Best authorship attribution credentials
book...@yahoo.com
from at www.mayrysydney.com.
(quote)
Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets—she is the most
articulate, literate, educated, and motivated writer of the times with
hundreds of connections to the source materials of the plays, and her
love life matches the sonnet story. Because she was a woman, however,
she was not allowed to write plays for the public theater.
(unquote)
Here are some other leading attributes of Mary Herbert I find that
rank her a significant candidate to have written the canon.
1. She was an especially talented Renaissance Woman, allowed to be as
accomplished as Queen Elizabeth in languages, sports, musical
instruments, medical training, and mathematics. She knew John Dee,
studied symbolic geometry and alchemy, and wrote letters to friends in
musical code.
2. She, like Bacon, had literary goals for England.
a. She completed and published her brother, Phillip Sydney,
signal works on The Defense of Poetry, etc..
a. She was patron of the most important literary circle in
English history: the Wilton Circle.
b. She is known to have influenced Donne, Marvell, Herebert, and
Milton, although seemingly not Shakespeare.
3. She was the first woman to publish a play in English, publish
original dramatic verse, and not apologize for publishing her
work.
4. Scholars find links to Shakespeare in the sonnets and FF,
and her work is known to be used as a source in the canon.
I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
bookburn
Alan Jones
<book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j529t313nh1m74n52...@4ax.com...
[...]
>
> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
What was her practical knowledge and experience of the public stage?
Alan Jones
Tom Veal
> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> (quote)
> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
The "anomaly" is that evidence survives concerning Mary Sidney
Herbert's taste in drama, both in her own translations and her
brother's writings. Those tastes are distinctly non-Shakespearean. Two
lesser, but perhaps significant, points are her residence well away
from London and her husband's enmity toward the Earl of Essex, to whom
Shakespeare pays tribute in "Henry V".
Oh, and one might want to take note of the works that the countess
left behind under her own name, which aren't wretched (better than the
Earl of Oxenford's poetry) but scarcely of the Bard's caliber and
infused with a conventional Protestant piety that he never displayed.
book...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Okay, she evidently sponsored an acting troop, so that's a start. I
was wondering how close she was to Oxford and his similar vocation.
I'll check a few sources and get back on this. bb
>
book...@yahoo.com
I can find evidence in Shakespeare of his indebtedness to studies in
pastoral traditions and familiarity with Bible verse. Perhaps this
comes down to evaluating one example, if you would care to suggest it.
Would it be her published play?
> Two
>lesser, but perhaps significant, points are her residence well away
>from London and her husband's enmity toward the Earl of Essex, to whom
>Shakespeare pays tribute in "Henry V".
I find colorful commentary accounting for her relations with Essex and
others under the heading of romantic adventures, which seem very
bizarre and arcane, including the escapades of her two sons who
consorted with James. Part of the reason she may have hidden her
authorship is suggested to be about what is alluded to in the canon.
>Oh, and one might want to take note of the works that the countess
>left behind under her own name, which aren't wretched (better than the
>Earl of Oxenford's poetry) but scarcely of the Bard's caliber and
>infused with a conventional Protestant piety that he never displayed.
Your point on "conventional Protestant piety of style" noted for
future reference. Of course, one wonders if she was burdened by
standards of writing assumed necessary for noble women when writing in
her own name, and did she adopt other standards for communicating with
the public as a playwright? Possibly a comparative study of her
imagery would reveal more on "caliber" and "conventional piety." I'm
going to try to find a sonnet she wrote and post it here with one of
Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon, and Shakespeare, just for fun. bb
book...@yahoo.com
A survey of available info on the Internet turns up the following
about her knowledge and experience of the public stage:
a. The play she wrote, a closet drama, The Tragedy of Antonie
(1592), Shakespeare may have used as source material for his Antony
and Cleopatra (1607).
b. She was not only a patron of the arts, but of dramatists,
mostly of the university wits sort.
c. She had plays performed at Wilton in Wiltshire, whose archives
are said to have once held "Mary’s letter to her son, sent in 1606,
saying “We have the man Shakespeare here – bring King James!” And that
Heminges received thirty pounds (a huge amount) for the King’s Men’s
performance of “As You Like It” played at Wilton."
d. Her brother, Philip Sidney, had London theater involvement.
http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
>>
book...@yahoo.com
Furthermore, about her tastes in drama, I discover the following.
