Baconians
found records that indicated Bacon had a relationship
with Strange. I'll see if I can find them.
Bacon was also related to Chandos through William Stanley's
daughter and to the younger William Stanley through Anne
Cecil's daughter Elizabeth Vere. Some Strats think MSND
was written for her wedding.
All these relations would mean little except Bacon was
forced to write for patronage for twenty-five years while
Elizabeth
> John Andrews wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Insignificant correction ...
>
> > evidence of his authorship. Shakespeare isn't a "candidate" - no one
> > questioned his authorship until 350 years after his death and when
>
> 350? A typo?
>
> There was an unpublished question raised sometime around 1800 by someone
> whose name I can't dredge up at the moment, then Delia and the other
> Baconians started up in earnest in the latter half of the 19th C, so 250
> years is more accurate.
>
> Otherwise, as always, you're right on the money.
The Authorship Dispute was underway with Greene's
Groatsworth, Hall and Marston attacked the pseudonym
'Shakespeare' with Certaine Satyres and the Vergidemiarum.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. John Whitgift,
coincidently the Headmaster of Trinity with whom
Bacon lived for more than two years at Cambridge,
called in and burned Hall and Marson's satyres
because they put Bacon's family motto, Medocria firma,
next to the poet they claimed wrote the V & A
(and the Faerie Queene and Tamerlaine) but one copy
each of their three satires survived the fire.
The Authorship Dispute goes quiet after Thomas Edwards
writes on Greene's Onely Poet who, like Hall and
Marston, Edwards connects with allusions to the
V & A and Faerie Queene. It picks up again just
as Bacon quits Essex' patronage (and protection) and
Whitgift burns another round of Certain Satyres and
the Vergidemiarum (Hall and Marston had edited
and relicensed them).
The biggest fund of early Authorship Dispute material
is in the Poetomachia or War of the Theatres in
which even the aloof author of Hamlet becomes
involved with a jab at his rivals who have to
write for the little eyases while his plays dominate
the stage. Chapman, Heywood, Marston, Jonson and
others shoot back with satires on the concealed
poet and his 'rustic clown,' 'poet ape,' 'sogliardo'
(excrement), 'crow' etc.
The War of the Theatres is one of the most explosive
episodes in theatre history --it raged on for years
in Jonson and Chapman's plays -- but Strats have produced
only
--- TWO ---
books on the subject in now one hundred and eight
years; Small's in 1898 and Bednarz' in 2002. I wonder
why Strats aren't interested in this when the
greatest playwrights of the era were firing back
and forth at each other in brilliant satires.
And you're thinking of the Rev. Dr. Wilmot who
had to burn what he'd found in the libraries
around Warwickshire for fear of losing his
Anglican living.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
formally question his authorship of the plays--a man named James
Wilmot. He was a friend of both Sam Johnson and Lawrence Sterne. He
went to Stratford, couldn't find anyone who remember Will, so decided
Bacon wrote the plays. Well, he also believed Will was too dumb to
have written such Great Masterpieces. James Corton Cowell reported
Wilmot's "findings" to the Ipswich Philosophic Society in 1805, and
what he said was kept secret for 150 years. My source for all this is
Scheonbaum.
--Bob G.
gangleri
> Stratfordinaism boils down to the dimme light of
> Nature theory. A beam of light from above, one
> which F.B. and Jonson ridiculed in their verse
> letter.
Bacon confidant Dr. William Rawley once observed::
"I have been induced to think, that if there were a Beam of Knowledge
derived from God upon any Man in these Modern Times, it was upon him
[Francis Bacon]."
Do you construe Dr. Rawley's remark as "ridicule"?
Elizabeth
"Bacon confidant Dr. William Rawley once observed::
"I have been induced to think, that if there were a Beam of Knowledge
derived from God upon any Man in these Modern Times, it was upon him
[Francis Bacon]."
Do you construe Dr. Rawley's remark as "ridicule"? "
I don't agree with Rawley. Rawley wrote that in ca 1630
when clerics apparently believed in divine beams of knowledge.
We now know it's critical learning periods between
birth and 6 years of age.
gangleri
In my view, a tri-unite root cause of the problem can be spelled as
follows:
1. Robert Greene;
2. Christopher Marlowe; and
3. Gulielmus/Will Shakspere.
With respect to (1), Schoenbaum acknowledged that "With Greene we
cannot always separate fact from fiction in the fantasias he composed
on autobiographical themes, or the legend made of him by his
contemporaries. The pattern of his career - necessarily pieced
together from the testimony of biased witnesses - assumes the
lineaments of ARCHETYPE."
And why would Greene or his contemporaries create a 'documentary
record' on Robert Greene such that modern scholars cannot confidently
distinguish "fact from fiction"?
One that includes "fantasias" on (supposedly) "autobiographical themes"
such as bring to mind variations on ARCHETYPAL themes?
Schoenbaum offers no answers and ventures no guesses.
With respect to (2) and (3), Marlovians and Stratfordians alike reason
AS IF the "records" of THEIR respective candidates include NO fantasias
or variations on ARCHETYPAL themes.
Taken at face value, the "record" on Robert Greene includes NO
statement to the effect that a student thereof is being taken for a
ride into Archetypal Fantasy Land.
Yet, Schoenbaum concluded that such was in fact the case - yet ventures
no guess as to the POINT of it all.
Might the POINT have some bearing on how we should construe the
"record" on Marlowe and Shakspere?
The possibility cannot be rejected on a priori grounds - yet it NEVER
seems to enter the minds of Marlovian/Stratfordians that such might in
fact be the case.
Or, if it does, the possibility is NEVER acknowledged.
That's not scholarship - that's religion.
Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The first outright denial of Shakespeare's authorship was made by the
Reverend James Wilmot (1726-sometime after 1805). He became rector of
Barton-on-the-Heath, just north of Stratford, in 1781. Upon assuming
the rectorship, Wilmot eagerly explored the Stratford area for
historical information on Shakespeare. But he was gradually forced to
conclude that Shakespeare could not have been the author. Scouring
every private library within a 50-mile radius, he was unable to find
any book that could be proven to have belonged to Shakespeare; he
collected a great many local legends from the Stratford area (which,
he felt, anyone growing up in the area must have known of), but found
no reference to them in any of Shakespeare's works. He began to
suspect that the plays were actually written by Bacon, noting the many
parallels between the philosophy of Bacon and the thoughts expressed
in Shakespeare's works. Being a cautious man, he kept these views to
himself. But in 1805, he permitted his friend James Corton Cowell to
present his theory before a meeting of the Ipswich Philosophical
Society, on the condition that his identity remain a secret.
Cowell, with considerable trepidation, presented the theory to
the Society (who received them, apparently, in stony silence)
but swore his fellow members to secrecy. Wilmot burned all
of his personal papers on the topic just before his death.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis based on experience:
<<If Shakespeare were a great poet, he reasoned, he would have been
one of the few men in the county with an extensive library and,
no doubt, some of his volumes would, over time, find their way
onto the bookshelves of the best families.
Test:
Wilmot paid a visit to every manor house within a 50 mile
radius of Stratford. He viewed old letters, preserved by
the descendants of Shakespeare's contemporaries,
Results:
and found -shockingly- not one reference to the poet!
As for books, he couldn't find a single one that had
belonged to Shakespeare in any of the private libraries.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
The only real mistake that Wilmot made was in not publishing:
<<If you've made up your mind to test a theory, you should always
decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish
results of a certain kind, we can make the argument [biased].
We must publish both kinds of results.>>
-- Richard Feynman 1974 Caltech Commencement Address.
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
gangleri
> I don't agree with Rawley. Rawley wrote that in ca 1630
> when clerics apparently believed in divine beams of knowledge.
What do you then make of Francis Bacon's comments in the first of his
Essays (Of Truth), on which he worked over thirty years:
"The first Creature of God, in the workes of the Dayes, was the Light
of the Sense; The last, was the Light of Reason; And his Sabbath Worke,
euer since, is the Illumination of his Spirit. First he breathed
Light, vpon the Face, of the Matter or Chaos; Then he breathed Light,
into the Face of Man; and still he breatheth and inspireth Light, into
the Face of his Chosen."
P.S. Bacon's "the Illumination of his Spirit" bit brings to mind
another phrase - this one from Shakespeare's play, where Prince Hamlet
is advised by King Hamlet's Ghost:
"I am thy father's spirit."
Might this be God's opening move in "the Illumination of [Prince
Hamlet's] Spirit"?.
seaker
points out the flaws in your claim that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. Your
replies to him, in my opinion, show that you don't understand what he's
saying.
