Best authorship attribution credentials

18 views
Skip to first unread message

book...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 10:27:43 PM3/9/08
to
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
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

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 11:43:44 AM3/10/08
to

<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

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 12:29:26 PM3/10/08
to
On Mar 9, 9:27 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

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

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:14:22 PM3/10/08
to
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:44 GMT, "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk>
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

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:58:33 PM3/10/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 7:59:26 PM3/10/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 8:27:40 PM3/10/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 12:05:10 AM3/11/08
to
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.

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

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 2:53:13 AM3/11/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 1:12:56 PM3/11/08
to
On Mar 9, 8:27 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.

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

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 1:23:17 PM3/11/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 1:29:41 PM3/11/08
to
On Mar 10, 5:59 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> 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:
>
> >><bookb...@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
>
> >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,
> 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

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

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 5:23:16 AM3/12/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 10:45:57 AM3/12/08
to
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Christian Lanciai
<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

unread,
Mar 13, 2008, 5:14:10 AM3/13/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 13, 2008, 7:22:32 AM3/13/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 5:25:56 AM3/14/08
to
> women"), described athttp://members.cox.net/leeblouin/Lecture_20.htm

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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 7:05:49 AM3/14/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 9:13:22 AM3/14/08
to
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?

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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 10:41:28 AM3/14/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 1:35:24 PM3/14/08
to
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. 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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 1:38:16 PM3/14/08
to
book...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ...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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 8:41:37 PM3/14/08
to
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:38:16 -0400, "John W. Kennedy"
<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

unread,
Mar 14, 2008, 10:01:15 PM3/14/08
to mail...@m2n.mixmin.net, mail...@bananasplit.info
Foster's paper is in this newsgroup, in several
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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 2:24:28 AM3/15/08
to
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.

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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 2:58:26 AM3/15/08
to

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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 7:48:34 AM3/15/08
to
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:24:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Veal
<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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 8:15:47 AM3/15/08
to
In article <4e20e350-2b11-45ee...@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.

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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 10:33:01 AM3/15/08
to
On Mar 14, 12:35 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 11:51:50 AM3/15/08
to
On Mar 15, 7:15 am, Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 11:58:54 AM3/15/08
to
On Mar 15, 1:58 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
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

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 4:12:05 PM3/15/08
to
Tom Reedy wrote:
> 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 don't know about the 17th century, but the 18th generally did the
front matter last.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Christian Lanciai

unread,
Mar 15, 2008, 6:24:54 PM3/15/08
to
On 14 Mar, 15:41, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip of a few days...

>
> >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)
>
> 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 athttp://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 sitehttp://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

All this is extremely interesting but hardly answers my question, but
on the contrary increase the doubts as to Mary's possible authorship
of Shakespeare, especially when you consider *Shakespeare's*
particular almost hostile standing to mothers, there being only three
mother characters in the whole canon and all three quite unmotherly.
To this idiosyncracy should be added the particular case of MacDuff,
one of *Shakespeare's* most clearcut heroic and honest characters,
"born of no mother". A mother could hardly have penned plays of so
very unmotherly mother characters, if you pardon my gibe.

C(hris)

book...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 12:39:18 AM3/16/08
to

But I understand Lady Macduff as a comparison figure to Lady Macbeth
is motherly. Search skins show:

(quoting variously)
She and her home serve as contrasts to Lady Macbeth and the hellish
world of Inverness.

Lady Macduff represents all the good people slaughtered by Macbeth.
She loves her family, and is distressed at her husband's departure.

The murder of Duncan was essentially the death of his own loyalty;
the murder of Banquo the death of his conscience; the death of an
innocent woman and child the end of his own humanity.
(unquote)

I think we have to consider how adroitly Shakespeare manages these
aspects of plot in terms of mode of regard. Motherhood is
significantly there, if not always dwelled upon? bb

Peter Farey

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 7:15:44 AM3/16/08
to

Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > 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 oppor-

> tunity to correct the misprint, of course.

According to the facsimile contained in Stephen Booth's
edition, both the title page and the 'dedication' appear
on sig.A, which consists of only 2 pages (i.e. 4 sides).
The former is A1r and the latter A2r, the other two sides
being blank. The First sonnet is on B1r. It would there-
fore presumably have been possible, if any misprint had
been spotted in T.T.'s message, for the other (unused)
half of the 'A' sheet to be used as a cancel title page
without affecting the sonnets themselves.

<snip>

> I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back to
> this next week.

I'd welcome some discussion of this. In my opinion the idea
that it was a message from the 'Fair Youth' is an interest-
ing one even if the rest is just as JWK described it.

Peter Farey

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 7:15:41 AM3/16/08
to

Tom Veal wrote:
>
> FWIW, my review of "Sweet Swan of Avon", the book prom-
> oting the Mary Sidney Herbert hypothesis is now posted at
> http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.

Thanks for pointing it out. Sounds like the sort of book
I'll be happy to give a miss. Useful review.

However, I did bridle a little bit at your statement that:

"*Every* anti-Stratfordian theorist lays out much the
same 'evidence' for whichever noble personage he favors.
One can always find, in the abundance of the plays,
poems and sonnets, incidents that somewhat resemble
events in any given biography."