1. Robin P. Williams, Samuel Shoenbaum, and Fred Faulkes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney#Life_and_work
suggest that computer analysis of the canon has Warwickshire words
and imagery of kitchen gardens. Her natural taste is for a very
extensive variety of verse forms.
An Internet bibliography with clickable sites at the above includes:
1. General:
luminarium.org The Works of Mary (Sidney) Herbert – for some of the
original texts and Psalms
Noel Kinnamon's website on Mary Sidney
2. Shakespearean authorship question:
Anne Underwood - "Was the Bard a woman?" in Newsweek International,
June 2004.
Mary Sidney website by Robin P. Williams
Robin P. Williams's Mary Sidney Society website
Fred Faulkes's Tiger Heart Chronicles website
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney"
I would also mention that in the course of her literary career,
involving not only a plan to develop English poetry but intent
communication with leading writiers and poets, that her tastes would
be expected to develop significantly, perhaps in line with those of
Shakepseare.
>> Two
>>lesser, but perhaps significant, points are her residence well away
>>from London and her husband's enmity toward the Earl of Essex, to whom
>>Shakespeare pays tribute in "Henry V".
>
>I find colorful commentary accounting for her relations with Essex and
>others under the heading of her romantic adventures, which seem very
>bizarre and arcane, including the escapades of her two sons who
>consorted with James. Part of the reason she may have hidden her
>authorship is suggested to be about what is alluded to in the canon.
>
>>Oh, and one might want to take note of the works that the countess
>>left behind under her own name, which aren't wretched (better than the
>>Earl of Oxenford's poetry) but scarcely of the Bard's caliber and
>>infused with a conventional Protestant piety that he never displayed.
>
>Your point on "conventional Protestant piety of style" noted for
>future reference. Of course, one wonders if she was burdened by
>standards of writing assumed necessary for noble women when writing in
>her own name, and did she adopt other standards for communicating with
>the public as a playwright? Possibly a comparative study of her
>imagery would reveal more on "caliber" and "conventional piety." I'm
>going to try to find a sonnet she wrote and post it here with one of
>Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon, and Shakespeare, just for fun. bb
Here's a comment on women's conventionally pius style and Mary's
burden by it; from
http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
During Mary’s early lifetime, women “were strongly discouraged from
literary activity, even any public self-assertion”. As with some
Shakespeare heroines, her poetic skills and her powers of creative
synthesis allowed her, through say the Psalms male voices, “to speak
most for herself when speaking as another”.
bb
Tom Veal
of Avon", but I didn't get around to finishing a review. Maybe I'll
get busy on it now.
If you look at your own replies closely, you'll see that you're
already explaining away anomalies, just as the advocates of all the
other non-Stratfordian Shakespeares have to do.
On Mar 10, 7:27 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 1. Robin P. Williams, Samuel Shoenbaum, and Fred Faulkeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney#Life_and_work
> suggest that computer analysis of the canon has Warwickshire words
> and imagery of kitchen gardens. Her natural taste is for a very
> extensive variety of verse forms.
>
> An Internet bibliography with clickable sites at the above includes:
>
> 1. General:
> luminarium.org The Works of Mary (Sidney) Herbert - for some of the
> burden by it; fromhttp://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
book...@yahoo.com
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:05:10 -0700 (PDT), Tom Veal
<Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Robin Williams' publicist sent me an unsolicited copy of "Sweet Swan
>of Avon", but I didn't get around to finishing a review. Maybe I'll
>get busy on it now.
Doing an actual book review sounds incisive. I'll be hoping to see it
and other's comments on it, as I try to get the gist of what
Schoenbaum and Faulkes also say. The latest view published about the
MSH authorship attribution seems to be Anne Underwood, "Was the Bard a
woman?" in Newsweek International, June 2004, so I want to see that. I
admire MSH for what I know about her legend, and the titles of these
published studies sound interesting, too. She really is an under-
rated subject to study, even apart from her links to Shakespeare.
>If you look at your own replies closely, you'll see that you're
>already explaining away anomalies, just as the advocates of all the
>other non-Stratfordian Shakespeares have to do.
I, myself, am only responding to what seem to be leading questions
about the proposition of MSH's attribution, at this point. As I carry
on, perhaps I can, indeed, bring up corresponding anomalies about the
other candidates also. Hopefully, I can at least bringing forward some
of what critics have focused on in dealing with the MSH attribution
since the 19th C., as I suppose Williams, Schoenbaum, and Faulkes are
doing. Then I can conclude with what Bate, Vickers, and others are
saying now.
lackpurity
> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> (quote)
> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> justify.