You claim that Shakespeare was a butcher. He was not!
What evidence do you have that he went to London to avoid the draft?
You're making this up.
You mention Shakespeare's Warwickshire dialect and state, "Adults lose
their dialects with great difficulty." That is true. On the other hand,
Shakespeare worked as an actor in London, so he probably practiced to
lose his dialect or at least keep it under control so the London
audience could understand him. Of course, I have no direct evidence for
this claim. On the other hand, I know actors who thick dialects who
work hard to lose their dialect or at least keep it under control. I
believe that the theatre is a cottage industry and hasn't changed that
much over the years.
You say, "Bacon drafted the famous Tillbury speech that sounds so
Churchillian." Okay, but what's your point? You aren't suggesting that
Bacon wrote Churchill or that Churchill was really Bacon? How about
Churchill may have studied Bacon and was influenced by him?
Your comment, "And what are the Shakespeare speeches but great
orations?" makes me wonder if you understand Shakespearean drama. To
your ear, the speeches might be great orations, but they are not. If
an actor treats the speeches are great orations, the play turn deadly
dull. The speeches reveal character. Beginning with the Julius C, the
soliloquies in Shakespeare's reveal the inner thoughts of the
character. Find and read "The Actor and His Text" by Cecily Berry, or
"Speaking Shakespeare" by Patsy Rosenburg, or "Acting Shakepeare" by
John Barton, or "Mastering Shakespeare" by Scott Kaiser. You might
understand what I'm talking about.
Sorry Elizabeth, but when it comes right down to it, Bacon IS NOT
Shakespeare!
John Andrews
Crow" point I've seen you make before. It has always baffled me that anyone
should see anything surprising about Shakespeare being sniped at and
undercut by his contemporaries. He must have been infuriating to have around
for anyone else trying to write plays. That's even if you accept that the
Jonson pieces are, in fact, aimed at Shakespeare - I don't find it likely
and I find the certainty in these matters expressed by you and others
"characteristic" let's say.
On your point about Shakespeare's accent...the best I can say is that it has
the ring of Mr Crowley about it. Accent doesn't have anything to do with
vocabulary does it? Are you really saying that only someone from the South
East of England can write great poetry? No one told poor old Tennyson, who
thought he was giving poetry a go. Whenever this kind of point comes up I
think it does expose a real ignorance about the period.
The problem is, whoever wrote the Works was a supreme genius and one of
those comes along once every few hundred years. Whatever criteria you try to
apply won't apply. You have to leave fantasy alone and go on the facts we
have. (As opposed to making them up.)
John
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137883342.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Farey
"seaker" wrote:
>
> You mention Shakespeare's Warwickshire dialect and
> iculty." That is true. On the other hand, Shakespeare
> worked as an actor in London, so he probably practiced
> to lose his dialect or at least keep it under control
> so the London audience could understand him. Of course,
> I have no direct evidence for this claim. On the other
> hand, I know actors who thick dialects who work hard
> to lose their dialect or at least keep it under control.
> I believe that the theatre is a cottage industry and
> hasn't changed that much over the years.
My step-father was a RADA-trained actor by the time he
first arrived in our family, and always spoke with the
plummy Olivier/Geilgud/Richardson/Guinness accent which
all actors acquired at that time. Yet he was born and
raised on Merseyside, and easily dropped back into
Scouse whenever we were up there. Keith Michell, as a
drama student, had an Ozzie accent you could cut with
a knife.
Nowadays it would appear that actors are encouraged
to retain their local accent, with the ability to put on a
different one - such as received pronunciation (RP) -
seen only as a useful, but by no means essential, extra
skill.
I rather suspect that Elizabethan/Jacobean practice was
nearer to the former than the latter.
Mark Cipra
The other day on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart interviewed actor Josh Lucas,
born in Arkansas, about playing Oklahoman Don Haskins in the movie "The
Glory Road". He asked (perhaps a planted question) if it was easy for Lucas
to revert to his southern accent. I was surprised to hear Lucas say that he
had been so successful in losing his drawl that he had to work with a
dialect coach.
--
Robert Stonehouse
<elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>Alan Jones wrote:
>> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1137794910.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
>sounds so Churchillian.
>
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Elizabeth
<elizabeth_w...@mail.com> wrote
> Bacon drafted the famous Tilbury speech that
>sounds so Churchillian.
< Is there any reason to believe this? Was he even there?
I found the citation a couple of months ago, I think
in an open source book on Google Print but it's not
coming up so it must be split between two pages.
If I can't find it I'll retract it but I know the
source was good.
As far as 'was he even there,' probably. I assume the
Court follwed the Queen to Tilbury. She never traveled
alone.
Bacon did a lot of writing for the Queen -- the 'windows
into mens' heart' attributed to the Queen is in Spedding.
One of the great lapses of the Baconians is that they
did not connect Bacon's many royal pamphlets to the Shakespeare
works. The pamphlets written by Bacon are small masterpieces of
English prose, at least some of them are directly connected
to Shakespeare plays.
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> From: Robert Stonehouse <e...@bcs.org.>> "Elizabeth"
> <elizabeth_w...@mail.com> wrote
>
>
> > Bacon drafted the famous Tilbury speech that
> >sounds so Churchillian.
> < Is there any reason to believe this? Was he even there?
> I found the citation a couple of months ago, I think
> in an open source book on Google Print but it's not
> coming up so it must be split between two pages.
This is the perishable internet, and Wayback doesn't have a search
function yet.
> If I can't find it I'll retract it but I know the
> source was good.
You?! Retract an assertion for which you can produce no credible
evidence or source?! Now *that* would be a first! When are you going
to retract your claims
(1) that Southampton was overly fond of drag,
(2) that he used to hang around the theatres hoping to play female
roles,
(3) that he was eventually given a few such roles, and
(4) that he was apparently quite convincing as a girl?
> As far as 'was he even there,' probably. I assume
You "assume"? Apparently that's all you do.
> the
> Court follwed the Queen to Tilbury. She never traveled
> alone.
I see -- so if she never traveled alone, it follows that Bacon *must*
have been one of her companions.
Alan Jones
> Alan Jones wrote:
>> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1137794910.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > [...]Theobalds is still the largest
>> > private home in England-- it looks like a medieval town --{...]
>>
>> "Is"? "Looks"? Theobalds fell into disrepair and was finally demolished
>> during the Protectorate.
>
> Apparently.
>
> <http://www.leevalley-online.co.uk/images/theobalds.jpg>
The photograph shows one of the outlying bits not demolished; there are
others, including at least one complete smaller house, though I don't know
whether that is a survival or a "new" one built from the old stone.
"Demolished" may be the wrong word; the house started to decay when Charles
I ceased to use it. As I understand it, Theobalds was not "one of the ruins
that Cromwell knocked about a bit". Perhaps someone can amplify or correct
this account.
>> The present Theobalds Park is a late 18th century
>> mansion in the former Theobalds grounds.
>
> The article I read mentioned an 18th century addition
> but it didn't say the buildings were demolished in
> the Civil War.
After the War.
> Is this Gothic Revival or the original?
>
> <http://www.heritagesites.eu.com/england/theobal.jpg>
The illustration is evidently a 19th century steel engraving showing an
artist's impression of what Theobalds looked like in its 16th century prime.
Possibly there is some source for the detail - the background to a portrait
or something like that.
[...]
>> >[...] Bacon was related to the Stanley
>> > earls -- and wrote plays for their fine private theatres --
>> > the Stanley's had a private theatre on the Italian scale
>> > in a northern town -- Lancaster? [...]
>> Can you tell us about any of these plays?
[...]
I have snipped your reply because you simply say at length that Bacon was a
genius who could have / might have written [a bad play like] "Edward III"
and [a goodish one like] "LLL", and that the Man from Stratford couldn't
have done either.
>> Or about the Stanleys' "fine
>> private theatres"? What does "on the Italian scale" mean exactly?
> I couldn't find the paragraph I saw ...
A pity: I'm surprised that books on the Elizabethan theatre don't seem to
cover these multiple theatres built on what would appear to be a grand
scale.
> ...but I found another
> by Richard Wilson (the 'Catholic Bard' Shakespeare critic
> and author of the influential 'Voyage to Tunis' which
> relocates The Tempest to the Mediterranean):
>
> The Stanleys, we know, built a plush playhouse at Knowsley
> near Liverpool, where performances were given by troupes
> such as the Queen's Men, who in 1589 went straight from
> there to the King of Scotland; and tradition has it that
> Shakespeare's early plays were staged in this princely
> Court theatre. In the comedy, Ferdinand calls his Court
> 'a little academe' )1.1.13) or rival to the universities; and,
> with Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe in his pay, his
> namesake had a similiar ambition.
