Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
another Anchor: Warren Hope
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Art Neuendorffer
Dec 16, 2004, 5:47:39 PM12/16/04
to
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
Dr. WARREN
HOPE, author of the book, The Shakespeare Controversy,
an
historical survey of the authorship question issued in 1992. He has
three degrees, including a doctorate from Temple, has published several
volumes of poetry, and is editor of Drastic Measures, a poetry review
historical survey of the authorship question issued in 1992. He has
three degrees, including a doctorate from Temple, has published several
volumes of poetry, and is editor of Drastic Measures, a poetry review
DR. WARREN
HOPE: Thank you very much. It seems to me that the
Sonnets
are crucial to the reason why there is an authorship question. It really
became serious about 1850 when Emerson said "I cannot marry the man to
his verse." That was the result of a lot of research that had gone on.
As early as 1851, Delia Bacon said there are already TWO Shakespeare's
in literature. One in the documents, and one is the minds and writings
of the critics. I think the breach widened as research continued, and
about 1900 reached a crisis. And I think the crisis was a kind of
identity crisis that we can see reflected in the treatment of the
Sonnets by a leading Shakespearean scholar, Sir Sidney Lee. The
questions about the Sonnets are multiple. Primarily: Who is Mr. W. H.?
(and does it matter?) What was his role in connection with the Sonnets?
Are they autobiographical? Are they literary exercises? When were they
written? And why didn't the author apparently take any interest in their
publication? They appeared in 1609. William Shakspere of Stratford was
alive. And if they were these private revealing documents, he could have
taken an interest in the publication. So, let's proceed with that just
briefly. The question of Mr. W. H. has led to a number of candidates.
The peculiar thing about Sir Sidney Lee, and why I say he seems to
reflect the identity crisis was reached on this issue, is because he
held all three of them at different times, with equal vehemence, and
without ever acknowledging that he'd had a different point of view in
the past. He first thought it was William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. The
initials fit, the Earl was connected with the theater. It could have
been a patron. So that was his initial position. When he switched to
Henry Wriothsley the Earl of Southampton, it was without any
acknowledgment at all that he had ever had any other point of view.
He ultimately said that the poems were not written to either of these
noblemen, but instead were literary exercises, sort of generated by the
milieu, just part of a series of Elizabethan sonnets like other people
were producing. It was a kind of habit. The trouble with all this is
that other people have pointed out repeatedly that there sense of the
documents is that they are personal and vital and are connected to real
life. In fact, that's an outstanding characteristic of them, I think.
In most readers experiences, that, of course, can vary. So when the
question of Oxford's death date arises, 1604, it can be on his side in
effect, because personal revealing documents appeared in 1609, after
his death, no fuss was raised by the author of any kind, and the
dedicator of the volume, the printer, Thomas Thorpe, refers to him
as "our ever-living poet." Now so far as I've been able to determine,
"ever-living" isn't ever applied to a living person. And so when we hear
complaints that we have 50 candidates and they're all equally good,
we have to look at a thing like the 1604 death date, and see how many
people can this apply to. Not Bacon, not Darby, not Dyer, not any of the
other candidates including the man from Stratford. It seems to me that
is crucial to the case, and that these personal poems as I feel they
are, were in fact addressed to people who were yet to be identified.
There's a tendency to talk about autobiography as if it's autobiography
of memoir kind. These documents are not that. Samuel Butler pointed
out they're "unguarded letters in verse." I think that's a remarkably
accurate description of them. That means they're addressed to an
individual, from an individual in a private context. One of the men on
the tape I think referred to it as a diary. This is a man talking to
himself. His thou is a thou. It seems to me that work by Oxfordian
scholars such as Colonel Ward who was able, I think successfully to
identify William Hall as the source of the Sonnets. Mr. W. H. becomes
not the person they're written to at all, but the person that found
them, in Hackney at the time of Oxford's death, shortly thereafter when
his widow was clearing up the place. That people like Charles Wisner
Barrell, who's been able to identify the dark lady as Ann Vavasor,
the woman by whom Oxford had an illegitimate son, who is almost the
spitting image of his mother, we have the portraits. It seems to me the
background of the poems starts to become concrete. There's already a
concrete background there reflected in the verse. What we need is an
external concrete background to mesh with it. That's what Emerson meant
by "marry a man to the verse". And I think with the Sonnets we see that
Oxfordians have made progress, and all I must say, we've been able to do
with traditional scholars is go in circles. A. L. Rowse came along after
a scholar like Charlotte Stokes determines there's no documentary
evidence connecting Southampton with the man from Stratford. There's
a posthumous reference to a connection, but there's no documents, no
documents-- except for the dedication of Venus and Adonis. [Protests
from the panel--] But that as we were pointing out earlier, but only
with a name, nothing personal. Now how to apply that to the recipient
of these sonnets. The other question comes up, if as one of the men
[In the tape] pointed out, I'm a commoner looking for a patron,
and I write a kind of fawning dedication, would I also write
those sonnets? I don't think so. I don't think so.