MM:
That's a good one. LOL
> Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
> authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets--she is the most
> articulate, literate, educated, and motivated writer of the times with
> hundreds of connections to the source materials of the plays, and her
> love life matches the sonnet story. Because she was a woman, however,
> she was not allowed to write plays for the public theater.
> (unquote)
>
> Here are some other leading attributes of Mary Herbert I find that
> rank her a significant candidate to have written the canon.
>
> 1. She was an especially talented Renaissance Woman, allowed to be as
> accomplished as Queen Elizabeth in languages, sports, musical
> instruments, medical training, and mathematics. She knew John Dee,
> studied symbolic geometry and alchemy, and wrote letters to friends in
> musical code.
>
> 2. She, like Bacon, had literary goals for England.
> a. She completed and published her brother, Phillip Sydney,
> signal works on The Defense of Poetry, etc..
> a. She was patron of the most important literary circle in
> English history: the Wilton Circle.
> b. She is known to have influenced Donne, Marvell, Herebert, and
> Milton, although seemingly not Shakespeare.
MM:
I'm sure there was a mutual influence, Shakespeare/Mary Sidney.
> 3. She was the first woman to publish a play in English, publish
> original dramatic verse, and not apologize for publishing her
> work.
>
> 4. Scholars find links to Shakespeare in the sonnets and FF,
> and her work is known to be used as a source in the canon.
>
> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
> bookburn
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
I basically agree with what you've written. Masters have one thing in
common, they come to teach us the truth about our relationship with
the Creator, and to take us Home. That is what makes them great. For
example, hypothetically we could have two Masters and they are both
bricklayers. One might be a better bricklayer than the other. Still,
they would be equal from a spiritual POV. I know that we are
discussing authorship, here, but I just wanted to point out that both,
Mary Sidney and Shakespeare, were more than just writers.
Mary Sidney Herbert was a Holy Lady, and she was constantly obeying
the Supreme Being. That could have been the reason for the
"Protestant Piety," angle in her works. After all, from the Creator's
POV, the comedies and tragedies angle had been pretty well-covered by
Marlowe, and I know we're discussing the canon of Shakespeare, as
well.
Masters can have different talents, but be equal spiritually. For
example, Bacon had a talent with science. They just use their talents
to the max in order to carry out the Lord's work. Donne had his
talents, and Aemilia Lanyer had hers.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:14:22 -0800, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:44 GMT, "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >>news:j529t313nh1m74n52...@4ax.com...
> >>[...]
>
> >>> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> >>> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> >>> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> >>> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> >>> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
> >>What was her practical knowledge and experience of the public stage?
>
> >>Alan Jones
>
> >Okay, she evidently sponsored an acting troop, so that's a start. I
> >was wondering how close she was to Oxford and his similar vocation.
> >I'll check a few sources and get back on this. bb
>
> A survey of available info on the Internet turns up the following
> about her knowledge and experience of the public stage:
>
> a. The play she wrote, a closet drama, The Tragedy of Antonie
> (1592), Shakespeare may have used as source material for his Antony
> and Cleopatra (1607).
> b. She was not only a patron of the arts, but of dramatists,
> mostly of the university wits sort.
> c. She had plays performed at Wilton in Wiltshire, whose archives
> are said to have once held "Mary's letter to her son, sent in 1606,
> Heminges received thirty pounds (a huge amount) for the King's Men's
> performance of "As You Like It" played at Wilton."
> d. Her brother, Philip Sidney, had London theater involvement.
>
> http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
MM:
Since we are discussing possibilities here, I'd like to make a
suggestion. Remember what her brother said, regarding the writing of
"Arcadia?" He wrote that it was "her commandment," to write it. This
clearly indicates that Sir Philip Sidney knew that she was God in
human form. Now, what did God want to do? It seems that in her early
years, perhaps before she started writing herself, it was her desire
to SERVE Marlowe, Shakespeare, Sidney, Greville, and others. She
might have been content to let them be in the forefront. Later, she
might have received orders to write in the "Protestan Piety," style,
to which Tom Veal mentioned. This is just something to consider, I'd
say. Of course, I'm of the opinion that William Shakespeare of
Stratford wrote the canon.
Michael Martin
Christian Lanciai
bookb...@yahoo.com skrev:
With all due respect for Mary Sidney, the Countess of Pembroke,
certainly indispensable in the Shakespeare mystery, but I find it a
little difficult to associate the authorship of plays like "Othello",
"Macbeth" and "King Lear" with a lady.
