Juvenilia

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Truepenny25

unread,
Jul 27, 2002, 2:52:18 PM7/27/02
to
Both (all) sides in the authorship contoversy would like to discover some of
their author's juvenilia that supports their case. Since Shakeare's favorite
allusion book is Ovid's Metamorphes, both in the original and Golding's
translation, it is instructive to examine the language employed by Golding who
is best known for translating Calvin sermons. Frederick Nims' introduction to
the Simon & Schuster 1965 edition of Golding's translation says, among other
things:
"He begins by metamorphosing Ovid: by turning the sophisticated Roman into a
ruddy country gentleman with tremendous gusto, a sharp eye on life around him,
an ear for racy speach, and a gift of doggerel...When he doesn't translate
names, he declassisizes them with jaunty Elizabethan abbreviations. Pentheus,
Theseus, Orpheus, and others lose a few inches of their heroic stature when
they are called "Penthey," "Thesey," and "Orphy." Thisbe tells Pyramus she is
his darling "Thisb."..."hit or miss" becomes "hittymissy" and "strong drink"
becomes "merry-go-down"...
"Sometime, with Golding's weird and piquant vocabulary, we feel we are in Lewis
Carroll country, in a land where courses whewl, where orpid bugs sty awkly in
the queach, where froshes yesk, and flackering pookes ensue."

Some of this same piquancy shows up in Venus and Adonis, A Midsummer Night's
Dream, etc. I can see Oxford at 13-14 testing himself by translating
Metamorphoses, 25-30 years later revisiting it and incorporating it in his
poems and plays attributed to William Shakespeare today.

Truepenny

Terry Ross

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 11:11:18 AM7/28/02
to
I blame myself. I have been busy with other matters, and have found the
Sondheim series at the Kennedy Center a vastly more interesting use of my
weekends even than hlas, and as a result, Oxfordian chestnuts that were
dealt with years ago are sprouting again as if they were new and, this
time, might be magically inoculated against the blight that keeps them
from maturing. I really should put my Peacham and Golding material up at
the Shakespeare Authorship site, and I need to do the same for my
elucidations of Price's filter. Oh well, for now, let me do the Golding
bit one more time.

On 27 Jul 2002, Truepenny25 wrote:

> Both (all) sides in the authorship controversy would like to discover


> some of their author's juvenilia that supports their case.

It doesn't matter whether somebody wishes there were more "support" for
Shakespeare's authorship of his works. What we have is plenty -- more
than for most of his contemporaries, and more than enough to establish his
authorship of the great bulk of the works generally attributed to him.
For a brief outline of the evidence, see Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman's
essay at http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/howdowe.html

But you had Oxford in mind, I think.


> Since Shakeare's favorite allusion book is Ovid's Metamorphes, both in
> the original and Golding's translation, it is instructive to examine the
> language employed by Golding who is best known for translating Calvin
> sermons.

Everybody agrees that Shakespeare was very familiar with the
*Metamorphoses*, in both Latin and Golding's English version, but it is
harder than you might think to tie very many particular passages in
Shakespeare to particular passages in Ovid (or Golding). It's much easier
to find parallel passages in Shakespeare and North's Plutarch, or
Shakespeare and Holinshed.

> Frederick Nims'

John Frederick Nims.

> introduction to the Simon & Schuster 1965 edition of Golding's
> translation says, among other things: "He begins by metamorphosing Ovid:
> by turning the sophisticated Roman into a ruddy country gentleman with
> tremendous gusto, a sharp eye on life around him, an ear for racy
> speach, and a gift of doggerel...When he doesn't translate names, he
> declassisizes them with jaunty Elizabethan abbreviations. Pentheus,
> Theseus, Orpheus, and others lose a few inches of their heroic stature
> when they are called "Penthey," "Thesey," and "Orphy." Thisbe tells
> Pyramus she is his darling "Thisb."..."hit or miss" becomes "hittymissy"
> and "strong drink" becomes "merry-go-down"... "Sometime, with Golding's
> weird and piquant vocabulary, we feel we are in Lewis Carroll country,
> in a land where courses whewl, where orpid bugs sty awkly in the queach,
> where froshes yesk, and flackering pookes ensue."

You appear not to have read Golding's Ovid, or Nims's Introduction, but
only to have looked at Ogburn. Ogburn, by the way, gives no sign of ever
having read anything by Golding, or he never would have referred to
Golding's translation of Beza's play as one of the "grim works like
*Abraham's Sacrifice* (445) -- does Ogburn even know the Biblical story of
Abraham?

Here are some comments I made on an earlier occasion when some Oxfordian
trusted Ogburn on Golding:

Although I doubt Ogburn has actually read Golding's *Metamorphoses*, he
has seen and misread John Frederick Nims's introduction to a modern
reprint of the work. Nims does not doubt Golding's authorship of the
work; indeed, he delights in Golding's sometimes "wierd and piquant
vocabulary." He says that sometimes in Golding's book "we feel we are in
Lewis Carroll country, in a land where corsies whewl, where orpid buggs


sty awkly in the queach, where froshes yesk, and flackering pookes ensue.

None of this may be quite 'beautiful,' but it would be hard to deny it is
rich in delights of its own." From this, Ogburn guesses that the actual
author was the 14-year old Oxford.

Nims, himself a fine poet, translator, and fan of the English language,
does not say any of those colorful terms are inaccurate, and far from
objecting to them on that basis, he finds them delightful (for what it's
worth, "Jabberwocky" was written not by a teenager but by a man in his
late 30s -- about the age Goldinmg was when he translated Ovid). Golding
said his purpose to make Ovid "so well acquainted with our toong, / As
that he may in English verse as in his own be soong." Nims says of
Golding, "certainly no one has translated so successfully OUT of Latin--or
into so native an English."

Ogburn ignores (or, more likely, doesn't know) the publication history of
Golding's Ovid. When the first four books of Arthur Golding's translation
of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* appeared in 1565, Golding (and only Golding) was
named on the title page as the translator. When the complete edition came
out in 1567, Golding (and only Golding) was named as the translator;
moreover, the author's epistle bore Golding's name at its beginning and
end. Golding nowhere suggests that the translation was anything but his
own work. In each of the seven later editions Golding (and only Golding)
was named as the translator. Contemporaries referred to Golding (and only
Golding) as the translator. The same Arthur Golding translated other
Latin works and was fully capable of doing the job. Oxford, on the other
hand, never translated Caesar or Seneca that we know of, let alone Ovid.
Oxford's poetry does not resemble Golding's. I know of no one before
Ogburn's esteemed progenitor D. M. Ogburn that ever doubted Golding's
authorship, and none of the Ogburns has made a case either against the
attribution to Golding or in favor of awarding the credit to Oxford.

Here are some lines from book 2 that Ogburn would have us believe are the
work of the 14-year-old de Vere (Phaeton is about to ride the chariot of
the sun):

His father having made delay as long as he could shift,
Did lead him where his Chariot stood, which was of Vulcan's gift.
The Axeltree was massie golde, the Bucke was massie golde,
The utmost fellies of the wheeles, and where the tree was rolde.
The spokes were all of sylver bright, the Chrysolites and Gemmes
That stood uppon the Collars, Trace, and hounces in their hemmes
Did cast a sheere and glimmering light, as Phoebus shone thereon.
Now while the lusty Phaeton stood gazing here upon,
And wondered at the workmanship of every thing: beholde
The earely morning in the East began me to unfolde
Hir purple Gates, and shewde hir house bedeckt with Roses red.
The twinckling starres withdrew which by the morning star are led:
Who as the Captain of that Host that hath no peere nor match,
Dooth leave his standing last of all within that heavly watch.
Now when his Father sawe the worlde thus glister red and trim,
And that his waning sistres hornes began to waxen dim,
He had the fetherfooted howres go harnesse in his horse.

I think this is a fair sample of Golding's work, neither the best nor the
worst. As an attempt to put Ovid into the English tongue this is not at
all bad, and though it lack's Ovid's "pleasant style" it is not without
charm, though nobody except an Ogburn would suspect that its author was
capable of writing Shakespeare's works.

Golding's translation is some 14,500 lines long, but there is not much of
a learning curve. The translator's apparent skills in Latin and poetry
neither advance nor retreat throughout the 15 books of the
*Metamorphoses*, which is what we should expect from a mature and
experienced craftsman like Golding. If, on the other hand, a 14-year-old
boy had begun the work, we should expect some development in style or
versification, but there is none. Ah, but according to Ogburn and
associates, this is not just any 14-year-old boy, but the lad who will
grow up to write Shakespeare's plays--yet it is simply inconceivable that
Shakespeare's development would have come to a halt for 14,500 consecutive
lines, which is about the length of five of Shakespeare's plays.


>
> Some of this same piquancy shows up in Venus and Adonis, A Midsummer
> Night's Dream, etc. I can see Oxford at 13-14 testing himself by
> translating Metamorphoses, 25-30 years later revisiting it and
> incorporating it in his poems and plays attributed to William
> Shakespeare today.

What an Oxfordian "can see" is not always a reasonable basis for stealing
a work from one writer and giving it to another. Oxfordians have been
"seeing" things for years, but their hallucinations should not take the
place of reasoned argument. The "piquancy" that one may find in Golding's
Ovid also appears elsewhere in Golding -- of course, you will not learn
this from Ogburn or any other Oxfordian; you will have to take the very
un-Oxfordian step of actually reading Golding.

Here are a few paragraphs from Golding's translation of Solinus's
*Collectanea* (*The Excellent and Pleasant Works of Iulius Solinus
Polyhistor*):

"Megasthenes saith, that in divers mountains in Inde are nations that have
hands like dogs, armed with talents, clad in hides, having no likelihood
of man's speech, but uttering a noise of barking, with rough chaps. We
read in Ctesias that certain women bear child but once, and the babes as
soon as they be born, become by and by gray-headed; and that there is
again another nation which in their youth are hoar-headed, and were black
in their age, which endureth far beyond the race of our peers. We read
also of a people called Monoscelans, born there with one leg apiece, of
singular swiftness: who when they will defend themselves from the heat,
lay themselves down upon their backs and shadow them with the largeness of
their feet.

"They that dwell at the fountains of Ganges need no manner of victuals to
feed upon. They live by the scent of stubfruit and crabs, and when they
have any long journey to go, they carry the same with them for their bate,
to refresh themselves with the smell of them. And if it happen them to
take any corrupt air, certain it is that they die of it. There is
reported also to be a nation of women which bear children at five years of
age, but their life endureth not above eight. There are that want heads,
and have their eyes in their shoulders. There are also wild men,
rough-skinned, toothed like dogs, and that make a terrible gnarring. But
among them that have some more care to live according to reason, many
women are married to one man, and when the husband is deceased, each of
them pleadeth before most grave judges concerning her deserts, and she
that by the sentence of the judges is deemed to have been more dutiful and
serviceable than the rest receiveth this reward of her victory: that at
her pleasure she may leap into the fire where her husband is a-burning,
and offer herself as a sacrifice upon his hearse; the rest live with
infamy."

===

Solinus, of course, is not Ovid -- but neither is he Calvin, yet Golding
saw fit to translate his odd volume of geography and tall tales. I don't
see any sign that the author of this passage -- or the rest of this
translation of Solinus -- was anyone but Golding, whose translation was
done "for the benefit and recreation of all sorts of persons," as he says
on the title page.

Consider the line from his Solinus, "They live by the scent of stubfruit
and crabs." "Crabs," of course, is crabapples, but what are "stubfruit"?
The word does not appear in the OED, but we would not be surprised to see
it in Golding's Ovid. What many people find distinctively attractive
about his Ovid is the extent to which he "Englished" his source. See also
the "rough chaps" and "terrible gnarring" in the above excerpt. See also
this description of a peculiar habit of the beaver (warning: Oxfordians
may not find this passage sufficiently respectable):

"His stones are greatly coveted for the medicinableness of them, and
therefore when he findeth himself put to the pinch, he biteth off his own
cods, and eateth them up, to the intent men should have no good of them
when he is taken."

Or see this description of how the Hyrcans kill panthers:

"But the Hyrcans (as man's nature is ever full of devices) kill them more
commonly with poison than with weapon. They steep flesh in the juice of
lybardbane [Golding's marginal note tells us "this herb is also called
wolfwort"], and cast it in the ways where divers paths meet: the which as
soon as the panthers have eaten, by and by their throats are troubled with
the squince, and therefore the weed is called in Greek Pardalianches."

Golding's use of "wolfwort" came a generation before the first instance
cited in the OED; in *Metamorphoses* he probably would have worked such a
gloss into a line, but here he puts the note in the margin. "Squince" and
"lybardbane" (an old form of "leopard's bane") are hardly standard
translations from the Latin but reflect the same approach to "Englishing"
that makes his Ovid so lively.

Can anybody find such "piquancy" in any of Oxford's literary works?

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

In one of my old Golding go-rounds, I discussed some of the elements of
his verse that make his writing very different from anything we find in
Oxford's own writings:

To a reader who has never read fourteeners, perhaps Golding's verse seems
very much like Oxford because ALL poetry in that meter may sound alike.
This can also happen, by the way, to a reader who has read too much verse
in this form.

Here are three specimens of fourteeners whose authors are not in doubt.
The first is by George Gascoigne (even B. M. Ward and Ruth Loyd Miller,
who wish to give Oxford some of Gascoigne's poems, agree that Gascoigne
wrote this one); the second by Oxford; and the third by Golding (even
Ogburn believes that Golding wrote the epistle to Golding's translation of
the *Metamorphoses*).

The poems by Gascoigne and Oxford are, we could probably agree, much more
interesting than Golding's, but that is not the point today. We have no
poetry that Oxford wrote in his teens, but the quoted poem appeared when
he was in him mid-twenties, which is as close as we can get. Gascoigne's
poem appeared at about the same time.

Like most fourteener poets, Oxford composed his sentences in lines and
couplets: no sentence ended anywhere but at the end of a couplet; In
Golding's translation there was a much looser correspondence of syntactic
structure to metrical structure. Oxford's verse was considerably more
alliterative than Golding's. Oxford inevitably used a medial pause after
the 8th syllable; Golding's pauses were much more variable. Here now are
the three samples. Things to look for in reading: to what extent are
lines and couplets sytactic units? How often are the strongest medial
pauses some place other than just after the 8th syllable? How much
alliteration does the poet use? I will also give another rough test:
whose verse reads most like prose?


1. "Gascoigne's Good Night"

When thou hast spent the ling'ring day in pleasure and delight,
Or after toil and weary way, dost seek to rest at night:
Unto thy pains or pleasures past, add this one labor yet,
Ere sleep close up thine eye too fast, do not thy God forget,
But search within thy secret thoughts what deeds did thee befall:
And if thou find amiss in ought, to God for mercy call.
Yet though thou find nothing amiss, which thou canst call to mind,
Yet ever more remember this, there is the more behind:
And think how well so ever it be, that thou hast spent the day,
It came of God, and not of thee, so to direct thy way.
Thus if thou try thy daily deeds, and pleasure in this pain,
Thy life shall cleanse thy corn from weeds, and thine shall be the gain:
But if thy sinful sluggish eye, will venture for to wink,
Before thy wading will may try, how far thy soul may sink,
Beware and wake, for else thy bed, which soft and smooth is made,
May heap more harm upon thy head, then blows of enmies blade.
Thus if this pain procure thine ease, in bed as thou dost lie,
Perhaps it shall not God displease, to sing thus soberly:
I see that sleep is lent me here, to ease my weary bones,
As death at last shall eke appear, to ease my grievous groans.
My daily sports, my paunch full fed, have caused my drowsy eye,
As careless life in quiet led, might cause my soul to die:
The stretching arms, the yawning breath, which I to bedward use,
Are patterns of the pangs of death, when life will me refuse:
And of my bed each sundry part in shadows doth resemble,
The sundry shapes of death, whose dart shall make my flesh to tremble.
My bed itself is like the grave, my sheets the winding sheet,
My clothes the mould which I must have, to cover me most meet:
The hungry fleas which frisk so fresh, to worms I can compare,
Which greedily shall gnaw my flesh, and leave the bones full bare:
The waking Cock that early crows to wear the night away,
Puts in my mind the trump that blows before the latter day.
And as I rise up lustily, when sluggish sleep is past,
So hope I to rise joyfully, to Judgment at the last.
Thus will I wake, thus will I sleep, thus will I hope to rise,
Thus will I neither wail nor weep, but sing in goodly wise.
My bones shall in this bed remain, my soul in God shall trust,
By whom I hope to rise again from death and earthly dust.


-----------------------------------------

2. from the Epistle to Golding's Ovid

Four kind of things in this his work the Poet doth contain.
That nothing under heaven doth aye in steadfast state remain.
And next that nothing perisheth: but that each substance takes
Another shape than that it had. Of these two points he makes
The proof by shewing through his works the wonderful exchange
Of Gods, men, beasts, and elements, to sundry shapes right strange,
Beginning with creation of the world, and man of slime,
And so proceeding with the turns that happened till his time.
Then sheweth he the souls of man from dying to be free,
By samples of the noblemen, who for their virtues be
Accounted and canonized for Gods by heathen men,
And by the pains of Limbo lake, and blissful state again
Of spirits in th' Elysian fields. And though that of these three
He make discourse dispersedly: yit specially they be
Discussed in the latter book in that oration where
He bringeth in Pythagoras dissuading men from fear
Of death, and preaching abstinence from flesh of living things.
But as for that opinion which Pythagoras there brings
Of souls removing out of beasts to men, and out of men
To birds and beasts both wild and tame, both to and fro again:
It is not to be understand of that same soul whereby
We are endowed with reason and discretion from on high:
But of that soul or life the which brute beasts as well as we
Enjoy. Three sorts of life or soul (for so they termed be)
Are found in things. The first gives power to thrive, encrease and grow,
And this in senseless herbs and trees and shrubs itself doth show.

-----------------------------------------

3. "Framed in the front of forlorn hope" by Oxford

Framed in the front of forlorn hope, past all recovery,
I stayless stand t'abide the shock of shame and infamy.
My life, through ling'ring long is lodged, in lair of loathsome ways,
My death delayed to keep from life, the harm of hapless days;
My sprites, my heart, my wit and force, in deep distress are drowned,
The only loss of my good name, is of these griefs the ground.

And since my mind, my wit, my head, my voice and tongue are weak,
To utter, move, devise, conceive, sound forth, declare and speak,
Such piercing plaints, as answer might, or would my woeful case,
Help, crave I must, and crave I will, with tears upon my face:
Of all that may in heaven or hell, in earth or air be found,
To wail with me this loss of mine, as of these griefs the ground.

Help gods, help saints, help sprites and powers, that in the heaven do
dwell,
Help ye that are to wail aye wont, ye howling hounds of hell;
Help man, help beasts, help birds and worms, that on the earth do toil,
Help fish, help fowl, that flocks and feeds upon the salt sea soil;
Help echo that in air doth flee, shrill voices to resound,
To wail this loss of my good name, as of these griefs the ground.

----------------------

To what extent are lines and couplets sytactic units? In Gascoigne,
periods and colons occur only at the ends of lines, and with one
exception, only at the ends of couplets (there is a colon at the end of
line 5). We can repunctuate the poem according to modern standards, but
we will still find that sentences correspond exactly to a couplet or set
of couplets. Oxford's poem is written in 6-line stanzas; periods, colons,
and semicolons are only found at the end of couplets. Again, if we
repunctuate the line by modern standards, we will still find that all
sentences correspond to couplets or sets of couplets. With Golding, of
the nine sentences in the passage, only three terminate at the end of a
couplet. Two sentences end after the first line of a couplet, and four
end in the middle of a line. Of the four colons in the passage, two occur
at the end of a couplet while two occur mid-line. Even if we repunctuate
the lines, we will find that Golding's sentences often (and Gascoigne's
and Oxford's never) end in the middle of a line. We will find the same
thing happening on almost every page of Golding's translation, which
suggests that this idiosyncratic violation of fourteener norms is more
"typical" of both Golding the author of the translation and Golding the
author of the epistle than it is of either Gascoigne or Oxford.

