Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

News!! News!! A New Shakespeare Annotation Proves Willy a Fraud!!

25 views
Skip to first unread message

john_baker

unread,
Aug 11, 2003, 11:34:59 AM8/11/03
to
NEWS!!! NEWS!!!

Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:

http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm

Readers and posters will be interested to know that a period
annotation about Shakespeare has surfaced in a 1594 edition of
Camden's *Remains.*

It has either been overlooked by Strats or *suppressed.*

It was noticed earlier this year by an Oxfordian scholar, Paul
Altrocchi, who announced his discovery at the Seventh Annual
Edward De Vere Conference at Concordia University, Porland, Oregon, in
April, which I attended and presented a paper on the manuscript of
Henry IV.

Dr. Altrocchi has an article on this in the new issue of *Shakespeare
Matters," under the title "Sleuthing an Enigmatic Latin Annotation..."
at http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm

(Yes that's my essay, not Kathman's, on "Shakespeare's Moral
Philosophy," boasted about on their home page, adapted from the
earlier version posted here. Kathman doesn't believe Willy had a
moral philosophy, or rather he believes Willy was a business man who
wrote the plays for spare pence not out of Platonic duty. " Not for
fame but for gain," is how these egg suckers put it.)

But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
annotation is "enigmatic" and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
says and also what it means persists.

I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
primary material.

Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
what it says.

Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
Huntington thinks it says and means.

"[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planè nostro ( and William
Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
headlines there."

Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
headlines.

Let's take them in reverse order. Any new period information about
Shakespeare is headline stuff. So this annotation qualifies. Stats
will be loath to mention it, but it is front-page news.

Second as you will see from the scan there are no parenthesis around
the first word, nor is it lower case.

The all important forth word has an indecipherable letter in it that
can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
suggests is doubtful from first blush.

As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
may be "plani" without an accent. If so the reading changes to "Et
Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planèi nostro" which means something like
"And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."

Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.

As usual I'll take either reading.

Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
strongly divided.

Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and
remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth
word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
declinations or tenses of the other Latin words sensible. In fact it
is the only way to make these words make a sentence.

Alan Nelson and William Streitberger both agree with Tabor and The
Huntington, as does Peter Farey.

A group of scholars at Portland State University isn't so certain and
appear to be leaning towards the more radical reading. They are
working under the direction of Professor Emeritus Rod Diman, who has
more than thirty years in reading Latin works from this period.

Professor Diman's first opinion leaned towards the "Rescio" reading
and I am waiting on his final opinion, augmented by several scholars
who are experts in this hand.

So there is News here. Good news for anti-Strats.

Someone living at the time of Shakespeare, more than likely while he
was alive, someone evidently living in Stratford, and who could thus
use the word "nostro" or "our" to include Shakespeare and themselves
on the Stratford page, checked Camden's _Remains_ to see what it had
to say about Stratford and its citizens and discovered that it didn't
mention Willy. From this the Annotator either concluded Willy was
thus a fraud or a charlatan, the meaning of "plani" or, alternatively,
the Annotator concluded that Camden had missed Willy and added his
name as a famous actor. Actor not writer.

Think about this Thread Travelers. Marvel at this. Someone living
in Stratford c. 1615, someone literate enough to read and write Latin,
someone who knew William Shakespeare as a member of his or her own
community, writes into this list of distinguished persons of Stratford
Shakespeare's name, but not as their Terence or as their Seneca, but
as their Roscius.

Or only as a famous actor.

Clearly the Annotator didn't know that William Shakespeare was also a
writer and thus didn't include this honor, then as now so much higher
than mere acting, along with his name! Reflect on it.

This is the smoking gun anti-Stratfordians have searched for through
the centuries.

This is _conclusive_ evidence for my hypothesis, offered here a year
or so ago here, that until the First Folio appeared in 1623 no one
thought of the rustic Actor as an author. And thus there was no
authorship question until the appearance of the First Folio.


John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler

Peter Groves

unread,
Aug 11, 2003, 7:29:54 PM8/11/03
to
<john baker> wrote in message
news:3f37ae71....@News.localaccess.com...

> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
>
> Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
>
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
> [snip]

> But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
> annotation is "enigmatic"

Only to those who can't read Latin.

> and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
> says and also what it means persists.
>

Only for those who can't read Latin

> I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
> primary material.
>
> Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
> what it says.
>
> Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> Huntington thinks it says and means.
>

> "[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro ( and William


> Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> headlines there."
>

But, amusingly, Faker (with his double Ph.D in Classical languages) knows
better:

> Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
> headlines.
>
>

> As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
> may be "plani" without an accent. If so the reading changes to "Et

> Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planči nostro" which means

Nothing at all: it's gibberish.

> something like
> "And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."
>
> Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
> Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
> trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
> our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
> Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
> Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.
>

So if someone calls Faker an idiot, it means he or she *doesn't* also
believe him to be an ignoramus?

> As usual I'll take either reading.
>
> Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
> scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
> Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
> strongly divided.
>
> Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
> posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and
> remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth
> word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
> declinations or tenses of the other Latin words sensible.

Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.

On his website Faker says: "The forth word contains an blotched and
indecipherable second letter, that might be either an "e" or an "o". The
fifth word might actually be "plani" and not "plane" with an accent. So it
is possible the Latin annotation actually reads:
Et Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio plani nostro

If it does, then it would translate more along the lines of:

And [thus] I know our William Shakespear to be an impostor.

So it could have been "Rescio" for "rescisco" meaning "I know" or "I
ascertain"."

And why exactly would "planus" be in the genitive (or, for that matter, the
nominative plural)?

"Rescisco" can mean "uncover what has been concealed", but no part of it
looks like "rescio", and even if it did it would make no sense in the
context. The closest you could get would be "Et Gulielmo Shakespear nostro
quem rescii planum [esse]", "And to/for/by our William Shakespear whom I
have found out [to be] an impostor."

Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse ["For our Baker, whom
we have discovered to be a fraud"].

baker_the_faker

unread,
Aug 11, 2003, 8:04:32 PM8/11/03
to

Peter, Peter, Poor Little Baby....

I see you're still unable to give an objective evaluation to an
argument without resorting to name calling.

My educational status, which as far as I know you're still in
the dark about, has nothing to do with the facts in this case.

Sadly you're like many Stratfordians who think they can cast doubt
on rivals by kicking them in the shins....

Here's the issue.

Someone writing while Willy was alive, someone who
lived in Stratford, calls him an actor and not an author...

That's great news to me....and bad news for your team.

So keep having fun at my expense if it makes you feel better, Peter.
I'd suggest some tree climbing or mountain climbing but I'm betting
you can't buckle your shoes without help...

Meanwhile just to make a point. I'm going to publish below the text
of an e-mail about the annotation from someone who both reads the
hands and Latin.

Contrary to your opinion experts here have many questions as to both
what it reads and what it means...

And just for the record I'm happy with either reading since neither
calls Willy an author...!!! (:} )

Cheers!