---------------------------------------------------------
Lear's Cordelia, Oxford's Susan, and Manningham's Diary
by Warren Hope author of The Shakespeare Controversy
http://www.jmucci.com/ER/articles/lear.htm
are crucial to the reason why there is an authorship question. It really
became serious about 1850 when Emerson said "I cannot marry the man to
his verse." That was the result of a lot of research that had gone on.
As early as 1851, Delia Bacon said there are already TWO Shakespeare's
in literature. One in the documents, and one is the minds and writings
of the critics. I think the breach widened as research continued, and
about 1900 reached a crisis. And I think the crisis was a kind of
identity crisis that we can see reflected in the treatment of the
Sonnets by a leading Shakespearean scholar, Sir Sidney Lee. The
questions about the Sonnets are multiple. Primarily: Who is Mr. W. H.?
(and does it matter?) What was his role in connection with the Sonnets?
Are they autobiographical? Are they literary exercises? When were they
written? And why didn't the author apparently take any interest in their
publication? They appeared in 1609. William Shakspere of Stratford was
alive. And if they were these private revealing documents, he could have
taken an interest in the publication. So, let's proceed with that just
briefly. The question of Mr. W. H. has led to a number of candidates.
The peculiar thing about Sir Sidney Lee, and why I say he seems to
reflect the identity crisis was reached on this issue, is because he
held all three of them at different times, with equal vehemence, and
without ever acknowledging that he'd had a different point of view in
the past. He first thought it was William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. The
initials fit, the Earl was connected with the theater. It could have
been a patron. So that was his initial position. When he switched to
Henry Wriothsley the Earl of Southampton, it was without any
acknowledgment at all that he had ever had any other point of view.
He ultimately said that the poems were not written to either of these
noblemen, but instead were literary exercises, sort of generated by the
milieu, just part of a series of Elizabethan sonnets like other people
were producing. It was a kind of habit. The trouble with all this is
that other people have pointed out repeatedly that there sense of the
documents is that they are personal and vital and are connected to real
life. In fact, that's an outstanding characteristic of them, I think.
In most readers experiences, that, of course, can vary. So when the
question of Oxford's death date arises, 1604, it can be on his side in
effect, because personal revealing documents appeared in 1609, after
his death, no fuss was raised by the author of any kind, and the
dedicator of the volume, the printer, Thomas Thorpe, refers to him
as "our ever-living poet." Now so far as I've been able to determine,
"ever-living" isn't ever applied to a living person. And so when we hear
complaints that we have 50 candidates and they're all equally good,
we have to look at a thing like the 1604 death date, and see how many
people can this apply to. Not Bacon, not Darby, not Dyer, not any of the
other candidates including the man from Stratford. It seems to me that
is crucial to the case, and that these personal poems as I feel they
are, were in fact addressed to people who were yet to be identified.
There's a tendency to talk about autobiography as if it's autobiography
of memoir kind. These documents are not that. Samuel Butler pointed
out they're "unguarded letters in verse." I think that's a remarkably
accurate description of them. That means they're addressed to an
individual, from an individual in a private context. One of the men on
the tape I think referred to it as a diary. This is a man talking to
himself. His thou is a thou. It seems to me that work by Oxfordian
scholars such as Colonel Ward who was able, I think successfully to
identify William Hall as the source of the Sonnets. Mr. W. H. becomes
not the person they're written to at all, but the person that found
them, in Hackney at the time of Oxford's death, shortly thereafter when
his widow was clearing up the place. That people like Charles Wisner
Barrell, who's been able to identify the dark lady as Ann Vavasor,
the woman by whom Oxford had an illegitimate son, who is almost the
spitting image of his mother, we have the portraits. It seems to me the
background of the poems starts to become concrete. There's already a
concrete background there reflected in the verse. What we need is an
external concrete background to mesh with it. That's what Emerson meant
by "marry a man to the verse". And I think with the Sonnets we see that
Oxfordians have made progress, and all I must say, we've been able to do
with traditional scholars is go in circles. A. L. Rowse came along after
a scholar like Charlotte Stokes determines there's no documentary
evidence connecting Southampton with the man from Stratford. There's
a posthumous reference to a connection, but there's no documents, no
documents-- except for the dedication of Venus and Adonis. [Protests
from the panel--] But that as we were pointing out earlier, but only
with a name, nothing personal. Now how to apply that to the recipient
of these sonnets. The other question comes up, if as one of the men
[In the tape] pointed out, I'm a commoner looking for a patron,
and I write a kind of fawning dedication, would I also write
those sonnets? I don't think so. I don't think so.