Thank you. I had hoped for the citation of a primary source (how do "we
know"?), but I will try to get Wilson's book/article which may say more. I'd
like to know what his "plush" amounts to, whether the Knowsley "playhouse"
was indoors or Globe-style, and where the "tradition" of a link to
Shakespeare is first mentioned.
> He writes:
>
> As Ernst Honigmann concludes, it was Stanley sponsorship
> that may therefore explain both Shakespeare's 'lost years' in
> the 1570s and the 'apparent suddenness of his conquest of
> the theatrical world.'
>
> And
>
> What it begs, of course, is how the Stratford boy
> came to be such a favoured beneficiary of England's
> de facto crown prince.
>
> Theatre And Religion: Lancastrian Shakespeare.
> Manchester University Press, pp. 18-20.
Yes, and this suggestion of where WS spent those early years is reasonably
plausible: but does Honigman discuss the actual theatre building? Again, I
will try to get what in Wiltshire is probably a rather inaccessible book. I
wish now that I'd kept up my membership of the London Library.
[...]
Alan Jones
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>[...]Theobalds is still the largest private home
>>>> in England-- it looks like a medieval town --{...]
>>Alan Jones wrote:
>>
>>>"Is"? "Looks"? Theobalds fell into disrepair
>>>and was finally demolished during the Protectorate.
-----------------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>>Is this Gothic Revival or the original?
>>
>> <http://www.heritagesites.eu.com/england/theobal.jpg>
>
Alan Jones wrote:
> The illustration is evidently a 19th century steel engraving showing
> an artist's impression of what Theobalds looked like in its 16th
> century prime. Possibly there is some source for the detail - the
> background to a portrait or something like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibbals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The grounds of Cecil House were probably acres in extent, though they
were to be dwarfed by those of the great mansion of Theobalds. Built of
brick trimmed with stone Theobalds (pronounced Tibbals) was approached
by a mile-long avenue of CEDARS. While nothing remains of it today but
a few stones, full plans survive. It was built about two principal
quadrangles, respectively 86 and 110 feet on a side, and among its
many apartments was a gallery 113 feet long, "wainscoted with oak and
paintings over the same of divers cities, rarely painted & set forth.">>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibbles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_A Gap in Nature: Discovering the World's Extinct Animals_
http://www.loe.org/index.php
<<FLANNERY: Very few species have been exterminated by a single
individual, but such was the fate of the tiny Steven's Island *WREN* .
The only known perching bird incapable of flight, the Steven's Island
*WREN* was a subtly spotted bird once common throughout the New Zealand
area. But before the arrival of Europeans, a rat brought by
the Maori eliminated it from over 99 percent of its habitat.
Its last refuge was the small rocky outcrop of Steven's Island. In 1894,
the New Zealand government built a lighthouse there and the lonely
lighthouse keeper decided that he must have a cat for company. Within a
year or so, that solitary feline had caught every one of the island's
tiny wrens. Tibbles then brought them one by one and very much dead,
to David Lyle's door. Thinking them strange birds, Lyle sent 17
little bodies to a museum for identification. So this is the case
of a species discovery and extinction all in one fell swoop.
Lyle was the only European ever to see the birds alive, and even
he observed them just twice. He reported that they ran about
like mice among the rocks. Twelve of Lyle's, or should we say,
Tibble's specimens, are still held in museum collections today.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>><http://www.leevalley-online.co.uk/images/theobalds.jpg>
Alan Jones wrote:
> The photograph shows one of the outlying bits not demolished; there are
> others, including at least one complete smaller house, though I don't know
> whether that is a survival or a "new" one built from the old stone.
> "Demolished" may be the wrong word; the house started to decay when Charles
> I ceased to use it. As I understand it, Theobalds was not "one of the
> ruins that Cromwell knocked about a bit". Perhaps someone can amplify
> or correct this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<Built of BRICK trimmed with STONE Theobalds (pronounced Tibbals)
was approached by a mile-long avenue of CEDARS. While nothing
remains of it today but a few stones, full plans survive.>>
CO-RA-MB-IS
B R I C (k)
M A S O (n)
BRICK MASON
(th)OMAS BRINCK(nell)
---------------------------------------------------------------
>>Alan Jones wrote:
>>
>>>The present Theobalds Park is a late 18th century
>>>mansion in the former Theobalds grounds.
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>>The article I read mentioned an 18th century addition
>>but it didn't say the buildings were demolished in
>>the Civil War.
Alan Jones wrote:
> After the War.
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<James I died at Theobalds in 1625 and was succeeded
by Charles I who spent much of his childhood there.
Although [Charles I] hardly ever returned in later life, it was from
Theobalds that he rode forth to Nottingham to raise his standard in the
Civil War. During the war the palace was much plundered & defaced.>>
http://members.eisa.net.au/~hutch/uk1999/templebar/templebar.html
<<Temple Bar can be found just south of the Lieutenant Ellis Way
(formerly known as the Flamstead End relief road).
51:41:22 N 0:03:33 W
The Bar was first erected in its present form in 1672 to replace the
wooden bar that was destroyed by the Great Fire of London. It was
designed by Sir Christopher *WREN* and stood as a gateway to Fleet Street
at its junction with The Strand. The bar was used to display heads of
traitors on iron spikes that protruded from the top of the main arch.
The last heads displayed were those of Townley and Fletcher, who were
taken at the Siege of Carlisle and executed in 1746. The Court of the
Common Council finally decided to move the bar so as to widen Fleet
Street to accommodate increasing traffic. The bar was dismantled and
transported to a vacant lot in Farringdon Street.>>
<<Temple Bar moved from Fleet Street in London and reassembled in
Theobalds Park in 1889. The structure was one of the eight gates that
surrounded the old City of London (the others were Aldersgate, Aldgate,
Bishopsgate, Cripplegate, Ludgate, Moorgate and Newgate) and was the
third Temple Bar, built in 1672. It may have been designed by Sir
Christopher *WREN* - although this is by no means certain. It stood for
over 200 years at the junction of Fleet Street and The Strand in London,
near the Temple Inns of Court, until dismantled by the Corporation of
London in 1878 and replaced by the present City Dragon structure.
Ten years later the 1,000+ stones were bought by the Meux family and
re-erected at Theobalds at a cost of over £10,000. Although there have
been plans put forward to have Temple Bar returned to the City, and a
Trust was set up for this purpose in 1985, it still stands in Theobalds
Park, in poor condition, until a new home can be decided upon.. The
four statues of Elizabeth I, Charles I, Charles II and James I which
stood two on each side have been removed from their positions above the
arch. Until recently it was not easy to see Temple Bar up close, but a
relatively new public bridleway from Bulls Cross Road now leads past it.
While Temple Bar was in the ownership of Lady Meux she regularly
entertained guests in its upper chamber; King Edward VII, The Prince of
Wales and Winston Churchill are believed to have dined there. The site
of Theobalds Palace lies to the east of the A10 and to the south of
Theobalds Lane. James I died at Theobalds in 1625 and was succeeded
by Charles I who spent much of his childhood there.
Although [Charles I] hardly ever returned in later life, it was from
Theobalds that he rode forth to Nottingham to raise his standard in the
Civil War. During the war the palace was much plundered & defaced.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.eisa.net.au/~hutch/uk1999/templebar/templebar.html
<<Oct. 14, 1633, James II born to Charles I & Henriette Marie. As Duke
of York during his brother Charles II's reign, he was an open Catholic,
marrying Ann of Modena. Their son was the Old Pretender. Through his
mistress Arabella CHURCHILL, he was an ancestor of Princess Diana.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Journey to the Centre of the Earth - Jules VERnE
http://www.naturescapesgallery.com/msneffel.html
http://www.educeth.ethz.ch/stromboli/index-e.html
____________ Snæffels(1,833 m.) => 64:48 N 15.15 W
_ halfway point (shipnavigation) => 51:47½ N 0.01½ W
Golding's Woods (Hertford Heath) => 51:47 N 0.01½ W
______ Theobalds/ Temple Bar => 51:41 N 0:03 W
____________ Stromboli(924 m.) => 38:47 N 15:12 E
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.eisa.net.au/~hutch/uk1999/templebar/templebar.html
<<While Temple Bar was in the ownership of Lady Meux she regularly
entertained guests in its upper chamber; King Edward VII, The Prince
of Wales & Winston CHURCHILL are believed to have dined there.