--------------pasted e-mail---------name redacted--------

It is conceivable that this is a list of names--"planc'" could be
"Planctus," who is, like Roscio, associated with Cicero, though I
can't see how he would be connected with Shakespeare, nor is the "p-"
word in the same case (dative / ablative / vocative) as the others
(the terminal suspension would suggest a "-us" rather than an "-o"
ending). Further, if it is simply a list, why are the first three
words (and perhaps the last) in an oblique case at all (and a case not
matched by the fourth word)--the case endings suggest a sentence
rather than a list.

I would argue for "Rescio" despite the fact that the second letter is
very round and "o" shaped: it seems to be a round smudge rather than a
clear letter--so the second letter could be almost any vowel (though
"i" or "u" seem less likely--I'm not seeing minim strokes here--than
"a," "e," or "o"); reading it as "Rescio" gives us a subject and verb
for a sentence and doesn't leave us hunting for Ciceronian
explanations.

"Nostro" is possible for the last word, but so many of the letter
forms there are ambiguous (all but the "o" at the end) that it is
impossible to make any claims there with confidence: it looks to me as
much like "mir[c]lo" (thus my "miraculo" suggestion) as "nostro" (I
don't see the second letter as an "o": you have a series of minims
preceding the squiggle that could be an "s" or an "r"; the minims
could be "vu," "mi," "nu," "vi," "vu," "ni," etc., but not, I think,
"no"). The last three letters could very well be "tro," but what is
the large curled shape on the left of the "t"? That would seem an odd
sort of "t" cross stroke; it looks more to me like a suspended "c"
followed by an "l" or "s." So "vis[c]tro" is possible, but I can't
think of a word for which this could be an abbreviation.

So, I'm still puzzled,

Peter Groves

unread,
Aug 11, 2003, 8:29:55 PM8/11/03
to
Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.

Peter G.

<baker the faker> wrote in message
news:3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com...

ScreenWriter33

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 12:52:17 AM8/12/03
to
Don't mean to add to the confusion, as I have been feeling more like a
Stratfordian lately...but, if I'm not mistaken...Roscius wore a mask, didn't
he? And the audience would beg him to remove the mask, revealing his
deformities, so that they could hear his beautiful voice better.

Someone will probably take this and run with it....

David Kathman

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 2:08:32 AM8/12/03
to
In article <7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Peter
Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:

>Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
>Peter G.

Boy, what a shocker.

I think this annotation is actually pretty interesting, but
Baker's incompetence is painful to watch.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

><baker the faker> wrote in message
>news:3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com...

[snip blather]

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 1:54:23 AM8/12/03
to
On 12 Aug 2003 04:52:17 GMT, screenw...@aol.com (ScreenWriter33)
wrote:


Not that I've heard of....the books simply say he was afforded a
special right to sell seats in the theater and grew rich and famous
because of it...

I'd love to learn about the story of a mask...for obvious reasons.

baker

lowercase dave

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 2:28:48 AM8/12/03
to
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

> Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
> Peter G.

Peter, I don't read Latin, but I used to, and I have some friends who
can, and I own a Latin dictionary, so... It does seem like Baker's got
the goods, but if you say it's wrong, I'll take your word for it,
because you are clearly more objective in the matter, and you're an
expert Latinist. So can you state exactly what YOU think the words
say? Baker seems to think that either way, William is referred to as
either an actor, or an impostor, which come to think of it are more or
less the same. (An actor is a plausible impostor, no?) Thank you.


Yours for b.s.-free newsgroup,

David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 2:38:45 AM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:29:55 GMT, "Peter Groves"
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:

>Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
>Peter G.

Peter!!! You took the words right out of my mouth, but I didn't wish
to be that impolite to a scholar of your status. You'd think a guy
with a name like "Peter" wouldn't brandish round a pejorative slur
like "dickhead."

I tried, dear friend, to address all of your points, both here and on
the web page. If I missed one it must not have appeared as a point
to me, more like a dullness.

I don't doubt that your knowledge of Latin far exceeds mine. Just as
my knowledge of Bovine Sewage and BSE likely exceeds yours. (D.
Carleton Gajdusek and I would entreat you to stay away from beef over
there., good buddy. CJD is icky stuff, that's Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease and the human form of Mad Cow Disease. Bulls don't get it, I
guess, so I'm safe...but you my dear friend are obviously in harm's
way.)

All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount
the conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and
then as to how it translates.

Think of me here as a reporter. I'm just bringing you news, unless
you knew about this and have been keeping it under wraps.

Naughty boy!

I'm entirely willing to agree with the conservative take on this,
i.e., that the annotation just calls Willy an actor....

But I would like a full forensic work up on the annotation inorder to
see if we can find and "e" under the second letter in the forth word.
Which is, at best, indecipherable paleographically. .


Meanwhile, can you translate this for us dear Peter and tell us errant
truants who wrote it, it would be a kindness. I have a vague
suspicion it might have something to do with our differences, which I
suggest we should set aside, before someone steps on your head...

"O te hominem felicem, quod nihil habes, propter quod quisquam tibi
tam longe mentiatur! Nisi quod iam etiam ubi causa sublata est,
mentimur consuetudinis causa...."

Need a hint? Shakespeare and I read this guy before we go to sleep...
If you can't handle it, I'll translate it if I live through the
night....

(:} )

Vale

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 2:52:26 AM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:08:32 -0600, "David Kathman"
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>In article <7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Peter
>Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>>
>>Peter G.
>

>Boy, what a shocker.
>
>I think this annotation is actually pretty interesting, but
>Baker's incompetence is painful to watch.

Then just close your eyes and hold your nose...

(:} }

It is interesting isn't it Dave? And here you guys have
missed it for all these years...

Maybe by kicking me you'll find this bitter pill easier to
swallow...???

(:}) I don't care. So long as it's only on paper and not in the
flesh...(:{ )

And keep it straight Dave, I'm just REPORTING the facts.

Paul discovered it, presented a paper on it in April, following up the
"W.S. is a fraud" reading and then on reflection reversed himself.

I don't care how you read it, _either_ reading is anti Stratfordian.

Someone living there at the time thought of Willy just as an actor.

AND IT'S IN PERFECT TWO PART HARMONY WITH
WHAT DR JOHN WARD HAD TO SAY ABOUT WILLY....JUST A FEW
DECADES LATER: A MAN WITHOUT ANY ART AT ALL WHO "SUPPLIED" THE STAGE
WITH TWO PLAYS A YEAR....


I LOVE IT. (;])

Hope your summer is ok.

Have you read that book on English Provincial society by Peter Clark
yet?

How many pages were in it?

john


>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
>><baker the faker> wrote in message
>>news:3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com...
>
>[snip blather]

John Baker

Peter Groves

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 4:54:41 AM8/12/03
to
"lowercase dave" <graydo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com...

> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> Peter, I don't read Latin, but I used to, and I have some friends who
> can, and I own a Latin dictionary, so... It does seem like Baker's got
> the goods, but if you say it's wrong, I'll take your word for it,
> because you are clearly more objective in the matter, and you're an
> expert Latinist. So can you state exactly what YOU think the words
> say?