How often are the strongest medial pauses some place other than just after
the 8th syllable? We expect a medial pause after the 8th syllable in a
line of fourteeners. We can find this pause in every one of Oxford's
lines (though one or two may be debatable); there is one exception in
Gascoigne's 38 lines:

The sundry shapes of death, whose dart shall make my flesh to tremble.

Golding violates this expectation 9 times in 26 lines, placing the
strongest pauses in various lines after the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, or
11th syllables. Once again, the practice of Golding in the epistle to the
translation is more "typical" of what we see in the translation itself
than what we see in Gascoigne or Oxford.

How much alliteration does the poet use? Golding uses alliteration, but
not as much as Gascoigne; while Oxford uses it much more than either of
them: "My life, through ling'ring long is lodged, in lair of loathsome
ways." I know of no line in Golding where six stressed syllables begin
with the same sound. We commonly find two and often three such syllables
in a line, and rarely four, but not six. I don't think there is any
stretch of 18 lines anywhere in the translation that is as alliterative as
Oxford's poem. Again, Golding's practice is more "typical" of that used
by the translator of Golding's Ovid than that of Oxford.

Whose verse reads most like prose? This is a rough and ready test: if we
set the passages as prose, how easy is it to tell where the lines of verse
begin and end? All three passages are in rhyming fourteener couplets, so
it should be very easy to pick out the lines, but it turns out to be
noticeably harder with Golding than with Gascoigne or Oxford. One reason
for this difficulty is that Golding uses run-on lines (and even run-on
couplets) in ways that Gascoigne, Oxford, and other polished users of
fourteeners at this time would not have. He ends many lines with such
words as prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs that are immediately
followed in the beginning of the next line by the main verb, and
nominative pronouns that are immediately followed in the beginning of the
next line by a verb. These are words that we expect to see at the
beginning of a syntactical unit, not at the end, and thus we would expect
to see them beginning rather than ending fourteener lines.

Thus in the quoted passage we have such surprising run-ons as one line
ending in "be" while the next begins "Accounted"; Oxford would not spread
the verbal phrase "be accounted" over two lines. We also find in the
passage such run-ons as "be/Discussed," "where/He," "whereby/We," and
"we/Enjoy." There is none of this in Gascoigne's or Oxford's poems, but we
find this peculiarity throughout Golding's epistle and also throughout the
translation itself.

As a result, Golding's verse is much more like prose than that of
Gascoigne or Oxford. Even though the verse is rhymed and heavily iambic,
it is not easy to spot the line breaks in this passage if we remove the
capital letters that begin each line and set Golding's words as prose
sentences:

"And though that of these three he make discourse dispersedly: yit
specially they be discussed in the latter book in that oration where he
bringeth in Pythagoras dissuading men from fear of death, and preaching
abstinence from flesh of living things. But as for that opinion which
Pythagoras there brings of souls removing out of beasts to men, and out of
men to birds and beasts both wild and tame, both to and fro again: it is
not to be understand of that same soul whereby we are endowed with reason
and discretion from on high: but of that soul or life the which brute
beasts as well as we enjoy."

Oxford's lines are much easier to spot if we set his sentences as prose:

"Framed in the front of forlorn hope, past all recovery, I stayless stand
t'abide the shock of shame and infamy. My life, through ling'ring long is
lodged, in lair of loathsome ways, my death delayed to keep from life, the
harm of hapless days; my sprites, my heart, my wit and force, in deep
distress are drowned, the only loss of my good name, is of these griefs
the ground."

as are Gascoigne's:

"Thus if thou try thy daily deeds, and pleasure in this pain, thy life
shall cleanse thy corn from weeds, and thine shall be the gain: but if thy
sinful sluggish eye, will venture for to wink, before thy wading will may
try, how far thy soul may sink, beware and wake, for else thy bed, which
soft and smooth is made, may heap more harm upon thy head, then blows of
enmies blade."

Here is a passage from book 9 of Golding's Ovid set as prose. Again, even
though the lines are rhymed, and Golding is forced into inversions to
place the rhymes where he wants them, the line breaks are much harder to
spot than in Gascoigne or Oxford:

"He said no more but thus: My hand doth serve me better than my tongue.
Content I am (so I in fighting vanquish can) that thou shalt overcome in
words. And therewithall he gan me fiercely to assail. Methought it was a
shame for me that had even now so stoutly talked, in doings faint to be. I
casting off my greenish cloak thrust stiffly out at length mine arms and
strained my pawing arms to hold him out by strength, and framed every limb
to cope. With both his hollow hands he caught up dust and sprinkled me:
and I likewise with sands made him all yellow too."

We have identified four features distinguishing Golding's verse from
typical fourteeners of the period (if we may consider such poets as
Gascoigne and Oxford typical). Golding's sentences are much less securely
wedded to lines and couplets than was the norm; Golding very often places
mid-line pauses elsewhere than after the 8th syllable of the line; Golding
is less alliterative; Golding ends lines with words that we expect at the
beginning rather than the end of syntactic units. As a result, if we set
his verse as prose, it seems much more like prose than the verse of Oxford
and Gascoigne. We find these features both in Golding's epistle (which
even Oxfordians concede that he wrote) and in the translation (which
Oxfordians alone in all the world would attribute to Oxford), but not in
Oxford's fourteener verse.

Given that Golding is credited with the work in each edition (and Oxford
never), and that contemporaries credited Golding (and never Oxford) with
the work, and that Golding has other translations of classical Latin to
his credit (Oxford has none), and that nobody seems to have doubted the
attribution until Ogburn's mother had her mysterious inspiration, and
given that Ogburn's "case" seems based on an almost total ignorance of the
work combined with an overactive imagination, and given that to this day
no Oxfordian has made a better "case" than Ogburn's (though a weaker one
cannot be imagined), I see no reason to doubt the traditional attribution.

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


Truepenny25

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 12:02:05 PM7/28/02
to
Dear Terry: Thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail. But,
nothing you said sways me from seeing an enormous difference in the Lewis
Carroll picquancy of parts of Golding's translation of Metamorphoses and his
other work. The parts of the translation I cited from Nims' introduction have a
childlike quality never reflected in Golding's other translations. Except for
using "Parliament" the early part of of the transalation is very straight
forward. Later, he really let's go. You say the translation shows no growth
from beginning to end. I see a lessening of restraint, plus I have have read
other opinions that the translation improves as it goes on.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 12:30:56 PM7/28/02
to
Terry Ross wrote:

> I blame myself.

We all blame you as well, Terry. :-)

> I have been busy with other matters, and have found the Sondheim
> series at the Kennedy Center a vastly more interesting use of my
> weekends even than hlas, and as a result, Oxfordian chestnuts that
> were dealt with years ago are sprouting again as if they were new

They are sprouting as if they were never effectively rebutted
(which they never were).

> and, this time, might be magically inoculated
> against the blight that keeps them from maturing.

Inoculate, v. t. [L. inoculatus, p. p. of inoculare to ingraft; pref.
in- in, on + oculare to furnish with eyes, fr. oculus an eye, also,
a bud. See {Ocular}.] Fig.: To introduce into the mind;
-- used especially of harmful ideas or principles.

> I really should put my Peacham and Golding material up at
> the Shakespeare Authorship site, and I need to do the same
> for my elucidations of Price's filter.

You really should put your John M. Rollett Shakespeare's Sonnets
cryptogram material up at the Shakespeare Authorship site.
It's just sitting there with no obvious access from 'home.':
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry's 5-letter Words (sans ANIEL:0908u)

ADEEP:0302u ARETE:1910d BINET:0201u BRESE:1411u DENTS:1410u DEPOT:1305u
ELEVT:0805u ELIAN:2106u ENDVE:1208d ENTER:0202d ENVRE:1004u FANVS:2420d
FLVES:2828u GENET:1009u GIESE:2712u GORIS:2305u GROTS:1005u HANES:0401d
HARIV:1007d HEIAV:0601d HEIST:1313u HENRY:1507d HERSH:3504u HETHS:0604d
HIERS:1207u HIRAM:1706u IANEE:1402d IERIB:1511u IETTA:0303u IIGOT:0201d
INSTR:0303u ISLET:1103d LEDGE:2705u LEONE:1508u LINSE:1914u MNEME:1204d
NAITO:1402u NELIA:2106u NEWAR:2116d OFTER:1802d OSIER:2516u PEALS:1711u
PEDEE:0808u PETTI:0707d PHENE:0601u PHEON:1106d POSSE:2112u RESVE:0401u
REVPS:1916u RITER:1205u RVSES:0704u SARON:0706u SATTE:0303d SEETS:0606u
SEIHO:0907u SHANE:1710u SHENE:2725u SHERE:1909d SLETE:2612u SLIPE:2013u
SPENS:2206d STEES:0606d TAILS:0603u TATIE:1409u TEIIV:1403u TERMS:0202d
TETER:1910u THEET:1903u THEET:3215d THISN:3207u TIBIA:1209u TINER:1709d
TISNT:1203u TIVIG:0803d TOPED:1305d TRESS:1404d TWANT:1111d VENGE:2012u
VERIE:0504u WASTE:0606d WEMEN:1204u WHEIN:0705d
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/array1.html
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/array2.html
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/wds1.html

But you should include ANIEL:0908u
with ARETE:1910d though!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VENUS archangel named "ANIEL"
MARS archangel named "SAMUEL" (D-ANIEL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO T HEON {L} I
EB E GETT {E} R
OF T HESE {I} N
SV I NGSO {N} N
ET S MRWH {A} L
LH [A] PPINE S
SE [A] NDTHA T
ET {E} RNITI E
PR {O} MISE {D} B
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.greenheart.com/billh/angel.html

<<In Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, archangels are said
to be "comptrollers" of the Sun, Moon and five planets.

VENUS' archangel is named "ANIEL" in that book.

VENUS is characterized either as a fallen angel, a planet or both.
Lucifer is the Christian name for a being that meets each test.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.vermontel.com/~vtsophia/chron.htm
JOHANNES TRITHEMIUS 1462-1516
Abbot of Sponheim
A TREATISE ON THE SEVEN SECONDARY CAUSES, I.E.,
INTELLIGENCES, OR SPIRITS, WHO MOVE THE SPHERES
ACCORDING TO GOD
A Little Book or MYSTICAL CHRONOLOGY

Containing within a Short Compass Marvellous Secrets
Worthy of Interest

To the august & pious MAXIMILIAN I, Emperor & Caesar:

Most wise Emperor, this lower world, created and organized by the
First Intelligence, who is God, is ruled by Secondary Intelligences.

Hermes, who gave us the science of the MAGI,

confirms this view when he says that seven Spirits were assigned to the
seven Planets from the beginning of the heavens and of the earth.

Each of these Spirits rules the universe in turn
for a period of 354 years and 4 months:

1. 1879 to 1510 GABRIEL- Moon (369 yrs)

2. 1510 to 1190 SAMUEL- Mars (320 yrs)

3. 1190 to 850 RAPHAEL- MERCURY (340 yrs)

4. 850 to 500 Zachariel- Jupiter (350 yrs)

5. 500 to 150 ANAEL- VENUS (350 yrs)

6. 150 to 200 BC Oriphiel- Saturn (350 yrs)

The fourth ruler of the world was RAPHAEL, the Spirit of MERCURY, whose
rule began on February 24 of the year 1063 following the creation of the
earth and the heavens, and lasted 354 years and 4 months. The invention
of writing goes back to this period. To begin with, letters were
imagined in the forms of trees and plants, later taking on more
careful forms to be modified at will. Under RAPHAEL, the use of musical
instruments spread; commerce and trading were practiced, as well
as long-distance navigation, and many other marvelous things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/planets/2bcocclt.htm

A Christmas Near Occultation - VENUS & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC

<<One of the most impressive conjunctions with the two brightest
planets passing each other in the sky. (Full occultation only occured
in the far southern hemisphere.) In the middle east, the two planets
were in contact at sunset (in the western sky). VENUS passes Jupiter
at about 2' arc per hour. The eye has a resolution of 1' arc so
the two will appear as one only for a little more than 1 hour.>>

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/durer/magi.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/bio/d/durer/biograph.html

<<Between 1505 & 1507, Dürer [made his 2nd journey] to Italy. In Venice
he met the great master Giovanni Bellini and other artists, and he
obtained an important commission for a painting, the Madonna of the
Rose Garlands (1506, National Museum, Prague), for the German Merchants'
Foundation. Back in Nuremberg in 1507, he created such works as

woodcuts for Triumphal Arch for Holy Roman Emperor MAXIMILIAN I,

and a series of engravings that included

The Knight, Death, & the Devil (1513),
Saint Jerome in His Study (1514),
& Melancholia I (1514).

In 1520, Dürer learned that Charles V, MAXIMILIAN's successor,
was scheduled to travel to Aachen from Spain to be crowned Holy Roman
emperor of the Habsburg dynasty. Dürer had received an annual stipend
from MAXIMILIAN, and he was anxious to meet with Charles to have it
continued. Armed with prints and other artworks, which he sold along
the way to finance his trip, Dürer journeyed to Aachen and on to the
Lowlands between 1520 and 1521. His diary provides a fascinating account
of his travels, his audiences with royalty, and receptions by fellow
artists, especially in Antwerp. His audience with Charles proved
successful. He returned to Nuremberg, where he remained until
his death on April 6, 1528.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 6, 1520 Good Friday RAPHAEL dies
April 6, 1483 Sunday RAPHAEL born
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL- Moon (1879 to 1510)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL Harvey's epistle to Young on Saturday March 21, 1573
Arthur BROOKE drowns in Greyhound wreck on Saturday March 21, 1562
Cranmer COOKS right hand on Saturday March 21, 1556
Mildred COOKE marries William Cecil on Saturday March 21, 1545

Anne Vavasor gives birth to EDWARD Vere on Tuesday March 21, 1581
Anthony Van Dyck born in Antwerp on Sunday March 21, 1599
Pocahontas dies at St. George's on Friday March 21, 1617
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ANAEL- VENUS Transits: 2 every 243 years
RAPHAEL- MERCURY Transits: 2 every 13 years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odin had no less than 200 aliases and often walked "the road of the
wanderer" disguised as a TRAVELER with one blazing eye, a long gray
beard, a blue tunic (symbolizes the sky) and with his face partially
concealed by a HOOD or hat (a la GABRIEL Harvey/ Francis Bacon).
------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Apr 1626 => Francis Bacon dies freezing chicken
during an Easter MERCURY-Sun conjunction
following a Good Friday MERCURY-VENUS conjunction.

4 Dec 1639 => Henry Wotton dies
first obs. VENUS TRANSIT

1 Sep 1651 => Robinson Crusoe leaves parents
VENUS near Regulus.

9 Apr 1682 => La Salle reached the mouth of Mississippi
(clustering of Mars, Uranus,
MERCURY, VENUS & Sun)

5 Nov 1699 => Gulliver shipwrecked/VENUS inf. conj.

1 Aug 1714 => Queen Anne dies
(clustering of Saturn, Uranus,
MERCURY, VENUS & Moon)

5 Nov 1715 => Gulliver returns/VENUS inf. conj.

24 Jun 1717 => Freemasonry becomes official
during an Sunday Jupiter-Sun conjunction
following a Friday Jupiter-VENUS conjunction.

5 Nov 1718 => Tristram Shandy born
(clustering of Mars, Uranus,
MERCURY, Saturn, VENUS & Sun)

3 June 1769 => VENUS TRANSIT of Cook's Endeavor
Balsamo meets Adam Weishaupt & Casanova

Sep 1769 => Shakespeare Jubilee in Stratford
9 Nov 1769 => MERCURY TRANSIT

4 May 1847 => A Study in Scarlet
John Ferrier & Lucy rescued by Mormons.
4 May 1847 => Jupiter/VENUS & Nept/Mars conj.

4 May 1852 => Alice Liddell born.
4 May 1859 => Alice's adventure in Wonderland.

4 May 1882 => _Sign of Four_ Mary Morstan ad.
4 May 1882 => Jupiter/VENUS & Merc/Nept/Satu conj.
6 Dec 1882 => VENUS TRANSIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
August 29, 1771: A VENUS/SATURN occultation.

1771/08/29 19.38 0°00'09"25 VEN - SAT 5.43" 8.18" 14W
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<On returning to Russia Leonhard Euler became almost totally blind
following the earlier loss of sight in his right eye due to a severe
abscess (not by viewing the Sun without protection as is the popular
tale). Shortly after the great fire of 1771 from which he only just
saved himself and his scriptures, Euler had a cataract operation
which initially restored his sight. Yet total blindness ensued.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Marlowe blinded on 1 PM on May 30, 1593 (Gregorian) during
a partial eclipse of the sun with VENUS & SATURN in conjunction.

2 Henry IV

PRINCE HENRY SATURN and VENUS this year in conjunction!
what says the almanac to that?
---------------------------------------------------------------
_Orpheus and Pygmalion as Aesthetic Paradigms in Petrarch's
Rime sparse_ by Thérèse Migraine-George
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/cls/36.3migraine-george.html

<<Petrarch seems to transform LAURA into a SHADOW when he looks at her
or thinks of her. LAURA indeed appears in the Rime sparse mostly as
a SHADOW, even as a VEILed SHADOW or as the SHADOW of her own VEIL:

"volsimi et vidi un' ombra .. . . "
["I turned and saw a SHADOW . . ."] (110.5).

LAURA shows only "l'ombra ria del grave velo"
["the bitter SHADOW of the heavy VEIL . . ."] (122.8),

"pur l'ombra o 'l velo o' panni / talor di sé, ma 'l viso nascondendo"
["only her SHADOW or her VEIL or her garment, but hiding her face"]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHILOCHUS solar eclipse: April 6, 648 BC Friday
Koran descends to Earth: April 6, 610 AD Monday
Petrarch meets LAURA: April 6, 1327 Monday
LAURA dies of plague: April 6, 1348 Sunday
RAPHAEL born: April 6, 1483 Sunday
RAPHAEL dies: April 6, 1520 Good Friday

DURER dies: April 6, 1528 Monday
Kent EARTHQUAKE: April 6, 1580 Wednesday
BRIDGET Vere's birth: April 6, 1584 Monday
Sir Francis Walsingham dies: April 6, 1590 Monday
Start of _The SOUND & the FURY_: April 6, 1928 Good Friday
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus 8 year PENTAGRAM cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 8 year gap between deaths of Raphael April 6, 1520 Good Friday
[Venus as a morning star in Pisces near west. elongation]

& Dürer April 6, 1528 Monday
[Venus as a Morning Star in Pisces near west. elongation]

``I hold that the perfection of form and beauty is contained in the
sum of all men.'' -- Dürer, Four Books on Human Proportions, 1528

BRIDGET Vere's birth: April 6, 1584 Monday

Start of _The SOUND & the FURY_: April 6, 1928 Good Friday
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/durer/
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/durer/self/self-26.jpg

Dürer, Albrecht (b. May 21, 1471, Imperial Free City of Nürnberg
[Germany]--d. April 6, 1528, Nürnberg), painter and printmaker generally
regarded as the greatest German Renaissance artist. Dürer came from a
Hungarian family of goldsmiths, his father having settled in Nuremberg
in 1455. In The Painter's Father Dürer shows the face with respectful
sensitivity. Dürer is the first great Protestant painter, calling Martin
Luther ``that Christian man who has helped me out of great anxieties''

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/bio/d/durer/biograph.html

DÜRER, Albrecht (b. 1471, Nürnberg, d. 1528, Nürnberg)

Albrecht Dürer was the most famous artist of Reformation Germany-
widely known for his paintings, drawings, prints, and theoretical
writings on art, all of which had a profound influence on
16th-century artists in his own country and in the Lowlands.

Dürer was born May 21, 1471, in Nuremberg. His father, Albrecht Dürer
the Elder, was a goldsmith and his son's first art teacher. From his
early training, the young Dürer inherited a legacy of 15th-century
German art strongly dominated by Flemish late Gothic painting. German
artists had little difficulty in adapting their own Gothic tradition to
the Flemish art of Robert Campin, Jan van Eyck, and especially Rogier
van der Weyden. The northern empirical (derived from observation rather
than theory) approach to reality was their common bond. During the 16th
century, stronger ties with Italy through trade, and the spread of
Italian humanist ideas northward, infused the more conservative
tradition of German art with new artistic ideas.