---------------------------------------------------------
Lear's Cordelia, Oxford's Susan, and Manningham's Diary
by Warren Hope author of The Shakespeare Controversy
http://www.jmucci.com/ER/articles/lear.htm
<<Oxfordians long ago recognized that the family relationships
that
dominate Shakespeare's King Lear reflect those of Edward de Vere, Earl
of Oxford, near the end of his life. Like Lear, Oxford was the father of
three motherless daughters. Elizabeth, Bridget, and Susan Vere, his
daughters by his first wife, who died in 1588, Anne Cecil, the daughter
of William Cecil. The TWO eldest daughters married in Oxford's lifetime.
Susan Vere did not marry until after her father's death in 1604. Like
Gloucester, Oxford was also the father of TWO sons a legitimate son and
heir, Henry de Vere, later the 18th Earl of Oxford, by his second wife,
Elizabeth Trentham, and, as Charles Wisner Barrel first established,
an illegitimate son, Sir Edward Vere, by Anne Vavasor.
dominate Shakespeare's King Lear reflect those of Edward de Vere, Earl
of Oxford, near the end of his life. Like Lear, Oxford was the father of
three motherless daughters. Elizabeth, Bridget, and Susan Vere, his
daughters by his first wife, who died in 1588, Anne Cecil, the daughter
of William Cecil. The TWO eldest daughters married in Oxford's lifetime.
Susan Vere did not marry until after her father's death in 1604. Like
Gloucester, Oxford was also the father of TWO sons a legitimate son and
heir, Henry de Vere, later the 18th Earl of Oxford, by his second wife,
Elizabeth Trentham, and, as Charles Wisner Barrel first established,
an illegitimate son, Sir Edward Vere, by Anne Vavasor.
No one would argue that Goneril, for instance, is Elizabeth Vere,
the
Countess of Derby, the wife of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.
Goneril is a character in a play or, even more accurately, words on
pages, a collection of speeches, not a person at all. Nonetheless, when
Lear is driven to distraction by the treatment he receives from his
eldest daughter, he alludes to a slander against Anne Cecil de Vere a
charge of adultery that, if credited, would have made Elizabeth Vere
illegitimate in a speech addressed to Regan in Act II, scene iv.
"I'm glad to see your highness," Regan says. Lear responds:
Countess of Derby, the wife of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.
Goneril is a character in a play or, even more accurately, words on
pages, a collection of speeches, not a person at all. Nonetheless, when
Lear is driven to distraction by the treatment he receives from his
eldest daughter, he alludes to a slander against Anne Cecil de Vere a
charge of adultery that, if credited, would have made Elizabeth Vere
illegitimate in a speech addressed to Regan in Act II, scene iv.
"I'm glad to see your highness," Regan says. Lear responds:
Regan, I think you are. I know what reason
I have to think so. If thou shouldst not be glad,
I would divorce me from thy mother's tomb,
Sepulchring an adultress.
I have to think so. If thou shouldst not be glad,
I would divorce me from thy mother's tomb,
Sepulchring an adultress.
Similarly, no one would argue that Cordelia is Susan Vere,
Oxford's
youngest daughter. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing to the similarities
of their situations when the play opens and to the possibility that the
character in the play is drawn in part, at least, from a living model.
Professor Alan Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley has
turned up evidence that increases the likelihood that Susan Vere
served as a model for Shakespeare's Cordelia.
youngest daughter. Nonetheless, it is worth pointing to the similarities
of their situations when the play opens and to the possibility that the
character in the play is drawn in part, at least, from a living model.
Professor Alan Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley has
turned up evidence that increases the likelihood that Susan Vere
served as a model for Shakespeare's Cordelia.
Nelson drew attention to a couplet recorded in the Diary of
John
Manningham of the Middle Temple 1602- 1603 that was used as part of a
courtly entertainment before the Queen in the summer of 1602 (see
Nelson's Web site.). Ladies of the court drew lots and each gift was
accompanied by a couplet. Manningham recorded the verses along with
the names of the ladies who received them and the nature of the
accompanying gifts. Manningham wrote:
Manningham of the Middle Temple 1602- 1603 that was used as part of a
courtly entertainment before the Queen in the summer of 1602 (see
Nelson's Web site.). Ladies of the court drew lots and each gift was
accompanied by a couplet. Manningham recorded the verses along with
the names of the ladies who received them and the nature of the
accompanying gifts. Manningham wrote:
Blank: LA[DY] Susan
Vere
Nothing's your lott, that's more then can be told
For nothing is more precious then GOLD.
Nothing's your lott, that's more then can be told
For nothing is more precious then GOLD.
The drawing of lots at courtly entertainments was prearranged,
the
nature of the gifts and verses going to each participant not actually
left to Fortune, as the fable of the entertainment indicated.
Instead, the gifts and verses often represented in-jokes,
a kind of commentary on the situation of the recipient.
nature of the gifts and verses going to each participant not actually
left to Fortune, as the fable of the entertainment indicated.
Instead, the gifts and verses often represented in-jokes,
a kind of commentary on the situation of the recipient.