I've already done so (the "points" that Baker failed to address). Since he
couldn't deal with them (knowing as much Latin, I suspect, as my cat) he
omitted my entire post inn his reply.

--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.

Toby Petzold

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 5:49:03 AM8/12/03
to
Thanks for this very interesting bit of news, John. I'm sure it will
be met with the usual public jeering and private consternation.

I think the Roscio interpretation is the likelier one, but neither is
of any help to our uncranked opponents.

Your scans are excellent and the implications are even more so.
Thanks.

Toby Petzold

Terry Ross

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 6:27:34 AM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,

>
> All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> to how it translates.

This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."

The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*, and
it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
very great expense.

The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
Stratford.

Atrocchi tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say
something about that later), but he does seem to have found an early
reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
before.

Baker's account of Altrocchi's essay is remarkably unreliable, even for
Baker. I have never called anybody on this newsgroup a liar, and I'm not
going to start now, but nobody should accept Baker's word for anything on
this matter. His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
contents of Altrocchi's essay.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Grumman

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 6:42:48 AM8/12/03
to
> Peter, I don't read Latin, but I used to, and I have some friends who
> can, and I own a Latin dictionary, so... It does seem like Baker's got
> the goods, but if you say it's wrong, I'll take your word for it,
> because you are clearly more objective in the matter, and you're an
> expert Latinist. So can you state exactly what YOU think the words
> say? Baker seems to think that either way, William is referred to as
> either an actor, or an impostor, which come to think of it are more or
> less the same. (An actor is a plausible impostor, no?) Thank you.
>
>
> Yours for b.s.-free newsgroup,
>
> David More

Obviously, Peter thinks the scholar's translation (which I don't have
at hand, so may not have exactly right), "certainly our Roscius," is
correct. Can't mean that the annotator thought Shakespeare was the
leading actor of the time because none of the records identifying
Shakespeare as an actor have his address on them. But it IS odd that
all those who reveal The Truth always do so indirectly. No "William
Shakespeare, surely an imposter," for them, or--perish
forbid--"William Shakespeare (actually Kit Marley)." The idea is
always to reveal and conceal The Truth at the same time. Make sure
everyone knows without letting anybody know. Schizpiracy. Very
reasonable.

--Bob G.

Terry Ross

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 8:03:59 AM8/12/03
to
I misspelled Paul Altrocchi's name in my earlier post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Terry Ross wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>
> >
> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> > to how it translates.
>
> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The

> essay by Paul Altrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the


> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
>
> The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*, and
> it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
> from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
> to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
> who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
> the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
> very great expense.
>
> The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
> annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
> the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
> counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
> Stratford.
>

> Altrocchi tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 12:06:45 PM8/12/03
to
In article <3f37ae71....@News.localaccess.com>, john baker wrote:

> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!

Welcome back, Faker. What have you been doing -- spending all your
time listening to the Franck Organ Symphony?

> Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
>
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
>
> Readers and posters will be interested to know that a period
> annotation about Shakespeare has surfaced in a 1594 edition of
> Camden's *Remains.*
>
> It has either been overlooked by Strats or *suppressed.*

Doubtless the latter. (We discussed how best to avoid its disclosure
at this year's Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspirators' Conclave,
but the Grand Master decided that the most effective way to discredit it
would be simply to permit people with credibility like yours to
promulgate it.)



> It was noticed earlier this year by an Oxfordian scholar, Paul
> Altrocchi, who announced his discovery at the Seventh Annual
> Edward De Vere Conference at Concordia University, Porland, Oregon, in
> April, which I attended and presented a paper on the manuscript of
> Henry IV.
>
> Dr. Altrocchi has an article on this in the new issue of *Shakespeare
> Matters," under the title "Sleuthing an Enigmatic Latin Annotation..."
> at http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm
>
> (Yes that's my essay, not Kathman's, on "Shakespeare's Moral
> Philosophy," boasted about on their home page,

Thanks for clarifying that. From what I've seen of the Shakespeare
Fellowship's online discussion groups, the group consists largely of
afficionados of nutcase scenarios so ludicrous that they are regarded as
risible even by most "maintstream" Oxfordians. Mr. Streitz's "Super DT
Theory" -- that Oxford was the Queen's son (posthumously conceived,
judging by the dates) as well as her lover, that Oxford's first child
was actually fathered by Burghley on his own daughter, that the Earl of
Rutland was his twin brother, etc. -- is fairly typical fare for that
forum, so I'm sure that your contribution is most welcome there.

> adapted from the
> earlier version posted here. Kathman doesn't believe Willy had a
> moral philosophy, or rather he believes Willy was a business man who
> wrote the plays for spare pence not out of Platonic duty. " Not for
> fame but for gain," is how these egg suckers put it.)

Whom are you quoting, Faker?

> But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
> annotation is "enigmatic" and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
> says and also what it means persists.
>
> I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
> primary material.
>
> Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
> what it says.

Because you don't read Latin yourself?

> Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> Huntington thinks it says and means.
>

> "[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro ( and William


> Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> headlines there."

There needs no ghost come from the grave (nor even any fraud come
from the Concordia conference) to tell us this.

> Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
> headlines.
>
> Let's take them in reverse order. Any new period information about
> Shakespeare is headline stuff. So this annotation qualifies. Stats
> will be loath to mention it, but it is front-page news.
>

> Second as you will see from the scan there are no parenthesis [sic] around


> the first word, nor is it lower case.
>

> The all important forth [sic] word has an indecipherable letter in it that


> can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
> suggests is doubtful from first blush.
>
> As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
> may be "plani" without an accent.

"MAY be"?

> If so

If frogs had wings, they could fly.

> the reading changes to "Et

> Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planči [sic] nostro"

Do you mean "plani"?

> which means something like

"Something like"?!

> "And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."

If I were you I wouldn't go around calling others frauds, Faker. In
view of your history, it's very poor salesmanship.

> Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
> Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
> trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
> our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
> Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
> Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.

Huh? If someone refers to Mozart as a child piano virtuoso, Faker
concludes that he could not have been a composer? If someone refers to
Witten as the best theoretical physicist of his generation, Faker infers
that he could not be a mathematician?



> As usual I'll take either reading.
>
> Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
> scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
> Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
> strongly divided.
>
> Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
> posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and

> remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth [sic]


> word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
> declinations or tenses

"Declinations or tenses"?

> of the other Latin words sensible. In fact it
> is the only way to make these words make a sentence.
>
> Alan Nelson and William Streitberger both agree with Tabor and The
> Huntington, as does Peter Farey.

Nelson, Tabor, Farey, and Streitberger all agree, and Reimer is the
ONLY dissenter? I would not call that "strongly divided"; rather, it
looks more like near unanimity among the scholars consulted.



> A group of scholars at Portland State University isn't so certain and
> appear to be leaning towards the more radical reading.

If they have't committed themselves, the way you imagine that they
"appear to be leaning" is of little consequence. Why not await their
opinion when they produce one?