German artists found it difficult to reconcile their medieval
devotional imagery?represented with rich textures, brilliant colors,
& highly detailed figures?with the emphasis by Italian artists on the
antique, on mythological subjects, and on idealized figures.
Dürer's self-appointed task was to provide a model for his northern
contemporaries by which they could combine their own empirical interest
in naturalistic detail with the more theoretical aspects of Italian art.
In his many letters?especially those to his lifelong friend, the
humanist Willibald Pirckheimer?and in his various publications, Dürer
stressed geometry and measurement as the keys to understanding the art
of the Italian Renaissance and, through it, classical art. From about
1507 until his death, he made notes and drawings for his best-known
treatise, the Four Books on Human Proportions (published posthumously,
1528). Artists of his day, however, more visually oriented than literary
figures, looked more to Dürer's engravings and woodcuts than to his
writings to guide them in their attempts to modernize their art with the
classicizing nudes and idealized subjects of the Italian Renaissance.

Apprenticeship and First Journey

After studying with his father, Dürer was apprenticed in 1486 to the
painter and printmaker Michael Wolgemut at the age of 15. Between 1488
and 1493, Wolgemut's shop was engaged in the sizable task of providing
numerous woodcut illustrations for the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493), by
Hartmann Schedel, and Dürer must have received extensive instruction in
making drawings for woodcut designs. Throughout the Renaissance,
southern Germany was a center for publishing, and it was commonplace for
painters of the period to be equally skilled at making woodcuts and
engravings. As was customary for young men who finished their
apprenticeships, Dürer embarked on his bachelor's journey in 1490. In
1492 he was in Colmar, where he tried to join the workshop of the German
painter and engraver Martin Schongauer, who, unbeknownst to Dürer, had
died in 1491. Dürer was advised by Schongauer's brothers to travel to
the Swiss publishing center of Basel to find work. In Basel and later in
Strasbourg, Dürer made illustrations for several publications, including
Sebastian Brant's Das Narrenschiff (Ship of Fools, translated 1507) in
1494. During this early period of his life, between his apprenticeship
and his return to Nuremberg in 1494, Dürer's art demonstrates his
extreme facility with line and his keen observation of detail.
These qualities are especially evident in a series of self-portraits,
including an early drawing (1484, Albertina, Vienna) done when
he was 13, a thoughtful portrait drawn in 1491 and a painting of
himself as an extremely confident young man (1493, Louvre, Paris).

First Italian Journey

After marrying AGNES Frey in Nuremberg in 1494, he left for Italy. He
produced some superbly detailed watercolor landscape studies, probably
during his return journey?for example, a view of the Castle at Trent
(National Gallery, London). During the next ten years in Nuremberg,
from 1495 to 1505, Dürer produced a large number of works that firmly
established his fame. These include his woodcut series the Apocalypse
(1498) and the engravings Large Fortune (1501-1502) and Fall of Man
(1504). Collectively these works and others of the period show his
increasing technical mastery of the woodcut and engraving media, his
understanding of human proportions based on passages by the ancient
Roman writer Vitruvius, and his brilliant ability to incorporate the
details of nature into believable pictures of reality. His Self-Portrait
of 1500 (Alte Pinakothek, Munich), in which he portrayed himself as a
Christ-like figure, summarizes in visual form his lifelong concern for
the elevation of the artist's status above that of a mere artisan.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<On 23 July 1567, at Lochleven, Mary Queen of Scots was forced
to sign an act of withdrawal in favor of her one-year-old son,
who was crowned as James VI five days afterward at Scone.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<On 23 July 1567, while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam,
a TAILOR, in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand, the
seventeen-year-old Oxford killed an unarmed undercook named

THOMAS BRINCKNELL

with a thrust to the thigh. A packed jury instructed by CECIL
found that Brincknell had caused his own death by wilfully
hurling himself on Oxford's rapier.

Condemned as a suicide, Brincknell was denied Christian burial,

and his pregnant widow AGNES & three-year-old son QUYNTYN

were stripped of their assets and abandoned to her relatives
and the parish church.>> -- Prof. Alan Nelson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patron saint of TAILORs
St. QUENTIN of Amiens (Quintinus)- Feastday October 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://clendening.kumc.edu/dc/rti/human_body_1528_durer.html
Vier Bucher von menschlicher Proportion.

Hieronymus Formschneider for Dürer's widow [AGNES], 31 Oct., 1528.
First edition of Dürer's famous treatise on artistic anatomy,
containing 142 woodcuts by him showing human figures of varying height
and girth in different postures; all with their proper measurements
and porportions.

This book on human proportions was first published after Dürer's death
and contains an elegy by his friend Prickheimer. According to Heller:
"These proportions are the most extensive work Dürer composed and,
according to the manuscript in Dresden, it is said to have been his
first work, which already had been completed in 1523, but was not issued
before his death."

Written, designed and illustrated by Dürer, this work is notable for
its extraordinary series of anthropometrical woodcuts. The first two
books deal with the proper proportins of the human form; the third
changes the proportions according to mathematical rules, giving examples
of extremely fat and thin figures, while the last book depicts the human
figure in motion and treats of foreshortennings. Dürer's work is the
first attempt to apply anthropometry to aesthetics. The woodcuts
represent the first attempt to employ cross-hatching to depict shades
and shadows in wood engraving.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

David Kathman

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 5:43:59 PM7/28/02
to
In article <20020728120205...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
truep...@aol.com (Truepenny25) wrote:

In other words, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

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

Truepenny25

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 5:24:03 PM7/28/02
to
>>Dear Terry: Thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail. But,
>>nothing you said sways me from seeing an enormous difference in the Lewis
>>Carroll picquancy of parts of Golding's translation of Metamorphoses and his
>>other work. The parts of the translation I cited from Nims' introduction
>have a
>>childlike quality never reflected in Golding's other translations. Except
>for
>>using "Parliament" the early part of of the transalation is very straight
>>forward. Later, he really let's go. You say the translation shows no growth
>>from beginning to end. I see a lessening of restraint, plus I have have read
>>other opinions that the translation improves as it goes on.
>Dave replied:

>In other words, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
>Not at all. I see nothing that Terry cited from other Golding translations
that comes close to the tone in Nims' introduction that I cited. If Shakspere
had lived in the same household as Golding when the translation was done
Stratfordians would be ecstatic in their praise of this evidence of
Shakspearean juvenilia:

"While Ceres was eating this, before hir gazing stood
A Hard-faced boy, a shrewde pert wag, that could no manners good:
He laughed at hir and in scorn did call hir "Greedie gut."
The Goddesse being wroth therewith, did on the Hotchpot put
The liquor ere that all was eate, and in his face it threw...'

I see a young author, a boy, behind this, not Arthur Golding translator of
Calvin sermons.

Truepenny
>
>
>


Terry Ross

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 7:31:50 PM7/28/02
to
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:

> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > I blame myself.
>
> We all blame you as well, Terry. :-)

That somehow makes it all worthwhile.

>
> > I have been busy with other matters, and have found the Sondheim
> > series at the Kennedy Center a vastly more interesting use of my
> > weekends even than hlas, and as a result, Oxfordian chestnuts that
> > were dealt with years ago are sprouting again as if they were new
>
> They are sprouting as if they were never effectively rebutted
> (which they never were).

Of course not; no effective rebuttal of Oxfordianism is likely, because
there is really nothing that needs rebutting, and because since
Oxfordianism is not a rational set of beliefs, the use of the regular
means of reasoning (arguments and evidence) is in some ways misplaced --
and therefore my attempts at rebutting (or at rebutting heads with)
Oxfordians are not effective, if by effective one means persuasive to
those who have fallen for Oxfordianism. I think Dickson still thinks that
the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there. Several new
Oxfordian pages by suckers who fall for the Polus myth have appeared since
I posted my essay.


>
> > and, this time, might be magically inoculated
> > against the blight that keeps them from maturing.
>
> Inoculate, v. t. [L. inoculatus, p. p. of inoculare to ingraft; pref.
> in- in, on + oculare to furnish with eyes, fr. oculus an eye, also,
> a bud. See {Ocular}.] Fig.: To introduce into the mind;
> -- used especially of harmful ideas or principles.

I don't think there is any innoculation for Chestnut Blight. I have often
seen saplings sprout from the base of an old Chestnut, but the young 'ens
are doomed to die before long.


>
> > I really should put my Peacham and Golding material up at
> > the Shakespeare Authorship site, and I need to do the same
> > for my elucidations of Price's filter.
>
> You really should put your John M. Rollett Shakespeare's Sonnets
> cryptogram material up at the Shakespeare Authorship site.
> It's just sitting there with no obvious access from 'home.':

It's all there; unfortunately, there is no browsing of directories at our
new location. I also have some Milton acrostic material that should
see the light of day.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry's 5-letter Words (sans ANIEL:0908u)
>
> ADEEP:0302u ARETE:1910d BINET:0201u BRESE:1411u DENTS:1410u DEPOT:1305u
> ELEVT:0805u ELIAN:2106u ENDVE:1208d ENTER:0202d ENVRE:1004u FANVS:2420d
> FLVES:2828u GENET:1009u GIESE:2712u GORIS:2305u GROTS:1005u HANES:0401d
> HARIV:1007d HEIAV:0601d HEIST:1313u HENRY:1507d HERSH:3504u HETHS:0604d
> HIERS:1207u HIRAM:1706u IANEE:1402d IERIB:1511u IETTA:0303u IIGOT:0201d
> INSTR:0303u ISLET:1103d LEDGE:2705u LEONE:1508u LINSE:1914u MNEME:1204d
> NAITO:1402u NELIA:2106u NEWAR:2116d OFTER:1802d OSIER:2516u PEALS:1711u
> PEDEE:0808u PETTI:0707d PHENE:0601u PHEON:1106d POSSE:2112u RESVE:0401u
> REVPS:1916u RITER:1205u RVSES:0704u SARON:0706u SATTE:0303d SEETS:0606u
> SEIHO:0907u SHANE:1710u SHENE:2725u SHERE:1909d SLETE:2612u SLIPE:2013u
> SPENS:2206d STEES:0606d TAILS:0603u TATIE:1409u TEIIV:1403u TERMS:0202d
> TETER:1910u THEET:1903u THEET:3215d THISN:3207u TIBIA:1209u TINER:1709d
> TISNT:1203u TIVIG:0803d TOPED:1305d TRESS:1404d TWANT:1111d VENGE:2012u
> VERIE:0504u WASTE:0606d WEMEN:1204u WHEIN:0705d

For my Milton project I have constructed larger wordlists from which to
search; there are probably more 5-letter words in the Rollett arrays than
I list on my page. All of them, of course, are accidental and
meaningless, as are the thousands of brief acrostics I have found in
Milton.

Terry Ross

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 7:12:14 PM7/28/02
to
On 28 Jul 2002, Truepenny25 wrote:

> Dear Terry: Thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail.

You're welcome.

> But, nothing you said sways me from seeing an enormous difference in the
> Lewis Carroll picquancy of parts of Golding's translation of
> Metamorphoses and his other work.

OK, let's see if we can clear up a major misonception among Oxfordians
that Ogburn has perpetrated about Golding's style. He quotes Nims:

"we feel we are in Lewis Carroll country, in a land where corsies whewl,
where orpid buggs sty awkly in the queach, where froshes yesk, and
flackering pookes ensue. None of this may be quite 'beautiful,' but it
would be hard to deny it is rich in delights of its own."

Since Ogburn gives no evidence of having read Golding, he did not know
that there is NO place in Golding's translation where "corsies" is
followed by whewl," or where "orpid" is next to "buggs," or where "sty,"
is next to "awkly," or where "awkly" is near "queach," or where "froshes"
is near "yesk," or where "flackering" is near "pookes." Nims has chosen
several "piquant" words that are, in fact, widely separated in Golding's
book.

Take Nims's "corsies whewl": we find "corsie" or "corsies" in book 2,
lines 997 and 1010, and in book 5 line 532. We find "whewl" in book 7,
line 497. The only way to get a Jabberwockish sentence such as Nims's out
of Golding is to cherry-pick oddities. Of course, not all of the odd
words are all that odd: "buggs" is just our word "bugs," although it had a
somewhat different meaning in Golding's day.

> The parts of the translation I cited from Nims' introduction have a
> childlike quality never reflected in Golding's other translations.

Again, the author of "Jabberwocky" was not a 14-year-old child, but a man
in his late 30s -- about the same age Golding was when he translated Ovid.
If Golding actually does remind you of the author of "Jabberwocky," then
you should be looking not for a child but for a grown man. What you
(following Ogburn rather than using your own wits) take to be "childlike"
is the product of Nims's bringing together into a single sentence words
that are widely seprated in Golding. You could do the same sort of trick
with Golding's translation of Solinus if you were to read that work.

> Except for using "Parliament" the early part of of the transalation is
> very straight forward.

"Parliament" occurs in line 191 of book 1, so (assuming that you read the
first 190 lines), you must have read much more of Golding than Ogburn
appears to have. Did you somehow miss Golding's "childlike" use of
"queach" in line 138 of book 1? Or do you consider his use of "queach" to
be "very straightforward"?

Then first of all began the ayre with feruent heate to swelt.
Then Isycles hung roping downe: then for the colde was felt
Men gan to shroud themselues in house. their houses were the thickes,
And bushie queaches, hollow caues, or hardels made of stickes.

"Queach" is one of the key Jaberwockish words in Nims's pastiche, yet
somehow you missed it because, well, because, I think, you were expecting
it to be part of a thicket (or queach) of Jabberwockish words.

> Later, he really let's go.

You will find no place in Golding where corsies whewl, where orpid buggs


sty awkly in the queach, where froshes yesk, and flackering pookes ensue.

You WILL find such unfamiliar words as "queach" here and there throughout
the work.

> You say the translation shows no growth from beginning to end.

Here is what I said:

Golding's translation is some 14,500 lines long, but there is not much of
a learning curve. The translator's apparent skills in Latin and poetry
neither advance nor retreat throughout the 15 books of the
*Metamorphoses*, which is what we should expect from a mature and
experienced craftsman like Golding. If, on the other hand, a 14-year-old
boy had begun the work, we should expect some development in style or
versification, but there is none. Ah, but according to Ogburn and
associates, this is not just any 14-year-old boy, but the lad who will
grow up to write Shakespeare's plays--yet it is simply inconceivable that
Shakespeare's development would have come to a halt for 14,500 consecutive
lines, which is about the length of five of Shakespeare's plays.

I stand by that.

> I see a lessening of restraint, plus I have have read other opinions
> that the translation improves as it goes on.

The claim has been made that Golding's approach to fourteeners changes
over the course of the translation, but the style of the last book and the
style of the first book are much more like Golding's style in his epistle
than any part of Golding's translation is to the style of Oxford's own
poetry in fourteeners. The author of the translation seems as competent
in Latin at the end as he was at the beginning; his approach to
fourteeners does not develop much (if any) over 14,000 lines. If the
author were the young Oxford, we would expect the verse to develop in the
direction of the fourteeners by Oxford that appeared when he was a young
man, but the style is that of a single mature and idiosyncratic writer
throughout: Arthur Golding. We do NOT find similar idiosyncracises
anywhere in Oxford's actual writings; we can find them in Golding's other
works.

The trick, of course, is actually reading Golding, something that Ogburn
seems never to have done, and something that Oxfordians generally avoid.
That you have read at least 190 lines of Golding speaks well for your
willingness actually to read Elizabethan literature. I hope you will find
some value in Golding (and Ovid) even if you finally do NOT accept
Ogburn's uninformed guesses that the author of the translation was either
the boy Oxford or the author of Shakespeare's works.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 7:59:25 PM7/28/02
to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPION was dragged to Tyburn on 1 DECEMBER.
On the scaffold, when interrupted and taunted to express his mind
concerning the Bull of Pius V excommunicating Elizabeth, he answered
only by a prayer for her, "your Queen and my Queen".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPION: pleading not guilty
Anne Vere: "I am entirely INNOCENT"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.eol.ca/~cumulus/ch7.htm

<<In DECEMBER 1581 Anne, de Vere's wife, wrote to him

"my good Lord, I beseech you in the name of God which knoweth all my
thoughts and love towards you, let me know the truth of your meaning
towards me, upon what cause you are moved to continue me in this misery,
and what you would have me do in my power to recover your constant
favour, so as your Lordship may not be still to detain me in calamity
without some probable cause whereof I appeal to God, I am entirely
INNOCENT...most sorry to perceive how you are unquieted with the
uncertainty of the world, whereof I myself am not without some taste...
Good my Lord, assure yourself it is you whom only I love and fear,
and so am desirous above all the world to please you...""

After receiving her plaintive letter De Vere returned to cohabiting
with his wife. The son she bore him in May 1583 died one day after
birth. Whatever de Vere's motives were, he apparently kept his wife more
or less in a state of pregnancy from returning to her until her death in
July 1588. The most charitable reason we can find for his doing this is
presumably to try to get a male HEIR, a son. Instead she bore him
three more daughters.>> - Edward Furlong
----------------------------------------------------------------
NO HEIR
---------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 2, Scene 5

MORTIMER
I will, if that my fading breath permit
And death approach not ere my tale be done.
Henry the Fourth, grandfather to this king,
Deposed his nephew Richard, Edward's son,
The first-begotten and the lawful heir,
Of Edward king, the third of that descent:
During whose reign the Percies of the north,
Finding his usurpation most unjust,
Endeavor'd my advancement to the throne:
The reason moved these warlike lords to this
Was, for that--young King Richard thus removed,
Leaving NO HEIR begotten of his body--
I was the next by birth and parentage;
For by my mother I derived am
From Lionel Duke of Clarence, the third son
To King Edward the Third; whereas he
From John of Gaunt doth bring his pedigree,
Being but fourth of that heroic line.
But mark: as in this haughty attempt
They laboured to plant the rightful heir,
I lost my liberty and they their lives.
Long after this, when Henry the Fifth,
Succeeding his father Bolingbroke, did reign,
Thy father, Earl of Cambridge, then derived
From famous Edmund Langley, Duke of York,
Marrying my sister that thy mother was,
Again in pity of my hard distress
Levied an army, weening to redeem
And have install'd me in the diadem:
But, as the rest, so fell that noble earl
And was beheaded. Thus the Mortimers,
In whom the tide rested, were suppress'd.
---------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B E G E T T E R O F T H E S E I N
S V I N G S O N N E T S M R W H A L L H A P P I N E S
S E A N D T H A T E T E R N I T I E P R O M I S E D B
Y O V R E V E R L I V I N G P O E T W I S H E T H T H
E W E L L W I S H I N G A D V E N T V R E R I N S E T
T I N G F O R T H
<= 27 =>
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheen, n. [OE. sehene, AS. sci['e]ne, sc?ne, sc?ne, splendid, beautiful;
akin to OFries. sk?ne, sk?ne, OS. sc?ni, D. schoon, G. sch["o]n, OHG.
sc?ni, Goth, skanus, and E. shew; the original meaning being probably,
visible, worth seeing. It is not akin to E. shine.]
Brightness; splendor; glitter.
``Throned in celestial sheen.'' --Milton.
----------------------------------------------------------
Chaucer THE KNYGHTES TALE.

To make him there the garland that one weaves
Of woodbine leaves and of green hawthorn leaves.
And loud he sang within the sunlit sheen:
O May, with all thy flowers and all thy green,

To maken hym a gerland of the greves,
Were it of wodebynde or hawethorn-leves.
And loude he song ayeyn the sonne shene,
"May, with alle thy floures and thy grene,
----------------------------------------------------------
Paradiso: Divine Comedy - Dante

VI. Justinian. The Roman Eagle. The Empire. Romeo.
----------------------------------
And in the compass of this present pearl
Shineth the sheen of Romeo, of whom
The grand and beauteous work was ill rewarded.
------------------------------------------------
Heart of Mid-Lothian - Sir Walter Scott
CHAPTER THIRTY-FIFTH.