Whilst this may well be true of many anti-Stratfordians,
it is certainly not true of me. In fact I wrote the foll-
owing for the Wikipedia item on "Marlovian theory":

"Faked (or wrongly presumed) death, disgrace, banishment,
and changed identity are of course major ingredients in
Shakespeare's plays. Unlike adherents of the Oxfordian
theory, however, Marlovians have little time for seeking
parallels between Marlowe's known or predicted life and
these stories, since one can find whatever one wants to
find in them if one looks hard enough."

I would make an exception of the Sonnets, however, in
which (if they are in fact autobiographical) the circum-
stances described do seem hard to relate to Shakespeare.
Also there are some places in the plays where it is diff-
icult to know just why something was included if it were
not some sort of in-joke for those privy to something
unknown to most of us.

Not all of us favour a "noble personage" either, of course!

One small typo I noticed BTW - you wrote 'John Audrey'
which should of course have been 'Aubrey'. (Speaking of
whom, I see that Roy Dotrice, at 82, has just revived
his wonderful 1-man show based upon 'Brief Lives'. I do
hope that someone manages to record it for posterity, as
they did once before, back in the days of black and
white TV!)

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 11:40:08 AM3/16/08
to
"Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Faked (or wrongly presumed) death, disgrace,
> banishment, and changed identity are of course
> major ingredients in Shakespeare's plays."
-------------------------------------
. False Deaths
-------------------------------------
c.1590 Henry VI, Parts II and III
.
c.1590-1591 Henry VI, Part I
.
c.1592 Richard III
_____ The Comedy of Errors
.
c.1593 Titus Andronicus
_____ Taming of the Shrew
.
c.1594 Two Gentlemen of Verona
_____ Love's Labour's Lost
_____ Romeo And Juliet...........Juliet
.
c.1595 Richard II
_____ A Midsummer Night's Dream..Thisbe
.
c.1596 King John
_____ The Merchant of Venice
.........................................
. The Merchant of Venice Act 5, Scene 1
.
JESSICA: In such a night
. Did Thisbe fearfully o'ertrip the dew
. And saw the lion's shadow ere himself
. And ran dismay'd away.
.........................................
c.1597 Henry IV part I...Falstaffe
.
c.1597-1598 Henry IV part II
.
c.1599 Much Ado About Nothing......Hero
_____ Henry V
_____ Julius Ceasar......Brutus, Titinius
_____ As You Like It
.
c.1601 Twelfth Night.......Sebastian, Viola
_____ Hamlet..............Claudius, Hamlet
.
c.1602 Troilus and Cressida (1609)
.
c.1603 All's Well That Ends Well (1623)..Helena
------------------------------------------------
Edward de Vere
..................................................
"No longer mourn for me when I am dead,
Than you shall hear-the surly sullen bell;
Give warning to the world that I am fled
.
From this vile world, with vilest worms to dwell;
.
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it."
------------------------------------------------
c.1604 Measure for Measure (1623)....Claudio
_____ Othello (1622)................Desdemona
.
c.1605 King Lear (1608)
_____ Macbeth (1623)
.
c.1606 Antony and Cleopatra (1623)....Cleopatra
.
c.1607 Coriolanus (1623)
_____ Timon of Athens (1623)
.
c.1608 Pericles Prince of Tyre (1609)..Thaisa, Marina
.
c.1609 Cymbeline (1623).....Imogen/Fidele, Posthumous
.
c.1610 The Winter's Tale (1623)...........Hermione
.
c.1611 The Tempest (1623)...Prospero, Ferdinand, Alonso
.
c.1612 Henry VIII (1623)
----------------------------------
I have concluded that Oxford probably lived in hiding
until his actual death in 1612:
..............................................................
1) Oxford certainly didn't die on St.John's day/Midsummer's Night.
A death that went totally unnoticed & without a trace.

2) Oxford's widow didn't bother to write
her Will until Nov. 25, 1612.

3) Lear's favorite daughter (Cordelia) was married
so it would have been nice if Oxford had known
that his favorite daughter (Susan) was married.

4) Once he had a male heir entering puberty Oxford probably
would have been much happier living a gay lifestyle in hiding,
while being allowed to work in peace on the rest of
his oeuvre (including, possibly, KJV & Don Quixote).

5) It would have been strange for Oxford to die
just as Neville's five year payment ran out.
The flurry of 1608/9 activity was to thank Neville
for his patronage (& not because Oxford had died).

6) The Ashbourne painting & the Wellbeck painting
are similar in many ways...including, possibly,
having Oxford's TWO dates of death written in gold.

7) Oxford's swan song: _The Tempest_ (A COMEDY!)
was performed in court on Nov. 1, 1611.

8) The 1612 MINERVA BRITANNA "MENTE VIDEBOR"
___________ anagram is clearly "DE VERE IN TOMB".
Presumably, the burial had to be soon after Oxford's actual death.