Chris
book...@yahoo.com
<clan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>bookb...@yahoo.com skrev:
>> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
>> from at www.mayrysydney.com.
>>
>> (quote)
>> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
>> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
>> justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
>> authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets?she is the most
Of course, in the first place, it may not be necessary to argue that
she wrote the whole canon; I see that Robin Williams says she possibly
wrote the sonnets and some of the long poems and plays.
No question that there were caveats against a lady publishing, I
suppose more than Oxford faced, including serious social mores of the
times about women in general. One biography notes: "As a woman she
was barred from participating in his (her brother Sidney's) elaborate
funeral and from publishing in any of the volumes of elegies put out
by the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Leiden."
The irony is that she did complete her illustrious brother's
unfinished poems very well and assumed he mantle of critic, too. Would
it serve any purpose to ask if any other women who wrote psedonomously
as a man went undetected? If undetected, we wouldn't likely know.
Is it doubt about a lady doing tragedy when she wouldn't be familiar
with it? The way MSH assumed her dead brother's unfinished literary
work reminds me of Antigony. She had the deaths of relatives all
around her. A brother and three sisters all died young. Both parents
one year. Her own son died on the day his sister was born. I
understand she lived in seclusion because of a disfigured face that
once was beautiful, pocked by plague she may have got while nursing
Elizabeth's bout with it. Two of her famous sons were known to be
James's playboys, big-time.
If she was as passionate, direct, and familiar with people as they
say, this all seems a recipe for classical tragedy. Some of her life
reads like Anna Karenina. Her own published play, a closet drama, is
The Tragedy of Antonie (1592), which I haven't read so don't know how
it compares with Shakespeare's big four. bb
She apparently was a favorite of Elizabeth I's, who was another
woman breaking the mold.
If you really mean that ladies don't have it in their make-up to do
tragedy, but they might be able to do comedy, or something else, you
ought to have more
Christian Lanciai
The best examples of ladies capable of writing tragedies were perhaps
the Brontë sisters. Although both "Wuthering Heights" and "Jane Eyre"
end positively, they are great tragedies of men, in this case
Rochester and Heathcliff, but an even better example is Mary Shelley's
"Frankenstein", a great tragedy of a scientist. So ladies are indeed
not restricted in talent to write only comedies. Still, I find it
difficult to to put Mary Sidney and what we know of her in a mind to
be able to create such characters as the ravings of Othello, the
madness of king Lear and the Macbeth trap of power complexities. And
what about the passionate 'dark lady' sonnets?
C(hris)
book...@yahoo.com
There's an interesting study about the 16th C. “The Woman
Controversy”, sometimes as the querelle des femmes (“debate about
women”), described at http://members.cox.net/leeblouin/Lecture_20.htm
It seem both women and men were outspoken about their status, women as
"froward" and women replying with satire and mockery.
Most Mary Sidney Herbert biographers are attracted to the mystery of
the Dark Lady in the Sonnets and aspects of her life that relate to
it. I find an account of parts of it at
http//www.marysidney.com/pages .
(quote)
Scholars believe the Shakespearean sonnets tell the story of the
poet’s passionate affair with a younger man, who then had an affair
with a dark-haired, dark-eyed woman close to the poet’s heart. The
dark-haired woman was newly married, perhaps to a man named Will. No
one has ever been able to positively identify the younger man or the
dark-haired woman in relation to William Shakespeare (or any of the
other candidates).
But Mary’s documented love life has a striking resemblance to these
sonnets. After her husband died, Mary (43 years old) had an affair
with a younger man, Dr. Matthew Lister (33 years old), whom she could
not marry because of their differences in social status, but she was
with him for the rest of her life. There was strife in the
relationship, however, when she thought her younger lover was having
an affair with her dark-haired, dark-eyed niece, Mary Wroth (19 years
old and newly married), whom Mary Sidney had helped raise. It turns
out that Mary Wroth was not having an affair, however, with Dr.
Lister, but with Will Herbert (also newly married), Mary Sidney’s
oldest son.
(unquote)
Christian Lanciai
Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been her son William
Herbert. Next halt: would it then be possible, that a mother would
favour one of her sons with so many love sonnets while completely
ignoring the other, Philip, although they are both placed on a level
as the "Incomparable Pair" of the First Folio?
C(hris)
Peter Farey
Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> her son William Herbert.