------Ascend
While radiant summer opens all its pride,
Thy hill, delightful Shene! Here let us sweep
The boundless landscape.
-------------------------------------------------
FLEDGE, a.[OE. flegge, flygge; akin to D. vlug, G. fl["u]gge,
fl["u]cke, OHG. flucchi, Icel. fleygr, and to E. fly.]
Feathered; furnished with feathers or wings; able to fly.
His shoulders, FLEDGE with wings. --Milton.

FLEDGE, v. t. & i. 1. To furnish with feathers;
to supply with the feathers necessary for flight.

2. To furnish or adorn with any soft covering.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant of Venice Act 3, Scene 1

SALANIO
And Shylock, for his own part, knew the bird was
FLEDGEd; and then it is the complexion of them all
to leave the dam.
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 1, Scene 2

FALSTAFF Men of all sorts take a pride to gird at me: the
brain of this foolish-compounded clay, man, is not
able to invent anything that tends to laughter, more
than I invent or is invented on me: I am not only
witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other
men. I do here walk before thee like a sow that
hath overwhelmed all her litter but one. If the
prince put thee into my service for any other reason
than to set me off, why then I have no judgment.
Thou whoreson mandrake, thou art fitter to be worn
in my cap than to wait at my heels. I was never
manned with an agate till now: but I will inset you
neither in gold nor silver, but in vile apparel, and
send you back again to your master, for a jewel,--
the juvenal, the prince your master, whose chin is
not yet FLEDGEd. I will sooner have a beard grow in
the palm of my hand than he shall get one on his
cheek; and yet he will not stick to say his face is
a face-royal: God may finish it when he will, 'tis
not a hair amiss yet: he may keep it still at a
face-royal, for a barber shall never earn sixpence
out of it; and yet he'll be crowing as if he had
writ man ever since his father was a bachelor. He
may keep his own grace, but he's almost out of mine,
I can assure him. What said Master Dombledon about
the satin for my short cloak and my slops?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 9:01:03 PM7/28/02
to
>>Terry Ross wrote:

>>> I have been busy with other matters, and have found the Sondheim
>>>series at the Kennedy Center a vastly more interesting use of my
>>>weekends even than hlas, and as a result, Oxfordian chestnuts that
>>> were dealt with years ago are sprouting again as if they were new

> Neuendorffer wrote:

>> They are sprouting as if they were never effectively rebutted
>> (which they never were).

Terry Ross wrote:

> Of course not; no effective rebuttal of Oxfordianism is likely, because
> there is really nothing that needs rebutting, and because since
> Oxfordianism is not a rational set of beliefs, the use of the regular
> means of reasoning (arguments and evidence) is in some ways misplaced --
> and therefore my attempts at rebutting (or at rebutting heads with)
> Oxfordians are not effective, if by effective one means persuasive to
> those who have fallen for Oxfordianism. I think Dickson still thinks
> that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.

But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":
-----------------------------------------------------------
1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
"DE VERE NIMBO IT"
De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud

2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
"DE VERE IN TOMB"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thou art a MONIMENT, without a TOMBE,
------------------------------------------------------------------
1850 Melville: "In Shakespeare's TOMB lies infinitely more than
Shakepeare EVER wrote. And if I magnify Shakepeare it is not so much
for what he did do but for what he did not do, or refrained from doing.

For in this world of lies, TRUTH is forced to fly like a scared
white doe in the woodlands; and only by cunning glimpses
will she reveal herself, as in Shakespeare.."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy TOMBE, thy name must when that stone is rent,
And Time dissolves thy Stratford MONIMENT,
Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To my loving Friend Thomas Bedingfield, Esquire,
one of Her Majesty's Gentlemen Pensioners.

.. . . if our friends be dead we cannot show or declare our affection
more than by erecting them of TOMBS, when they be dead indeed,
yet make we them live as it were again through their MONUMENT. But with
me behold it happeneth far better; for in your lifetime I shall erect
you such a MONUMENT that, as I say, in your lifetime you shall see how
noble a SHADOW of your virtuous life shall hereafter remain when you
are dead and gone. E. Oxenford.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:

> Several new Oxfordian pages by suckers who fall for the
> Polus myth have appeared since I posted my essay.

Here again Harvey's "POLUS" is unnecessary since
Cecil was known as "PONDUS" which is also an
excellent description of "POLONIUS"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm

A Portrait Analysis of William Cecil
By Paul Hemenway Altrocchi, MD

<<Queen Elizabeth and her court loved nicknames. She held William
Cecil in high esteem and called him ?SPIRIT? or ?LEVIATHAN.?

The court had other opinions and called him ?PONDUS,? as
evidenced by a letter from Roger Manners to his nephew
Edward Manners, Third Earl of Rutland, dated June 2, 1583:

"Her Majesty came yesterday to Greenwich from the Lord Treasurer?s.
.... The Earl of Oxford came to her presence, and after some
bitter words and speeches, in the end all sins are forgiven, and
he may repair to the Court at his pleasure. Master Raleigh was a great
mean herein, whereat PONDUS is angry for that he could not do so much."

With slow PONDEROUS speech and other speech impediments due
to cleft lip and a presumed cleft palate, Cecil?s nickname
of ?PONDUS? might seem unkind, but it was appropriate.

He was agonizingly CIRCUMLOCUTIOUS in letters,
but whether this was true of his speaking is not known.

William Cecil?s mouth [appears] peculiarly TWISTED to his right,
highly suggestive of a cleft lip touch-up.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terry Ross wrote:

>>>I really should put my Peacham and Golding material up at
>>>the Shakespeare Authorship site, and I need to do the same
>>> for my elucidations of Price's filter.

> Neuendorffer wrote:

>>You really should put your John M. Rollett Shakespeare's Sonnets
>> cryptogram material up at the Shakespeare Authorship site.
>> It's just sitting there with no obvious access from 'home.':

Terry Ross wrote:

> It's all there; unfortunately,
> there is no browsing of directories at our new location.

Then why not reference it from the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page?
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terry's 5-letter Words (sans ANIEL:0908u)
>>
>>ADEEP:0302u ARETE:1910d BINET:0201u BRESE:1411u DENTS:1410u DEPOT:1305u
>>ELEVT:0805u ELIAN:2106u ENDVE:1208d ENTER:0202d ENVRE:1004u FANVS:2420d
>>FLVES:2828u GENET:1009u GIESE:2712u GORIS:2305u GROTS:1005u HANES:0401d
>>HARIV:1007d HEIAV:0601d HEIST:1313u HENRY:1507d HERSH:3504u HETHS:0604d
>>HIERS:1207u HIRAM:1706u IANEE:1402d IERIB:1511u IETTA:0303u IIGOT:0201d
>>INSTR:0303u ISLET:1103d LEDGE:2705u LEONE:1508u LINSE:1914u MNEME:1204d
>>NAITO:1402u NELIA:2106u NEWAR:2116d OFTER:1802d OSIER:2516u PEALS:1711u
>>PEDEE:0808u PETTI:0707d PHENE:0601u PHEON:1106d POSSE:2112u RESVE:0401u
>>REVPS:1916u RITER:1205u RVSES:0704u SARON:0706u SATTE:0303d SEETS:0606u
>>SEIHO:0907u SHANE:1710u SHENE:2725u SHERE:1909d SLETE:2612u SLIPE:2013u
>>SPENS:2206d STEES:0606d TAILS:0603u TATIE:1409u TEIIV:1403u TERMS:0202d
>>TETER:1910u THEET:1903u THEET:3215d THISN:3207u TIBIA:1209u TINER:1709d
>>TISNT:1203u TIVIG:0803d TOPED:1305d TRESS:1404d TWANT:1111d VENGE:2012u
>>VERIE:0504u WASTE:0606d WEMEN:1204u WHEIN:0705d
>

> there are probably more 5-letter words in the Rollett arrays


> than I list on my page.

> All of them, of course, are accidental and meaningless,

These don't look "accidental & meaningless" to me:

PHEON?
GROTS?
HIRAM?
HENRY?
(Planta)GENET?
WASTE(land)?
MNEME?

MNEME is the Muse of MEMORY
one of the original three Greek Muses
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
-------------------------------------------------------
"NIL VERO-VERIUS"

ENVOI LIVREURS: SENDING DELIVERYMEN . . .
LIVRE SOUVENIR: TO DELIVER MEMORY.

RELIEUR, VIVONS: BOOKBINDER, LET US LIVE. . .

LUE; REVIVRIONS: READ; LET US LIVE AGAIN . . .
REVIVONS LUIRE: LET US LIVE AGAIN TO SHINE.
---------------------------------------------------------
John Milton

What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,--
The LABOUR of an age in piled stones?
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
To the MEMORY of my beloved,

The Author
MR. W I L L I A M S H A K E S P E A R E :
A N D
what he hath left us.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 12:50:00 AM7/29/02
to
In article <20020728120205...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
truep...@aol.com (Truepenny25) wrote:

> Dear Terry: Thank you for taking the time to answer in such detail. But,
> nothing you said sways me from seeing an enormous difference in the Lewis
> Carroll picquancy of parts of Golding's translation of Metamorphoses and his
> other work. The parts of the translation I cited from Nims' introduction have
> a
> childlike quality never reflected in Golding's other translations.

What other translations of Golding's have you actually *read*? Have
you considered the possibility that the difference you perceive might
have a good deal to do with the vast stylistic differences among the
*original* texts being translated?! In other words, the difference
quite probably means merely that Golding was a competent translator,
and he conveyed in English some of the verve of Ovid's Latin; matters
being so, it is not in the slighest surprising that his translation of
Calvinist texts should differ appreciably from his translations of
effervescent and often ribald tales of the Augustan age.

This is rather like saying that Nabokov's translation of Pushkin's
_Evgenii Onegin_ is vastly different from his translation of _Slovo o
polku Igoreve_, which in turn is vastly different from his translation
(with Dmitri Nabokov) of Lermontov's _Geroi nashego vremeni_. It is
quite true that the styles are as different as night and day -- but
that's largely because Lermontov's jaded Byronic romanticism is
dramatically different stylistically from the anonymous epic Medieval
masterpiece, which in turn is vastly different from the seemingly
effortless virtuosity of Pushkin's witty, often ironic, sparkling
verse.

If a competent musician prepared orchestrations of a sprightly
Mozart keyboard sonata and of one of Olivier Messiaen's mystical organ
works, would you infer from the vast stylistic difference that the two
orchestrations must have been prepared by different persons?! Your
inference above makes about as much sense! It never ceases to amaze me
what absurd, convoluted explanations many Oxfordians will invent in a
hapless and often comic attempt to find at least *some* evidence
connecting Oxford with the Shakespeare canon!

[...]

David Webb

Mark Steese

unread,
Jul 28, 2002, 10:07:41 PM7/28/02
to
You hear this fellow in the cellarage, truep...@aol.com (Truepenny25),
who wrote news:20020728172403...@mb-ff.aol.com, on 28 Jul
2002:

[snippage]


> Not at all. I see nothing that Terry cited from other Golding
> translations that comes close to the tone in Nims' introduction that I
> cited. If Shakspere had lived in the same household as Golding when the
> translation was done Stratfordians would be ecstatic in their praise of
> this evidence of Shakspearean juvenilia:

No, they'd accept the attribution to Golding, as they have a rational
attitude towards attribution studies, and they have a habit of reading
whole works rather than gleaning quotes from modern introductions.



> "While Ceres was eating this, before hir gazing stood
> A Hard-faced boy, a shrewde pert wag, that could no manners good:
> He laughed at hir and in scorn did call hir "Greedie gut."
> The Goddesse being wroth therewith, did on the Hotchpot put
> The liquor ere that all was eate, and in his face it threw...'
>
> I see a young author, a boy, behind this, not Arthur Golding translator
> of Calvin sermons.

And do you also see "a young author, a boy" behind *Alice's Adventures in
Wonderland*? That was written by the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson,
author of *A syllabus of plane algebraical geometry*. But if Dodgson had
lived during the same era as Edward De Vere, Oxfordians would be ecstatic
in their praise of Oxford's authorship of the Alice books.

-Mark Steese
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 6:54:24 AM7/29/02
to
David L. Webb wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me what absurd,
> convoluted explanations many Oxfordians will invent in a
> hapless and often comic attempt to find at least *some* evidence
> connecting Oxford with the Shakespeare canon!

It never ceases to amaze me what absurd,

convoluted explanations many Stratfordians will invent in a


hapless and often comic attempt to find at least *some* evidence

connecting the illiterate Stratford boob with the Shakespeare canon!

Art Neuendorffer

Jo Lonergan

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 7:28:35 AM7/29/02
to

It never ceases to amaze me what absurd, convoluted means
anti-Stratfordians will use to belittle WS of Stratford, his family
and his friends. Is their case so weak that to sustain it he must be
an illiterate booby, his entire family likewise illiterate, his
friends and fellow townsmen liars, and the theatrical establishment of
his time total idiots?

--
Jo Lonergan

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 7:32:25 AM7/29/02
to
> Terry Ross wrote:

>> I have been busy with other matters, and have found the Sondheim
>> series at the Kennedy Center a vastly more interesting use of my
>> weekends even than hlas, and as a result, Oxfordian chestnuts that
>> were dealt with years ago are sprouting again as if they were new

Neuendorffer wrote:

> They are sprouting as if they were never effectively rebutted
> (which they never were).

Terry Ross wrote:

>Of course not; no effective rebuttal of Oxfordianism is likely, because
> there is really nothing that needs rebutting, and because since
>Oxfordianism is not a rational set of beliefs, the use of the regular
>means of reasoning (arguments and evidence) is in some ways misplaced

>and therefore my attempts at rebutting (or at rebutting heads with)
>Oxfordians are not effective, if by effective one means persuasive to
>those who have fallen for Oxfordianism. I think Dickson still thinks
> that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.

But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":

> Several new Oxfordian pages by suckers who fall for the
> Polus myth have appeared since I posted my essay.

> Here again Harvey's "POLUS" is unnecessary since

>Neuendorffer wrote:

>>You really should put your John M. Rollett Shakespeare's Sonnets
>> cryptogram material up at the Shakespeare Authorship site.
>> It's just sitting there with no obvious access from 'home.':

Terry Ross wrote:

>It's all there; unfortunately,
> there is no browsing of directories at our new location.

Then why not reference it from the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page?
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Terry's 5-letter Words (sans ANIEL:0908u)

ADEEP:0302u ARETE:1910d BINET:0201u BRESE:1411u DENTS:1410u DEPOT:1305u
ELEVT:0805u ELIAN:2106u ENDVE:1208d ENTER:0202d ENVRE:1004u FANVS:2420d
FLVES:2828u GENET:1009u GIESE:2712u GORIS:2305u GROTS:1005u HANES:0401d
HARIV:1007d HEIAV:0601d HEIST:1313u HENRY:1507d HERSH:3504u HETHS:0604d
HIERS:1207u HIRAM:1706u IANEE:1402d IERIB:1511u IETTA:0303u IIGOT:0201d
INSTR:0303u ISLET:1103d LEDGE:2705u LEONE:1508u LINSE:1914u MNEME:1204d
NAITO:1402u NELIA:2106u NEWAR:2116d OFTER:1802d OSIER:2516u PEALS:1711u
PEDEE:0808u PETTI:0707d PHENE:0601u PHEON:1106d POSSE:2112u RESVE:0401u
REVPS:1916u RITER:1205u RVSES:0704u SARON:0706u SATTE:0303d SEETS:0606u
SEIHO:0907u SHANE:1710u SHENE:2725u SHERE:1909d SLETE:2612u SLIPE:2013u
SPENS:2206d STEES:0606d TAILS:0603u TATIE:1409u TEIIV:1403u TERMS:0202d
TETER:1910u THEET:1903u THEET:3215d THISN:3207u TIBIA:1209u TINER:1709d
TISNT:1203u TIVIG:0803d TOPED:1305d TRESS:1404d TWANT:1111d VENGE:2012u
VERIE:0504u WASTE:0606d WEMEN:1204u WHEIN:0705d


Terry Ross wrote:

> there are probably more 5-letter words in the
> Rollett arrays than I list on my page.

How many 5-letter Words did you test for?
(I.e., what is the probability of a 5-letter Word to appear?)

> All of them, of course, are accidental and meaningless,

These don't look "accidental & meaningless" to me:

PHEON?
GROTS?
HIRAM?
RITER?
HENRY?
ARETE?
(Planta)GENET?
WASTE(land)?
ANIEL?
SHANE?
SHENE?
MNEME?

RITE, n. [L. ritus; cf. Skr. r[=i]ti a stream, a running,
way, manner, ri to flow: cf. F. rit, rite.] A formal act
of religion or other solemn duty; a solemn observance;
a ceremony; as, the RITEs of FREEMASONRY.

SHANE = SHAdrach/HANaniah = God is gracious
SHENE = Brightness; splendor; glitter.

MNEME is the Muse of MEMORY
one of the original three Greek Muses
-------------------------------------------------------

Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
-------------------------------------------------------
"NIL VERO-VERIUS"

ENVOI LIVREURS: SENDING DELIVERYMEN . . .
LIVRE SOUVENIR: TO DELIVER MEMORY.

RELIEUR, VIVONS: BOOKBINDER, LET US LIVE. . .

LUE; REVIVRIONS: READ; LET US LIVE AGAIN . . .
REVIVONS LUIRE: LET US LIVE AGAIN TO SHINE.
---------------------------------------------------------
John Milton

What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,--
The LABOUR of an age in piled stones?
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?
-------------------------------------------------------
To the MEMORY of my beloved,

The Author
MR. W I L L I A M S H A K E S P E A R E :
A N D
what he hath left us.
------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 11:25:49 AM7/29/02
to Art Neuendorffer
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <3D452843...@comcast.net>, Art Neuendorffer
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut)
wrote:

[...]


> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> >Of course not; no effective rebuttal of Oxfordianism is likely, because
> > there is really nothing that needs rebutting, and because since
> >Oxfordianism is not a rational set of beliefs, the use of the regular
> >means of reasoning (arguments and evidence) is in some ways misplaced
> >and therefore my attempts at rebutting (or at rebutting heads with)
> >Oxfordians are not effective, if by effective one means persuasive to
> >those who have fallen for Oxfordianism. I think Dickson still thinks
> > that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.

> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud

Huh?! That makes a *lot* of sense, Art!

Of course, by your *own standards*, this is a poor anagram, as its
INPNC score is a mere 6/13, less than 50%. Indeed, ph...@errors.comedy
wrote elsewhere, at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3CFEA0EA.E4A
B5D9B%40erols.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DINPNC%2B%2522taken%2Bserious
ly%2522%2Bgroup:humanities.lit.authors.*%2Bauthor:neuendorffer%26hl%3Den
%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3CFEA0EA.E4AB5D9B%2540erols.com%26rnum%3D
1>,

"Just another example of why one really needs INPNC score > 50%."

Elsewhere, at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=INPNC+seriously+group:humanities.lit.
authors.*+author:neuendorffer&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3CE98B8E.448D2D96%
40erols.com&rnum=1>, ph...@errors.comedy wrote:

"Almost any anagram (or near anagram) with an INPNC <0.5 is not
worth taking seriously."

An anagram with a superior INPNC score is "I'd be Timon. -- Vere".

> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
> "DE VERE IN TOMB"

This one *also* fails to have an INPNC score exceeding a mere 50%.
However, the anagram "De Ver be Timon," which corroborates the one
above, has an INPNC score of 10/12, vastly superior to the feeble "De
Vere in tomb."

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Thou art a MONIMENT, without a TOMBE,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

But Art -- your anemic anagram asserted that Oxford *was* in the
tomb! Of course, one of the comic charms of your posts is the
regularity with which you contradict yourself.

[...]

This is pretty obvious -- to the sane.



> These don't look "accidental & meaningless" to me:

I said that it was obvious *to the sane*, Art.

> PHEON?
> GROTS?
> HIRAM?
> RITER?
> HENRY?
> ARETE?
> (Planta)GENET?