> They are
> working under the direction of Professor Emeritus Rod Diman, who has
> more than thirty years in reading Latin works from this period.
>
> Professor Diman's first opinion leaned towards the "Rescio" reading
> and I am waiting on his final opinion, augmented by several scholars
> who are experts in this hand.
>
> So there is News here. Good news for anti-Strats.
>
> Someone living at the time of Shakespeare, more than likely while he
> was alive, someone evidently living in Stratford, and who could thus
> use the word "nostro" or "our" to include Shakespeare and themselves
> on the Stratford page, checked Camden's _Remains_ to see what it had
> to say about Stratford and its citizens and discovered that it didn't
> mention Willy. From this the Annotator either concluded Willy was
> thus a fraud or a charlatan, the meaning of "plani"

Huh?

> or, alternatively,
> the Annotator concluded that Camden had missed Willy and added his
> name as a famous actor. Actor not writer.
>
> Think about this Thread Travelers. Marvel at this. Someone living
> in Stratford c. 1615, someone literate enough to read and write Latin,
> someone who knew William Shakespeare as a member of his or her own
> community, writes into this list of distinguished persons of Stratford
> Shakespeare's name, but not as their Terence or as their Seneca, but
> as their Roscius.
>
> Or only as a famous actor.
>
> Clearly the Annotator didn't know that William Shakespeare was also a
> writer and thus didn't include this honor, then as now so much higher
> than mere acting, along with his name! Reflect on it.
>
> This is the smoking gun anti-Stratfordians have searched for through
> the centuries.

I doubt it -- anti-Stratfordians have a tendency to employ smoking
guns to deliver self-inflicted wounds.

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 12:44:20 PM8/12/03
to
In article <3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com>, baker the faker
wrote:

> Peter, Peter, Poor Little Baby....
>
> I see you're still unable to give an objective evaluation to an
> argument without resorting to name calling.

On the contrary -- Peter Groves explained clearly what was
grammatically amiss in your reading; that you addressed none of his
objections doubtless reflects your own incomprehension. But foreign
languages are definitely not your strength.

> My educational status, which as far as I know you're still in
> the dark about,

No, nobody is in the dark about that any longer, at least not since
Tom Reedy's discovery of your fraud. The matter is further clarified by
the fact you obligingly display stark ignorance and incompetence in
virtually every field, from mathematics to natural science to languages
to music. Nobody continues to harbor any illusions that you enjoy any
"educational status" whatever.

> has nothing to do with the facts in this case.
>
> Sadly you're like many Stratfordians who think they can cast doubt
> on rivals by kicking them in the shins....
>
> Here's the issue.
>
> Someone writing while Willy was alive, someone who
> lived in Stratford, calls him an actor and not an author...

Peter already answered that, devastatingly: "So if someone calls

Faker an idiot, it means he or she *doesn't* also believe him to be an
ignoramus?"

> That's great news to me....and bad news for your team.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of your "reading," Faker.

> So, I'm still puzzled,

Evidently.

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 1:03:19 PM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:27:34 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:


Terry,

Thanks for getting some of the points straight. Good team work, buddy!
But you're way off base on the rest.

And you'll have to allow that I did spell Paul's name correctly while
you haven't.(:})

Now let's move though this. 1) I've _never_ seen Paul's essay, but I
did hear him present his first paper on this in April. Is that clear?

I cited the location and publication date, but I haven't seen the
essay.

I even asked his editor for a copy or link and didn't get it. Bill
told me it would be posted, but I didn't see it when I visited their
pages, i.e., Shakespeare Matters.

Do you have a link, if so what is it?

I'd love to read the paper, but as I told Paul I'm not nearly as
interested in his opinion about this annotation as I am about the
annotation itself.

Is that clear? It's the annotation, not what we say about it, that is
most important at this time.

And I have published a scan of it, after the Huntington suggested that
I post it.

Just for the record I _begged_ the Huntington to post it
themselves...but they didn't want to...they wanted me to post it...


2) I cited what the Huntington claims is the reading and their
translation and not what Paul says it is, since the _only_ translation
I've had from Paul was the one that said Shakespeare was a "fraud",
i.e., the one I _heard_ in April, along with 30 other papers.

I made this clear in my report.

I'd didn't report than Roger S. and I stood on the stage, after this
paper and while the scan was projected on the wall (back projected).
Roger quickly suggested the forth word was "Roscio"...I simply gave my
opinion on the hand...c. 1615...English transititional hand...plus or
minus 20 years...

So I think the only "mistake" I made is in the edition.

You say it is in the 1590 edition, I've had it down as the 1594
edition, I'll take either one.

I'll have to check to see where that mistake came from, Terry, but I
do remember double checking it, so I have some sort of reason for
thinking this date.

In fact here are the e-mails about it from and to The Huntington
asking for the plates. You'll see I cited the 1594 edition here and
they didn't correct it even when they sent me the plates...??

Since I've not seen the title page...the plate is only of the
annotation...I don't know which edition it came from. But if Paul says
it is the 1590 edition it's ok by me. He oughta know.

To'John Baker' <mar...@localaccess.com>
Cc"Robertson, Mary" <mrobe...@huntington.org>
SubjectRENew Discovery about Shakespeare


Dear Mr. Baker


I ve been around this inscription at length with Dr. Altrocchi. It
reads [et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planè nostro ( and William


Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
headlines there.

Sincerely,

Stephen Tabor

Curator of Early Printed Books

Huntington Library

1151 Oxford Road

San Marino, CA 91108

(626) 405-2179; fax (626) 449-5720

sta...@huntington.org http//www.huntington.org/

-----Original Message-----
From John Baker [mailto...@localaccess.com]
Sent Tuesday, June 29, 2003 144 PM
To sta...@huntington.org
Subject New Discovery about Shakespeare

Steve,

We've corresponded before about the Perkins Copy of the Second Folio.
I just sent this to Mary, but she may be
away for the summer, so I'm sending a revised version directly to you.
This book must be under your authority.

It is one of your printed copies of the1594 edition of William
Camden's Remaines of a greater Worke concerning Brittaine.

The one which was used as the exemplar for the widely circulated
scholar's microfilm.

In it, on the page dealing with Stratford on Avon, is a Latin remark
in what looks to me like an Elizabethan Secretary hand, which
translates out something along the lines of "This William Shakespeare
[is] plainly our native imposter." Or ~ "I know this W.S. to be our
impostor."

On the other hand it just might read "William Shakespeare our [famous]
native actor is [~omitted]? here." I don't like this reading as much
as the one above, but it sill just alludes to him as an actor, not as
an author, so I'll take it either way.

Is it possible you might have your staff e-mail me a digital photo of
the gloss to this page? Is there an original owner's name associated
with the copy? Perhaps a name inscribed on the inside that doesn't
show up on the microfilm...or even one that does...which Paul missed?

For now, if a digital isn't possible, could you just look at it and
transcribe it out letter for letter? It's short, so should be simple.

While I am begging favors, might your or one of your experts furnish
an impromptu opinion on the hand, ink and just how the translation
might read?