9) The MINERVA BRITANNA Banner Folding clearly demonstrates
how the Equidistant Linear Sequence decoding is to be performed:
----------------------------------------------------------------
- V I [V] I T U R I
N G [E] N I O C Æ
- T E [R] A M O R T
_ I S [E] R U N T.

VIVITUR INGENIO, CÆTERA MORTIS ERUNT.

"all thinges perish and come to theyr last end,but workes
of learned WITS and monuments of Poetry abide for EUER."
----------------------------------------------------
July 6th 1604 - *Edward VEARE* earl of oxford (burial)
-----------------------------------------------------
*VARE* : continue, endure, keep on, last (Danish)
*VARE* : A wand or *STAFF* of authority or justice.

Prospero: This airy charm is for, I'll break my *STAFF*
. Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
. And deeper than did ever plummet sound
. I'll drown my book.
-------------------------------------------
July 6th
--------------------------------------------------
July 6, 1189 - King Henry II dies
July 6, 1415 - Jan Hus, Bohemian reformer (burned at the stake)
July 6, 1483 - Richard III is crowned king of England.
July 6, 1533 - Ludovico Ariosto dies
July 6, 1535 - Sir Thomas More executed
July 6, 1553 - King Edward VI of England dies
July 6, 1560 - The Treaty of Edinburgh is signed by Scotland &
England.