The word "Plantagenet" does *not* appear in the array, Art; only
"genet" appears. The only senses of the word "genet" in use in English
before the eighteenth century are that of a kind of civet-cat (_ViVERra
Genetta_) and as a variant spelling of "jennet." You may perhaps wish
to argue that Oxford is being lampooned as a civet-cat because of the
Aubrey flatulance anecdote.

> WASTE(land)?

The word "wasteland" does *not* appear, Art; only "waste" appears,
and indeed your posts on this topic have been merely recycled solid
waste.

> ANIEL?
> SHANE?
> SHENE?
> MNEME?
>
> RITE, n. [L. ritus; cf. Skr. r[=i]ti a stream, a running,
> way, manner, ri to flow: cf. F. rit, rite.] A formal act
> of religion or other solemn duty; a solemn observance;
> a ceremony; as, the RITEs of FREEMASONRY.
> SHANE = SHAdrach/HANaniah = God is gracious
> SHENE = Brightness; splendor; glitter.
>
> MNEME is the Muse of MEMORY
> one of the original three Greek Muses
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of fame,
> What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> "NIL VERO-VERIUS"
>
> ENVOI LIVREURS: SENDING DELIVERYMEN . . .
> LIVRE SOUVENIR: TO DELIVER MEMORY.
>
> RELIEUR, VIVONS: BOOKBINDER, LET US LIVE. . .
>
> LUE; REVIVRIONS: READ; LET US LIVE AGAIN . . .
> REVIVONS LUIRE: LET US LIVE AGAIN TO SHINE.
> ---------------------------------------------------------

To this revelation there is only one possible response:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

In any case, "Nil vero verius" does not appear in any Rollett array.

[...]

David Webb

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 12:32:41 PM7/29/02
to
>>Terry Ross wrote:
>>
>> >Of course not; no effective rebuttal of Oxfordianism is likely, because
>> > there is really nothing that needs rebutting, and because since
>> >Oxfordianism is not a rational set of beliefs, the use of the regular
>> >means of reasoning (arguments and evidence) is in some ways misplaced
>> >and therefore my attempts at rebutting (or at rebutting heads with)
>> >Oxfordians are not effective, if by effective one means persuasive to
>> >those who have fallen for Oxfordianism. I think Dickson still thinks
>> > that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.

> Art Neuendorffer wrote:

>> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
>> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
>> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud

David L. Webb wrote:

> That makes a *lot* of sense, Art!

Yes it does, Dave!

> Of course, by your *own standards*, this is a poor anagram, as its
> INPNC score is a mere 6/13, less than 50%.

> "Just another example of why one really needs INPNC score > 50%."

> "Almost any anagram (or near anagram) with an INPNC <0.5 is not

> worth taking seriously."
>
> An anagram with a superior INPNC score is "I'd be Timon. -- Vere".

Yes, that is why 2) is preferable:

>> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
>> "DE VERE IN TOMB"

> This one *also* fails to have an INPNC score exceeding a mere 50%.
> However, the anagram "De Ver be Timon," which corroborates the one
> above, has an INPNC score of 10/12, vastly superior to the feeble
> "De Vere in tomb."
>>---------------------------------------------------------------

>> Thou art a MONIMENT, without a TOMBE,
>>-------------------------------------------------------------

> But Art -- your anemic anagram asserted


> that Oxford *was* in the tomb!

Not a 'marked' TOMBE.

> Of course, one of the comic charms of your posts is the
> regularity with which you contradict yourself.

I wear my comic charms on a collar around my neck.

Plantagenet is simply a GENET plant, Dave.

>> WASTE(land)?
>
> The word "wasteland" does *not* appear, Art;

It would be a waste of space to do that, Dave.
"Time WASTES life;"

------------------------------------------------------
<= 28 =>

TOTHEO {N} LIEBEG E. TTERO [F] THESEINS
VINGS {O} NNETSMRW [H] ALLH [A] PPINESSE
ANDT [H] ATETERNITI [E] PRO [M] ISEDBYOV
REV [E] RLIVINGPOETW [I] SH [E] THTHEWEL
LW [I] SHINGADVENTVRE [R] IN SETTINGF
O [R] TH
------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of FAME,


What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?

[H]enry, 18th. [E]arl of [O]xford, ENDUES TIBIALS (Order of Garter)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TOT HEONL IEBE
GET TEROF THES
EIN SVING |S] ONN
ETS [M|R] WHA |L] LHA
PPI [N|E] SS [E|A] NDT
HAT [E|T] ER [N|I] TIE
PRO [M|I] SE [D|B] YOV
REV [E|R] LI [V|I] NGP
OET WISH [E|T] HTH
EWE LLWI [S|H. ING
ADV ENTVR E. RIN
SET TINGF O. RTH
------------------------------------------------------------------
MNEME is the MUSE of MEMORY
one of the original three Greek MUSEs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 100

Where art thou, MUSE, that thou forget'st so long
To speak of that which gives thee all thy might?
Spend'st thou thy fury on some worthless song,
Darkening thy power to lend base subjects light?
Return, forgetful MUSE, and straight redeem
In gentle numbers time so idly spent;
Sing to the ear that doth thy lays esteem
And gives thy pen both skill and argument.
Rise, resty MUSE, my love's sweet face survey,
If Time have any wrinkle graven there;
If any, be a satire to decay,
And make Time's spoils despised every where.
Give my love FAME faster than Time WASTES life;
So thou prevent'st his scythe and crooked knife.
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Terry Ross

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 2:56:29 PM7/29/02
to
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:

> >>Terry Ross wrote:
>
> >>> I have been busy with other matters, and have found the Sondheim
> >>>series at the Kennedy Center a vastly more interesting use of my
> >>>weekends even than hlas, and as a result, Oxfordian chestnuts that
> >>> were dealt with years ago are sprouting again as if they were new
>
> > Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >> They are sprouting as if they were never effectively rebutted
> >> (which they never were).
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > Of course not; no effective rebuttal of Oxfordianism is likely, because
> > there is really nothing that needs rebutting, and because since
> > Oxfordianism is not a rational set of beliefs, the use of the regular
> > means of reasoning (arguments and evidence) is in some ways misplaced --
> > and therefore my attempts at rebutting (or at rebutting heads with)
> > Oxfordians are not effective, if by effective one means persuasive to
> > those who have fallen for Oxfordianism. I think Dickson still thinks
> > that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.
>
> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":


Actually, it doesn't "work" at all: there is no reason to think Peacham
intended the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming, and no way to
tell which of many possible anagrams he might have enjoyed, even though he
gives no sign of ever having had any of them in mind. Based on the
anagrams he actually DID intend, it seems unlikely that he would have been
impressed by either of Art's or by such other possibilities as "November
diet" or "Bromide event," or even the ornithologists' favorite gathering,
the "Ovenbird Meet."

> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud

All along the nimbo block, Oxford do the Nimbo Rock.

>
> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
> "DE VERE IN TOMB"

So much for Art's attempts to foist anagrams on Peacham. It might be
useful to see what Peacham himself did when HE anagrammed.

Peacham gives us 15 anagrams based on names in *Minerva Britanna* (and one
that is "ICH DIEN"="HIC, INDE") and another 15 or so in *The Compleat
Gentleman* (there are two that he uses in each). Every single time
Peacham forms the anagram on a person's name or title. There are never
words that are not part of the name or title. There is no such thing as
looking for a "50% name rating" rather than a "27.34% name rating"
anywhere in Peacham or in any contemporary that I know of.

From a name or title Peacham then constructs an anagram using every letter
of that name or title, and he gives us the anagram (several of the
anagrams in *Minerva Britanna* are taken from other authors, and Peacham
identifies the author each time). To my knowledge Peacham nowhere in any
of his works creates an anagram out of the letters in MENTE VIDEBOR, nor
does he ever give us a name or title that is an anagram of that phrase.
You may play with the letters of MENTE VIDEBOR all you want, but there is
no reason to believe that there is an anagram that Peacham had in mind or
that such an alleged anagram would be recoverable even if Peacham had
meant to insert some private puzzle for his own amusement.

As the William and Elizebeth Friedman say,

"In the absence of a key, any lengthy sequence of letters with the normal
proportions of high, medium, and low-frequency vowels and consonants may
be anagrammed in a large number of ways. Hence there may be as many
'solutions' as the solver's ingenuity can produce and each will be as
valid as any other, but none will carry any objective conviction. There is
always room for doubt unless the man who composed the anagram recreates
his own message from it; for only he knows for certain what message he
intended to conceal."

In the case of Peacham, we have dozens of genuine anagrams. We know this
because in each case he gave us the "solution" to the anagrammed name or
title. Sometimes he gives multiple "solutions": he provides two anagrams
on "Theodosia Dixon" and six anagrams on "Amie Mordaunt" in *The Compleat
Gentleman*. He does not, however, provide any anagrams on MENTE VIDEBOR.

Peacham in his references to the Vere family name in *Minerva Britanna*
and *The Compleat Gentleman* always uses "Vere" and not "de Vere" (Camden
does the same in his *Remains*, which was a work Peacham seems to have
consulted for his own anagramming). When Peacham uses "Vere" it is never
in reference to Edward the Seventeenth earl of Oxford but always to some
other member of that illustrious family, so even if you come up with
anagrams including "Vere" or "De Vere" you still have not identified any
particular Vere. Based on Peacham's usage, IF he intended to create an
anagram for your man, it would probably have been based on something like
"Eduuardus Verus Comes Oxfordiensis," a phrase from which hundreds of
anagrams could be formed. However, Peacham left us no anagrams whatsoever
about your man, so there's really no point in trying to guess which of
those hundreds of possibilities he might have meant IF he had created an
anagram.

David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 4:08:35 PM7/29/02
to
In article <h99aku0tecgmjivc7...@4ax.com>, Jo Lonergan
<jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Very well put. I fear that the answer is yes: their cases *are*
that weak -- at any rate, so one is forced to conclude based upon a
reading of the "canonical" anti-Stratfordian sources (Looney, the
various Ogburns, Clark, etc.), from numerous online anti-Stratfordian
publications, and from the vast preponderance of the anti-Stratfordian
rubbish posted in this newsgroup.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 6:41:02 PM7/29/02
to
>>Terry Ross wrote:

>>> I think Dickson still thinks
>>> that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":

Terry Ross wrote:

> Actually, it doesn't "work" at all: there is no reason to think
> Peacham intended the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,

There is no reason to doubt that Peacham intended


the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,

> and no way to
> tell which of many possible anagrams he might have enjoyed, even though he
> gives no sign of ever having had any of them in mind. Based on the
> anagrams he actually DID intend, it seems unlikely that he would have been
> impressed by either of Art's or by such other possibilities as "November
> diet" or "Bromide event," or even the ornithologists' favorite gathering,
> the "Ovenbird Meet."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sort of like the pair:

BE MONTEVERDI
EDIT NOVEMBER

Claudio MONTEVERDI
(born Cremona, 15 May 1567; died Venice, 29 NOVEMBER 1643)
http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/monteverdi.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio MONTEVERDI studied with Ingegneri, maestro di cappella at
Cremona Cathedral, and published several books of motets and madrigals
before going to Mantua in about 1591 to serve as a string player at the
court of Duke Vincenzo GONZAGA.

There he came under the influence of Giaches de Wert, whom he failed to
succeed as maestro di cappella in 1596. In 1599 he married Claudia de
Cattaneis, a court singer, who bore him three children, and two years
later he was appointed maestro di cappella on Pallavicino's death.
Largely as the result of a prolonged controversy with the theorist G.M.
Artusi, Monteverdi became known as a leading exponent of the modem
approach to harmony and text expression. In 1607 his first opera, Orfeo,
was produced in Mantua, followed in 1608 by Arianna. Disenchanted with
Mantua, he then retumed to Cremona, but failed to secure his release
from the Gonzaga family until 1612, when Duke Vincenzo died. The
dedication to Pope Paul V of a grand collection of church music known as
the Vespers (1610) had already indicated an outwardlooking ambition, and
in 1613 Monteverdi was appointed maestro di cappella at St. Mark's,
Venice.

There Monteverdi was active in reorganizing and improving the cappella
as well as writing music for it, but he was also able to accept
commissions from elsewhere, including some from Mantua, for example the
ballet Tirsi e Clori (1616) and an opera, La finta pazza Licori (1627,
not performed, now lost). He seems to have been less active after circa
1629, but he was again in demand as an opera composer on the opening of
public opera houses in Venice from 1637. In 1640 Arianna was revived,
and in the following two years Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, Le nozze
d'Enea con Lavinia (lost) and L'incoronazione di Poppea were given first
performances. In 1643 he visited Cremona and died shortly after his
retum to Venice.

Monteverdi can be justly considered one of the most powerful figures in
the history of music. Much of his development as a composer may be
observed in the eight books of secular madrigals published between 1587
and 1638. The early books show his indebtedness to Marenzio in
particular; the final one, Madrigali guerrieri et amorosi, includes
some pieces 'in genere rappresentativo' - Il ballo delle ingrate, the
ombattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda and the Lamento della ninfa - which
draw on Monteverdi's experience as an opera composer. A ninth book was
issued posthumously in 1651.

Orfeo was the first opera to reveal the potential of this then novel
genre; Arianna (of which only the famous lament survives) may well have
been responsible for its survival. Monteverdi's last opera,
L'incoronazione di Poppea, though transmitted in not wholly reliable
sources and including music by other men, is his greatest masterpiece
and arguably the finest opera of the century. In the 1610 collection of
sacred music Monteverdi displayed the multiplicity of styles that
characterize this part of his output. The mass, written on themes from
Gombert's motet In illo tempore, is a monument of the prima prattica or
old style. At the other extreme the motets, written for virtuoso
singers, are the most thorough-going exhibition of the modern style
and the seconda prattica.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------


>> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
>> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
>> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud
>
> All along the nimbo block, Oxford do the Nimbo Rock.
>
>> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
>> "DE VERE IN TOMB"
>
> So much for Art's attempts to foist anagrams on Peacham. It might be
> useful to see what Peacham himself did when HE anagrammed.
>
> Peacham gives us 15 anagrams based on names in *Minerva Britanna* (and one
> that is "ICH DIEN"="HIC, INDE")

"ICH DIEN" => "I SERVE"

"IS VERE"

> and another 15 or so in *The Compleat
> Gentleman* (there are two that he uses in each). Every single time
> Peacham forms the anagram on a person's name or title. There are never
> words that are not part of the name or title. There is no such thing as
> looking for a "50% name rating" rather than a "27.34% name rating"
> anywhere in Peacham or in any contemporary that I know of.

How much do you know, Terry?

I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected from the
Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams that I could care less.

Art Neuendorffer

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 9:11:17 PM7/29/02
to
>>>David L. Webb wrote:

>>>> It never ceases to amaze me what absurd,
>>>>convoluted explanations many Oxfordians will invent in a
>>>>hapless and often comic attempt to find at least *some* evidence
>>>>connecting Oxford with the Shakespeare canon!
>>>
>>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:54:24 GMT, Art Neuendorffer
>><aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> It never ceases to amaze me what absurd,
>>>convoluted explanations many Stratfordians will invent in a
>>>hapless and often comic attempt to find at least *some* evidence
>>>connecting the illiterate Stratford boob with the Shakespeare canon!

> Jo Lonergan <jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote:>
>
>>It never ceases to amaze me what absurd, convoluted means
>>anti-Stratfordians will use to belittle WS of Stratford, his family
>>and his friends.

He had friends?

> Is their case so weak that to sustain it he must be
>>an illiterate booby, his entire family likewise illiterate, his
>>friends and fellow townsmen liars, and the theatrical establishment
>> of his time total idiots?

We sustain our belief because he was


an illiterate booby, his entire family likewise illiterate, his
friends and fellow townsmen liars, and the theatrical establishment

of his time total idiots.

David L. Webb wrote:

> Very well put. I fear that the answer is yes: their cases *are*
> that weak -- at any rate, so one is forced to conclude based upon a
> reading of the "canonical" anti-Stratfordian sources (Looney, the
> various Ogburns, Clark, etc.), from numerous online anti-Stratfordian
> publications, and from the vast preponderance of the anti-Stratfordian
> rubbish posted in this newsgroup.

Is your case so weak that to sustain it you must spew out invectives?

Art N.

David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 1:58:05 AM7/30/02
to Art Neuendorffer
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <3D45C4F6...@comcast.net>, Art Neuendorffer
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut)
wrote:

> >>Terry Ross wrote:


>
> >>> I think Dickson still thinks
> >>> that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.

> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":

> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > Actually, it doesn't "work" at all: there is no reason to think
> > Peacham intended the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,

> There is no reason to doubt that Peacham intended
> the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,
>
> > and no way to
> > tell which of many possible anagrams he might have enjoyed, even though he
> > gives no sign of ever having had any of them in mind. Based on the
> > anagrams he actually DID intend, it seems unlikely that he would have been
> > impressed by either of Art's or by such other possibilities as "November
> > diet" or "Bromide event," or even the ornithologists' favorite gathering,
> > the "Ovenbird Meet."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I sort of like the pair:
>
> BE MONTEVERDI
> EDIT NOVEMBER

Neither of which makes much sense; "ovenbird meet" is as good as
either. What is "edit November" supposed to mean?

> Claudio MONTEVERDI
> (born Cremona, 15 May 1567; died Venice, 29 NOVEMBER 1643)
> http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/monteverdi.html

But Art -- "Monteverdi" is an anagram of "Di Ver? Not me!"

[...]


> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
> >> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
> >> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud

> > All along the nimbo block, Oxford do the Nimbo Rock.

Excellent!



> >> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
> >> "DE VERE IN TOMB"

> > So much for Art's attempts to foist anagrams on Peacham. It might be
> > useful to see what Peacham himself did when HE anagrammed.
> >
> > Peacham gives us 15 anagrams based on names in *Minerva Britanna* (and one
> > that is "ICH DIEN"="HIC, INDE")

> "ICH DIEN" => "I SERVE"
>
> "IS VERE"

In typical Neuendorfferian fashion,

H I N D
I
C
E

-- no doubt Oxford addressed this one to Cogno.

In any case, a more elegant, one-word anagram of "I serve" is
"Revise." That would be good advice for you, Art.



> > and another 15 or so in *The Compleat
> > Gentleman* (there are two that he uses in each). Every single time
> > Peacham forms the anagram on a person's name or title. There are never
> > words that are not part of the name or title. There is no such thing as
> > looking for a "50% name rating" rather than a "27.34% name rating"
> > anywhere in Peacham or in any contemporary that I know of.

> How much do you know, Terry?

*Far* more than you, Art; that at least is quite plain. I've neVER
seen Terry call Aleksandr Nevskii "tsar," or identify Anne Hathaway as
Shakespeare's mother, or ascribe to "moniment" a sense in the First
Folio that the word did not acquire until the nineteenth century, or
date Virgil before Herodotus, etc.

> I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected from the
> Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams

*WHAT* "other anagrams"??! "Agnes a gob"?! "I kill Edwasd de
Vese"?! If you have discovesed any *seal* anagsams, Ast, I fos one am
cestainly vesy eages to see them!

> that I could care less.

Is the "could" supposed to read "am," Art? If not, then why have
you devoted seVERal posts to a hapless attempt to show that it "works,"
with or without the phantom "I"?! Incidentally, Art, your Paranoid
persona will be pleased to learn that "Henry Peacham" is an anagram of
"Hah! Enemy crap."