The good news is that I am not the scholar who first noticed this. It
was spotted by a neurosurgeon and Oxfordian....Prof. Paul Altrocchi,
M.D., Clinical Professor of Neurology (retired), Stanford Medical
School; Stanford, California in his paper given this spring up here in
Portland, "What Did William Camden Say? Why and When Did He Say It?"

Has Paul been in touch with you? He's a nice guy. This could be big.

john baker

PS I'm suppose to present a paper in Cambridge at the end of the week,
on Marlowe as Arbella Stuart's tutor, but can always be reached here
by e-mail. jb

John Baker


http//www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>
>>
>> All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
>> conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
>> to how it translates.
>
>This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
>essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
>Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
>translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."

Not the point Terry, I NEVER said I quoted what Paul says, I quoted
the entire text
of what the Huntington says...can't you read????

>
>The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*,

see above about the confusion of the dates....it comes out of the
Huntington who had
every opportunity to correct it...

>and
>it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
>from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
>to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
>who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
>the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
>very great expense.
>
>The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
>annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
>the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
>counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
>Stratford.
>

>Atrocchi (sic) tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say


>something about that later), but he does seem to have found an early
>reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
>before.

Yes he does and that's the point, Terry and you got it thanks to
me....

>
>Baker's account of Altrocchi's (sic) essay is remarkably unreliable, even for
>Baker.

Terry!!!!Where does it say I've read Paul's essay? I only cite it as
just published!!!
I corresponded with both Paul and Bill Boyle, his editor, about it. I
even asked Bill
for a copy, not seeing it on the Shakespeare Matters page. You've
linked another
site...one I didn't mention and didn't know about....so you've seen
the essay.
Again I haven't....I'll link it today if I get a chance or tonight if
I don't.

I have never called anybody on this newsgroup a liar, and I'm not
>going to start now, but nobody should accept Baker's word for anything on
>this matter. His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
>the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
>contents of Altrocchi's essay.

Particularly not me!! Something I've never claimed to have done. I'm
just directing threaders to the primary source here. I don't care
what Paul reads or what you read, I'm just urging threaders to read
the primary source and come up with their own conclusions.


That's the way I think things should be done.

You on the other hand like to approach the primary materials through
someone...I don't. That's one of the major differences
between us...

Viva la difference!

(:} )

>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

John Baker

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 1:08:36 PM8/12/03
to
On 12 Aug 2003 02:49:03 -0700, Neogno...@austin.rr.com (Toby
Petzold) wrote:


Thanks Toby, Terry has pointed out that the edition is that of 1590,
not 1594...but the Huntington shares responsibility for that mistake.
I did beg them to publish these scans themselves..but they did want to
and suggested that I do it....the bid scan is from Paul's editor Bill
Bolye, but I have the full sized Huntington plate here and could do
as well if I wanted to sit and wait on the machine to do the work.

And you are quite right either reading is bad news of the Willy
boys....

Here is someone who knew the rustic, but only knew him as an
actor..big news...

john

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 1:06:05 PM8/12/03
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0308120552060.6521@mail>,
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>
> >
> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> > to how it translates.

> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
> essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."

Faker's distortions were a commonplace when he was posting regularly,
prior to his "sabbatical."

> The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*, and
> it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
> from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
> to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
> who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
> the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
> very great expense.
>
> The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
> annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
> the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
> counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
> Stratford.
>
> Atrocchi tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say
> something about that later), but he does seem to have found an early
> reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
> before.

That is indeed interesting.

> Baker's account of Altrocchi's essay is remarkably unreliable, even for
> Baker.

That's about as damning as one can get!

> I have never called anybody on this newsgroup a liar, and I'm not
> going to start now,

I try not to call interlocutors liars as well. However, the practice
of scholarship is predicated upon an assumption of good faith. Scholars
may disagree vehemently concerning the interpretation or implications of
data, but if a scholar presents data, his or her colleagues are entitled
to assume the objective component of the report to be factually
accurate. Regrettably, if there is any h.l.a.s. participant who has
forfeited by his behavior the right to that presumption of good faith,
it is surely Faker, so I doubt that anyone will assume that his account
is reliable.

> but nobody should accept Baker's word for anything on
> this matter.

There are a great many matters on which one should not accept Faker's
word, ranging from his supposed "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem to
the existence of supposed recordings of the (nonexistent) Franck Organ
Symphony to Faker's own (nonexistent) educational attainments.
(Awareness of these other distortions contributes to a sense of relief
concerning Faker's claims to have pottered about with hydrogen bombs.)

> His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
> the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
> contents of Altrocchi's essay.

One wonders what Altrocchi thinks of Faker's distortions.

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 1:53:17 PM8/12/03
to
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.55.0308120801260.16693@mail>...

> I misspelled Paul Altrocchi's name in my earlier post.

Well then you'll just have to be dry humped by Webb, Ross.

Elizabeth.

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 2:02:53 PM8/12/03
to
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
[...]

> Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.

I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."

Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).

Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor
of his era, and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius"
it's unlikely that the Camden annotator is also going to call the
Corn Hoarder--hardly famous as an actor--"Roscius."

I get the impression that the Corn Hoarder, trained at his
middleman father's side, was more a middleman in the
theatre, a play script scalper, a money lender, and factotum.
He was reared in trade and probably made a good living on the
side the way Philip Henslowe did--by pawn brokering--and like
Henslowe he invested in a bawdy house next to the Blackfriars.

In other words, a hustler.

Fripps' minute survey of the Stratford record shows that when
the Corn Hoarder returns to Stratford "a thirty pound gentleman,"
he's still a hustler and after siding with the despised Combes against
the Corporation, not one well-liked enough to be "nostro" anything.

Elizabeth

David L. Webb

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 2:49:35 PM8/12/03
to
In article <7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:

> Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
> Peter G.

I don't.

Terry Ross

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 3:12:06 PM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:

> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> [...]
>
> > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
*Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
Roscius.

>
> I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
>
> Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
> liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
> more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).

What does it do for Baker's position that Tarlton had been called a
"Roscius"? What does it do for Baker's position that Burbage was also
called a Roscius? What does it do for Baker's position that John Davies
described William Ostler as "the Roscius of these times"? Neither Tarlton
nor Alleyn nor Burbage nor Ostler held a trademark as the one and only
English "Roscius."

>
> Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor of his era,
> and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius" it's unlikely
> that the Camden annotator is also going to call the Corn Hoarder--hardly
> famous as an actor--"Roscius."

It may be news to you that there are numerous contemporary references to
Shakespeare as an actor; Altrocchi seems to have found another one.

Terry Ross

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 4:20:56 PM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:27:34 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>
> Terry,
>
> Thanks for getting some of the points straight. Good team work, buddy!
> But you're way off base on the rest.
>

No doubt.


> And you'll have to allow that I did spell Paul's name correctly while
> you haven't.(:})

That I do -- and I was the first to notice.

>
> Now let's move though this. 1) I've _never_ seen Paul's essay, but I
> did hear him present his first paper on this in April. Is that clear?
>

It was not at all clear from your post that you had NOT read the essay.