July 6, 1609 - Bohemia is granted freedom of religion.
---------------------------------------------------------
. CHRISTOPHER
. THOR'S CIPHER.
-----------------------------------------------------
Queen Elizabeth dies: THURSday, March 24.
Queen Mary __ THURSday, November 17.
King Edward VI. THURSday, July 6.
Henry VIII _____ THURSday, Jan. 28.
.
. BloomsDay of James Joyce's _Ulysses_:
THURSday June 16, 1904 exactly 301 (52 week "years")
. after Oxford's "death" THURSday June 24, 1604
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta33.htm
.
<<A great number of scholars and philosophers,
among them Sir Francis Bacon & Wolfgang von Goethe,
have been suspected of affiliation with the R(osicrucian) O(rder)>>
....................................................
THE CREST OF JOHANN VALENTIN ANDREÆ.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/img/14000.jpg
....................................................
<<The reference to four red roses and a white cross in the Chymical
Marriage of Christian Rosencreutz identified Johann Valentin Andreæ
as its author, for his family crest, shown above,
consisted of four red roses and a white cross.>>
--------------------------------------------
____*OXENFORD*
.
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
____ *FOX* : *REV* (Norwegian)
-------------------------------------------------------
__ \_*_/
__ _\_/
_ * _X * Edward de Vere, Erle of Oxenford was buryed
__ _/_\ __________ the 6th daye of Julye Å 1604
__ _/ *_\ ____________ [ *St. PROSPERO's EVE* ]
.
<<The strange, large 'X' type symbol appears to have been put there
much later. According to Paul Altrocchi, this must have happened
many decades later "...since pencils withsuch a sharp point did
not appear until the late 1600's." It really is anybody's guess
who put it there - perhaps an over-enthusiastic Oxfordian?>>
- _The Death of Edward de Vere_ by Michael Llewellyn
------------------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 16
.
So should the lines of life that life repair,
Which this, Time's *PENCIL* , or my PUPIL PEN,
Neither in inward *WORTH* nor outward fair,
Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
....................................
____ *VERD* : *WORTH* (Norwegian)
-----------------------------------------------
1604 WHITgift dies on February 29th.
1604 1000th anniversary of St.Augustine's death.
1604 Tomb of Christian Rosenkreutz discovered.
1604 Hamlet published
1604 FAMA Fraternitatis published
1604 Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (V1) published
1604 Oxford dies on the Feastday of John the Baptist.
1604 Oxford buried on *St. PROSPERO's EVE*
1604 Kepler's NOVA/AVON.
1604 Susan marries Pembroke on the Feastday of John the Devine
---------------------------------------------------
Goethe's poem :"The Mysteries," in which Brother Mark is
guided to the Temple where the Rose Cross is on the door.
-----------------------------------------------
J.W. von Goethe: _Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship_
. Book II Chapter X
.
WHEN our friends began to think of going home, they looked about them
for their clergyman; but he had vanished, and was nowhere to be found.
.
'It is not polite in the man, who otherwise displayed
good breeding,' said Madam Melina, 'to desert a company
that welcomed him so kindly, without taking leave.'
'I have all the time been thinking,' said Laertes,
'where I can have seen this singular man before.
I fully intended to ask him about it at parting.'
'I too had the same feeling,' said Wilhelm, 'and certainly
I should not have let him go, till he had told us something
more about his circumstances. I am much mistaken
if I have not ere now spoken with him somewhere.'
'And you may in truth,' said Philina, 'be mistaken there.
This person seems to have the air of an acquaintance,
because he looks like a man, and not like *JACK or KIT* '
'What is this?' said Laertes. 'Do not we two look like men?'
'I know what I am saying,? cried Philina;
'and if you cannot understand me, nEVER mind. In the end
my words will be found to require no commentary.'
---------------------------------------------
. Beaumont and Fletcher. Philaster.
. Act the Fifth Scene IV
.
1ST CIT.: I'll have a leg, that's certain.
2ND CIT.: I'll have an arm.
3RD CIT.: I'll have his nose, and at mine own charge
. build a college and clap't upon the gate.
4TH CIT.: I'll have his little gut to string a *KIT* with;
. For certainly a royal gut will sound like silVER.
---------------------------------------------
. sudore non supore - by labour not sleep
.......................................
. http://www.st-ives.info/
.
As I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks, Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven KITs;
KITs, cats, sacks and wives -
How many were going to St Ives?
--------------------------------------------
____ *OXENFORD*
____ {anagram}
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
.
____*KITS*
----------------------------------------------
Peter Bull's 14 letter *TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW*
is somewhat less impressive but quite similar
to John Rollett's 15 letter discovery of
*HENRY-WR-IOTH-ESLEY* in the Sonnets
dedication (: i.e., a name closely associated with
William Shakespeare which is broken into 4 pieces).
.
Rollett's solution is clearly statistically significant
in its own right. Peter Bull's *TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW*
is probably statistically significant as well given
the apriori existence & legitimacy of Rollett's find.
---------------------------------------------------
[T]hou wilt restore, to be my comfort still:
[I]s't not enough to torture me alone,
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
--------------------------------------------------
(W)hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
(I)n things of great receipt with ease we prove
(S)hall Will in others seem right gracious,
(H)e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
.
Sonnet 135: WhoEVER hath her *WISH* , thou hast thy 'Will,'
.
. King Lear Act 2, Scene 4
.
REGAN: so will you *WISH ON* me,
.
. Measure for Measure Act 2, Scene 1
.
FROTH: I nEVER come into any room in a *TAP-house*
. but I am drawn in.
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Massinger: _A New Way to Pay Old Debts_
. Act I Scene I
.
[Enter] TAPWELL, WELLBORN [in tattered apparel,] and FROTH
.
TAP. [to his wife.] Cry out for help!
.
WELL. Stir, and thou diest:
Your potent prince, the constable, shall not save you.
Hear me ungrateful hell-hound! Did not I
Make purses for you? Then you lick?d my boots,
And thought your holiday cloak too coarse to clean them.
?Twas I that, when I heard thee swear if ever
Thou couldst arrive at forty pounds thou wouldst
Live like an emperor, ?twas I that gave it
In ready gold. Deny this, wretch!
.
TAP. I must, sir;
For, from the tavern to the *TAPhouse* , all,
On forfeiture of their licenses, stand bound
Ne?er to remember who their best guests were,
If they grew poor like you.
.
WELL. They are well rewarded
That beggar themselves to make such cuckolds rich.
----------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
--------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
.
. <= 12 =>
.
137 T T T Y I B(W)W W W O T
136 I S A T W I(I)A T T F T
135 W A M T W N(S)A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F(H)V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A[O]A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B[N]D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T(T)A A A O T
130 M C[I I}I B(A)T I T I M
129 T I{I}S I P(P)O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D{T)W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W{T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
.99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
.98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
.97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
.96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
.95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
.94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
.93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
.92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
.91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
.90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
.89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
.88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
.87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
.86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
.85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
.84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
.83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
----------------------------------
Recalculated for first 12 lines:
-------------------------------------------
*KITM-MARL-LOW* probability ~ 1/760
----------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
.
Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):
.
. 4 K's
. 68 M's
. 41 L's
.
. This automatically gives:
.
. 4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
. 68 x 41 "M-L" pairs
.
However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns
.
Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
. "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
. in the Bull array
.
. "K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
. "M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
-------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
.to count (for whole 14 lines):
.
50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
.8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
.
. "IT" probability: 50/4000
. "AR" probability: 8/4000
. "OW" probability: 31/4000
--------------------------------------------
. Now applying the
.
"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500
.
. to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
. "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
.
gives [E]xpected [V]alue of
.
. "KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
. "MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500
.
Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
----------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
. two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!
.
. For these two strings to share the SAME "M"
.
"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
. of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:
.
. [L]M T F T I I
. F A F T W I T
. S S S A W B A
. N I A A C G T
. A S A T T A I
. A V A W V[O]T
. A T M F A T A
. B T M W A N G
. W R A I A T I
.
Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.
.
. How does this compare with and
. expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
. Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
.
. TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
. So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
. the final "OW" is ~0.39
.
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760
.
A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
--------------------------------------------------------
. Now things get interesting:
--------------------------------------------
____*OXENFORD*
.
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
.
_______4 *KITs*
------------------------------------------------------------
. "KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:
.
<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.
.
2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"
.
. The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
. of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":
.
. S
. A M
. A M[T]
. F[I]B M
. [K]H L A B
. A F T Y
. C[I I}
. I{I}
. V [T] {T}
.
. {T}
.
. So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
. the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
. [; ignoring the "K" & "T"]
.
Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
. left right pairs in the "Bull array":
---------------------------------------------
. Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
.
. TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
. for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
----------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
. PLUS 4 close "KIT"s
.
. ~ 1/(760 x 4700) ~1/3,600,000!!!
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.masoncode.com/Great%20Seal%20Sonnets.htm