David Webb

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 7:21:30 AM7/30/02
to
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:

>> I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected
>> from the Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams

David L. Webb wrote:

> *WHAT* "other anagrams"??!
----------------------------------------------------------------
"OUR EVER-LIVING" POET
"ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" POET
---------------------------------------------------------------
"NIL VERO VERIUS" POET
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONNET 33

1. Full many a glorious morning have I seen
2. Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,

http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html

<= 33 =>

T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN

HETH (WALL) Phoenician letter used to represent h laryngeal consonent.
The Greeks removed the upper and lower bars, changed its name to Eta
and made the sign stand for 'H'. http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.everreader.com/knighsun.htm

<<In Alan Young's Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments ... recounts Oxford's
participation in one of his last tournaments (prior to his imprisonment
in the Tower), at Whitehall, on 22 January 1581. The circumstance of
this contest was the Earl of Arundel's "friendly" challenge to knightly
gallants as one Callophisus, a Lover of Beauty, to which challenge
responded, among others, Lord Windsor, Sir Philip Sidney, Sir William
DRURY, and Lord Oxford. Young tells us that all of the respondents
to Arundel's challenge at Whitehall styled themselves, rather
unpretentiously (save one!), by such unimaginative nomenclature as the
Red Knight, the White Knight, and the Blue Knight-- but, according
to Young, "the Earl of Oxford appeared in the Whitehall tiltyard

as the Knight of the TREE OF THE SUN . . . ">>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

T O [T] H E [O] N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:


E G [E] T T [E] R O F T H

E S [E] I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N [N] E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300

L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E


R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] W
E L L W I {S} H I [N] G A

D V E N T {U} R [E] R I N


S E T T I {N} [G] F O R T
H

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lgboyd/chapter5.htm

<<The de VERES were an ancient dynastic family seated at their ancestral
village of VER (from which they took their name), near Bayeaux and
the River VIRE, in MANCHE on the Normandy coast of present-day northern
France. The name of the town itself came from the "VER," a Norse word
meaning "FISHDAM" that the Vikings had introduced into Normandy.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
F T H E S E [I] n S U I N G S O N N E T

S M r W h a [L] L H A] P P I [N] E S S E A
N D t h a t [E] T [e|R] N I T [I] E P R O M
I S E D B Y O U [r|E] V E R [L] I V I N G
P O E t W I S H [e|T] H T H [E] W E L L W
I S h I N G A [d V E] N T U R E R I N S

E t T I N G F O R T H
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a random selection of letters surrounding the deVERE/ARETE
pattern given: 13 N's, 14 I's, 6 L's, & 19 E's
And ~2,900 possible placements for a bracketing NILE pair.

Chance of a NILE pair bracketing the deVERE/ARETE pattern ~ 1/100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 28 =>

TOTHEO {N} LIEBEG E. TTERO [F] THESEINS
VINGS {O} NNETSMRW [H] ALLH [A] PPINESSE
ANDT [H] ATETERNITI [E] PRO [M] ISEDBYOV
REV [E] RLIVINGPOETW [I] SH [E] THTHEWEL
LW [I] SHINGADVENTVRE [R] IN SETTINGF
O [R] TH

------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of FAME,


What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?

[H]enry, 18th. [E]arl of [O]xford, ENDUES TIBIALS (Order of Garter)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.entrenet.com/~groedmed/lcm.html

<<In 1572 Elizabeth I's Ministers passed through Parliament the

"Act for Punishment as VAGABONDS";

this required all entertainers to obtain a NOBLE patron who would
vouch for their conduct as they travelled through the countryside.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRIN[G] TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"

V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A L
G E
A N
B K
O C
N N
[D] I
R
B
S
A
M
O
H
T

Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.

Genesis 4:14 from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive
and a VAGABOND in the earth; and it shall come to pass,
that every one that findeth me shall SLAY me.

'It is my fate,' said Mr. Micawber, 'to walk the WALK as a VAGABOND.

All's Well That Ends Well Act 2, Scene 3

LAFEU Go to, sir; you were beaten in Italy for picking a
kernel out of a pomegranate; you are a VAGABOND and
no TRUE TRAVELLER: you are more saucy with lords &
honourable personages than the commission of your
birth and virtue gives you heraldry. You are not
worth another word, else I'ld call you knave.

'And I have only to add, sir,' said Mr. Pickwick, now thoroughly
angry, 'that I consider you a rascal, and a--a--ruffian--and--
and worse than any man I EVER saw, or heard of, except that
pious and sanctified VAGABOND in the MULBERRY LIVERY.'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 11:39:16 AM7/30/02
to Art Neuendorffer
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <3D467731...@comcast.net>, Art Neuendorffer
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut)
wrote:

> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:


>
> >> I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected
> >> from the Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams
>
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > *WHAT* "other anagrams"??!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "OUR EVER-LIVING" POET
> "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" POET

"Uno Vere-Virgil poet"?! What language do you surmise that this is,
Art?

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "NIL VERO VERIUS" POET

This is *NOT AN ANAGRAM*, Art! There is no occurrence of "S" in
"our ever-living poet," so an "anagram" involving one is impossible!
If you suffer from dyslexia, get someone to check this for you.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> SONNET 33
>
> 1. Full many a glorious morning have I seen
> 2. Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,
>
> http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html
>
> <= 33 =>
>
> T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
> O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
> R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
> W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
>
> HETH (WALL) Phoenician letter used to represent h laryngeal consonent.
> The Greeks removed the upper and lower bars, changed its name to Eta
> and made the sign stand for 'H'. http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html

This isn't an anagram either.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

> T O [T] H E [O] N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
> E G [E] T T [E] R O F T H
> E S [E] I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
> O N [N] E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
>
> L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
> |L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
> [E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
> R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
> S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
> R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
> W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] W
> E L L W I {S} H I [N] G A
> D V E N T {U} R [E] R I N
> S E T T I {N} [G] F O R T
> H

What anagram are you hallucinating here, Art?

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lgboyd/chapter5.htm
>
> <<The de VERES were an ancient dynastic family seated at their ancestral
> village of VER (from which they took their name), near Bayeaux and
> the River VIRE, in MANCHE on the Normandy coast of present-day northern
> France. The name of the town itself came from the "VER," a Norse word
> meaning "FISHDAM" that the Vikings had introduced into Normandy.>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
> F T H E S E [I] n S U I N G S O N N E T
>
> S M r W h a [L] L H A] P P I [N] E S S E A
> N D t h a t [E] T [e|R] N I T [I] E P R O M
> I S E D B Y O U [r|E] V E R [L] I V I N G
> P O E t W I S H [e|T] H T H [E] W E L L W
> I S h I N G A [d V E] N T U R E R I N S
>
> E t T I N G F O R T H

This isn't an anagram either.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Making a random selection of letters surrounding the deVERE/ARETE
> pattern given: 13 N's, 14 I's, 6 L's, & 19 E's
> And ~2,900 possible placements for a bracketing NILE pair.
>
> Chance of a NILE pair bracketing the deVERE/ARETE pattern ~ 1/100,000
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> <= 28 =>
>
> TOTHEO {N} LIEBEG E. TTERO [F] THESEINS
> VINGS {O} NNETSMRW [H] ALLH [A] PPINESSE
> ANDT [H] ATETERNITI [E] PRO [M] ISEDBYOV
> REV [E] RLIVINGPOETW [I] SH [E] THTHEWEL
> LW [I] SHINGADVENTVRE [R] IN SETTINGF
> O [R] TH
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of FAME,
> What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
>
> [H]enry, 18th. [E]arl of [O]xford, ENDUES TIBIALS (Order of Garter)

Huh?

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> TOT HEONL IEBE
> GET TEROF THES
> EIN SVING |S] ONN
> ETS [M|R] WHA |L] LHA
> PPI [N|E] SS [E|A] NDT
> HAT [E|T] ER [N|I] TIE
> PRO [M|I] SE [D|B] YOV
> REV [E|R] LI [V|I] NGP
> OET WISH [E|T] HTH
> EWE LLWI [S|H. ING
> ADV ENTVR E. RIN
> SET TINGF O. RTH
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> MNEME is the MUSE of MEMORY
> one of the original three Greek MUSEs

So? This isn't an anagram either. Nor are "Mneme," "riter,"
"tibials," etc. apparently meaningful in this context.

[...]


> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.entrenet.com/~groedmed/lcm.html
>
> <<In 1572 Elizabeth I's Ministers passed through Parliament the
>
> "Act for Punishment as VAGABONDS";
>
> this required all entertainers to obtain a NOBLE patron who would
> vouch for their conduct as they travelled through the countryside.>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRIN[G] TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
>
> V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> A L
> G E
> A N
> B K
> O C
> N N
> [D] I
> R
> B
> S
> A
> M
> O
> H
> T

This isn't an anagram either, for numerous reasons, among them that
the original text contains no "D"; if you doubt this, get someone who
knows the alphabet to check it for you, Art.



> Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
>
> Genesis 4:14 from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive
> and a VAGABOND in the earth; and it shall come to pass,
> that every one that findeth me shall SLAY me.
>
> 'It is my fate,' said Mr. Micawber, 'to walk the WALK as a VAGABOND.
>
> All's Well That Ends Well Act 2, Scene 3
>
> LAFEU Go to, sir; you were beaten in Italy for picking a
> kernel out of a pomegranate; you are a VAGABOND and
> no TRUE TRAVELLER: you are more saucy with lords &
> honourable personages than the commission of your
> birth and virtue gives you heraldry. You are not
> worth another word, else I'ld call you knave.
>
> 'And I have only to add, sir,' said Mr. Pickwick, now thoroughly
> angry, 'that I consider you a rascal, and a--a--ruffian--and--
> and worse than any man I EVER saw, or heard of, except that
> pious and sanctified VAGABOND in the MULBERRY LIVERY.'

The word "vagabond" appears in many texts having no bearing whateVER
unon Shakespeare. This is insane. You did will to change ISPs, Art --
in view of your recent posts, aneuendor...@comicass.nut is
*much* more apt than ph...@errors.comedy.

David Webb

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 12:08:42 PM7/30/02
to
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:

>>>> I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected
>>>> from the Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams

>> David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> *WHAT* "other anagrams"??!
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>> "OUR EVER-LIVING" POET
>> "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" POET

David L. Webb wrote:

> "Uno Vere-Virgil poet"?!

> What language do you surmise that this is, Art?

The anagram part: "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" is Latin, Dave.

>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>> "NIL VERO VERIUS" POET
>
>
> This is *NOT AN ANAGRAM*, Art! There is no occurrence of "S" in
> "our ever-living poet," so an "anagram" involving one is impossible!
> If you suffer from dyslexia, get someone to check this for you.

One needs to PLUCK the [Masonic] letter G from the cross-row:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1

CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest

[A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
[H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
[A]nd from the cross-row PLUCKs the letter G.

[A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
[H]is issue disinherited should be;
[A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with {G},
It follows in his thought that {I} am he.
----------------------------------------------------------
Apocrypha: Sir 10:14 The Lord hath cast down the thrones
of PROUD PRINCES, and set up the MEEK in their stead.
The Lord hath PLUCKed up the roots of the proud nations,
and planted the LOWLY in their place.
---------------------------------------------------------
MEEK, LOWLY Sir MULBERRY
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens:

'I am not Sir MULBERRY, no, nor Lord Frederick VERisopht,
Miss Nickleby, nor am I Mr Pyke, nor Mr PLUCK either.'
Kate looked at her again, but less steadily than before; and
resting her ELBOW ON THE TABLE, covered her eyes with her hand.
----------------------------------------------------------
Venus and Adonis - Shakespeare

EARTH's sovereign salve to do a goddess good:
Being so enraged, desire doth lend her force
Courageously to PLUCK him from his horse.
Over one arm the lusty courser's rein,
UNDER HER other [ARM] was the tender boy,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ECCLE 3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant,
and a time to PLUCK up that which is planted;

{to PLUCK up}. (a) To tear up by the roots or from the foundation;
to eradicate; to exterminate; to destroy; as, to PLUCK up a plant;
to PLUCK up a nation. --Jer. xii. 17.

DANIEL 7:8 there were three of the first horns PLUCKed up
by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes
like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Friend Sancho," said the duke at this, "the island that I have
promised you is not a moving one, or one that will run away; it has
roots so deeply buried in the bowels of the earth that it will be
no easy matter to PLUCK it up or shift it from where it is;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The pity is that [SIMon FORMAN's play note in his _Booke of Paies_]
are merely summaries of the plots, the doctor in _Macbeth_ being,
apparently, his favourite character.>> -F.E.Halliday _Shakespeare_
------------------------------------------------------------------
MACBETH: How does your patient, doctor?

Doctor: Not so sick, my lord,
As she is troubled with thick coming fancies,
That keep her from her rest.

MACBETH: Cure her of that.
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
PLUCK from the memory a rooted sorrow,
---------------------------------------------------------
Christian Lanciai wrote:

> In "Richard III" one earl of Derby offers the crown to the Earl of
> Richmond, later Henry VII. There is no record of this in history.

DERBY From the dead temples of this bloody wretch
Have I PLUCK'd off, to grace thy brows withal


>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>> SONNET 33
>>
>> 1. Full many a glorious morning have I seen
>> 2. Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,
>>
>> http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html
>>
>> <= 33 =>
>>
>> T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
>> O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
>> R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
>> W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
>>
>>HETH (WALL) Phoenician letter used to represent h laryngeal consonent.
>>The Greeks removed the upper and lower bars, changed its name to Eta
>> and made the sign stand for 'H'. http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html

> This isn't an anagram either.

It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

>
>> T O [T] H E [O] N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
>> E G [E] T T [E] R O F T H
>> E S [E] I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
>> O N [N] E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
>>
>> L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
>> |L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
>> [E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
>> R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
>> S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
>> R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
>> W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] W
>> E L L W I {S} H I [N] G A
>> D V E N T {U} R [E] R I N
>> S E T T I {N} [G] F O R T
>> H
>
>
> What anagram are you hallucinating here, Art?

It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lgboyd/chapter5.htm
>>
>><<The de VERES were an ancient dynastic family seated at their ancestral
>> village of VER (from which they took their name), near Bayeaux and
>>the River VIRE, in MANCHE on the Normandy coast of present-day northern
>> France. The name of the town itself came from the "VER," a Norse word
>> meaning "FISHDAM" that the Vikings had introduced into Normandy.>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
>> F T H E S E [I] n S U I N G S O N N E T
>>
>> S M r W h a [L] L H A] P P I [N] E S S E A
>> N D t h a t [E] T [e|R] N I T [I] E P R O M
>> I S E D B Y O U [r|E] V E R [L] I V I N G
>> P O E t W I S H [e|T] H T H [E] W E L L W
>> I S h I N G A [d V E] N T U R E R I N S
>>
>> E t T I N G F O R T H
>
>
> This isn't an anagram either.

It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Making a random selection of letters surrounding the deVERE/ARETE
>> pattern given: 13 N's, 14 I's, 6 L's, & 19 E's
>> And ~2,900 possible placements for a bracketing NILE pair.
>>
>>Chance of a NILE pair bracketing the deVERE/ARETE pattern ~ 1/100,000
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <= 28 =>
>>
>> TOTHEO {N} LIEBEG E. TTERO [F] THESEINS
>> VINGS {O} NNETSMRW [H] ALLH [A] PPINESSE
>> ANDT [H] ATETERNITI [E] PRO [M] ISEDBYOV
>> REV [E] RLIVINGPOETW [I] SH [E] THTHEWEL
>> LW [I] SHINGADVENTVRE [R] IN SETTINGF
>> O [R] TH
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of FAME,
>> What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
>>
>> [H]enry, 18th. [E]arl of [O]xford, ENDUES TIBIALS (Order of Garter)

> Huh?

ENDUES SLAIBI-T. H.E.O.

[ENDUES TIBIALS = (Order of Garter) was your idea, remember.]

>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TOT HEONL IEBE
>> GET TEROF THES
>> EIN SVING |S] ONN
>> ETS [M|R] WHA |L] LHA
>> PPI [N|E] SS [E|A] NDT
>> HAT [E|T] ER [N|I] TIE
>> PRO [M|I] SE [D|B] YOV
>> REV [E|R] LI [V|I] NGP
>> OET WISH [E|T] HTH
>> EWE LLWI [S|H. ING
>> ADV ENTVR E. RIN
>> SET TINGF O. RTH
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MNEME is the MUSE of MEMORY
>> one of the original three Greek MUSEs
>
> So? This isn't an anagram either.

It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

> Nor are "Mneme," "riter," "tibials," etc.
> apparently meaningful in this context.

"Mneme," "riter," "tibials," are all meaningful in this context.

One needs to PLUCK the [Masonic] letter G from the cross-row:

>> Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
>>
>> Genesis 4:14 from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive
>> and a VAGABOND in the earth; and it shall come to pass,
>> that every one that findeth me shall SLAY me.
>>
>>'It is my fate,' said Mr. Micawber, 'to walk the WALK as a VAGABOND.
>>
>> All's Well That Ends Well Act 2, Scene 3
>>
>> LAFEU Go to, sir; you were beaten in Italy for picking a
>> kernel out of a pomegranate; you are a VAGABOND and
>> no TRUE TRAVELLER: you are more saucy with lords &
>> honourable personages than the commission of your
>> birth and virtue gives you heraldry. You are not
>> worth another word, else I'ld call you knave.
>>
>> 'And I have only to add, sir,' said Mr. Pickwick, now thoroughly
>> angry, 'that I consider you a rascal, and a--a--ruffian--and--
>> and worse than any man I EVER saw, or heard of, except that
>> pious and sanctified VAGABOND in the MULBERRY LIVERY.'

> The word "vagabond" appears in many texts having no bearing whateVER
> unon Shakespeare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.entrenet.com/~groedmed/lcm.html

<<In 1572 Elizabeth I's Ministers passed through Parliament the

"Act for Punishment as VAGABONDS";

this required all entertainers to obtain a NOBLE patron who would
vouch for their conduct as they travelled through the countryside.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 1:47:56 PM7/30/02
to
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0207281012280.17473-100000@mail...

> It doesn't matter whether somebody wishes there were more "support" for
> Shakespeare's authorship of his works. What we have is plenty

And isn't it a shame that you lack a single document
showing us that anyone during his lifetime recognised
the Stratford man as an author -- or even as a literate
person?

> -- more than for most of his contemporaries

You seem to have forgotten every single one of the
posts from Pat Dooley. Does "CPLE" ring a bell?
Or is the Alzheimers running apace?

> Everybody agrees that Shakespeare was very familiar with the
> *Metamorphoses*, in both Latin and Golding's English version, but it is
> harder than you might think to tie very many particular passages in
> Shakespeare to particular passages in Ovid (or Golding).

Ovid's *Metamorphoses* was deeply engrained on his
mind. He did not need to look at the book when he
wanted an analogy.

> It's much easier
> to find parallel passages in Shakespeare and North's Plutarch, or
> Shakespeare and Holinshed.

Lesser writers often copy, more or less straight, from
greater ones. Whereas it's relatively rare the other way
around. So it's more likely that North and Holinshed
were the copiers in these cases.

The patented "Terry Ross" strategy is to cover the topic
in bulshit, so that everyone loses sight of the issues.
He then 'declares a victory' and tells his opponents to
'consider themselves debunked'. So before bothering
about any detail, let's state the agreed and AMAZING
facts:

1. Oxford is a candidate for the authorship of the
Shakespearean canon for many other, and quite
independent, reasons

2. The author of that canon was extremely familiar with
Ovid's *Metamorphoses* -- far more so than any of his
contemporaries.

3. Oxford's maternal uncle, Arthur Golding, is the
undisputed translator, with his name on all editions.

4. Oxford _was_living_in_the_same_house_as_his
_uncle_while_he_was_doing_the_translation_ ! ! !


IF there were accepted facts supporting the Stratman's
authorship with one-hundredth of that force, there would
be no authorship debate. Imagine if that work had been
completed in a town ten miles from Stratford while the
Stratman was in his teens! No one would ever have
been proposed as an alternative candidate.

> Nims says of Golding, "certainly no one has translated
> so successfully OUT of Latin--or into so native an English."

Has anyone made a remotely similar claim for Golding
in respect of any of his other works? Don't bother to
answer that, Terry. Well, we know you won't anyway.
The answer is 'No'.

> When the first four books of Arthur Golding's translation
> of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* appeared in 1565, Golding (and only Golding) was
> named on the title page as the translator.

It would have been quite improper for the 17th Earl of
Oxford to have his name on the front of such printed
works. Would he have been entitled to receive some
of the money collected in those dirty bookshops from
the grubby hands of the masses?

Secondly, he was only 14. Was he to have a career
as a scribbler? As a translator of books? Could we
imagine anything less dignified? If there was any
thought his name might be on the cover, the Queen
would have had to be consulted (it concerned her
premier Earl). She would not have considered the
possibility for a second.