Nelson drastically misinterprets the couplet drawn by Susan
Vere.
Thinking the language of tabloid headlines spotted at the checkout
counter of a supermarket appropriate to a description of Elizabethan
court life, Nelson rushes to the unlikely conclusion that this couplet
shows that Oxford was recognized at court as a "deadbeat Dad," someone
who failed to provide for his youngest daughter. I say this conclusion
is unlikely because it ignores what the couplet says, who the author
of the couplet was, and the occasion at which the couplet was publicly
read. More than that, because of his misreading of the couplet
(and his prejudice concerning the identity of Shakespeare),
Nelson fails to hear in the couplet an echo of King Lear.
Thinking the language of tabloid headlines spotted at the checkout
counter of a supermarket appropriate to a description of Elizabethan
court life, Nelson rushes to the unlikely conclusion that this couplet
shows that Oxford was recognized at court as a "deadbeat Dad," someone
who failed to provide for his youngest daughter. I say this conclusion
is unlikely because it ignores what the couplet says, who the author
of the couplet was, and the occasion at which the couplet was publicly
read. More than that, because of his misreading of the couplet
(and his prejudice concerning the identity of Shakespeare),
Nelson fails to hear in the couplet an echo of King Lear.
The couplet to Lady Susan Vere and the entire entertainment
staged
before the Queen at Harefield, the home of Sir Thomas Egerton, the Lord
Keeper, in Middlesex, was written by John Davies, now best remembered as
Sir John Davies, although his life as a poet was virtually over by the
time he was knighted by King James. Davies, as I have shown elsewhere
(see "The Singing Swallow: Sir John Davies and Shakespeare" in ER 1:1),
was associated with Oxford and wrote an epithalamion consisting of ten
sonnets for the marriage of Elizabeth Vere and William Stanley,
Lord Derby.
before the Queen at Harefield, the home of Sir Thomas Egerton, the Lord
Keeper, in Middlesex, was written by John Davies, now best remembered as
Sir John Davies, although his life as a poet was virtually over by the
time he was knighted by King James. Davies, as I have shown elsewhere
(see "The Singing Swallow: Sir John Davies and Shakespeare" in ER 1:1),
was associated with Oxford and wrote an epithalamion consisting of ten
sonnets for the marriage of Elizabeth Vere and William Stanley,
Lord Derby.
The entertainment Davies wrote to welcome the Queen to Harefield
was
first published in the second edition of Francis Davison's Poetical
Rhapsody (1608). It is there described as consisting of a mariner with
a box under his arm which contained "all the several things following,
supposed to have come from the Carrick." Some of the gifts distributed
in this way to the ladies present were such things as a scissors case, a
dial for telling time, and writing tables. The couplets that accompanied
the gifts commented on them. But some of the ladies were to receive
blanks, that is, verses but no gifts. The mariner described how this
apparent misfortune was to be interpreted in his introductory speech:
"Come ladies, try your fortunes, and if any light upon an unfortunate
blank, let her think that fortune doth but mock her in these trifles,
and meanes to pleasure her in greater matters."
first published in the second edition of Francis Davison's Poetical
Rhapsody (1608). It is there described as consisting of a mariner with
a box under his arm which contained "all the several things following,
supposed to have come from the Carrick." Some of the gifts distributed
in this way to the ladies present were such things as a scissors case, a
dial for telling time, and writing tables. The couplets that accompanied
the gifts commented on them. But some of the ladies were to receive
blanks, that is, verses but no gifts. The mariner described how this
apparent misfortune was to be interpreted in his introductory speech:
"Come ladies, try your fortunes, and if any light upon an unfortunate
blank, let her think that fortune doth but mock her in these trifles,
and meanes to pleasure her in greater matters."
Even if John Davies had been hostile to Oxford or his family as
he
demonstrably was not he would not have used this occasion to expose
Oxford publicly as a "deadbeat Dad" and to humiliate his youngest,
unmarried daughter, as she accompanied the Queen on a visit.
demonstrably was not he would not have used this occasion to expose
Oxford publicly as a "deadbeat Dad" and to humiliate his youngest,
unmarried daughter, as she accompanied the Queen on a visit.
More importantly, though, the couplet clearly indicates that Lady
Susan
Vere is the recipient of a priceless gift one that is both "more then
can be told" and "more precious then GOLD," a very special kind of
"nothing" indeed. The couplet is in fact a riddle, awarding Susan Vere
an inexpressible and precious gift that merely appears to be "nothing."
What could that be? A look at the text of King Lear unravels the riddle.
Vere is the recipient of a priceless gift one that is both "more then
can be told" and "more precious then GOLD," a very special kind of
"nothing" indeed. The couplet is in fact a riddle, awarding Susan Vere
an inexpressible and precious gift that merely appears to be "nothing."
What could that be? A look at the text of King Lear unravels the riddle.