As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
have been the poet who wrote it.
Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
because the initials of the person they think of as the
poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
way, I find it strange that so many of them happily join
the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
just throw it away.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Tom Reedy
wrote:
> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > her son William Herbert.
>
> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> have been the poet who wrote it.
What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
TR
> Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
> because the initials of the person they think of as the
> poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
>
> Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
> way, I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> just throw it away.
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
book...@yahoo.com
I suspect you're ahead of me on how noble Elizabethan players
navigated the field, so appreciate your pass of the ball as I look
toward the goal of getting something said about MSH, who was not just
a cheer leader. So far, there seems to be little opposition to my
having a kick or two, although no doubt some could defend their end
very well.
Mothers are a mystery to me, as I suspect they are to Shakespeare:
just look at how Coriolanus' mother, Volumnia, does him in with
patriotic gore, Gertrude is too self-centered to see herself as Hamlet
does, and R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
Looking up about Shakespeare's mothers to see what more can be told
about his treatment of mothers, possibly compared to MSH as a mother,
I see the Freudian psychoanalytic community notices his absent and
negative treatment of mothers, but positive treatment of fathers, and
especially fathers' treatment of daughters.
According to papers presented at a recent convention, reviewed at
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/16/6,
S's fleshed-out mothers are few, and those tend to be cruel,
neglectful, and cold, although strong women are also limned. The
attitude of psychiatry-oriented commentators is evidently that an
author does represent experiences from his/her own biography.
Just to whiff the depths of some jealous treatment of MSH, I suppose
it could serve to report on the kind of stuff she is said to have been
up to. After going this far down field, I may need to pass the ball
and avoid a couple tacklers.
1. On her voyeurism, John Baker says at his Marlowe site,
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/sonnets.htm:
(quote)
Mary's reputation has not survived in tact, indeed her first
biographer suggested that the father of her children was her own
brother. It would seem more likely to have been one of his close
friends or servants. Keep in mind that the theme of Venus and Adonis
involves a younger boy who is "inducted" or "induced" or "seduced"
into heterosexual matters by the lovely blond Venus, long known to
have been patterned on Mary Sidney Herbert.
As a matter of fact Venus and Mary share the salacious habit of
finding sexual enjoyment in watching their horses mate. Indeed much
of the poem caters to this perversion, as if it was devised by the
poet to appeal to Mary's tastes in these private matters.
(unquote)
Even at the Mary Sidney Society site
http://www.marysidneysociety.org/marysidney.html
the following is allowed mention, as if in proof of sorts.
(quote)
There has never been an explanation for why Ben Jonson (considered to
have been a protégé of Mary Sidney’s and definitely a close friend of
William Herbert’s) mentions a bawd and a whore and a mature
gentlewoman in the eulogy’s introduction.
(unquote)
2. About MSH as mother, the Mary Sidney Society also notes the
following.
(quote)
This same son [Will Herbert] acted as bawd for the King, effectively
changing the power structure at court by providing King James with a
new lover, George Villiers (who eventually became the Duke of
Buckingham), and thus procuring for himself the office of Lord
Chamberlain. Mary’s younger son, Philip Herbert, acted as whore to the
King in exchange for an earldom, a rare honor for a second son.
(unquote)
I begin to wonder if these are the "Incomparable Pair" associated with
publication of the FF and MSH an incomparable mother. The Oxfordian
scheme of incest and bawdy almost seems pale by comparison, especially
if, as they try to say, one of the Herberts was the result of an early
laison between her and Marlowe, who went to live with her after his
"death." Reminds me of Chaucer's Parson, "If gold rust, what shall
iron do?" bb
John W. Kennedy
> On Mar 14, 6:05 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>>
>>> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
>>> her son William Herbert.
>> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
>> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
>> have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
Foster's paper appears to be no longer on-line (except via JSTOR), but I
think I recall him adducing several instances in which a dedication was
signed by the publisher and the dedicatee was the author. In addition,
in period language, the "begetter" of a literary work is overwhelmingly
likely to mean the author, and "our ever-living poet" to mean God
(ποιητής, of course, literally means "maker"), and the "eternity
promised" to mean Christian salvation and Heaven. As far as I can
recall, the only weak point is in the necessary assumption that "W. H."
is a misprint for "W. S." or "W. SH.", but such errors do indeed exist
in other printed documents of the time.