> When the complete edition came
> out in 1567, Golding (and only Golding) was named as the translator;
> moreover, the author's epistle bore Golding's name at its beginning and
> end. Golding nowhere suggests that the translation was anything but his
> own work. In each of the seven later editions Golding (and only Golding)
> was named as the translator. Contemporaries referred to Golding (and only
> Golding) as the translator.

Since his name could not be on the first edition, are
you suggesting that it could have been put on later
editions?

> The same Arthur Golding translated other
> Latin works and was fully capable of doing the job.

His understanding of Latin is not disputed. His range
of styles in English poetry is.

> Here are some lines from book 2 that Ogburn would have us believe are the
> work of the 14-year-old de Vere (Phaeton is about to ride the chariot of
> the sun):

Which parts do you think are beyond the capacity of a
14-year-old Shakespeare? Which words, expressions,
metaphors, or other figures of speech, would you say
were too complex for such a person?

> His father having made delay as long as he could shift,
> Did lead him where his Chariot stood, which was of Vulcan's gift.
> The Axeltree was massie golde, the Bucke was massie golde,
> The utmost fellies of the wheeles, and where the tree was rolde.
> The spokes were all of sylver bright, the Chrysolites and Gemmes
> That stood uppon the Collars, Trace, and hounces in their hemmes
> Did cast a sheere and glimmering light, as Phoebus shone thereon.
> Now while the lusty Phaeton stood gazing here upon,
> And wondered at the workmanship of every thing: beholde
> The earely morning in the East began me to unfolde
> Hir purple Gates, and shewde hir house bedeckt with Roses red.
> The twinckling starres withdrew which by the morning star are led:
> Who as the Captain of that Host that hath no peere nor match,
> Dooth leave his standing last of all within that heavly watch.
> Now when his Father sawe the worlde thus glister red and trim,
> And that his waning sistres hornes began to waxen dim,
> He had the fetherfooted howres go harnesse in his horse.
>
> I think this is a fair sample of Golding's work, neither the best nor the
> worst. As an attempt to put Ovid into the English tongue this is not at
> all bad, and though it lack's Ovid's "pleasant style" it is not without
> charm, though nobody except an Ogburn would suspect that its author was
> capable of writing Shakespeare's works.

Oh, so now it's not _good_enough_?

You suppose that Shakespeare emerged from the
brow of Pallas Athena, fully armed (purely
coincidentally bearing the perfect name) and ready
to write the canon, without having to anything else
at all first? Sure, Terry, that makes sense; now
take your medication.

> Golding's translation is some 14,500 lines long, but there is not much of
> a learning curve.

The lad was probably pretty competent at versifying
before he started. His Latin would have been nowhere
near as good as his uncle's, but then his uncle was
always there. And they would have had as much
secretarial assistance as they needed. I see the
process going through a couple of drafts. First they
get the Latin into fairly literal English -- (maybe with a
secretary doing all the writing); then Oxford versifies
it (possibly also dictating it to a secretary). Golding
checks his work and marks any errors or where it has
diverged too far from the original. Oxford re-versifies
those passages. Doing 100 lines a day, it would take
them about 6 months.

> The translator's apparent skills in Latin and poetry
> neither advance nor retreat throughout the 15 books of the
> *Metamorphoses*, which is what we should expect from a mature and
> experienced craftsman like Golding. If, on the other hand, a 14-year-old
> boy had begun the work, we should expect some development in style or
> versification, but there is none.

When your versification is competent, and you
have found the appropriate style, why change?

> Ah, but according to Ogburn and
> associates, this is not just any 14-year-old boy, but the lad who will
> grow up to write Shakespeare's plays--yet it is simply inconceivable that
> Shakespeare's development would have come to a halt for 14,500 consecutive
> lines, which is about the length of five of Shakespeare's plays.

Give us some idea what you'd expect. This IS a
translation. The translator can't change the plot
or vary the text greatly. Those are severely limiting
factors.

[..]


> Here are a few paragraphs from Golding's translation of Solinus's
> *Collectanea* (*The Excellent and Pleasant Works of Iulius Solinus
> Polyhistor*):

What we really want. Terry, is some example of Golding's
other _versifying_. IF he was so fluent and copious a
poet as you claim, with such a talent for extravagant,
and inventive word pictures, then he should have been
churning roughly similar stuff out on a regular basis.
How come we don't have a word?

You believe that he wrote 14,500 lines for one work,
all on his owneo, and then never wrote another line
of verse? Not for anything? Hmm . . . . .
[..]

> I don't
> see any sign that the author of this passage -- or the rest of this
> translation of Solinus -- was anyone but Golding, whose translation was
> done "for the benefit and recreation of all sorts of persons," as he says
> on the title page.

His printers would have been saying to him: 'Give
us some more Ovid translations please. Or make
up some of your own verse much the same . . ".
How come we see nothing like that "for the benefit
and recreation of all sorts of persons,".

Does that sound to you like the person who produced
the translation of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* ?

[..]


> Like most fourteener poets, Oxford composed his sentences in lines and
> couplets: no sentence ended anywhere but at the end of a couplet;

Do you think he wrote in that way without being aware
of it? Or that such characteristics are as distinctive of
a person's style as they way in which he walks?

> In
> Golding's translation there was a much looser correspondence of syntactic
> structure to metrical structure. Oxford's verse was considerably more
> alliterative than Golding's. Oxford inevitably used a medial pause after
> the 8th syllable; Golding's pauses were much more variable.

Over 14,500 lines they'd bloody well have to be.
Imagine having the same structure throughout!
The translators would have died of boredom
after a couple of hundred lines.

> Here now are
> the three samples. Things to look for in reading: to what extent are
> lines and couplets sytactic units? How often are the strongest medial
> pauses some place other than just after the 8th syllable? How much
> alliteration does the poet use? I will also give another rough test:
> whose verse reads most like prose?

This sort of 'investigation' is idiotic. It's crazy to be
looking for 'fingerprints' in features that poets quite
deliberately exploit. They vary their style to suit their
genre and for each work.

<Poetry and "garbage analysis"snipped>


Paul.


David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 6:36:35 PM7/30/02
to Art Neuendorffer
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <3D46BA81...@comcast.net>, Art Neuendorffer
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut)
wrote:

> >>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:


>
> >>>> I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected
> >>>> from the Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams

> >> David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>> *WHAT* "other anagrams"??!

> >> "OUR EVER-LIVING" POET
> >> "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" POET

> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > "Uno Vere-Virgil poet"?!
>
> > What language do you surmise that this is, Art?

> The anagram part: "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" is Latin, Dave.

Then why aren't the names in their Latin forms, Art? "Virgil" is an
English form. And why the English word "poet" rather than the Latin
equivalent? This is multilingual, macaronic, moronic nonsense, and is
even sillier -- and funnier -- than "Agnes boga"!



> >>---------------------------------------------------------------
> >> "NIL VERO VERIUS" POET

> > This is *NOT AN ANAGRAM*, Art! There is no occurrence of "S" in
> > "our ever-living poet," so an "anagram" involving one is impossible!
> > If you suffer from dyslexia, get someone to check this for you.

> One needs to PLUCK the [Masonic] letter G from the cross-row:

Peacham neVER "plucks" any occurrences of the "Masonic G" out of
thin air in order to repair a failed anagram, Art -- only Clueless
Cretins are that inept, and Peacham demonstrably had higher standards.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
>
> CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
>
> [A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
> [H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
> [A]nd from the cross-row PLUCKs the letter G.
>
> [A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
> [H]is issue disinherited should be;
> [A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with {G},
> It follows in his thought that {I} am he.

The interpretation of text from _Richard III_ as license to alter
letters of the cleartext to mend whateVER failed "anagrams" a lunatic
chooses must be one of the funniest and most moronic misreadings in the
entire history of Shakespeare exegesis!

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Apocrypha: Sir 10:14 The Lord hath cast down the thrones
> of PROUD PRINCES, and set up the MEEK in their stead.
> The Lord hath PLUCKed up the roots of the proud nations,
> and planted the LOWLY in their place.

There is no mention of "plucking" occurrences of "Masonic G," I
observe.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

> >> SONNET 33
> >>
> >> 1. Full many a glorious morning have I seen
> >> 2. Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,
> >>
> >> http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html
> >>
> >> <= 33 =>
> >>
> >> T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
> >> O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
> >> R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
> >> W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
> >>
> >>HETH (WALL) Phoenician letter used to represent h laryngeal consonent.
> >>The Greeks removed the upper and lower bars, changed its name to Eta
> >> and made the sign stand for 'H'. http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html

> > This isn't an anagram either.

> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne," who
had not been born yet in any case.



> >
> >> T O [T] H E [O] N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
> >> E G [E] T T [E] R O F T H
> >> E S [E] I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
> >> O N [N] E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
> >>
> >> L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
> >> |L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
> >> [E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
> >> R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
> >> S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
> >> R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
> >> W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] W
> >> E L L W I {S} H I [N] G A
> >> D V E N T {U} R [E] R I N
> >> S E T T I {N} [G] F O R T
> >> H

> > What anagram are you hallucinating here, Art?

> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne."



> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lgboyd/chapter5.htm
> >>
> >><<The de VERES were an ancient dynastic family seated at their ancestral
> >> village of VER (from which they took their name), near Bayeaux and
> >>the River VIRE, in MANCHE on the Normandy coast of present-day northern
> >> France. The name of the town itself came from the "VER," a Norse word
> >> meaning "FISHDAM" that the Vikings had introduced into Normandy.>>

So?

> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
> >> F T H E S E [I] n S U I N G S O N N E T
> >>
> >> S M r W h a [L] L H A] P P I [N] E S S E A
> >> N D t h a t [E] T [e|R] N I T [I] E P R O M
> >> I S E D B Y O U [r|E] V E R [L] I V I N G
> >> P O E t W I S H [e|T] H T H [E] W E L L W
> >> I S h I N G A [d V E] N T U R E R I N S
> >>
> >> E t T I N G F O R T H

> > This isn't an anagram either.
>
> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne."



> >> Making a random selection of letters surrounding the deVERE/ARETE
> >> pattern given: 13 N's, 14 I's, 6 L's, & 19 E's
> >> And ~2,900 possible placements for a bracketing NILE pair.
> >>
> >>Chance of a NILE pair bracketing the deVERE/ARETE pattern ~ 1/100,000

Since you like probability estimates, Art, what do you estimate is
the probability that the *only* two ISPs that a well-known troll has
used in some *seven thousand* (!) Usenet posts are errors.comedy and
comicass.nut? One of these might be a fluke, but *two*?! Surely this
must be intentional!

> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> <= 28 =>
> >>
> >> TOTHEO {N} LIEBEG E. TTERO [F] THESEINS
> >> VINGS {O} NNETSMRW [H] ALLH [A] PPINESSE
> >> ANDT [H] ATETERNITI [E] PRO [M] ISEDBYOV
> >> REV [E] RLIVINGPOETW [I] SH [E] THTHEWEL
> >> LW [I] SHINGADVENTVRE [R] IN SETTINGF
> >> O [R] TH
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of FAME,
> >> What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
> >>
> >> [H]enry, 18th. [E]arl of [O]xford, ENDUES TIBIALS (Order of Garter)

> > Huh?

> ENDUES SLAIBI-T. H.E.O.
>
> [ENDUES TIBIALS = (Order of Garter) was your idea, remember.]

One hesitates to explain the obvious, but I was *joking*, Art;
indeed, I was lampooning inane your style of inference -- remember?

> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> TOT HEONL IEBE
> >> GET TEROF THES
> >> EIN SVING |S] ONN
> >> ETS [M|R] WHA |L] LHA
> >> PPI [N|E] SS [E|A] NDT
> >> HAT [E|T] ER [N|I] TIE
> >> PRO [M|I] SE [D|B] YOV
> >> REV [E|R] LI [V|I] NGP
> >> OET WISH [E|T] HTH
> >> EWE LLWI [S|H. ING
> >> ADV ENTVR E. RIN
> >> SET TINGF O. RTH
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> MNEME is the MUSE of MEMORY
> >> one of the original three Greek MUSEs

> > So? This isn't an anagram either.

> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.

Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne."



> > Nor are "Mneme," "riter," "tibials," etc.
> > apparently meaningful in this context.

> "Mneme," "riter," "tibials," are all meaningful in this context.

Huh?

Peacham neVER "plucks" any occurrences of the "Masonic G" out of
thin air in order to repair a failed anagram, Art -- only Clueless
Cretins are that inept, and Peacham and his contemporaries demonstrably
had higher standards.

[Remaining lunatic logorrhea snipped]

David Webb

Terry Ross

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 5:07:30 PM7/30/02
to
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:

> >>Terry Ross wrote:
>
> >>> I think Dickson still thinks
> >>> that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.
>
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> > Actually, it doesn't "work" at all: there is no reason to think
> > Peacham intended the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,
>
> There is no reason to doubt that Peacham intended
> the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,
>
> > and no way to
> > tell which of many possible anagrams he might have enjoyed, even though he
> > gives no sign of ever having had any of them in mind. Based on the
> > anagrams he actually DID intend, it seems unlikely that he would have been
> > impressed by either of Art's or by such other possibilities as "November
> > diet" or "Bromide event," or even the ornithologists' favorite gathering,
> > the "Ovenbird Meet."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I sort of like the pair:
>
> BE MONTEVERDI

This works better as part of a jingle for the US Army Baroque Band:

BE -- all that you can be --
Mo-on-te-ve-he-her di!

> EDIT NOVEMBER

Look, we're all going to eat too much from Thanksgiving though New Year's
-- so what pre-holidays habit should we all form?

NOVEMBER DIET

[snip]

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
> >> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
> >> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud
> >
> > All along the nimbo block, Oxford do the Nimbo Rock.
> >
> >> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
> >> "DE VERE IN TOMB"
> >
> > So much for Art's attempts to foist anagrams on Peacham. It might be
> > useful to see what Peacham himself did when HE anagrammed.
> >
> > Peacham gives us 15 anagrams based on names in *Minerva Britanna* (and one
> > that is "ICH DIEN"="HIC, INDE")
>
> "ICH DIEN" => "I SERVE"
>
> "IS VERE"

You need to rethink your approach to Peacham, so a better anagram for you
would be "REVISE."

>
> > and another 15 or so in *The Compleat
> > Gentleman* (there are two that he uses in each). Every single time
> > Peacham forms the anagram on a person's name or title. There are never
> > words that are not part of the name or title. There is no such thing as
> > looking for a "50% name rating" rather than a "27.34% name rating"
> > anywhere in Peacham or in any contemporary that I know of.
>
> How much do you know, Terry?

I have read enough of Peacham to know that he praised Monteverdi. Did you
forget to mention that, or have you not read your Peacham? I know how
Peacham formed anagrams and how he indicated the presence of anagrams in
his works. Such knowledge is easy to acquire, but it does require that
one actually read *Minerva Britanna* and *The Compleat Gentleman* (and it
wouldn't hurt to look at Peacham's other works -- OK, it would hurt for a
while, but the pain will soon pass, I assure you).

>
> > From a name or title Peacham then constructs an anagram using every letter
> > of that name or title, and he gives us the anagram (several of the
> > anagrams in *Minerva Britanna* are taken from other authors, and Peacham
> > identifies the author each time). To my knowledge Peacham nowhere in any
> > of his works creates an anagram out of the letters in MENTE VIDEBOR, nor
> > does he ever give us a name or title that is an anagram of that phrase.
> > You may play with the letters of MENTE VIDEBOR all you want, but there is
> > no reason to believe that there is an anagram that Peacham had in mind or
> > that such an alleged anagram would be recoverable even if Peacham had
> > meant to insert some private puzzle for his own amusement.
> >

> > As William and Elizebeth Friedman say,

I disagree, Art; I believe that you COULD care less if you really tried.
Come on now, man: make the effort: resolve to care less about "Mente
Videbor."

I agree that Peacham's *Minerva Britanna* and *Compleat Gentleman* tell us
nothing whatsoever about Shakespeare and his works, but the Baconians
decided that "Mente Videbor" was a clue to Bacon's authorship of
Shakespeare (and they do have this in their favor: although the 17th earl
of Oxford is not mentioned in *Minerva Britanna*, there is an emblem to
Bacon). The Oxfordians, as is their wont, stole the Baconian "argument"
and then made it even more ridiculous by hallucinating an "I" that appears
nowhere on the title page.

Greg Reynolds

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 6:32:51 PM7/30/02
to

Paul Crowley wrote:

> "Terry Ross" wrote...

>>It doesn't matter whether somebody wishes there were more "support" for
>>Shakespeare's authorship of his works. What we have is plenty
>>
>
> And isn't it a shame that you lack a single document
> showing us that anyone during his lifetime recognised
> the Stratford man as an author -- or even as a literate
> person?
>
>
>>-- more than for most of his contemporaries
>>
>
> You seem to have forgotten every single one of the
> posts from Pat Dooley. Does "CPLE" ring a bell?

No, it rings a gong as in The Gong Show.
Using Dooley as your authority is proof you
are out of ammunition.

Paul, look into your heart: an eyewitness account
by Ben Jonson saying that Shakespeare wrote
Julius Caesar is CPLE. How could it not be? Pat
is vulgar in his expectation that we will all
uniformly alter definitions just to help him
make a case. You are one of the few idiots
who would allow it, and it is not out of honesty,
it is out of desperation. Dooley twists the words
just the way you like them and you eat them up
like little pretzels.

> Or is the Alzheimers running apace?

I don't know what that means. You are the one
parading your learning disability. You believe
Dooley over Jonson! Dooley is simply an
obstructionist. His thinking is comprised of
ways to distort the record. His audience
is comprised of unbalanced Shakespeare-
haters. People such as yourself.

I can't think of anything funnier here than
Crowley using Dooley as an authority.

Thanks for the outrageous laugh, Paul.
Good thing you have Dooley to keep you
informed in this puzzling world. Glad his
lies make more sense to you than history
itself.

Greg Reynolds

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 8:20:56 PM7/30/02
to
>>>>Terry Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think Dickson still thinks
>>>>>that the phantom "I" in *Minerva Britanna* is really there.
>>>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it works with *or without* "the phantom I":

>> Terry Ross wrote:

>>>Actually, it doesn't "work" at all: there is no reason to think
>>> Peacham intended the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Art Neuendorffer wrote:

>> There is no reason to doubt that Peacham intended
>> the Latin motto "Mente videbor" for anagramming,

>>>and no way to
>>>tell which of many possible anagrams he might have enjoyed, even though he
>>>gives no sign of ever having had any of them in mind. Based on the
>>>anagrams he actually DID intend, it seems unlikely that he would have been
>>>impressed by either of Art's or by such other possibilities as "November
>>>diet" or "Bromide event," or even the ornithologists' favorite gathering,
>>>the "Ovenbird Meet."
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I sort of like the pair:
>>
>> BE MONTEVERDI

Terry Ross wrote:

> This works better as part of a jingle for the US Army Baroque Band:
>
> BE -- all that you can be --
> Mo-on-te-ve-he-her di!

If it aint Baroque, don't try to fix it, Terry.

>> EDIT NOVEMBER
>
>
> Look, we're all going to eat too much from Thanksgiving though New Year's
> -- so what pre-holidays habit should we all form?
>
> NOVEMBER DIET

Oxymoronic!

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 1) with: "MENTE VIDEBORI"
>>
>>>> "DE VERE NIMBO IT"
>>>> De Vere (walks/marches/advances/rides) on a cloud
>>>
>>>All along the nimbo block, Oxford do the Nimbo Rock.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2) without: "MENTE VIDEBOR"
>>>> "DE VERE IN TOMB"
>>>
>>>So much for Art's attempts to foist anagrams on Peacham. It might be
>>>useful to see what Peacham himself did when HE anagrammed.
>>>
>>>Peacham gives us 15 anagrams based on names in *Minerva Britanna* (and one
>>>that is "ICH DIEN"="HIC, INDE")
>>
>> "ICH DIEN" => "I SERVE"
>>
>> "IS VERE"

Terry Ross wrote:

> You need to rethink your approach to Peacham,
> so a better anagram for you would be "REVISE."