James I died at Theobalds in 1625 and was succeeded
by Charles I who spent much of his childhood there.>>
October 14, 1633, James II born to Charles I & Henriette Marie. As Duke
of York during his brother Charles II's reign, he was an open Catholic,
marrying Ann of Modena. Their son was the Old Pretender. Through his
mistress Arabella CHURCHILL, he was an ancestor of Princess Diana.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
Alan Jones wrote:
>> <http://www.leevalley-online.co.uk/images/theobalds.jpg>
Alan Jones wrote:
CO-RA-MB-IS
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
Alan Jones wrote:
http://members.eisa.net.au/~hutch/uk1999/templebar/templebar.html
<<While Temple Bar was in the ownership of Lady Meux she regularly
entertained guests in its upper chamber; King Edward VII, The Prince
of Wales & Winston CHURCHILL are believed to have dined there.
James I died at Theobalds in 1625 and was succeeded
by Charles I who spent much of his childhood there.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The grounds of Cecil House were dwarfed by those of
the great mansion of Theobalds. Built of brick trimmed
with stone Theobalds (pronounced Tibbals) was approached
by a mile-long avenue of CEDARS. Among its many apartments
was a gallery 113 feet long,
"wainscoted with oak and paintings over the same
of divers cities, rarely painted and set forth.">> -- Ogburn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JTCE: << When we were quite ready, our watches
indicated thirteen minutes past one!>>
48:29:33 = Arctan [1.13]
48:29 = Sneffels noon sun angle at solstice + 6.8 days (June 28)
48:29 = Stromboli noon sun angle at equinox + 6.8 days (Sept.30)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Journey to the Centre of the Earth - Jules VERnE
http://www.naturescapesgallery.com/msneffel.html
http://www.educeth.ethz.ch/stromboli/index-e.html
____________ Snæffels(1,833 m.) => 64:48 N 15.15 W
_ halfway point (shipnavigation) => 51:47½ N 0.01½ W
Golding's Woods (Hertford Heath) => 51:47 N 0.01½ W
______ Theobalds/ Temple Bar => 51:41 N 0:03 W
____________ Stromboli(924 m.) => 38:47 N 15:12 E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
> This is a crude generalisation of a complex area (And you call
> 'stratfordianism' 'unscientific'!!!).
The sum total of Stratfordian 'scientific evidence is your
candidate's six barbaric signatures and the immortal 'by me'
possibly written by a clerk.
Dryden's ironic query exposes how unscientific
are Strat claims of authorship:
In him we find all arts and sciences, all moral and
natural philosophy, without knowing that he ever
studied them.
~~ John Dryden.
Dryden explicates the Strat/Oxfordian method.
1. 'In him . . . '
Not in the archives to be sure.
2. 'we find . . .'
If 'we' refers to Strats 'we' should be scouring
the record to find evidence to support extravagant
Strat claims.
3. 'all arts and sciences, all moral
and natural philosophy . . . '
Since there is clearly no 'art,' 'science' or 'moral or
natural philosophy' not to speak of no 'abc's' found in
the Strat record aren't Strats deriving that 'evidence'
from the First Folio?
Isn't it a violation of logic to derive evidence from
that which is brought forward to be proven?
4. ' . . . without knowing that he ever studied them.'
Dryden queries, in effect, how Strats can know 'that
he studied them' when Strats admit they have no knowledge
'that he studied them.'
Robert Stonehouse
<elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>From: Robert Stonehouse <e...@bcs.org.>> "Elizabeth"
><elizabeth_w...@mail.com> wrote
>> Bacon drafted the famous Tilbury speech that
>>sounds so Churchillian.
>
>< Is there any reason to believe this? Was he even there?
>
>I found the citation a couple of months ago, I think
>in an open source book on Google Print but it's not
>coming up so it must be split between two pages.
>
>If I can't find it I'll retract it but I know the
>source was good.
>
>As far as 'was he even there,' probably. I assume the
>Court follwed the Queen to Tilbury. She never traveled
>alone.
Not alone, of course. But the whole court would be hundreds
of people, perhaps including this rather junior lawyer. Her
procession was just two pages (one carrying the crown on a
cushion, so that in those days before Press photography the
soldiers would know who it was, and the other leading the
Queen's horse) Leicester as General riding on one side,
Essex as Master of the Horse on the other, and Black Jack
Norris on foot behind as perhaps a more practical form of
protection.
>Bacon did a lot of writing for the Queen -- the 'windows
>into mens' heart' attributed to the Queen is in Spedding.
Bacon reported it, but did he write it?
...
Peter Farey
"Cato the Censor" wrote:
>
> [Baconian's and oxfordians OTOH *do* argue from the
> contents of the works to the identity of the author
> [i.e. the golden slipper arguement]. eg the shake-
> speare works show evidence of profound legal learning,
> therefore he must have been a lawyer... The author of
> shakepseare was a great moral philospher; bacon was
> the only great moral philosopher in england, there-
> fore he must have been the author.
>
> In fact this nonsensical 'golden slipper' argument is
> pretty much, when all is said and done, the *only*
> argument anti-strats have.]
A pity that you have gone from "Baconian's and oxford-
ians" to "antistrats" in general, Nigel (or Fryzer, or
Ignoto, or Anacreon, or Tarquinius Superbus, or Cato
the Censor, or whoever you are by now).
My own argument for Marlowe has nothing to do with any
area of knowledge demonstrated in Shakespeare's plays.
What convinces *me* that I am almost certainly right
is mainly the combination of:
1) The alternative meaning of the monument's epigraph,
together with my reasons for claiming this to have
been intentional.
2) My analysis of what happened at Deptford on 30 May
1593, and my conclusion that a faking of Marlowe's
death was the most probable reason for those people
to have met there.
Many other bits of evidence provide *support* for this
conclusion, of course, but in my opinion, these are
the two most significant items.
P.S. Wasn't it a *glass* slipper (unless you are into
Russian fairy tales)?
Elizabeth
Cato the Censor wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > The sum total of Stratfordian 'scientific evidence is your
> > candidate's six barbaric signatures and the immortal 'by me'
> > possibly written by a clerk.
>
> I think you'd better check your definition of 'scientific evidence'.
I think I'd better correct your definition of scientific
evidence:
1. Scientific evidence is physical evidence. Physical
evidence is determined by observation, in this case
the observation of six barbaric signatures and a 'by me'
possibly written by a clerk.
2. The explanation relies on this physical evidence
(observation of six barbarid signatures and a 'by me'
possibly written by a clerk, is necessary to forumlate
the hypothesis that this individual was qualified to
write the First Folio per Dryden's list of qualifications.
3. Predictions are then made from that hypotheses,
i.e., the 'by me' hypothesis predicts that 'by' and 'me'
are sufficient to prove that the writer wrote the First Folio.
4. Deductions are then made that confirm or do not
confirm the the validity of the 'by me' theory. Your
deduction is that the Strat record (the sole evidence
of literacy) verifies that the Stratford tradesman wrote
the First Folio. My deduction is that the Strat hypotheses
does not prove Shakespeare authorship.
> > Dryden's ironic query exposes how unscientific
> > are Strat claims of authorship:
>
> Dryden is expressing an *opinion*. Last time I had checked science had
> not advanced so far into reductionism as to routinely make opinions
> expressed hundreds of years ago the subject of scientific study.
Dryden made an incomplete syllogism to let the reader
form his or her own conclusions.
1 If we find all arts and sciences, all moral and
natural philosophy
2 But we don't know if he ever studied art, science
or philosophy
3 Then . . .
Dryden does not form an opinion, he states the premises.
It's a good syllogism because it has two premises and
leaves space for you to form your own conclusion.
> > In him we find all arts and sciences, all moral and
> > natural philosophy, without knowing that he ever
> > studied them.
> > ~~ John Dryden.
>
> Of course, hyperbole is acceptable, even commendable when it applies to
> Bacon- but turn it to shakespeare... and oh no, we can;t have that!!'
What's hyperbolic about 'in Bacon we find all arts and
sciences, all moral and natural philosophy?'
We have
fourteen volumes of treatises and legal works and one
volume of letters that prove unequivocally that Bacon
not only mastered the arts and sciences and moral
and natural philosophy (and law) of his day but advanced
them. I don't think we're hyperbolic enough.
> > Dryden explicates the Strat/Oxfordian method.
> >
> > 1. 'In him . . . '
> >
> > Not in the archives to be sure.
>
> Perhaps you'd better check your definition of archives.
The archives are the records that 'armies of scholars'
(unquote), have scoured for four centuries looking for the
elusive proof but sadly had to resort to forgery when
they found nothing at all.
> > 2. 'we find . . .'
> >
> >
> > If 'we' refers to Strats 'we' should be scouring
> > the record to find evidence to support extravagant
> > Strat claims.