Frankly, this is the /only/ theory I have ever seen that leaves intact
the fundamental likelihood that Thorpe was a human being writing in
English. No twisted metaphors, no tacit assumption that Shakespeare is
the Greatest Poet Who Ever Was or Ever Shall Be, and no riddles.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
John W. Kennedy
> ...R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
¿Que?
--
John W. Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it to
Windows?
book...@yahoo.com
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>book...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ...R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
>
>¿Que?
Well, here's what one of the psychiatrists said.
(quote)
In fact, mothers as fleshed-out characters are portrayed in only three
of Shakespeare's 39 plays, Dorothy Grunes pointed out. They are the
Duchess of York in "Richard III," Gertrude in "Hamlet," and Volumnia
in "Coriolanus."
Moreover, she continued, the three mothers "use their sons for their
own ends, for power or to play out their own intrapsychic conflicts.
They are cold, neglectful, or cruel," and their relationships with
their sons are tortured. For example, Volumnia exploits her son
Coriolanus to fulfill her own ambitions. The Duchess of York
externalizes her own failings onto her son Richard. Hamlet is unable
to tolerate his mother's having married his uncle.
(unquote)
Jim KQKnave
parts, from 2002. Here is part 1:
Message-ID: <20020512180541...@mb-mh.aol.com>
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
Tom Veal
Sidney Herbert hyothesis is now posted at
http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
On Mar 9, 7:27 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> (quote)
> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
> authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets--she is the most
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Christian Lanciai wrote:
> > >
> > > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > > her son William Herbert.
> >
> > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> What other work of the era was published and dedicated to
> the author?
I don't know, Tom. Foster (having earlier pointed out that
this is not a 'dedication' as such) says "Prefatory greet-
ings to the author from friends and other well-wishers are,
admittedly, a familiar convention of Renaissance texts,
especially in books offered for public sale." He gives no
specific examples but, although it was after Shakespeare's
death, I would have thought that much of the introductory
material in the First Folio fitted his description quite
well, wouldn't you?
Personally, I would agree with John that Foster's interpre-
tation is the best one there is, but only as an explanation
of how most people were intended to read it at the time,
including the assumption that 'W.H.' was just a misprint
(similar to the word 'sieh' on the monument).
What I think may have been the true meaning, however, is
very different, and is written by someone who has had the
poems published as a gift to the poet, but who for obvious
reasons prefers to remain anonymous.
* "W.H." are the initials of the name under which the
"onlie begetter" (Marlowe) was living at the time.
* "That eternitie" is not eternal bliss, but the same
immortality the poet promised the addressee in sonnets
such as 81:
Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read,
And tongues to be your being shall rehearse
When all the breathers of this world are dead.
You still shall live - such virtue hath my pen -
Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
* "Our ever-living poet" is not God, but Marlowe, and plays
upon the fact that he is thought to be dead, but is in
fact still alive.
* The "well-wishing adventurer" is one of the first two
named members of the just-formed Virginia Company, either
the Earl of Southampton or the Earl of Pembroke.
* In the absence of a more esoteric meaning (such as what-
ever two Tau crosses might mean to the initiated) this is
still Thomas Thorpe, but only in the role of a message-
bearer for the real "well-wisher".
> > Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
> > because the initials of the person they think of as the
> > poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
> >
> > Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
> > way, I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> > the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> > highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> > which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> > just throw it away.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
book...@yahoo.com
<Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>FWIW, my review of "Sweet Swan of Avon", the book promoting the Mary
>Sidney Herbert hyothesis is now posted at
>http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
An interesting site to visit, too. Here's my note on the first part
of the review.
(quote)
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Random Reading (2): A Distaff Shakespeare?
(snip)
. . . . Suppose that we pretend for a moment that there is a
genuine mystery about the authorship of the plays attributed to
Shakespeare; is Mary Sidney Herbert a plausible candidate for the
role?
Robin Williams, whose account of Lady Pembroke’s accomplishments can
reasonably be described as worshipful, seems so thrilled by the idea
of a great female author that she neglects to notice that greatness
comes in many forms. Keats and Dickens were both great, but neither
could have written like the other. Similarly, the Countess of
Pembroke, on the available evidence, could not, or would not, have
written like Shakespeare.
. . . .
(snip)
TV in his review goes on to say:
(quote)
In other respects, too, Lady Pembroke’s known tastes and habits rub
incongruously against Shakespeare’s works. She was a staunch
Protestant whose faith comes across plainly in her writings. The plays
give scarcely any clues to the author’s religious stance.