In the first scene of King Lear, the scene that precipitates the
action
of the play, a kind of drawing of lots take place. Lear divides his
kingdom and announces the "dowers" or dowries to be awarded to his three
daughters. He gives equal portions of the realm to Goneril and Regan and
their respective husbands, Albany and Cornwall. He reserves the largest
portion of the kingdom for his youngest daughter, the unmarried
Cordelia. To be awarded this portion, she is to declare publicly her
love for her father in terms that will please him no doubt by
renouncing marriage in her father's lifetime.
of the play, a kind of drawing of lots take place. Lear divides his
kingdom and announces the "dowers" or dowries to be awarded to his three
daughters. He gives equal portions of the realm to Goneril and Regan and
their respective husbands, Albany and Cornwall. He reserves the largest
portion of the kingdom for his youngest daughter, the unmarried
Cordelia. To be awarded this portion, she is to declare publicly her
love for her father in terms that will please him no doubt by
renouncing marriage in her father's lifetime.
The dialogue, beginning with the words of Lear, runs:
Lear: what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters?
Speak.
A third more opulent than your sisters?
Speak.
Cordelia: Nothing, my lord.
Lear: Nothing?
Lear: Nothing?
Cordelia: Nothing.
Lear: Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.
Cordelia: Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty
According to my bond, no more nor less.
My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty
According to my bond, no more nor less.
Lear: How, how, Cordelia? Mend your speech
a little Lest you mar your fortunes.
a little Lest you mar your fortunes.
Cordelia: Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, loved me. I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honor you.
Why have my sisters husbands if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty.
Sure I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.
You have begot me, bred me, loved me. I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honor you.
Why have my sisters husbands if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty.
Sure I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.
Lear: But goes thy heart with this?
Cordelia: Ay, my good Lord.
Lear: So young, and so untender?
Cordelia: So young, my lord, and true.
Lear: Let it be so, thy truth then be thy dower!
This dialogue solves the riddle of the couplet John Davies wrote
for
Susan Vere in 1602, when she fifteen years and unmarried, and recorded
by John Manningham in his diary. Truth, a pun on her family name and a
reference to the motto used by her father, vero nihil verius, or nothing
truer than truth, is the "nothing" that is at once "more then can be
told" and "more precious then GOLD." Poor as he was, Oxford provided his
youngest daughter with a priceless dowry, his name, truth, that is the
point of Davies's couplet and the kind of Elizabethan compliment and
in-joke that the Queen and courtiers at Harefield would have
understood and appreciated.
Susan Vere in 1602, when she fifteen years and unmarried, and recorded
by John Manningham in his diary. Truth, a pun on her family name and a
reference to the motto used by her father, vero nihil verius, or nothing
truer than truth, is the "nothing" that is at once "more then can be
told" and "more precious then GOLD." Poor as he was, Oxford provided his
youngest daughter with a priceless dowry, his name, truth, that is the
point of Davies's couplet and the kind of Elizabethan compliment and
in-joke that the Queen and courtiers at Harefield would have
understood and appreciated.
Unlike Cordelia, Susan Vere did not marry in her father's lifetime.
She eventually married Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, one of
the "incomparable paire of brethren" to whom the First Folio of
Shakespeare's plays was dedicated. Perhaps we only now begin to
glimpse the actual value of the "nothing" Susan Vere inherited
from her father, the truth contained in Shakespeare's plays.
--------------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 2, Scene 5
She eventually married Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, one of
the "incomparable paire of brethren" to whom the First Folio of
Shakespeare's plays was dedicated. Perhaps we only now begin to
glimpse the actual value of the "nothing" Susan Vere inherited
from her father, the truth contained in Shakespeare's plays.
--------------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 2, Scene 5
SIR TOBY BELCH: How now, my METAL of INDIA!
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 1, Scene 1
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 1, Scene 1
NORFOLK To-day the FRENCH,
All clinquant, all in GOLD, like heathen gods,
Shone down the English; and, to-morrow, they
Made Britain INDIA: every man that stood
Show'd like a mine. Their DWARfish PAGES were
As CHERUBINS, all guilt: the madams too,
Not used to toil, did almost sweat to bear
The pride upon them, that their VERy LABOUR
Was to them as a painting: now this masque
Was cried incomparable; and the ensuing night
Made it a fool and beggar. The TWO kings,
Equal in lustre, were now best, now worst,
As presence did present them; him in eye,
Still him in praise: and, being present both
'Twas said they saw but one; and no discerner
Durst wag his tongue in censure. When these SUNS--
For so they phrase 'em--by their heralds challenged
The noble spirits to arms, they did perform
Beyond thought's compass; that former fabulous story,
Being now seen possible enough, got credit,
That Bevis was believed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA Act 1, Scene 1
All clinquant, all in GOLD, like heathen gods,
Shone down the English; and, to-morrow, they
Made Britain INDIA: every man that stood
Show'd like a mine. Their DWARfish PAGES were
As CHERUBINS, all guilt: the madams too,
Not used to toil, did almost sweat to bear
The pride upon them, that their VERy LABOUR
Was to them as a painting: now this masque
Was cried incomparable; and the ensuing night
Made it a fool and beggar. The TWO kings,
Equal in lustre, were now best, now worst,
As presence did present them; him in eye,
Still him in praise: and, being present both
'Twas said they saw but one; and no discerner
Durst wag his tongue in censure. When these SUNS--
For so they phrase 'em--by their heralds challenged
The noble spirits to arms, they did perform
Beyond thought's compass; that former fabulous story,
Being now seen possible enough, got credit,
That Bevis was believed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA Act 1, Scene 1
VALENTINE:
(Home-keeping youth have ev)ER [H]OMELY[W]ITS.