As an Oxfordian the base 17 pyramid is ideal!
-----------------------------------------------
A nice pattern emerges if
the sonnets are written out in
boustrophedon "ox path" style:
..................................................
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* -- Milton (1630)
.
---------- *SONET EYES*
...
---------------- * 154
--------------- 0 0 153
-------------- 0 * * 151
------------- 0 * * * 148
------------ 0 0 Y * * 144
----------- 0 * 0 * * * 139
---------- 0 * * 0 * 0 0 133
-------------------------------------------
--------- * * * * 0 * 0 * 125
-------- * * * * 0 0 * * * 117
------- * * 0 * 0 * * * * * 108
------ 0 * * * * 0 * 0 * * * 98
----- * * * * 0 * 0 * * 0 * * 87
---- * * * * * * 0 * * * * * * 75
--- 0 0 * * * * 0 0 * * * * * 0 62
-- * * * * * * * * * 0 * * 0 0 * 48
- 0 * 0 0 0 * * * 0 0 0 * * 0 * 0 33
. 0 0 * * 0 * 0 * 0 * * * * 0 * 0 0 17
----------------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
.....................................
Or that his hallow'd relics should be hid
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* ?
Dear son of memory, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
-----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

lackpurity

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 2:08:57 PM3/16/08
to
On Mar 14, 5:05�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.

MM:
Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts to rewrite
history. I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."
Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he became the NEW
Male Parent, with William Shakespeare being the old parent. That's
William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher Marlowe. We have to
watch these attempts of Anti-Strats to distort the truth. The FF was
dedicated to the two Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that,
also.

> Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact

MM:
I'd say your so-called "fact," doesn't appear to be a fact, at all.
It appears to be another Anti-Strat allegation.

> because the initials of the person they think of as the
> poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.

MM:
Whoop De Do! I just explained that ONE was the OLD PARENT, and W. H.
was the NEW MALE PARENT. Get it?

> Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
> way,

MM:
Constrained? The issue is W. H., the begetter. I guess you might
consider going back to the drawing boards.

> 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.

MM:
It corroborates Stratfordianism, very clearly, Mr. Farey.

Michael Martin

lackpurity

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 2:15:30 PM3/16/08
to
On Mar 14, 11:35 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 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. In addition,
> in period language, the "begetter" of a literary work is overwhelmingly
> likely to mean the author,

MM:
Shakespeare was making W. H. the new Father of his child (Sonnets) and
also the canon. It was like transferring custody.

> 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.

MM:
It doesn't seem to be an error. MSH was his wife, previously, and it
makes perfect sense to leave the sonnets and canon to her son, William
Herbert.

> 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.

MM:
Every Living Poet means that he was ONE with God. Who could be
greather than that?

Michael Martin

Christian Lanciai

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 2:29:42 PM3/16/08
to

Indeed, here at last we have a proper, decent and natural mother in
Shakespeare, but what does the author do to her? He has her children
slaughtered in front of her eyes, and she is herself most brutally
murdered, in fact, of all the brutal murders in Macbeth, this is the
most horrendous, as children are involved.

This is at the same time completely in line with the "theatre of
cruelty" as launched 20 years earlier with 'Tamburlaine' - nothing has
changed, the exaggerated cruelty is still the same, while all the poet
has in mind is the dramatic impact.

Together with the three earlier problematic mothers in Shakespeare,
this poses a most intriguing insight into the poet's relationship with
mothers at large. Freudians must immediately relish delving into the
possible secrets of the poet's relationship with his own mother, if he
had one at all and was not like Macduff. In fact, it's not too far-
fetched to suspect the poet's attitude towards mothers as the result
of a relationship with a step-mother, lady Macduff then representing
an ideal mother which the poet never had or could reach.

Another Shakespeare mystery.

C(hris)


Tom Reedy

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 3:45:45 PM3/16/08
to

It's not peculiar to Shakespeare. Nobody wants to go to the theater,
watch a movie or TV show, or read a book about good mothers or happy
families. They're no fun. Even in fairy tales they're flatter and less
interesting than witches and evil step-mothers.

TR

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 8:06:41 PM3/16/08
to

Exactly. Anti-Stratfordians seem nearly incapable of understanding
that non-journalistic authors choose characters mainly for what they
do for their stories, not to reveal biographical matter.

--Bob G.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 10:25:33 PM3/16/08
to
On Mar 16, 7:06 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

Even writers who mine their own lives for their material make the
characters and events a lot more interesting than they were in
reality. A lot of what passes for biography and autobiography is
heavily fictionalized, also.

TR

Tom Veal

unread,
Mar 16, 2008, 10:35:47 PM3/16/08
to
On Mar 16, 4:15 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> However, I did bridle a little bit at your statement that:


>
>   "*Every* anti-Stratfordian theorist lays out much the
>   same 'evidence' for whichever noble personage he favors.
>   One can always find, in the abundance of the plays,
>   poems and sonnets, incidents that somewhat resemble
>   events in any given biography."
>
> Whilst this may well be true of many anti-Stratfordians,
> it is certainly not true of me.

Fair enough. My remark applies to the various pretenders from the
nobility, not to Christopher Marlowe.