>
> Perhaps you'd better check your definition of 'evidence'.
> [Note people that *knew* will shakespeare of stratford attested to his
> authorship;
We've already been through the rules for witnesses.
Have you forgotten? Witnesses must have DIRECT
KNOWLEDGE. Not the fans who are writing fan
letters to an author they have never met or a
friend they know is writing for patronage while
he seeks an office.
> historical documetns attest to his authorship; NOTHING
> attestsd to Bacon's authorship;
You know that having spent months going through
the Baconian evidence.
> Nothing that is except the imagination
> of Baconian's.
The Baconians had plenty of facts. I'm not responsible
for the mentality of the Victorians. Victorian society
was a culture always on the verge of hysteria. They
persued all kinds of nonsense like seances and other
hysterical nonsense.
Some, gratefully, had done the trivium at Cambridge
or Oxford so Baconians have some good scholars.
Lord Penzance was one of the great minds of the
19th century.
> There is REAL evidence for Will shakepseare of
> stratford; there is NO evidence for anyone else]
Strats have a low standard of evidence. The
critical piece of evidence is evidence of literacy.
There's no evidence of literacy.
> > 3. 'all arts and sciences, all moral
> > and natural philosophy . . . '
> >
> >
> > Since there is clearly no 'art,' 'science' or 'moral or
> > natural philosophy' not to speak of no 'abc's' found in
> > the Strat record aren't Strats deriving that 'evidence'
> > from the First Folio?
>
> Gee, here we go again. There is no surviving record for something,
> therefore it could never have happened!!
Gotcha.
You can't form a hypothesis on 'no surviving evidence.'
Oxfordians can't form a hypothesis on 'no evidence.'
If you don't have evidence then you have to stop
fantasizing and look for evidence.
The agony of Strats and Oxfordians is that the makers
of these completely unscientific theories were romantics.
Romantic rhetoric mimics the literature of the apocalypse.
Once in your head, you're a convert.
Aristotle figured out how to deprogram the victims of
insidious rheotoric. Ridicule. Comedy. Satire. That's
really the only thing that works. Probably sticking an
asses' head with 'Aristotle' on a sign hung around its
neck on the gates of Cambridge did more to get Aristotle
out of the universities than all the intellectual arguments
put together.
> > Isn't it a violation of logic to derive evidence from
> > that which is brought forward to be proven?
>
> No. Will shakespeare's *identity* as author is demonstrated
> *independently* of the content of the first folio.
There's no connection, Cato. None of the witnesses,
all but one of whom are writing literary allusions (not
fact) have NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE that the player
was the author of the Shakespeare works. It's hearsay.
Despite Strat attempts to promote him socially, these
witnesses could not know him. Hotson, who found the documents
stating that the player was 'joined' with Frances Langley,
an infamous entrepreneur in sleazy and illegal businesses
in the London theatre district essentially did in Strat
theory. The Strat establishment knew it and punished
Hotson. ('Joined' = jointure. The player was in business
with Langley).
If the Stratford record isn't imoral enough, the fact that
he was in business with Langley indicates that he was no
'moral philosopher' per Dryden. The 18th century critics
were a lot closer to the facts.
Most of the witnesses are from Gray's Inn and Cambridge.
Gentry and aristocrats. Sons of clerics.
Jonson is a rare exception but Jonson beats the crap
out of the player every chance he gets. Calls him
'excrement' in EMOHH in the character Sogliardo which
even Chambers accepted as the player based on
Jonson's close satire of the player's coat-of-arms
(the application was never approved -- Camden took heat
and backed off).
> [Baconian's and oxfordians OTOH *do* argue from the contents of the
> works to the identity of the author [i.e. the golden slipper
> arguement]. eg the shakespeare works show evidence of profound legal
> learning, therefore he must have been a lawyer... The author of
> shakepseare was a great moral philospher; bacon was the only great
> moral philosopher in england, therefore he must have been the author.
I can fix that.
In him we find all arts and sciences, all moral and
natural philosophy (not to speak of law), without knowing
that he ever studied them.
~~ John Dryden.
There.
> In fact this nonsensical 'golden slipper' argument is pretty much, when
> all is said and done, the *only* argument anti-strats have.]
A 'golden slipper argument' runs 'the author had
knowlege of law, therefore the player was apprenticed
as a clerk in a country law practice.'
That fable is presented as fact in nearly every Strat
bio. There is ZERO evidence that he ever had anything
to do with the practice of law and further more we
see Thomas Greene taking care of his legal matters such as
the covenant with Combes re the Welcome enclosures.
That is fact because it's in both the Strat record and
the Stratford Corporation record. Greene was a partner,
had a fit of conscience (since enclosure is evil) and
went to the side of the Stratford Corporation against
his 'cousin' (no evidence of that either) and Combes.
Sir Sidney Lee wrote a long footnote castigating
Strats for deliberately misreading Greene's diary.
I'll post it.
> > 4. ' . . . without knowing that he ever studied them.'
> >
> >
> > Dryden queries, in effect, how Strats can know 'that
> > he studied them' when Strats admit they have no knowledge
> > 'that he studied them.'
>
> As I say above identity is established.
You used to be better on this. What happened,
did you take a lit course?
> It follows, neccessarily, from
> the establishment of identity that will shakespeare had the requiste
> learning to write the first folio.
The 'establishment of identity' hypothesis? Isn't
that Kathman and Reedy's flawed petitio principii
theory by another name? Kathman and Reedy didn't
prove their case, they just insulted Aristotle.
> To discover where he received his
> learning we may backtrack from the first folio, to see that eg he went
> to grammar school or that he read Pliny's natural History etc.
We MAY BACKTRACK FROM THE FIRST FOLIO?!
No, we may not form our hypotheses from THAT WHICH
IS OFFERED TO BE PROVED.
You can't take the evidence from the thing to be
proven, Cato. That gives you A SINGLE PREMISE
SYLLOGISM. A sure winner, a given, a foregone
conclusion, a lie.
> eg. That he went to school is demonstrated by argument from probability
> (relating to his fathers position, the fact that school is free etc)
The record shows that John Shakespeare was a devoted
Catholic (and should not have been persecuted) at a time
when the Anglicans were cracking down on Roman Catholic
teachers in grammar schools. Rowe, the first biographer,
states that the young butcher lad had a year of school.
That would give him first grade English but no Latin
if he completed the term.
The record is loaded with detailed evidence including
local names that he was a 'butcher's lad.'
Even after Stratford became a 17th c. tourist trap
locals were still sticking to the 'butcher's lad' story.
It's recorded by reliable reporters.
Since the school day began at 6 am and lasted until
6 pm six days a week there's no way that the school
boy could moonlight as a 'butcher's lad.'
Since the record is clear that he was a 'butcher's lad'
then he cannot have been a school boy unless it was
when he was five years old. This was a
society that ran on child labor so he could have
been cleaning up entrails (I can't remember the
term used -- scrapples?) at the age of six. School
boys started at the age of five. That accounts for
Rowe's 'one year of school.'
> and from the fact that the exact curriculum of grammar schools is to be
> found in the first folio (See T.W Baldwin and M.Jospeph).
You can't extract the evidence from the thing brought
forth to be proven.
> From both
> arguments we may derive a strong inference in favour of will
> shakespeare of stratford attending his local grammar school.
There's no evidence to support it other than Rowe's 'one
year' (which I accept) and there is a mountain of circumstantial
evidence including the record of Tudor interference with the
formerly independent (patronage -sponsored) grammar schools
as well as the parallels in Ireland in which Catholics took
their sons out of the Anglican-run grammar schools (ensuring
400 years of illiteracy in Ireland).
That's how much Catholics cared about preserving
the souls of their sons from heretical doctrine. Ireland
was literate before the Tudors got their hands on it.
Chess One
> As far as 'was he even there,' probably. I assume the
> Court follwed the Queen to Tilbury. She never traveled
> alone.
Dear Lynne,
I found some interesting information on these naval subject specifically
relating to Tempest in an article by John Fowles. I can summarise or give
you citations for it if you haven't chanced across the material. As well as
a naval appreciation he is also inclined to place 'the island.'
Cordially, Phil Innes
John W. Kennedy
> P.S. Wasn't it a *glass* slipper (unless you are into
> Russian fairy tales)?
Yes. The "fur slipper" theory, in particular, is a fantasy invented by
someone who didn't know the textual history.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Elizabeth
>
> >Bacon did a lot of writing for the Queen -- the 'windows
> >into mens' heart' attributed to the Queen is in Spedding.
>
> Bacon reported it, but did he write it?
Bacon wrote it.