M. WRIOTHESLEY
----------------------------------------------------------
TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE [H]ENRY [W]RIOTHESLY,
EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND (B)ARON (O)F (T)ITCHFIELD
------------------------------------------------------------
(T) his Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
[W]herein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
(O) , could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
[H] is face ; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever writ in brasse.
(B) ut, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
-----------------------------------------------------------
dd
VV-R-I-OTHES(L)EY
-----------------------------------------------------------
_Faerie Queene_ Dedication
[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/fqintro.html]
T(O)
THE MOST HIG(H),
MIGHTI(E)
an{d}
MAGNIFICEN(T)
EMPRESSE RENO(VV-)
MED FOR PIETIE, VE(R-)
TVE, AND ALL GRATIOV(S)
GOVERNMENT ELIZABETH B(Y)
THE GRACE OF GOD QVEEN(E)
OF ENGLAND FRAVNCE an{d}
IRELAND AND OF VIRG(I-)
(Home-keeping youth have ev)ER [H]OMELY[W]ITS.
M. WRIOTHESLEY
----------------------------------------------------------
TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE [H]ENRY [W]RIOTHESLY,
EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND (B)ARON (O)F (T)ITCHFIELD
------------------------------------------------------------
(T) his Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
[W]herein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
(O) , could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
[H] is face ; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever writ in brasse.
(B) ut, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
-----------------------------------------------------------
dd
VV-R-I-OTHES(L)EY
-----------------------------------------------------------
_Faerie Queene_ Dedication
[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/fqintro.html]
T(O)
THE MOST HIG(H),
MIGHTI(E)
an{d}
MAGNIFICEN(T)
EMPRESSE RENO(VV-)
MED FOR PIETIE, VE(R-)
TVE, AND ALL GRATIOV(S)
GOVERNMENT ELIZABETH B(Y)
THE GRACE OF GOD QVEEN(E)
OF ENGLAND FRAVNCE an{d}
IRELAND AND OF VIRG(I-)
NIA, DEFENDOVR OF
THE
FAITH, &. HER MOST
HVMBLE SERVANT
EDMVND SPENSER
DOTH IN ALL HV-
MILITIE DEDI-
CATE, PRE-
SENT
AND CONSECRATE THESE
HIS LABOVRS TO LIVE
VVITH THE ETERNI-
TIE OF HER
FAME.
-------------------------------------------------------
OUR.EVERLIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL.WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
Sonnets - 1609
------------------------------------------------------------
TWO (W.H.) TREES
------------------------------------------------------------
[ http://gen.culpepper.com/historical/vacharter2.htm ]
FAITH, &. HER MOST
HVMBLE SERVANT
EDMVND SPENSER
DOTH IN ALL HV-
MILITIE DEDI-
CATE, PRE-
SENT
AND CONSECRATE THESE
HIS LABOVRS TO LIVE
VVITH THE ETERNI-
TIE OF HER
FAME.
-------------------------------------------------------
OUR.EVERLIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL.WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
Sonnets - 1609
------------------------------------------------------------
TWO (W.H.) TREES
------------------------------------------------------------
[ http://gen.culpepper.com/historical/vacharter2.htm ]
The Second VIRGINIA
Charter 23 May 1609
And further wee establishe and ordaine
that
Henrie [Wriothesley], Earl of
Southampton
William [Herbert], Earl of Pembrooke
William [Herbert], Earl of Pembrooke
shalbe oure Counsell for the
said Companie
of ADVENTURERS and
PLANTERS in VIRGINIA.