> One small typo I noticed BTW - you wrote 'John Audrey'
> which should of course have been 'Aubrey'. (Speaking of
> whom, I see that Roy Dotrice, at 82, has just revived
> his wonderful 1-man show based upon 'Brief Lives'. I do
> hope that someone manages to record it for posterity, as
> they did once before, back in the days of black and
> white TV!)
>

Thanks for the correction.

Peter Farey

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 3:44:35 AM3/17/08
to

"lackpurity" wrote:

>
> Peter Farey 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.
>
> MM:
> Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts
> to rewrite history.

Don Foster is not an "anti-Strat". He is an English Pro-
fessor at Vassar and, like most such professors (including
Michael Egan and Park Honan) is staunchly Stratfordian.

He did, however, acknowledge the possible relevance of his
argument to those of the opposite persuasion by saying:

"One hypothesis [to explain his findings], which I leave
others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
of *Shake-speares Sonnets*."

> I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."

Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?

> Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he
> became the NEW Male Parent, with William Shakespeare
> being the old parent.

Ah, so you didn't look up "only" at the same time, then?

> That's William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher
> Marlowe. We have to watch these attempts of Anti-Strats
> to distort the truth. The FF was dedicated to the two
> Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that, also.

It was dedicated to William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip,
Earl of Montgomery, not to a 'Mr' anybody. As Foster says
about "Mr.W.H.":

"None but the party faithful still suppose that Thomas
Thorpe, a commoner, would dare address Lord Pembroke
or Lord Southampton as "Master," or with so brief a
greeting. Thorpe well knew how to address a social
superior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
in *St. Augustine* and the 1616 *Epictetus*. These are
impeccable in their Renaissance courtesy and, if any-
thing, somewhat too abject in tone. Nor has any member
of the Southampton or Pembroke schools cited any other
epistler who omitted a lord's title. To suggest that
Thorpe's "Mr. W. H." stands for Pembroke or Southamp-
ton (or for anyone else above the rank of esquire) is
to grasp at straws."

> > Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient

> > fact.


>
> MM:
> I'd say your so-called "fact," doesn't appear to be a
> fact, at all. It appears to be another Anti-Strat
> allegation.

The FACT is that Don Foster was unable to find any
example of the word "begetter" meaning anyone other
than the author himself except in one case, where it
was made quite clear that the normal "male parent"
conceit was being deliberately reversed.

> > because the initials of the person they think of as
> > the poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
>
> MM:
> Whoop De Do! I just explained that ONE was the
> OLD PARENT, and W. H. was the NEW MALE
> PARENT. Get it?

Yes, it makes no more sense than it did the first time.

> Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the
> same way,
>
> MM:
> Constrained? The issue is W. H., the begetter. I
> guess you might consider going back to the drawing
> boards.

I guess you might consider talking sense for once, but
I know it ain't never going to happen.

> > 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.
>
> MM:
> It corroborates Stratfordianism, very clearly, Mr. Farey.

Which is why Foster said "One hypothesis, which I leave
others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
of *Shake-speares Sonnets*." Right.

Alan Jones

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 5:03:06 AM3/17/08
to
The natural sense of "begetter" would seem to be "inspirer". The poet is the
"mother" who conceives and brings forth the poem, but its seed was planted
by someone else, Mr W.H. He may be the subject of the poem (though that
does stretch the "begetter" metaphor) or more likely the person who
suggested an idea or theme.

Alan Jones


Peter Farey

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 7:07:55 AM3/17/08
to

This is of course the standard line, which ignores
the very good points that Foster is making against
such a theory. In fact I have been unable to find any
attempt to refute the point he makes about the poet
himself being the "onlie begetter". G. Blakemore
Evans disagrees but (other than citing the exception
which Foster himself identified and explained) he
gives no reason for rejecting it. I did actually ask
Dave Kathman (who wrote an item on Mr. W.H. for the
Oxford DNB) whether he could think of any attempt to
refute Foster's evidence, but he could recall none
other than the New Cambridge mention either.

Even if we ignore his claim that "begetter" in every
other case means the poet, however, you appear to be
forgetting the fact that there are 154 different poems
(and thus 154 'ideas' or 'themes' to be suggested) in
all, and no fewer than three different 'subjects'
addressed in them. 'W.H.', on the other hand, is said
to be the "onlie begetter".

Incidentally, Foster's explanation of the "onlie" is
that Thorpe is in fact 'certifying' that they are all
by Shakespeare. My own would be that whereas the
"Shakespeare" plays were created to some extent by
both Marlowe *and* Shakespeare the Sonnets are
exclusively by the former. (Personally, I'd have
probably given Sonnet 145 to William, but I could
be wrong, or the writer of the 'dedication' may not
have known it.)

Tom Reedy

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 8:15:03 AM3/17/08
to

MM"s scholarship is about as good as his spiritual explications. A new
thread should be started with the title "Is MM a moron or what?" It
would be hard to answer in the negative, going by this and his many
other posts.