The Countess’s imagery, in the words of her 20th Century editor,
“allude[s] to life at court, to the experiences of an aristocratic
wife, and to motherhood” [Mary Patterson Hannay, “Mary Herbert”,
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004)]. Miss Williams cherry
picks a few items (gardens, cooking, lawn bowling, antipathy toward
war) from Caroline Spurgeon’s Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells
Us (1935), with a view to demonstrating the author’s “feminine”
proclivities, but she doesn’t examine whether imagery characteristic
of Lady Pembroke’s attested writings is prominent in Shakespeare. So
far as I can tell, it isn’t.
(unquote)
Here is someone's comment on comparative analysis of styles, from
Talk: Mary Sidney, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Sidney
(quote)
I'm worried about this passage:
"A close examination of her writing style clearly demonstrates that
they are two different writers. Mary Sidney is predominently a
religious writer, interested in human and divine learning and
spirituality in all its aspects, while William Shakespeare's focus is
on the human personality, deception, love, passion and on "the surface
of the earth". Shakespeare's main inspiration was Ovid, but both
authors share a deep love for the Bible, for poetry, beauty and the
Classics."
Surely writing style is much different from the subject or topic about
which one writes, yet no citation or evidence is given in support of
the claim that there is a difference in writing style, but only a
difference in focus. It seems that if one were to write under a
pseudonym and also under one's real name, one could very well be doing
it because one wants to be publicly associated with some of the works
and not with others (i.e., Sidney could have wanted to be recognized
as a religious writer, and not as the largely political writer
Shakespeare was). Couldn't it be that Sidney did this intentionally?
This is far from my area of research, but I'd like to see some better
citations and a clearer NPOV. KSchutte 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(unquote)
I'm snipping the rest for now, after having lost my paragraph about
analyzing men and women's styles, but shall return. Are you up to
doing a review on Canadian librarian Fred Faulkes, The Tiger Heart
Chronicles (2007)? Maybe you should consider editing what's on
Wikipedia about MSH, too. bookburn
Jim KQKnave
Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
You have this strange habit of arguing like an
anti-strat when it suits you.
Your statment is misleading, because you make it sound
as though the author himself dedicated the work to
himself. In fact, Thorpe, the publisher, was in the habit of writing
dedications or other prefatory matter that included
someone involved in the publication. These examples
are from the footnote in Foster's paper:
The four dedications [by Thorpe] (each with an epigraph and epistle) are as
follows: (1) "TO HIS KIND, AND TRVE FRIEND: EDWARD BLVNT," in *Lucans
First Booke*; (2) "To a true fauorer of forward spirits, Maister
*John Florio*," in *Epictetus* (1610); (3) "TO THE HONORABLEST PATRON
OF MUSES AND GOOD MINDES, LORD WILLIAM, Earle of Pembroke [sic],
Knight of the Honourable Order &c.," in *St. Augustine*; and (4)
"TO THE RIGHT HO-/*norable* WILLIAM Earle of PEMBROKE, *Lord* Chamberlaine
to his Maiestie, one of his most Honora-/ *ble Priuie Counsell, and Knight*
of the most noble order of the Garter, &c.*," in *Epictetus* (1616).
The three anonymous prefaces that appear certainly to be Thorpe's,
from both internal and external evidence, are (1) "TO THE CHRI- / stian
Reader," in *The Handmaid of Repentance*; (2) "To the Reader of this
Apologie," in *Barnevels Apology*; and (3) "To the Reader," in
*A Christians Preparation*.
So you could ask, as in the case with the Blunt dedication
"What other publication is dedicated to a friend of the
publishers who had nothing to do with the writing of
the book itself"? But, in fact, that is what Thorpe did.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 6:05 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> >>> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> >>> her son William Herbert.
> >> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> >> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> >> have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
>
> Foster's paper appears to be no longer on-line (except via JSTOR), but I
> think I recall him adducing several instances in which a dedication was
> signed by the publisher and the dedicatee was the author.
I printed the essay or got a copy from Dave Kathman. I, too, thought
Foster cited instances of dedications by publishers to authors but
couldn't find any when I just now went through the essay. I skimmed
so could have missed them. I'm very sure, though, that I read about
instances someone found.
> In addition,
> in period language, the "begetter" of a literary work is overwhelmingly
> likely to mean the author, and "our ever-living poet" to mean God
> (ποιητής, of course, literally means "maker"), and the "eternity
> promised" to mean Christian salvation and Heaven. As far as I can
> recall, the only weak point is in the necessary assumption that "W. H."