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 1, Scene 1
----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 1, Scene 1
NORFOLK: To-day the FRENCH,
All clinquant, all in GOLD, like heathen gods,
Shone down the English; and, to-morrow, they
Made Britain INDIA:
----------------------------------------------------------
INDE: (FRENCH) INDIA
All clinquant, all in GOLD, like heathen gods,
Shone down the English; and, to-morrow, they
Made Britain INDIA:
----------------------------------------------------------
INDE: (FRENCH) INDIA
<<MINERVA BRITANNA: dedicated to the prince of Wales Henry Stuart,
whose motto "ICH DIEN" Peacham anagrammatises as "HIC INDE.">>
whose motto "ICH DIEN" Peacham anagrammatises as "HIC INDE.">>
INDE: (Latin) for that
reason, from there, thence,
thereafter.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Spenser The Man on the Stair
by MATHER WALKER November 2000
http://www.sirbacon.org/mspenser.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Spenser The Man on the Stair
by MATHER WALKER November 2000
http://www.sirbacon.org/mspenser.htm
<<A handsome folio edition of the works of Spenser published
in
1679 had a picture of Spenser's tombstone in Westminster Abbey.
1679 had a picture of Spenser's tombstone in Westminster Abbey.
According to this stone,
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/spensertomb1jpg.jpg
http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/spensertomb1jpg.jpg
{H}EARE
LYES (EXPECTING THE SECOND
{C}OMMINGE OF OUR SAVIOVR CHRIS[T]
{I}ESVS) THE BODY OF EDMOND SPENCE[R]
[T]HE PRINCE OF POETS IN HIS TYM[E]
[W]HOSE {DI}VI{NE} SPIRIT NEEDS NO[E]
[O]THIR WITNESS THEN THE WORK[S]
(WH)ICH HE LEFT B{E}H{IND} H{I}M
[H]E WAS BORNE IN LONDO{N}
[I]N THE YEARE 1510 AN{D}
[D]I{ED IN} THE YEAR[E]
1596
---------------------------------------------------
"to HIDE" (under) "TWO goodly TREES"
---------------------------------------------------
Spenser's Faerie Queene
Book I, Canto ii, stanzas 28, 29, 30
{C}OMMINGE OF OUR SAVIOVR CHRIS[T]
{I}ESVS) THE BODY OF EDMOND SPENCE[R]
[T]HE PRINCE OF POETS IN HIS TYM[E]
[W]HOSE {DI}VI{NE} SPIRIT NEEDS NO[E]
[O]THIR WITNESS THEN THE WORK[S]
(WH)ICH HE LEFT B{E}H{IND} H{I}M
[H]E WAS BORNE IN LONDO{N}
[I]N THE YEARE 1510 AN{D}
[D]I{ED IN} THE YEAR[E]
1596
---------------------------------------------------
"to HIDE" (under) "TWO goodly TREES"
---------------------------------------------------
Spenser's Faerie Queene
Book I, Canto ii, stanzas 28, 29, 30
Long time they thus together traueiled,
Till weary of their way, they came at last,
Where grew TWO goodly TREES, that faire did spred
Their armes abroad, with gray mosse ouercast,
And their GREENE leaues trembling with euery blast,
Made a calme shadow far in compasse round:
The fearefull Shepheard often there aghast
Vnder them neuer sat, ne wont there sound
His mery oaten pipe, but shund th'vnlucky ground.
Till weary of their way, they came at last,
Where grew TWO goodly TREES, that faire did spred
Their armes abroad, with gray mosse ouercast,
And their GREENE leaues trembling with euery blast,
Made a calme shadow far in compasse round:
The fearefull Shepheard often there aghast
Vnder them neuer sat, ne wont there sound
His mery oaten pipe, but shund th'vnlucky ground.
But this good knight soone as he them can spie,
For the coole shade him thither hastly got:
For GOLDen PHOEBUS now ymounted hie,
From fiery wheeles of his faire chariot
Hurled his beame so scorching cruell hot,
That liuing creature mote it not abide;
And his new Lady it endured not.
There they alight, in hope themselues to HIDE
For the coole shade him thither hastly got:
For GOLDen PHOEBUS now ymounted hie,
From fiery wheeles of his faire chariot
Hurled his beame so scorching cruell hot,
That liuing creature mote it not abide;
And his new Lady it endured not.
There they alight, in hope themselues to HIDE
From the fierce heat, and rest their weary limbs a tide.
Faire seemely pleasaunce each to other makes,
With goodly purposes there as they sit:
And in his falsed fancy he her takes
To be the fairest wight, that liued yit;
Which to expresse, he bends his gentle wit,
And thinking of those braunches GREENE to frame
A girlond for her dainty forehead fit,
He pluckt a bough; out of whose rift there came
Small drops of gory bloud, that trickled downe the same.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant of Venice Act 3, Scene 2
With goodly purposes there as they sit:
And in his falsed fancy he her takes
To be the fairest wight, that liued yit;
Which to expresse, he bends his gentle wit,
And thinking of those braunches GREENE to frame
A girlond for her dainty forehead fit,
He pluckt a bough; out of whose rift there came
Small drops of gory bloud, that trickled downe the same.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant of Venice Act 3, Scene 2
BASSANIO: Here is a letter, lady;
The paper as the body of my friend,
And EVERy word in it a gaping wound,
Issuing life-blood. But is it TRUE, Salerio?
Have all his VENTURES fail'd? What, not one hit?