TR

lackpurity

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 10:56:23 AM3/17/08
to
On Mar 17, 1:44�am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> "lackpurity" wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey 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.
>
> > MM:
> > Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts
> > to rewrite history.
>
> Don Foster is not an "anti-Strat".

MM:
I didn't say he was. You still believe that Marlowe faked his death
and wrote Shakespeare's canon. Correct? I'm not much into quoting a
lot of names as you do. You, apparently, think that just by dropping
names you lend some authority to the Anti-Strat theory.

> He is an English Pro-
> fessor at Vassar and, like most such professors (including
> Michael Egan and Park Honan) is staunchly Stratfordian.

MM:
Maybe different people have different definitions of the word? Maybe
we should coin a word, such as "agnostic," to apply to some fence
straddlers?

> He did, however, acknowledge the possible relevance of his
> argument to those of the opposite persuasion by saying:
>
> � "One hypothesis [to explain his findings], which I leave
> � others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
> � of *Shake-speares Sonnets*."

MM:
How he could come up with such a hypothesis is incredible, IMO.

> > I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."
>
> Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
> the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?

MM:
That's right. It didn't say the "begetter," was a male author.
Sorry, better luck next time, Anti-Strat. I see you're indulging in
your usual evasive tactics, without an qualms whatsoever. Incredible.

> > Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he
> > became the NEW Male Parent, with William Shakespeare
> > being the old parent.
>
> Ah, so you didn't look up "only" at the same time, then?

MM:
More evasion, apparently.

> > That's William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher
> > Marlowe. �We have to watch these attempts of Anti-Strats
> > to distort the truth. �The FF was dedicated to the two
> > Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that, also.
>
> It was dedicated to William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip,
> Earl of Montgomery, not to a 'Mr' anybody. As Foster says
> about "Mr.W.H.":

MM:
As I mentioned, the two Herbert brothers.

> � "None but the party faithful still suppose that Thomas


> � Thorpe, a commoner, would dare address Lord Pembroke
> � or Lord Southampton as "Master," or with so brief a
> � greeting. Thorpe well knew how to address a social
> � superior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
> � in *St. Augustine* and the 1616 *Epictetus*. These are
> � impeccable in their Renaissance courtesy and, if any-
> � thing, somewhat too abject in tone. Nor has any member
> � of the Southampton or Pembroke schools cited any other
> � epistler who omitted a lord's title. To suggest that
> � Thorpe's "Mr. W. H." stands for Pembroke or Southamp-
> � ton (or for anyone else above the rank of esquire) is
> � to grasp at straws."

MM:
We are talking about a young man, here. Shakespeare was his Master,
apparently, and Mr. W. H. was his disciple. If his mother was still
living, then it becomes more obvious. Let's keep those facts in
mind. Then it becomes congruent, conveying the accurate relationship
of Mr. W. H.. You appear to be on the wrong trail, here, Mr. Farey.

> > > Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient
> > > fact.
>
> > MM:
> > I'd say your so-called "fact," doesn't appear to be a
> > fact, at all. It appears to be another Anti-Strat
> > allegation.
>
> The FACT is that Don Foster was unable to find any
> example of the word "begetter" meaning anyone other
> than the author himself except in one case, where it
> was made quite clear that the normal "male parent"
> conceit was being deliberately reversed.

MM:
All right. I've patiently explained that the Sonnets were the child
of William Shakespeare of Stratford. He was the first begetter, then
WS made Mr. W. H. the second begetter. I know this doesn't help your
Marlovian theory, that is why I suggested that you go back to the
drawing boards.

> > > because the initials of the person they think of as


> > > the poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
>
> > MM:
> > Whoop De Do! �I just explained that ONE was the
> > OLD PARENT, and W. H. was the NEW MALE
> > PARENT. Get it?
>
> Yes, it makes no more sense than it did the first time.

MM:
You'd rather go around in circles like a ship without a rudder?

> > Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the
> > same way,
>
> > MM:
> > Constrained? �The issue is W. H., the begetter. �I
> > guess you might consider going back to the drawing
> > boards.
>
> I guess you might consider talking sense for once, but
> I know it ain't never going to happen.

MM:
What else can I do? I explain the truth very clearly, but then you
might be thinking of defending your erroneous and fantastic Marlovian
Theory?

> > > 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.
>
> > MM:
> > It corroborates Stratfordianism, very clearly, Mr. Farey.

> Which is why Foster said "One hypothesis, which I leave
> others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
> of *Shake-speares Sonnets*." Right.

MM:
Ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if Anti-Strats use
them, thinking that Strats are ignorant and/or gullible. Better luck
next time. :-) You Anti-Strats are incredible, how you want to
rewrite history with such reckless abandon. Okay. We'll be watching
your attempts.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 11:43:19 AM3/17/08
to

I take it back. He's obviously a moron. The name of the thread should
be "Is MM a fucking brain-dead idiot or what?"