Peter DeSa Wiggins writes in Donne, Castiglione
and the Poetry of Courtliness,
. . . in 1589 Francis Bacon, filling a secretarial
role for a member of the Privy Council drafted a
famous letter on Elizabeth's policy in 'ecclesiastical
causes' for the signature of Sir Francis Walsingham.
This letter, addressed to a French public official,
was designed to meet criticism that Elizabeth's
policy exhibited 'inconstancy and variation.'
The French official was making an inquiry on the
'inconstancy and variation' in the persecution of
English Catholics.
Bacon replies that her Majesty's policies were that
'consciences are not to be forced but won with the
force of truth' and that when consciences 'exceed their
bounds and grow to the matter of faction' then the
prince has the duty to punish the 'practice of contempt'
even if it is 'colored with the pretense of confession and
religion.'
A tidy summary of Elizabethan policy on conformity.
Bacon's famous line appears when he notes that
that Elizabeth could have revived Henry's Oath of
Allegiance but did not:
But contrariwise her Majesty, not liking to make
windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts
except the abundance of them did overflow into
overt and express acts or affirmations, tempered
her law so as it restraineth only manifest disobedience,
in impugning and impeaching advisedly and maliciously
her Majesty's supreme power, and maintaining and
extolling a foreign jurisdiction.
Bacon's source is not the Queen but it could be the
Book of Matthew.
Bacon, whose 'familiarity with the Bible was only
second to Shakespeare's' (Fripp) was probably
thinking of Matthew who wrote that only Jesus
could know the content of mens' hearts. As the
Puritan Daniel Dyke put it in Mystery of Selfe-
Deceiving,
The Lord onely hath preserved this as a
prerogative royall to himselfe, exactly to know
the depth of our hearts.
Matthew wrote:
But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said
'Why do you think evil in you hearts?' (9:3-4).
__________________________________
Donne, Castiglione and the Poetry of Courtliness
by Peter DeSa Wiggins, Indiana University Press.
Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies
by James E Hirsh, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press.
Mouse
the journal/book it appeared in, that would be very helpful.
Best wishes,
L.
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137574292....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John Andrews wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you with intellectual honesty claim that these
> > > > > interesting links to Bacon come even close to the
> > > > > evidence for Shakespeare's authorship?
> > >
> > > There is no unequivocal evidence for any author other
> > > than Shakespeare himself.
> >
> > What evidence for 'Shakespeare himself' is unequivocal?
> > Only direct evidence is 'unequivocal' and printed title
> > pages are not direct evidence because they have no
> > witnesses.
> >
> >
> > > It is nevertheless possible
> > > to reach a quite rational conclusion based upon such
> > > evidence as does exist that the works were written
> > > mainly by someone other than Shakespeare, and I think
> > > that I have.
> >
> > It has to have a witness.
> >
> >
> > > > I'm guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' for posting
> > > > Bacon's authenticated manuscripts? The Buchanan
> > > > marginalia is only circumstantial evidence but the
> > > > Henry IV was authenticated by both literary and
> > > > document/handwriting experts.
> > >
> > > One more time. The document Elizabeth refers to has
> > > nothing to do either with *Henry IV* or any other play
> > > attributed to Shakespeare.
> >
> > One more time, Farey. The experts and Sotheby's
> > and at Norway's Schoyen collection think otherwise.
> >
> > MS 1627
> >
> > WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: HENRY IV, PART 1, ACT II,
> > SCENES 1 AND 3. A LITERARY PARALLEL OR ACTOR'S
> > PART
> >
> > <http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.3/437.html#1627>
> >
> >
> > > This is what the only copy
> > > we have ever seen says (with line numbers added):
> >
> >
> > Pardon me, but I relied on expert opinion cited in
> > the London newspaper when the two manuscript pages
> > were auctioned by Sotheby's.
> >
> >
> > You're the one who realized that there was more
> > than one page.
> >
> >
> > We don't have the 'pot of gold' scene that was
> > described in the newspaper other than in the side-by-side
> > with Bacon's letter on one side and the manuscript on the other.
> > The photo was printed in Sotheby's auction catalogue.
> >
> > Have you ever read George Peele's book of jestes or
> > whatever it's called. Peele's adventures are supposed
> > to be the basis for Falstaff. The book of jestes reads
> > a lot like this draft page.
> >
> >
> > > Other than the words "send him packing" (1H4 2.4) I
> > > see nothing at all to connect this with *Henry IV*.
> >
> > Take it up with the experts at Sotheby's and the
> > curators at the Schoyen, Farey. I have no expertise
> > in this area. I have to rely on the opinion of experts.
> >
>
> Here's an idea: why not read <Henry IV>?
Elizabeth?! READ THE TEXT?! What a novel idea!
> I know it's a bit radical,
Absolutely!
> but
> having done that you might be able to explain what relationship you think
> there is between this MS and the play.
"Might be able" is charitable indeed in view of Elizabeth's
celebrated performances here.
> Those of us who have read <Henry
> IV> can't find one.
That's because we haven't resorted to Elizabeth's habitual methods:
hallucination and/or outright invention.
> Peter G.
>
> >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I want the record to be corrected based on the evid-
> > > > ence. As I've said many times, if convincing new
> > > > evidence appears, I'll go with the evidence.
> > >
> > > That's what 'convincing' does for you.
> >
> >
> > I'm not representing the pages as anything more than
> > what the experts characterized. I have no idea where the
> > manuscript landed. These things have a way of dropping
> > off the map. I don't know whether the boxes of commonplace
> > books and annotated books written by Bacon are still locked
> > up in the basement of the Folger eighty years after they were
> > purchased by Folger. Maybe they were taken to a land
> > fill. Maybe they're in the catacombs under the Vatican.
> >
> >
> > How frustrated would you be if you knew that Marlowe's
> > manuscripts were uncatalogued in boxes in the basement
> > of the Folger?
> >
> >
> > > > At this point only Bacon and the playbroker have any
> > > > authorship evidence -- Oxfordians and Marlovians have
> > > > only romantic narratives of Baconian and Strat
> > > > evidence.
> > >
> > > I believe that there is one contemporary document
> > > which actually *says* that Marlowe wrote 'Shakspeare'.
> > > Unfortunately, it was *designed* to be equivocal!
> > >
> >
> > What document?
> >
Robert Stonehouse
<elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> >Bacon did a lot of writing for the Queen -- the 'windows
>> >into mens' heart' attributed to the Queen is in Spedding.
>>
>> Bacon reported it, but did he write it?
>
>Bacon wrote it.
>
document for Walsingham's signature setting out the Queen's
policy is a very different matter from policy-making.
>
>Peter DeSa Wiggins writes in Donne, Castiglione
>and the Poetry of Courtliness,
>
> . . . in 1589 Francis Bacon, filling a secretarial
> role for a member of the Privy Council drafted a
> famous letter on Elizabeth's policy in 'ecclesiastical
> causes' for the signature of Sir Francis Walsingham.
> This letter, addressed to a French public official,
> was designed to meet criticism that Elizabeth's
> policy exhibited 'inconstancy and variation.'
>
>The French official was making an inquiry on the
>'inconstancy and variation' in the persecution of
>English Catholics.
>
anyway?
>
>Bacon replies that her Majesty's policies were that
>'consciences are not to be forced but won with the
>force of truth' and that when consciences 'exceed their
>bounds and grow to the matter of faction' then the
>prince has the duty to punish the 'practice of contempt'
>even if it is 'colored with the pretense of confession and
>religion.'
>
>A tidy summary of Elizabethan policy on conformity.
>
>
>Bacon's famous line appears when he notes that
>that Elizabeth could have revived Henry's Oath of
>Allegiance but did not:
>
> But contrariwise her Majesty, not liking to make
> windows into men's hearts and secret thoughts
> except the abundance of them did overflow into
> overt and express acts or affirmations, tempered
> her law so as it restraineth only manifest disobedience,
> in impugning and impeaching advisedly and maliciously
> her Majesty's supreme power, and maintaining and
> extolling a foreign jurisdiction.
>
>
>Bacon's source is not the Queen but it could be the
>Book of Matthew.
>
source. The drafter of a letter needs to stay on-message.
Indeed, he practically says it was the Queen: 'But
contrariwise her Majesty ... tempered her law'.
>
>Bacon, whose 'familiarity with the Bible was only
>second to Shakespeare's' (Fripp) was probably
>thinking of Matthew who wrote that only Jesus
>could know the content of mens' hearts. As the
>Puritan Daniel Dyke put it in Mystery of Selfe-
>Deceiving,
>
> The Lord onely hath preserved this as a
> prerogative royall to himselfe, exactly to know
> the depth of our hearts.