> I cited the location and publication date, but I haven't seen the essay.

So you now tell us. It is available to all members of the Shakespeare
Fellowship. I have asked them to make it publicly available, because if
what Altrocchi has found really is a hitherto overlooked contemporary
reference to Shakespeare, that would be noteworthy.


>
> I even asked his editor for a copy or link and didn't get it. Bill told
> me it would be posted, but I didn't see it when I visited their pages,
> i.e., Shakespeare Matters.

So join the Shakespeare Fellowship, or wait until the essay is made freely
available on the site, as I have been told will soon happen.

>
> Do you have a link, if so what is it?
>

I have a link, but the file is password protected.

> I'd love to read the paper, but as I told Paul I'm not nearly as
> interested in his opinion about this annotation as I am about the
> annotation itself.
>
> Is that clear? It's the annotation, not what we say about it, that is
> most important at this time.

One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!" If the annotation is legit,
then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
Shakespeare's acting career.


Here is some of what I said on the SF forum, where I asked that the essay
be made available to non-subscribers:

=====

I think this is the most important piece that has appeared yet in SM. The
Marlite James Baker has seriously misrepresented Altrocchi's essay on
hlas, and I have posted a few corrections (including a correction to my
own misspelling of Altrocchi's name). I would like to notify the readers
of SHAKSPER about Altrocchi's essay in order to learn whether anybody else
had come across the annotation and to hear what people made of it. Is it
authentic? Can it be dated with any degree of plausibility and precision?

Paul Altrocchi's kind of Oxfordianism might be a bit of an issue -- that
is, some readers would be distracted by his taking it for granted that
Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works and his assumption that "there is no
evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a famous actor and little or no
valid evidence that he was an actor at all." In the context of the
Shakespeare Fellowship, these may not be extraordinary assumptions, but
some readers might respond more to the Oxfordian elements of the essay
than to the more central factors of his finding the annotation, his
tenacity in seeking enlightenment, and his making the find public.

I think too much of the essay is devoted to responding to a misreading and
mistranslation that readers don't need to be told about (I admire
Altrocchi's keeping the name of his Latinist secret, but since the
original misreading was a blind alley, there is no reason to send the
reader down it at all). The main thing in the essay is Altrocchi's
discovery (if indeed he is the first person to notice the annotation)
itself.

We don't know as much as we'd like about Shakespeare's reputation as an
actor, and that is why any newly discovered comment is particularly
welcome. It is no surprise to find Burbage or Armin called a "Roscius,"
but we think of Shakespeare as more of a supporting actor, even though he
played important roles in his own and some of Jonson's works. Altrocchi
cites the opinion of Mary Robertson (a handwriting expert at the
Huntington) that the annotation's hand looks like something that would
have been used in the period from 1620 to 1650. This is later than I would
have otherwise thought, because I would have assumed that while an
author's reputation can persist and grow after long death, an actor's
reputation would probably fade more quickly. Of course, as Altrocchi
notes, referring to Shakespeare as a great actor rather than as a great
writer is itself interesting (and would be less surprising if the
annotation dated from the 1590s than from the 30 years later). In any
event, I would like to hear what the Shakespeare scholars who don't
subscribe to *Shakespeare Matters* have to say, and the quickest way to
get feedback would be to make Altrocchi's discovery available to
non-subscribers and to notify SHAKSPER."

============


>
> And I have published a scan of it, after the Huntington suggested that
> I post it.
>
> Just for the record I _begged_ the Huntington to post it
> themselves...but they didn't want to...they wanted me to post it...
>
>
> 2) I cited what the Huntington claims is the reading and their
> translation and not what Paul says it is, since the _only_ translation
> I've had from Paul was the one that said Shakespeare was a "fraud",
> i.e., the one I _heard_ in April, along with 30 other papers.
>

You should have read his essay first.

>
> I made this clear in my report.

What is clear is that you should have read his essay first.

>
> I'd didn't report than Roger S. and I stood on the stage, after this
> paper and while the scan was projected on the wall (back projected).
> Roger quickly suggested the forth word was "Roscio"

Well good for Roger! Altrocchi thanks Roger for steering him in the right
direction, and Roger's suggestion was obviously very helpful.

> ...I simply gave my
> opinion on the hand...c. 1615...English transititional hand...plus or
> minus 20 years...

That would seem to be in the neighbourhood; obviously it couldn't be before
1590, the date of the book. A Huntington expert suggest 1620-50 as a
likely period for that hand.

>
> So I think the only "mistake" I made is in the edition.
>

I am glad you are now owning up to the fact that you have not read the
essay -- suppressing that was your largest mistake by far.

> You say it is in the 1590 edition, I've had it down as the 1594
> edition, I'll take either one.

You may as well get it right if you can. Altrocchi says "1590" throughout
his essay, as you would know if you had read it.

>
> I'll have to check to see where that mistake came from, Terry, but I
> do remember double checking it, so I have some sort of reason for
> thinking this date.
>

There WAS a 1594 edition of Camden, but Altrocchi says the annotation was
in a copy of the 1590 edition.

> In fact here are the e-mails about it from and to The Huntington asking
> for the plates. You'll see I cited the 1594 edition here and they
> didn't correct it even when they sent me the plates...??

That was perhaps over-polite of them.

>
> Since I've not seen the title page...the plate is only of the
> annotation...I don't know which edition it came from. But if Paul says
> it is the 1590 edition it's ok by me. He oughta know.

Read his essay.

Jimbosir

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 4:36:08 PM8/12/03
to
>If the annotation is legit,
>then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
>Shakespeare's acting career.

Quite true. And it says NOTHING about
Shakespeare as an author (despite what
Baker and others claim)!
MENTOR (:-)

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 10:32:19 PM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:20:56 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:

>One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
>view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
>that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!"

Terry, get real. Why should I care what you or Paul thinks this
annotation says or means???

It's a _primary_ record. I'm quite capable of reaching my own
opinion about it.

I'm not overheated at all, I've been sitting on it since APRIL!!!
(:})

> If the annotation is legit,
>then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
>Shakespeare's acting career.
>

Wrong, it another clear record that Willy was ONLY known as an Actor.
Which is why I'm not much interested in your ability to form an
opinion about this important new record.

Here's a person who lived in Stratford, a person who knew Willy but
who didn't know he was an Author!!!! Talk about big news Terry. This
is big stuff.


>
>Here is some of what I said on the SF forum, where I asked that the essay
>be made available to non-subscribers:
>

Good and I also see you think this is an important discovery, so we
agree on two points.

This makes my day. (:} )

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 10:56:34 PM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:06:05 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0308120552060.6521@mail>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>>
>> >
>> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
>> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
>> > to how it translates.
>
>> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
>> essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
>> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
>> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
>
> Faker's distortions were a commonplace when he was posting regularly,
>prior to his "sabbatical."

Just note for the record Spiderman, that I also wrote I was
intentionally misspelling the word sabbatical as a joke (:}) Glad
you liked it.