TR

Paul Crowley

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:36:07 PM3/17/08
to
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:frljdn$67t$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> Alan Jones wrote:
>> The natural sense of "begetter" would seem to be
>> "inspirer". The poet is the "mother" who conceives
>> and brings forth the poem, but its seed was planted
>> by someone else, Mr W.H. He may be the subject of
>> the poem (though that does stretch the "begetter"
>> metaphor) or more likely the person who suggested
>> an idea or theme.
>
> This is of course the standard line, which ignores
> the very good points that Foster is making against
> such a theory. In fact I have been unable to find any
> attempt to refute the point he makes about the poet
> himself being the "onlie begetter". G. Blakemore
> Evans disagrees but (other than citing the exception
> which Foster himself identified and explained) he
> gives no reason for rejecting it. I did actually ask
> Dave Kathman (who wrote an item on Mr. W.H. for the
> Oxford DNB) whether he could think of any attempt to
> refute Foster's evidence, but he could recall none
> other than the New Cambridge mention either.
>
> Even if we ignore his claim that "begetter" in every
> other case means the poet,

It is clear from the grammar that
the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
instance. One person is already
indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
poet' ? Did he promise himself 'all
happinesse and that eternity'?

TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
THESE INSVING SONNETS
Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
AND THAT ETERNITIE
PROMISED
BY
OVR EVER-LIVING
POET
WISHETH
THE WELL-WISHING
ADVENTVRER IN
SETTING
FORTH.
T.T.
SHAKE-SPEARES,
SONNETS.


Paul.

Paul Crowley

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 1:47:33 PM3/17/08
to
"Tom Reedy" <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf027b5d-ea5f-4382...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>>>> Together with the three earlier problematic mothers in Shakespeare,
>>>> this poses a most intriguing insight into the poet's relationship with
>>>> mothers at large. Freudians must immediately relish delving into the
>>>> possible secrets of the poet's relationship with his own mother, if he
>>>> had one at all and was not like Macduff. In fact, it's not too far-
>>>> fetched to suspect the poet's attitude towards mothers as the result
>>>> of a relationship with a step-mother, lady Macduff then representing
>>>> an ideal mother which the poet never had or could reach.
>>
>>>> Another Shakespeare mystery.
>>
>>> It's not peculiar to Shakespeare. Nobody wants to go to the theater,
>>> watch a movie or TV show, or read a book about good mothers or happy
>>> families. They're no fun. Even in fairy tales they're flatter and less
>>> interesting than witches and evil step-mothers.

Ignorant Stratfordianism goes rampant.
Some ugly fact raises its head, and
Strats flee to the nearest pile of dirt
they can raise to create confusion.

The point being made is about the
RELATIVE proportion of '[bad mothers
to good' in Shake-speare, as compared
with other authors, and as compared
(generally) with the relative proportion
of 'bad fathers to good', or 'bad husbands
to good', or 'bad wives to good', or 'bad
children to good', or 'bad brothers to
good' . . . etc., etc.

Of course, there are bad mothers in
literature generally, but there are also
good ones, as well as both sorts of
fathers, of wives, of husbands, brothers,
sisters, etc., etc.

>> Exactly. Anti-Stratfordians seem nearly incapable of understanding
>> that non-journalistic authors choose characters mainly for what they
>> do for their stories, not to reveal biographical matter.
>>
>> --Bob G.

Another (necessarily ignorant) Strat
chimes in.

> Even writers who mine their own lives for their material make the
> characters and events a lot more interesting than they were in
> reality. A lot of what passes for biography and autobiography is
> heavily fictionalized, also.

Grass is green, God is Love, paint
dries slowly. Rain is wet. Let's recite
as many irrelevant facts as we can.

It is quite easy to list the poet's
main interests -- as seen in the canon
-- and to summarise his prevailing
attitudes, and then see who fits best.

Let's take the indisputable fact that
the poet shows mothers unfavourably.
Which candidate had an unloving mother
(who remarried shortly after the death of
a beloved father)? The poet generally
shows fathers as honest and honourable.
Whose much loved father died when
he was twelve?

The poet is peculiarly concerned about
bastardy, and how it can have a
devastating effect on an individual.
He also often portrays major characters
as fathering bastards? Which candidate
suffered persecution over alleged
bastardy? Which fathered one or more
bastard sons?

The poet does not say much about
brothers or sisters, never showing a
deep or close relationship with one.
Which candidate was, in effect, an
only child?

On a related issue, I recently heard
William Hague talking about Pitt, the
Younger -- on whom he has written a
biography. Pitt died (at the age of 46)
leaving huge debts (of £40,000) which
the grateful Parliament paid off. The
interviewer was puzzled as to how
such an able person could so neglect
his private affairs. Hague replied that
he understood the matter perfectly.
When he had been Leader of the
Opposition, he had been so deeply
involved in all the exciting matters of
politics, that he had also quite
neglected his own affairs. He never
had any idea how much he had in his
bank account and he did not want to
know. On leaving office, he found
himself broke.

ALL great artists are also of this
nature. Their work is to them so
important that they have no time for,
nor interest in, money, often ending
up in poverty. This is yet another
disqualification of the Stratman (in
addition to his illiteracy). Such a
tight-fisted, small-minded, litigatious
provincial low-life could never have
been any kind of artist.

It is quite incredible that people
continue to believe in him.


Paul.


Tom Reedy

unread,
Mar 17, 2008, 4:16:03 PM3/17/08