>
>Matthew wrote:
>
> But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said
> 'Why do you think evil in you hearts?' (9:3-4).
>
not seem to say anything that affects the question.
Elizabeth
> >> Bacon reported it, but did he write it?
> >
> >Bacon wrote it.
> >
> In the sense of putting pen to paper, yes.
The question was in regard to phrase, not the
policy but Bacon did have an influence on policy.
Bacon was not only at Court all his life -- he
spent more years at Court than did Burghley or
Elixabeth -- but he was present. if not officially
a member, on the Privy Council for twenty years
before James I gave him an official appointment.
His poliitcal philosophy which was essentially
that of Sir Nicholas Bacon. Unlike the Cecils,
the Bacons disliked pandemonium.
Bacon started writing 'position papers' when he was
only twenty, the first a mature treatise on foreign
policy. He was elected MP at twenty-three soon holding
four seats. He trained as a diplomat at the Court
of Henry VI, he traveled the Continent as an intelligencer
for his cousin Sir Thomas Bodley and for Walsingham.
Bacon was an unoffical councillor for years -- his
chief duty was essentially to converse with the Queen.
In 1595 she gave him the ridiculous title, Councillor Extraordinaire,
and a nice salary which she had entailed
until 1612. Bacon went to debtor's prison a second time
while the Queen sat on his paycheck.
The upside is that her stinginess kept Bacon writing
for patronage.
Jonson satirized Bacon in Epicoene as Sir John Daw, the
Extraordinary Councillor, a courtier and concealed poet
who writes behind a mask. In the 1640 Folio version,
Jonson links Sir John Daw to Greene and Groatsworth of
Wit. Those lines were removed from the 1616 Folio.
seaker
the three of them were actors in the same company, and Heminge and
Condell had a hand in putting together the First Folio. Allow me to
make a wild statement and claim, HEMINGE AND CONDELL KNEW SHAKESPEARE
and KNEW HE WROTE THE PLAYS. This is very strong DIRECT EVIDENCE!
You say that Bacon was at Court all his life. Okay, but I ask,
"Asssuming Court life kept Bacon busy, how did he find the time to
write the plays and why did he need to write the plays?" By the way,
were is YOUR DIRECT EVIDENCE that he did write the plays.
You say, "In the 1640 Folio version,
Jonson links Sir John Daw to Greene and Groatsworth of
Wit." WHAT AN AMAZING EVENT! Ben Jonson DIED in 1637! Did he link
things from beyond the grave?
Oh, by the way, there is no mention of books in Bacon's will. How do
we know that Bacon owned any during his lifetime?
Yes, Elizabeth, Bacon was a great man and writer; HE DID NOT WRITE
SHAKESPEARE!
Chess One
"Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1138108932.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks very much, Phil. If you can tell me the title of the article and
> the journal/book it appeared in, that would be very helpful.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> L.
Okay. It's an essay titled 'islands", so may be collected in other places,
but it appears in a book "Wormholes", henry Holt, NY copyr 98. ISBN
080506172-X. I notice its published in Canada by Fizthenry and Whiteside
Ltd., Ontario. This is a First Owl Books Edition, 99 [paper]. Try
www.henryholt .com.
Abt 40 pages.
The direct citation to Somers appears on page 304 of this paperback ed.
There is a quotation of the Lyme Regis historian George Roberts, dated 25
July [1609]. There is further mention of Silvester Jourdain, who carried the
dispatch:-
"A true Declaration of the estate of the Colony of Virginia",
which was drafted by Wm Strachey, who Fowles says,
"had written a private -- and much more truthful -- account from
Virginia in a letter dated July 10, 1610, which remained unpublished until
1625. But Jourdain evidently sniffed a scoop; or perhaps he wanted to play
the mini-Homer. As soon as he was back, he rushed out a pamphlet entitled /A
discovery of the Bermudas, otherwise called the Isle of Divels/; and this
was the first publicly available account of the extraordinary venture."
Fowles then says that Jourdain would have informed Southampton, a patron of
the Weymough and Harlow voyages to Virginia earlier in the decade, and
another founder of the Company; and in the Southampton circle was a
sharp-eared and myth-prone playwright with as good a nose for the topical as
Sir George Somers had had for magnetic north.
I will let you read in peace a perhaps startling conclusion of Fowles about
the location of 'The Island', and which treats the maze in tempest with a
northern respect.
I have long wondered if the Author's 'missing years' were not spent on such
an Isle as St. Michaels - ancient, Catholic, a sometimes property of that
predessor of Walsingham, who was certainly publicly a boring protestant, and
Fowles continues to the same effect with his 'troytown' of St. Agnes, not
the one on the Cornish mainland, but on the Scillies.
Fowles does not credit local history with any truth in the matter of the
maze being only a few hundred years old, and thinks it's Norse. He also
co-authored a book on Scilly with a famous photographer [Fay Godwin].
Of course, beyond these speculations on location are his primary comments on
the Grecian mythic imagery repeated in Tempest.
Cordially, Phil.
PS: Should all fail, I can scan and e-mail you the chapter.
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth - Heminge and Condell are mentioned in Shakespeare's will,
That's a forged interpolation. The bequests of rings
and swords to local gentry like Thomas Russell are
authentic and are in big round Elizabethan Secretary Hand
while the bequests along with some legal verbiage are
squeezed in between the lines in a different handwriting,
different ink and it looks like a different era -- the
handwriting looks like ESH faked by a writer of italic.
And think of the motivation. There's the London
playbroker in the record but no link to the Stratford
cornbroker.
Check it out for yourself. The interpolations are
in the middle of the second page.
<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/dol/images/examples/wills/thumb_prob1_4.gif>
Strats have forged their way through the centuries. I don't
have the source but at least one Shakespeare critic said 'we may
never know how much of the Strat record has been forged.' We may
never know only because Strats won't let experts near the
holy relics. Stratfordianism is a dull religion.
> the three of them were actors in the same company, and Heminge and
> Condell had a hand in putting together the First Folio. Allow me to
> make a wild statement and claim, HEMINGE AND CONDELL KNEW SHAKESPEARE
> and KNEW HE WROTE THE PLAYS. This is very strong DIRECT EVIDENCE!
No it isn't.
The Heminges and Condell Dedication, so called,
was written by Jonson. First, it's a great piece
of satirical writing. Heminges and Condell were theatre
sharers, not writers. It's addressed to Jonson's adoring
patron Pembroke. There's no way that two lowly actors
would have dared to rib a couple of earls (the class
system was unforgiving in that era) but Jonson could
get away with it. Pembroke probably fell over laughing
when Jonson begs the reader to buy the First Folio
because it's obvious that Pemroke, the richest
man in England, fronted the money.
I deconstructed To The Reader a couple of years ago and
realized that Heminges and Condell could not have written
it. Apparently experts agree.
But in other respects, the notice to the readers
attributed to Heminge and Condell reads as though
it could have been written by Jonson himself. Indeed,
a number of scholars have asserted as much. Certainly
the first paragraph is striking in its close resemblance
to the Induction to Martholomew Fair.
In The Consumption of Culture 1600-1800: Image, Object,
Text ed. Ann Bermingham, John Brewer. Routledge p 151.
>
> You say that Bacon was at Court all his life. Okay, but I ask,
> "Asssuming Court life kept Bacon busy, how did he find the time to
> write the plays and why did he need to write the plays?"
'At Court' doesn't mean a job. Most of the action at Court
was soliticing patronage. Socializing. Bacon had no job until
1595 and his chief duty was conversing with the Queen.
Bacon's first demanding office was Attorney General in 1613.
He complained of the work load.
>From 1603 to 1613 we see him turning out one treatise
after another so Solicitor General was apparently not
demanding. Bacon was also a very fast writer -- 'woordes
flowed effortlessly from his penne.' If you've produced
14 volumes of philophical, scientific and legal works
(and that's a fraction --most of Bacon's papers were lost)
knocking off a First Folio isn't that remarkable.
> By the way,
> were is YOUR DIRECT EVIDENCE that he did write the plays.
I just wrote a post on it.
> You say, "In the 1640 Folio version,
> Jonson links Sir John Daw to Greene and Groatsworth of
> Wit." WHAT AN AMAZING EVENT! Ben Jonson DIED in 1637! Did he link
> things from beyond the grave?
Was the author of the Shakespeare Sonnets still
alive when later editions of the Sonnets were
rewritten to a woman, not a youth?
Jonson no doubt voluntarily removed the Daw and
Greene references (one line was left in) bin the 1616
Folio ecause a lawyer who was a concealed playwright
was suing Jonson under censorship laws that protected
anonymity. Jonson wrote two bitter epigrams in response.