I've had a series of medical problems with my memory called TGA which
have been, let's say
interesting. You can look up the condition of the net, the full name
is Transient Global Amensia...not fun hun...did we ever do lunch...I
saw your picture on Lowercase Dave's pages, and like it much better
than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})

snip


>> reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
>> before.
>
> That is indeed interesting.

And it is my entire point!!!
>

> That's about as damning as one can get!

I like it Webb...but it isn't as bad as Terry makes it out. Evidently
my only real mistake
was in the year of the edition, Terry claims it's 1590, while I had
down 1594....the Huntington sent by the plates when I requested the
1594 edition...but they don't include the title page, so I
really don't know which edition it is in....(:{)

>

> I try not to call interlocutors liars as well. However, the practice
>of scholarship is predicated upon an assumption of good faith. Scholars
>may disagree vehemently concerning the interpretation or implications of
>data, but if a scholar presents data, his or her colleagues are entitled
>to assume the objective component of the report to be factually
>accurate. Regrettably, if there is any h.l.a.s. participant who has
>forfeited by his behavior the right to that presumption of good faith,
>it is surely Faker, so I doubt that anyone will assume that his account
>is reliable.

You'll be wrong. As a matter of fact everyone is now on my line....

> There are a great many matters on which one should not accept Faker's
>word, ranging from his supposed "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem

I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you think Math is a Science
(:})

>> His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
>> the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
>> contents of Altrocchi's essay.
>
> One wonders what Altrocchi thinks of Faker's distortions.

A good point Webb...He's not too happy with me. But I promised I'd
not post until his essay was posted and I explained that my interest
was in the primary material, not in his opinion about it. I like Paul,
we've had lunch together and I expect we'll do it again sometime.

He's his last e-mail to me:

SubjectReThat annotation
ToJohn Baker <mar...@localaccess.com>

John -

(1) It is not clear to me why you are doing this. I have not
encountered
such activities before.

(2) It is obvious that you sent sub-optimal scans to your expert.
The
deciphering was not intelligible to me until I had precise photographs
taken by the Huntington.

(3) Why not wait until the article is published, which should be
within
the next 3 weeks?

Cheers,

Paul

I corrected the scan problem by forwarding his editor's scan...and I
have posted both of them on
my web page. There isn't much difference and the new scan didn't
change the opinion of the scholar in question...which goes to show
there are always two sides...

Cheers!!

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 11:01:26 PM8/12/03
to

But this isn't the point Terry and you KNOW it (:] )

The point is that the annotator didn't think of Willy as a writer of
plays like Plautus or Terence...that's the point. Do forget it. You
aren't going to claim that you have TGI also are you?

john


>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

John Baker

john_baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 11:09:58 PM8/12/03
to
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:06:45 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>In article <3f37ae71....@News.localaccess.com>, john baker wrote:
>
>> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
>
> Welcome back, Faker. What have you been doing -- spending all your
>time listening to the Franck Organ Symphony?

No Spiderman, I've been solving Fermat again.

The division here is not just SR and I. I've reported that
RD and his crew also lean towards the more radical reading.

I'm not invested in it. But it is a new fact.

Someone alive in Stratford who knew Willy thought of him ONLY as an
actor.

Someone who was interested enough to pen or quill his name into the
history books and who if he had but known that he was also an Author
would surely have put it there.

I know you know this and just like pulling my chain...so have at it,
Spiderman...

But remember no web is perfect....(: }and none can take a good
baking....

Cheers

Tom Reedy

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 12:29:29 AM8/13/03
to
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.55.0308121544190.23814@mail...
<snip>

>
> Paul Altrocchi's kind of Oxfordianism might be a bit of an issue -- that
> is, some readers would be distracted by his taking it for granted that
> Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works and his assumption that "there is no
> evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a famous actor and little or no
> valid evidence that he was an actor at all." In the context of the
> Shakespeare Fellowship, these may not be extraordinary assumptions, but
> some readers might respond more to the Oxfordian elements of the essay
> than to the more central factors of his finding the annotation, his
> tenacity in seeking enlightenment, and his making the find public.

Indeed, his article is a good representation of what would probably happen
if "smoking gun" evidence such as antistratfordians say is missing from
Shakespeare's records were to appear.

Altrocchi says the annotation "does confirm the remarkable early success of
what Oxfordians view as William Cecil's clever but monstrous connivance:
forcing the genius Edward de Vere into pseudonymity and promoting the
illiterate grain merchant and real estate speculator, William Shaksper of
Stratford, into hoaxian prominence as the great poet and playwright, William
Shakespeare."

(I think I detect the style of Roger Stritmatter in those overwrought lines.
It almost reads as a caricature of Oxfordianism.)

It's a shame such a discovery will open the discoverer up to ridicule
because of his obviously naive and gullible belief woven throughout his
paper. It's hard to believe an M.D. could be that simple; I'd bet he recants
after some experience with the literary community his discovery will bring
him.

TR


Toby Petzold

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 1:24:27 AM8/13/03
to
Baker to Ross, on gaining access to the Shakespeare Fellowship:

> > Do you have a link, if so what is it?
> >
>
> I have a link, but the file is password protected.

AHA! So, the thock plittens!

Toby Petzold
Owes his soul to the company store

john_baker

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 2:53:43 AM8/13/03
to

NEWS!!! Terry Ross Supports _Baker's_ Reading over P. Groves of
"Rescio," _Baker_ Wins Round Two on a KTO!!!!


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:12:06 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
>> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>> [...]
>>
>> > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
>> > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
>
>The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
>as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
>*Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
>Roscius.
>
>>
>> I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."


Unlike the learned Professor of Latin, Peter Groves, who called me "a
dickhead," I knew that "rescio" is a form of the Latin word
"rescisco", which means "I know" or "I apprehend. "

I also know the fact it was capitalized in the annotation is
_meaningless_, since these folks capitalized indiscriminately.

So I certain agree with Ms. Weir and Mr. Ross and The Oxford Latin
Dictionary that is is Professor Groves who was mistaken, not John
Baker...which is surpising....

(:} )

Thanks for the support gang!!!

john

Elizabeth Weir

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 2:56:13 AM8/13/03
to
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.55.0308121440030.4917@mail>...

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > [...]
> >
> > > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> > > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
>
> The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
> as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
> *Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
> Roscius.

Lewis and Short shows the same. Aulus Gellius used rescio and
rescisco interchangeably in Attic Nights.

> > I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
> >
> > Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
> > liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
> > more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).
>
> What does it do for Baker's position that Tarlton had been called a
> "Roscius"? What does it do for Baker's position that Burbage was also
> called a Roscius? What does it do for Baker's position that John Davies
> described William Ostler as "the Roscius of these times"?
> Neither Tarlton nor Alleyn nor Burbage nor Ostler held a trademark
> as the one and only English "Roscius."

That doesn't dilute my argument.

Rowe wrote:

His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times,
amongst those of the other Players, before some old
Plays, but without any particular Account of what sort
of Parts he used to play; and tho' I have inquired I
could never meet with any further Account of him this
way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost
in his own Hamlet.