From Tripolis, from Mexico and England,
From Lisbon, Barbary and INDIA?
----------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 1, Scene 1
The paper as the body of my friend,
And EVERy word in it a gaping wound,
Issuing life-blood. But is it TRUE, Salerio?
Have all his VENTURES fail'd? What, not one hit?
From Tripolis, from Mexico and England,
From Lisbon, Barbary and INDIA?
----------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 1, Scene 1
TROILUS: Tell me, APOLLO, for thy Daphne's
love,
What Cressid is, what Pandar, and what we?
Her bed is INDIA; there she lies, a pearl:
Between our Ilium and where she resides,
Let it be call'd the wild and wandering flood,
Ourself the merchant, and this sailing Pandar
Our doubtful hope, our convoy and our bark.
What Cressid is, what Pandar, and what we?
Her bed is INDIA; there she lies, a pearl:
Between our Ilium and where she resides,
Let it be call'd the wild and wandering flood,
Ourself the merchant, and this sailing Pandar
Our doubtful hope, our convoy and our bark.
Act 1, Scene 2
PANDARUS Condition, I had gone barefoot to INDIA.
----------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 3, Scene 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 3, Scene 1
MORTIMER: In faith, he is a worthy gentleman,
Exceedingly well read, and profited
In STRANGE concealments, valiant as a lion
And as wondrous affable and as bountiful
As mines of INDIA.
----------------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 2, Scene 1
Exceedingly well read, and profited
In STRANGE concealments, valiant as a lion
And as wondrous affable and as bountiful
As mines of INDIA.
----------------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 2, Scene 1
TITANIA: Why art thou here,
Come from the farthest Steppe of INDIA?
----------------------------------------------------------
Venus and Adonis Stanza 24
Come from the farthest Steppe of INDIA?
----------------------------------------------------------
Venus and Adonis Stanza 24
'Witness this primrose bank whereon I
LIE;
These forceless flowers like sturdy TREES support me;
TWO strengthless doves will draw me through the sky,
---------------------------------------------------------
Titus Andronicus Act 2, Scene 3
These forceless flowers like sturdy TREES support me;
TWO strengthless doves will draw me through the sky,
---------------------------------------------------------
Titus Andronicus Act 2, Scene 3
TAMORA Have I not reason, think you, to look pale?
These TWO have 'ticed me hither to this place:
A barren detested vale, you see it is;
The TREES, though summer, yet forlorn and lean,
O'ercome with moss and baleful mistletoe:
Here never shines the SUN; here nothing breeds,
Unless the nightly owl or fatal raven:
These TWO have 'ticed me hither to this place:
A barren detested vale, you see it is;
The TREES, though summer, yet forlorn and lean,
O'ercome with moss and baleful mistletoe:
Here never shines the SUN; here nothing breeds,
Unless the nightly owl or fatal raven:
Act 5, Scene 1
AARON Set deadly enmity between TWO friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of TREES,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of TREES,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Dec 17, 2004, 10:49:54 PM12/17/04
to
In article <8-idnV2L78I...@comcast.com>,
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
>
> Dr. WARREN HOPE, author of the book, The Shakespeare Controversy, an
> historical survey of the authorship question issued in 1992. He has
> three degrees, including a doctorate from Temple,
From TEMPLE, Art?! Doesn't that make him a Templar? Besides,
"Warren Hope" must be a bogus Masonic name -- it's one of those names
like "Warren Peace" that obviously could not be geniune.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Art Neuendorffer
Dec 18, 2004, 7:15:49 AM12/18/04
to
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
> >
> > Dr. WARREN HOPE, author of the book, The Shakespeare Controversy, an
> > historical survey of the authorship question issued in 1992. He has
> > three degrees, including a doctorate from Temple,
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> From TEMPLE, Art?!
Resident Scholar, Temple UniVercity.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Doesn't that make him a Templar?
Maybe a Template.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Besides, "Warren Hope" must be a bogus Masonic name
>-- it's one of those names like "Warren Peace"
> that obviously could not be geniune.
His original name was Warren Vladoset Goodford.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Dec 18, 2004, 12:26:35 PM12/18/04
to
In article <x6qdndY4p-H...@comcast.com>,
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
> > >
> > > Dr. WARREN HOPE, author of the book, The Shakespeare Controversy, an
> > > historical survey of the authorship question issued in 1992. He has
> > > three degrees, including a doctorate from Temple,
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > From TEMPLE, Art?!
[...]
> > Doesn't that make him a Templar?
> Maybe a Template.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Besides, "Warren Hope" must be a bogus Masonic name
> >-- it's one of those names like "Warren Peace"
> > that obviously could not be geniune.
> His original name was Warren Vladoset Goodford.
Well, that settles it then, Art: "Warren Vladoset Goodford" is a
perfect anagram of
Odd Art, a fool: De Ver's wrong.
0 new messages