No one was around to sue or be sued in 1640 so the editor
restored the lines.
> Oh, by the way, there is no mention of books in Bacon's will. How do
> we know that Bacon owned any during his lifetime?
We know because a reliable witness, Thomas Tenison,
Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote in Remaines that
Pembroke and Selden carried cabinets and trunks of
books and papers out of Bacon's library after his death.
Tenison was executor of what would become the Pembroke
Collection of Bacon's papers.
There are still a few of Bacon's annotated books
in university libraries. The biggest collection is
apparently locked up in the basement of the Folger.
Enemy territory, so to speak.
>
> Yes, Elizabeth, Bacon was a great man and writer;
I don't idealize Bacon.
> HE DID NOT WRITE
> SHAKESPEARE!
Ok. If you want to believe that.
seaker
have the source but at least one Shakespeare critic said 'we may
never know how much of the Strat record has been forged.'
Elizabeth, this tactic that you use over and over is getting OLD! Dear
woman, from now on, please HAVE THE SOURCE! Who is the one Shakespeare
critic that you think you are quoting? When did this critic make this
claim? I can overlook once or twice forgetting a source, but this
forgetting a source happens in almost all your posts. It's obvious that
you make up much of what you post or distort what you read! There is a
wide gap between what you think you know and what you do know!
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
NO EVIDENCE that Shakespeare was a "play-broker."
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
> seaker wrote:
>> Elizabeth - Heminge and Condell are mentioned in Shakespeare's will,
>
>
> That's a forged interpolation. The bequests of rings
> and swords to local gentry like Thomas Russell are
> authentic and are in big round Elizabethan Secretary Hand
> while the bequests along with some legal verbiage are
> squeezed in between the lines in a different handwriting,
Er, no, they aren't.
> different ink and it looks like a different era -- the
> handwriting looks like ESH faked by a writer of italic.
Er, no, it doesn't. There exists another copy of the will that was filed in
the Prerogative Court in London when John Hall went there in 1616 to have it
proved. The fact that the interlineations of the will are present in the
court copy indicate they were there when the will was proved, shortly after
Shakespeare died.
>
>
> And think of the motivation. There's the London
> playbroker in the record but no link to the Stratford
> cornbroker.
>
>
> Check it out for yourself. The interpolations are
> in the middle of the second page.
>
>
> <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/dol/images/examples/wills/thumb_prob1_4.gif>
>
>
>
> Strats have forged their way through the centuries. I don't
> have the source but at least one Shakespeare critic said 'we may
> never know how much of the Strat record has been forged.' We may
> never know only because Strats won't let experts near the
> holy relics. Stratfordianism is a dull religion.
>
>
>
>> the three of them were actors in the same company, and Heminge and
>> Condell had a hand in putting together the First Folio. Allow me to
>> make a wild statement and claim, HEMINGE AND CONDELL KNEW SHAKESPEARE
>> and KNEW HE WROTE THE PLAYS. This is very strong DIRECT EVIDENCE!
>
>
> No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
>
>
> The Heminges and Condell Dedication, so called,
> was written by Jonson. First, it's a great piece
> of satirical writing. Heminges and Condell were theatre
> sharers, not writers. It's addressed to Jonson's adoring
> patron Pembroke. There's no way that two lowly actors
> would have dared to rib a couple of earls (the class
> system was unforgiving in that era) but Jonson could
> get away with it. Pembroke probably fell over laughing
> when Jonson begs the reader to buy the First Folio
> because it's obvious that Pemroke, the richest
> man in England, fronted the money.
>
>
> I deconstructed To The Reader a couple of years ago and
> realized that Heminges and Condell could not have written
> it. Apparently experts agree.
Why do you say that? Because none of them bothered to answer your asinine
post?
<snip more moronic comments>
You are either mentally ill or stupid.
Probably both.
You should seek help before you waste your entire life.
TR
Alan Jones
"Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YALBf.9614$zh2.7049@trnddc01...
[...]
> There exists another copy of the will that was filed in the Prerogative
> Court in London when John Hall went there in 1616 to have it proved. The
> fact that the interlineations of the will are present in the court copy
> indicate they were there when the will was proved, shortly after
> Shakespeare died.
[...]
Can you direct me to some internet or printed source that compares these two
copies of Shakespeare's will? I couldn't find anything by a Google search.
I assume that the Court copy incorporates into its text the bequests that
were interlineations in the original.
Alan Jones
Tom Reedy
news:%7PBf.194220$D47.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I misspoke. The will was proved June 22, 1616, in the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, not London. It is now the property of the PRO in Kew. You can
search the PCC wills and purchase a copy from here:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wills.asp
Transcripts of the register copy were made for legal purposes. One such
transcript is owned by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford. You
can read the catalog description of it here:
From http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/PROB1wills.asp:
After a will had been proved by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury a copy
would generally be made and returned to the executor attached by a pendent
seal to the probate act authorising the executor to administer the
testator's estate in accordance with the terms of the will. The original
will would be filed among the records of the Court, and if the executor paid
a fee a further copy would be made in the will registers. In some cases
however, particularly before the mid-seventeenth century, the original will
might be returned to the executor, and instead a copy would be filed with
the original records of the court.
Some documents that are copies of original wills are identified as such in
the description. They have been identified either because they are annotated
as copies, or because the signatures of witnesses and of the testator are in
the same hands as the rest of the document. In the former cases it is clear
that the originals were in the custody of the Court before the copies were
made.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have seen a copy of the PCC copy, but I don't remember exactly where or
when, probably in a book somewhere.
TR
Elizabeth
Alan Jones wrote:
> "Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:YALBf.9614$zh2.7049@trnddc01...
> [...]
>
> > There exists another copy of the will that was filed in the Prerogative
> > Court in London when John Hall went there in 1616 to have it proved. The
> > fact that the interlineations of the will are present in the court copy
> > indicate they were there when the will was proved, shortly after
> > Shakespeare died.
The 'copy' that was probated looks like the original, not
the copy. I doubt they'd probate a copy of the will.
> [...]
>
> Can you direct me to some internet or printed source that compares these two
> copies of Shakespeare's will?
There are two copies of the will. I'll post the links
to both and the transcription in another post.
> I assume that the Court copy incorporates into its text the bequests that
> were interlineations in the original.
I found the interlineations in the copy but only
the 'second best bed' interlineation in the original.
Maybe a page is missing.
Elizabeth
Alan Jones wrote:
> "Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:YALBf.9614$zh2.7049@trnddc01...
> Can you direct me to some internet or printed source that compares these two
> copies of Shakespeare's will?
<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/museum/item.asp?item_id=21>
__________________________________
<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/sample.asp>
Tom Reedy
I think this response by Elizabeth indicates her inability to comprehend
written English quite well. To all those who would try to engage her in
debate, take heed. She really isn't quite up to average.
TR
Elizabeth
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138259202.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > __________________________________________
> >
> > Alan Jones wrote:
> >> "Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:YALBf.9614$zh2.7049@trnddc01...
> I think this response by Elizabeth indicates her inability to comprehend
> written English quite well. To all those who would try to engage her in
> debate, take heed. She really isn't quite up to average.
I didn't read your post, Reedy. I just read it.
One of your links is bad.
Tom Reedy
The link is good. It just takes a little intelligence to figure out how to
make it work.
TR
David L. Webb
"Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138303733.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138259202.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > __________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > Alan Jones wrote:
> >> >> "Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:YALBf.9614$zh2.7049@trnddc01...
> >> I think this response by Elizabeth indicates her inability to comprehend
> >> written English quite well.
Indeed -- although in view of Elizabeth's past performance, any
further demonstration of her incapacity would be superfluous.
> >> To all those who would try to engage her in
> >> debate, take heed. She really isn't quite up to average.
> > I didn't read your post, Reedy. I just read it.
> > One of your links is bad.
That's odd -- I had no trouble with the link.
> The link is good. It just takes a little intelligence to figure out how to
> make it work.
You may well have hit upon the explanation, Tom. It might also
explain why Elizabeth manifestly cannot use Google competently, either
as a reference tool or to post to the newsgroup, as her frequently
occurring multiple identical posts demonstrate.
> TR
Elizabeth
> >
> > I didn't read your post, Reedy. I just read it.
> > One of your links is bad.
> >
>
> The link is good. It just takes a little intelligence to figure out how to
> make it work.
How do you make the 'NO RECORDS FOUND' page
'work?'
bookburn
Reedy is probably having his joke, operating hyperlinks like the Wizard of Oz
from the basement of the Folgers. bookburn
>