Rowe isn't describing "a Roscius."

And, in light of the fact that the Corn Hoarder did not have
the Strachey letter taken together with Rowe's remark, we have
to consider that Rowe's Ghost may have been Francis Bacon.

Spedding has some reference that refers to Bacon in the role of the
"Sorcerer"--possibly Prospero since Prospero does nothing but spout
Bacon's philosophy--in a production at the Inns of Court.

Bacon was the greatest "orator in many ages" and could hold a
courtroom spellbound according to Jonson so there's no reason
why Bacon shouldn't act. He was "comely" so looks were no problem
and he was definitely involved in the theatre as his Puritan mother's
frantic letters attest.

> > Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor of his era,
> > and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius" it's unlikely
> > that the Camden annotator is also going to call the Corn Hoarder--hardly
> > famous as an actor--"Roscius."
>
> It may be news to you that there are numerous contemporary references to
> Shakespeare as an actor; Altrocchi seems to have found another one.

Rowe wasn't impressed.

Toby Petzold

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 5:37:25 AM8/13/03
to
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03081...@posting.google.com>...

> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.55.0308121440030.4917@mail>...
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> > > > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
> >
> > The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
> > as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
> > *Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
> > Roscius.
>
> Lewis and Short shows the same. Aulus Gellius used rescio and
> rescisco interchangeably in Attic Nights.

There was a time in my studies I would have known that. It's some sort
of phonetic principle that Latin-speakers (if not all speakers) fall
back into where they like to elide over duplicated consonantal
formations. But it's a legitmiate phenomenon. Is there a term for
that, Dr. Kathman?



> > > I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
> > >
> > > Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
> > > liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
> > > more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).
> >
> > What does it do for Baker's position that Tarlton had been called a
> > "Roscius"? What does it do for Baker's position that Burbage was also
> > called a Roscius? What does it do for Baker's position that John Davies
> > described William Ostler as "the Roscius of these times"?
> > Neither Tarlton nor Alleyn nor Burbage nor Ostler held a trademark
> > as the one and only English "Roscius."
>
> That doesn't dilute my argument.
>
> Rowe wrote:
>
> His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times,
> amongst those of the other Players, before some old
> Plays, but without any particular Account of what sort
> of Parts he used to play; and tho' I have inquired I
> could never meet with any further Account of him this
> way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost
> in his own Hamlet.
>
> Rowe isn't describing "a Roscius."

True dat!



> And, in light of the fact that the Corn Hoarder did not have
> the Strachey letter taken together with Rowe's remark, we have
> to consider that Rowe's Ghost may have been Francis Bacon.

Uh, er, um...

<snip>



> > > Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor of his era,
> > > and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius" it's unlikely
> > > that the Camden annotator is also going to call the Corn Hoarder--hardly
> > > famous as an actor--"Roscius."

It may have just been a generic compliment for an actor. Or, it may
have been an annotation made by someone with more than a superficial
knowledge of what such a reference might imply about that actor. Hmm.
Better call up the Florida Supreme Court.



> > It may be news to you that there are numerous contemporary references to
> > Shakespeare as an actor; Altrocchi seems to have found another one.
>
> Rowe wasn't impressed.

Well, it's a bad break for Stratfordia because certain of us
detractors never argued against Shakspere being an actor in the first
place. Sure, let him go shake and pound the boards a little in Old
London-town. He has pretensions and ego enough. Besides, he's The
Money: why not have him fill in a minor role here and there to save on
extras? He's not making anything off the playwriting credit except
getting his name out there, so what the hell?

Toby Petzold

Terry Ross

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 5:54:37 AM8/13/03
to
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, it was written:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:20:56 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> >One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
> >view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
> >that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!"
>
> Terry, get real. Why should I care what you or Paul thinks this
> annotation says or means???

You needn't care at all about what I say; if you cared at all about what
Paul Altrocchi says, you would have taken the trouble to read his essay.
Your misuse of the words "proves" and "fraud" warns us not to take
seriously any "proof" claim you make about any subject whatsoever.

>
> It's a _primary_ record. I'm quite capable of reaching my own
> opinion about it.

You cloaked yourself as a bring of news and a demonstrator of proofs. As
it turns out, you were neither, since you had not read the essay and you
offered no proofs. I doubt that you are able to reach "your won opinion"
about it. Altrocchi initially thought that the annotation suggested
Shakespeare was a fraud; when he consulted experts and followed Roger's
tip and looked into the matter further, he changed his mind. Your mind is
determined in advance to see any interpretation of the annotation as
"proof" of "fraud," which suggests that your Marlitism is in control of
your reasoning powers.

>
> I'm not overheated at all, I've been sitting on it since APRIL!!!
> (:})
>

Maybe it's time to get the bed sores treated.

> > If the annotation is legit,
> >then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
> >Shakespeare's acting career.
> >
>
> Wrong, it another clear record that Willy was ONLY known as an Actor.

It could not be that, since it does not refer to his either as an author
or as a non-author. It does not say he is a great actor who does not
write. We have some references to Shakespeare as an actor that do not
also refer to him as a writer, some to him as a writer that do not mention
his acting, and some that refer to both. The fact that not all of his
talents are noted by every observer does NOT mean that those talents are
thereby proven not to exist. We do not look at references to him as a
writer and conclude, "Oh, so he WASN'T an actor after all."

> Which is why I'm not much interested in your ability to form an
> opinion about this important new record.

We all knew that coming in. You told the group that there was "proof"
that Shakespeare was a "fraud." The annotation is no such proof
whatsoever. You deliberately mislead this group into supposing that you
had read Altrocchi's article, which suggests that the real fraud in this
case is entirely your own.

>
> Here's a person who lived in Stratford, a person who knew Willy but
> who didn't know he was an Author!!!! Talk about big news Terry. This
> is big stuff.

We do not know who the annotator was or where the annotator lived. We do
not know that the annotator ever lived in Stratford. I have not checked
the microfilm of the Huntington copy to see whether there are other
annotations that appear to be in the same hand; have you? Before
declaring that the annotator must have lived in Stratford, I should think
that any serious investigator would have wanted to check the book.

>
>
> >
> >Here is some of what I said on the SF forum, where I asked that the essay
> >be made available to non-subscribers:
> >
>
> Good and I also see you think this is an important discovery, so we
> agree on two points.

There is another point on which we could agree. There is still room for
amateurs, even antistratfordians, to make genuine and meaningful
contributions to literary history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

Bob Grumman

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 5:59:44 AM8/13/03
to
> His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times,
> amongst those of the other Players, before some old
> Plays, but without any particular Account of what sort
> of Parts he used to play; and tho' I have inquired I
> could never meet with any further Account of him this
> way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost
> in his own Hamlet.
>
> Rowe isn't describing "a Roscius."

Ah, but the annotator, writing about a hundred years before Rowe, IS.
And he places him in Stratford. Tough luck, wack.

--Bob G.

Terry Ross

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 5:59:30 AM8/13/03