> is a misprint for "W. S." or "W. SH.", but such errors do indeed exist
> in other printed documents of the time.
>
> Frankly, this is the /only/ theory I have ever seen that leaves intact
> the fundamental likelihood that Thorpe was a human being writing in
> English. No twisted metaphors, no tacit assumption that Shakespeare is
> the Greatest Poet Who Ever Was or Ever Shall Be, and no riddles.
I'm in total agreement with you, John. I consider the Foster essay
the best piece of Shakespeare-related detective work I've ever read--
except for Diana Price's finding that parenthesis marks in Jonson's
work indicate that the texts within them are to be taken as ironic.
And, needless to say, the Crowley Interpretation of the Sonnets.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
> In article <4e20e350-2b11-45ee-8adc-9a538bb6a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
>
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
>
> You have this strange habit of arguing like an
> anti-strat when it suits you.
No, I argue like Tom Reedy, and I am a Stratfordian, therefore I argue
like a Stratfordian--not just when it suits me, but all the time.
And I asked simple question, because I want to knwo the answer. Are
you saying asking simple questions is a deceptive, antiStratfordian
tactic?
> Your statment is misleading,
I did not make a statement; I asked a question.
> because you make it sound
> as though the author himself dedicated the work to
> himself.
I don't see how you get that from what I wrote, but then again, you
hallucinated that I made a statement, so I suppose there's no real
explanation available.
> In fact, Thorpe, the publisher, was in the habit of writing
> dedications or other prefatory matter that included
> someone involved in the publication. These examples
> are from the footnote in Foster's paper:
>
> The four dedications [by Thorpe] (each with an epigraph and epistle) are as
> follows: (1) "TO HIS KIND, AND TRVE FRIEND: EDWARD BLVNT," in *Lucans
> First Booke*; (2) "To a true fauorer of forward spirits, Maister
> *John Florio*," in *Epictetus* (1610); (3) "TO THE HONORABLEST PATRON
> OF MUSES AND GOOD MINDES, LORD WILLIAM, Earle of Pembroke [sic],
> Knight of the Honourable Order &c.," in *St. Augustine*; and (4)
> "TO THE RIGHT HO-/*norable* WILLIAM Earle of PEMBROKE, *Lord* Chamberlaine
> to his Maiestie, one of his most Honora-/ *ble Priuie Counsell, and Knight*
> of the most noble order of the Garter, &c.*," in *Epictetus* (1616).
> The three anonymous prefaces that appear certainly to be Thorpe's,
> from both internal and external evidence, are (1) "TO THE CHRI- / stian
> Reader," in *The Handmaid of Repentance*; (2) "To the Reader of this
> Apologie," in *Barnevels Apology*; and (3) "To the Reader," in
> *A Christians Preparation*.
I don't have time right now to look into this, but I will next week.
TR
>
> So you could ask, as in the case with the Blunt dedication
> "What other publication is dedicated to a friend of the
> publishers who had nothing to do with the writing of
> the book itself"? But, in fact, that is what Thorpe did.
>
> See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
>
> The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Tom Reedy
wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> > > > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > > > her son William Herbert.
>
> > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to
> > the author?
>
> I don't know, Tom. Foster (having earlier pointed out that
> this is not a 'dedication' as such) says "Prefatory greet-
> ings to the author from friends and other well-wishers are,
> admittedly, a familiar convention of Renaissance texts,
> especially in books offered for public sale." He gives no
> specific examples but, although it was after Shakespeare's
> death, I would have thought that much of the introductory
> material in the First Folio fitted his description quite
> well, wouldn't you?
Yes, I agree. So I suppose the "dedication" is supposed to be taken as
a short congratulatory piece from one friend to the other. that would
make more sense than a "dedication," although it does begin like one:
"To the . . . "
> Personally, I would agree with John that Foster's interpre-
> tation is the best one there is, but only as an explanation
> of how most people were intended to read it at the time,
> including the assumption that 'W.H.' was just a misprint
> (similar to the word 'sieh' on the monument).
IIRC, there is more than one state of the printing, indicating that
corrections were made during the course of the printing. It would be
instructive to determine which sheet the corrections were made on to
see if any of them were on the same sheet as the dedication (I know
it's nor really that, but it's been referred to as such I use the term
for convenience). If the dedication was on a sheet that had already
been broken up when the others were printed, there would have been no
opportunity to correct the misprint, of course.
I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back to this next
week.
TR