If it aint Baroque, don't try to fix it, Terry.

>>>and another 15 or so in *The Compleat
>>>Gentleman* (there are two that he uses in each). Every single time
>>>Peacham forms the anagram on a person's name or title. There are never
>>>words that are not part of the name or title. There is no such thing as
>>>looking for a "50% name rating" rather than a "27.34% name rating"
>>>anywhere in Peacham or in any contemporary that I know of.
>>
>> How much do you know, Terry?

Terry Ross wrote:

> I have read enough of Peacham to know that he praised Monteverdi. Did you
> forget to mention that, or have you not read your Peacham?

I had no idea! Who woulda thunk it.

> I know how
> Peacham formed anagrams and how he indicated the presence of anagrams in
> his works. Such knowledge is easy to acquire, but it does require that
> one actually read *Minerva Britanna* and *The Compleat Gentleman* (and it
> wouldn't hurt to look at Peacham's other works -- OK, it would hurt
> for a while, but the pain will soon pass, I assure you).

So if Peacham praises Monteverdi do you think that my anagram (or
something close to it) was intended? I've grown rather fond of the
Mantuan court & Secret Garden of Duke Gonzaga:
----------------------------------------------------------------
on a TASSELED CUSHION
----------------------------------------------------------------
GIULIO's _Design for Memorial to a Dog._ 1531-1534
http://ndm.si.edu/coll/om/art/dis_bigdog.jpg

<<Rendered in dynamic pen strokes and broad washes, the drawing closely
matches a stucco relief in the Secret Garden at the Gonzaga's famous
villa, the Palazzo del Te. A private area reserved for the duke, the
Secret Garden was decorated with a series of wall panels devoted to
animal themes in the early 1530s. GIULIO's design commemorates one of
Federico II's favorite dogs who died while delivering a litter.
Elegantly seated on a TASSELED CUSHION atop the platform of a coffin,
the dog was one of many belonging to the duke similarly commemorated
with such monuments. In this design, GIULIO shows the dog posed like a
reclining human figure typically found on ancient Roman tombs.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------

As in:
----------------------------------------------------------------
"UNO VERE-VIRGIL" POET
"OUR EVER-LIVING" POET
"NIL VERO-VERIU(S)" POET
---------------------------------------------------------------


>>> When Peacham uses "Vere" it is never
>>>in reference to Edward the Seventeenth earl of Oxford but always to some
>>>other member of that illustrious family, so even if you come up with
>>>anagrams including "Vere" or "De Vere" you still have not identified any
>>>particular Vere.

Unless it is a VERE whose postumous works were edited & published by
others (like with VIRGIL).

>>> Based on Peacham's usage, IF he intended to create an
>>>anagram for your man, it would probably have been based on something like
>>>"Eduuardus Verus Comes Oxfordiensis," a phrase from which hundreds of
>>>anagrams could be formed.

In the Brincknell inquest it is simply: "EDWARDUS COMES OXON"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARDUS COMES OXON
MASON CROWED EXODUS 3:14: "I am that I am"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<God's words from the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:14 "I am that I am")
have been found only twice in Elizabethan writings where the author
had the audacity to speak of himself as if he were God -
-in a personal letter by Edward de Vere which upbraids
his nosy father-in-law for spying:

["I mean not to be your ward, nor your child.
I serve her Majesty, and I am that I am."]

and in Shakespeare's Sonnet 121

["No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own"].>>

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/magazine/article/0,5744,257068,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terry Ross wrote:

>>> However, Peacham left us no anagrams whatsoever
>>>about your man, so there's really no point in trying to guess which of
>>>those hundreds of possibilities he might have meant IF he had created an
>>>anagram.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected from the
>> Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams that I could care less.

Terry Ross wrote:

> I disagree, Art; I believe that you COULD care less if you really tried.

I just said: "I could care less!"

> Come on now, man: make the effort:
> resolve to care less about "Mente Videbor."

You're not nearly as motivating as Richard Kennedy in this regard.

Terry Ross wrote:

> I agree that Peacham's *Minerva Britanna* and *Compleat Gentleman* tell us
> nothing whatsoever about Shakespeare and his works, but the Baconians
> decided that "Mente Videbor" was a clue to Bacon's authorship of
> Shakespeare (and they do have this in their favor: although the 17th earl
> of Oxford is not mentioned in *Minerva Britanna*, there is an emblem to
> Bacon). The Oxfordians, as is their wont, stole the Baconian "argument"
> and then made it even more ridiculous by hallucinating an "I" that appears
> nowhere on the title page.

Even if one could demonstrate where Peacham clearly states that
Bacon and/or Oxford wrote Shake-speare how would one be sure that
Peacham even knew the truth (or was honest about it).

Art Neuendorffer

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jul 30, 2002, 8:52:26 PM7/30/02
to
David L. Webb wrote:

>>>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I consider "MENTE VIDEBOR" so irrelevant & disconnected
>>>>>> from the Shakespeare canon compared to other anagrams

>>>> David L. Webb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *WHAT* "other anagrams"??!

>>>> "OUR EVER-LIVING" POET
>>>> "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" POET

>>David L. Webb wrote:

>>> "Uno Vere-Virgil poet"?!
>>
>>> What language do you surmise that this is, Art?

>> The anagram part: "ÚNÓ VERE-VIRGIL" is Latin, Dave.

> Then why aren't the names in their Latin forms, Art? "Virgil" is an
> English form. And why the English word "poet" rather than the Latin
> equivalent? This is multilingual, macaronic, moronic nonsense, and is
> even sillier -- and funnier -- than "Agnes boga"!

Well, then, both anagrams are imperfect; but intentional
imperfection is all part of the game. It's like the SIEH on the moniment
or the two left shoulders in the Droeshout.

>> >>---------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> "NIL VERO VERIUS" POET
>
>> > This is *NOT AN ANAGRAM*, Art! There is no occurrence of "S" in
>> > "our ever-living poet," so an "anagram" involving one is impossible!
>> > If you suffer from dyslexia, get someone to check this for you.
>
>> One needs to PLUCK the [Masonic] letter G from the cross-row:
>
> Peacham neVER "plucks" any occurrences of the "Masonic G" out of

> thin air in order to repair a failed anagram, Art.

You can't prove a negative, Dave.

>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> King Richard III Act 1, Scene 1
>>
>>CLARENCE Yea, Richard, when I know; for I protest
>>
>> [A]s yet I do not: but, as I can learn,
>> [H]e hearkens after prophecies and dreams;
>> [A]nd from the cross-row PLUCKs the letter G.
>>
>> [A]nd says a WIZARD told him that by G
>> [H]is issue disinherited should be;
>> [A]nd, for my name of GEORGE begins with {G},
>> It follows in his thought that {I} am he.
>
> The interpretation of text from _Richard III_ as license to alter
> letters of the cleartext to mend whateVER failed "anagrams" a lunatic
> chooses must be one of the funniest and most moronic misreadings in the
> entire history of Shakespeare exegesis!

That must mean it is a correct interpretation.

>>----------------------------------------------------------
>> Apocrypha: Sir 10:14 The Lord hath cast down the thrones
>> of PROUD PRINCES, and set up the MEEK in their stead.
>> The Lord hath PLUCKed up the roots of the proud nations,
>> and planted the LOWLY in their place.
>
> There is no mention of "plucking" occurrences of "Masonic G,"

Their heart was in the right place though. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------


>>>> SONNET 33
>>>>
>>>> 1. Full many a glorious morning have I seen
>>>> 2. Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html
>>>>
>>>> <= 33 =>
>>>>
>>>> T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
>>>> O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
>>>> R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
>>>> W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
>>>>
>>>>HETH (WALL) Phoenician letter used to represent h laryngeal consonent.
>>>>The Greeks removed the upper and lower bars, changed its name to Eta
>>>> and made the sign stand for 'H'. http://phoenicia.org/tblalpha.html
>>>
>>> This isn't an anagram either.
>>
>> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.
>
> Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
> anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne," who
> had not been born yet in any case.

They were interested in all sorts of word games:
------------------------------------------------------
<<Or spunne out Riddles, or weav'd fifty Tomes
Of Logographes, or curious Palindromes;
Or PUMP'd for those hard trifles, Anagrams,
Or Ecrosticks, or your finer flames
Of Egges, and Halbards, Cradles, and a Herse,
A paire of Sizers, and a COMBE in verse;
Acrosticks, and Tellesticks, or jumpe names,>>
-- Ben Jonson
------------------------------------------------------

>>>> T O [T] H E [O] N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
>>>> E G [E] T T [E] R O F T H
>>>> E S [E] I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
>>>> O N [N] E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
>>>>
>>>> L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
>>>> |L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
>>>> [E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
>>>> R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
>>>> S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
>>>> R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E [T]
>>>> W I S H [E||T||H] T H [E] W
>>>> E L L W I {S} H I [N] G A
>>>> D V E N T {U} R [E] R I N
>>>> S E T T I {N} [G] F O R T
>>>> H
>>>
>>> What anagram are you hallucinating here, Art?
>>
>> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.
>
> Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
> anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne."

They were interested in all sorts of word games:
------------------------------------------------------
<<Or spunne out Riddles, or weav'd fifty Tomes
Of Logographes, or curious Palindromes;
Or PUMP'd for those hard trifles, Anagrams,
Or Ecrosticks, or your finer flames
Of Egges, and Halbards, Cradles, and a Herse,
A paire of Sizers, and a COMBE in verse;
Acrosticks, and Tellesticks, or jumpe names,>>
-- Ben Jonson
------------------------------------------------------


>>>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lgboyd/chapter5.htm
>>>>
>>>><<The de VERES were an ancient dynastic family seated at their ancestral
>>>> village of VER (from which they took their name), near Bayeaux and
>>>>the River VIRE, in MANCHE on the Normandy coast of present-day northern
>>>> France. The name of the town itself came from the "VER," a Norse word
>>>> meaning "FISHDAM" that the Vikings had introduced into Normandy.>>

> So?

Wouldn't one find a "FISHDAM" in the middle of a river:


>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> T O T H E O [N] L i E B E G E T T E R O
>>>> F T H E S E [I] n S U I N G S O N N E T
>>>>
>>>> S M r W h a [L] L H A] P P I [N] E S S E A
>>>> N D t h a t [E] T [e|R] N I T [I] E P R O M
>>>> I S E D B Y O U [r|E] V E R [L] I V I N G
>>>> P O E t W I S H [e|T] H T H [E] W E L L W
>>>> I S h I N G A [d V E] N T U R E R I N S
>>>>
>>>> E t T I N G F O R T H

>>> This isn't an anagram either.

> Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*


> anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne."

They were interested in all sorts of word games:
------------------------------------------------------
<<Or spunne out Riddles, or weav'd fifty Tomes
Of Logographes, or curious Palindromes;
Or PUMP'd for those hard trifles, Anagrams,
Or Ecrosticks, or your finer flames
Of Egges, and Halbards, Cradles, and a Herse,
A paire of Sizers, and a COMBE in verse;
Acrosticks, and Tellesticks, or jumpe names,>>
-- Ben Jonson
------------------------------------------------------


>>>> Making a random selection of letters surrounding the deVERE/ARETE
>>>> pattern given: 13 N's, 14 I's, 6 L's, & 19 E's
>>>> And ~2,900 possible placements for a bracketing NILE pair.
>>>>
>>>>Chance of a NILE pair bracketing the deVERE/ARETE pattern ~ 1/100,000
>>
> Since you like probability estimates, Art, what do you estimate is
> the probability that the *only* two ISPs that a well-known troll has
> used in some *seven thousand* (!) Usenet posts are errors.comedy and
> comicass.nut? One of these might be a fluke, but *two*?! Surely this
> must be intentional!

"Whosoever of ye raises me a white-headed whale with a wrinkled brow
and a crooked jaw; whosoever of ye raises me that white-headed whale,
with three holes punctured in his starboard fluke- look ye, whosoever of
ye raises me that same white whale, he shall have this gold ounce, my
boys!" "Huzza! huzza!" cried the seamen, as with swinging tarpaulins
they hailed the act of nailing the gold to the mast. "It's a white
whale, I say," resumed Ahab, as he threw down the topmaul: "a white
whale. Skin your eyes for him, men; look sharp for white water;
if ye see but a bubble, sing out."

>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> <= 28 =>
>>>>
>>>> TOTHEO {N} LIEBEG E. TTERO [F] THESEINS
>>>> VINGS {O} NNETSMRW [H] ALLH [A] PPINESSE
>>>> ANDT [H] ATETERNITI [E] PRO [M] ISEDBYOV
>>>> REV [E] RLIVINGPOETW [I] SH [E] THTHEWEL
>>>> LW [I] SHINGADVENTVRE [R] IN SETTINGF
>>>> O [R] TH
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Dear son of MEMORY, great heir of FAME,
>>>> What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
>>>>
>>>> [H]enry, 18th. [E]arl of [O]xford, ENDUES TIBIALS (Order of Garter)
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> ENDUES SLAIBI-T. H.E.O.
>>
>> [ENDUES TIBIALS = (Order of Garter) was your idea, remember.]
>
> One hesitates to explain the obvious, but I was *joking*, Art;
> indeed, I was lampooning inane your style of inference -- remember?

Too late now; it's part of my 'canon.'

>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> TOT HEONL IEBE
>>>> GET TEROF THES
>>>> EIN SVING |S] ONN
>>>> ETS [M|R] WHA |L] LHA
>>>> PPI [N|E] SS [E|A] NDT
>>>> HAT [E|T] ER [N|I] TIE
>>>> PRO [M|I] SE [D|B] YOV
>>>> REV [E|R] LI [V|I] NGP
>>>> OET WISH [E|T] HTH
>>>> EWE LLWI [S|H. ING
>>>> ADV ENTVR E. RIN
>>>> SET TINGF O. RTH
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MNEME is the MUSE of MEMORY
>>>> one of the original three Greek MUSEs
>>>
>>> So? This isn't an anagram either.
>>
>> It's a rearrangement of letters a la Jules VERnE.
>
> Peacham and his contemporaries are interested only in *valid*
> anagrams, not in "rearrangement[s] of letters a la Jules Verne."
>

They were interested in all sorts of word games:
------------------------------------------------------
<<Or spunne out Riddles, or weav'd fifty Tomes
Of Logographes, or curious Palindromes;
Or PUMP'd for those hard trifles, Anagrams,
Or Ecrosticks, or your finer flames
Of Egges, and Halbards, Cradles, and a Herse,
A paire of Sizers, and a COMBE in verse;
Acrosticks, and Tellesticks, or jumpe names,>>
-- Ben Jonson
------------------------------------------------------


>>> Nor are "Mneme," "riter," "tibials," etc.
>>> apparently meaningful in this context.
>>
>> "Mneme," "riter," "tibials," are all meaningful in this context.
>
> Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------

One of the original three Greek MUSEs,


MNEME is the MUSE of MEMORY

------------------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 100

Where art thou, MUSE, that thou FORGOT'st so long


To speak of that which gives thee all thy might?

Spend'st thou thy FURY on some worthless song,


Darkening thy power to lend base subjects light?
Return, forgetful MUSE, and straight redeem

In GENTLE numbers time so idly spent;


Sing to the ear that doth thy lays esteem
And gives thy pen both skill and argument.
Rise, resty MUSE, my love's sweet face survey,

If Time have any wrinkle GRAVEn there;


If any, be a satire to decay,
And make Time's spoils despised every where.
Give my love FAME faster than Time WASTES life;
So thou prevent'st his scythe and crooked knife.
--------------------------------------------------------------

You can't prove a negative, Dave.

Art Neuendorffer

Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Jul 31, 2002, 1:27:41 AM7/31/02
to
I found the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs from Paul particularly poignant:

"Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<JlA19.5706$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>...


> Lesser writers often copy, more or less straight, from
> greater ones. Whereas it's relatively rare the other way
> around. So it's more likely that North and Holinshed
> were the copiers in these cases.
>
> The patented "Terry Ross" strategy is to cover the topic
> in bulshit, so that everyone loses sight of the issues.

Nicholas

David L. Webb

unread,
Jul 31, 2002, 12:51:21 PM7/31/02
to
In article <7b33cc41.02073...@posting.google.com>,
nichol...@hotmail.com (Nicholas Whyte) wrote:

Isn't it amazing? Given that some of the plays that draw heavily
upon these sources were written long after Holinshed and North, the
putative borrowing of the latter from works like _King Lear_ and
_Cymbeline_ constitutes a remarkable example of the sort of prescience
upon which a few of the more hopelessly and incorrigibly deluded
Oxfordians are compelled to rely.

Terry Ross

unread,
Jul 31, 2002, 12:44:04 PM7/31/02
to
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Paul Crowley wrote:

> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0207281012280.17473-100000@mail...
>
> > It doesn't matter whether somebody wishes there were more "support" for
> > Shakespeare's authorship of his works. What we have is plenty
>
> And isn't it a shame that you lack a single document showing us that
> anyone during his lifetime recognised the Stratford man as an author --
> or even as a literate person?

You seem to be unaware of the evidence that William Shakespeare was indeed
the author of the great bulk of the works commonly attributed to him --
but despair not, a brief survey of the evidence is available on this page:
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/howdowe.html

>
> > -- more than for most of his contemporaries
>
> You seem to have forgotten every single one of the
> posts from Pat Dooley. Does "CPLE" ring a bell?
> Or is the Alzheimers running apace?

Alphabet soup time. Hmmm; I seem to recall "NATO" and "SEATO" and
"CENTO", and given extra time could even tell you who the ANZUS nations
were. I have posted extensive criticisms about Price's filter and other
blunders in her book, and am aware of Dooley's systematic attempt to
replace Price's system with something unnameable of his own.

Even if Price's filter had been fairly constructed and was fairly
operated, its results would not be grounds either to admit or to reject
any person from the category "professional writers" -- but, as we have
seen, the filter is unable to do the only task is was supposed to perform
(to distinguish writers from nonwriters as one would distinguish birds
from turtles), and it has been set up to use different standards for
documents relating to Shakespeare than for those relating to other
writers. In any case, the filter does not matter, because we have more
than enough evidence to establish that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. As
Tom and Dave say in their conclusion:

How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the
historical record tell us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical
evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William
Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the
plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan and
Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever suggested
that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else, or that
Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or that Shakespeare
the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No contemporary of
Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the
Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the major
alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not
Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting
company or with his friends and fellow actors.

Antistratfordians must rely solely upon speculation about what they think
the "real" author should have been like, because they cannot produce one
historical fact to bolster their refusal to accept who that author
actually was. No matter how they try to ignore it or explain it away, the
historical record -- all of it -- establishes William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the works traditionally attributed to
him.

>
> > Everybody agrees that Shakespeare was very familiar with the
> > *Metamorphoses*, in both Latin and Golding's English version, but it is
> > harder than you might think to tie very many particular passages in
> > Shakespeare to particular passages in Ovid (or Golding).
>
> Ovid's *Metamorphoses* was deeply engrained on his mind. He did not
> need to look at the book when he wanted an analogy.

You don't see the problem, do you? Ovid, and stories that appear in Ovid,
were part of the common culture of those who had even "small Latin." In
fact, a person with no Latin whatsoever but who was familiar with
literature in English would be perfectly able to drop an allusion to Danae
or Icarus into a poem, just as a person who has not studied the Bible may
still have heard of the Prodigal Son. Far more people know that there is
a story about George Washington's having chopped down a cherry tree than
have actually read Parson Weems.

If the claim is that not just Ovid or Ovidian tales or names from Roman
mythology but in particular Golding's translation was "deeply ingrained"
in Shakespeare's mind, then I, for one, would like to see a list of places
where such deep ingraining evinces itself before I allow myself to be
persuaded of the claim. It's a harder task than you might think.

>
> > It's much easier
> > to find parallel passages in Shakespeare and North's Plutarch, or
> > Shakespeare and Holinshed.
>
> Lesser writers often copy, more or less straight, from greater ones.
> Whereas it's relatively rare the other way around. So it's more likely
> that North and Holinshed were the copiers in these cases.

This claim was offered without any evidence. If you believe what you have
written, then not only do you think *Coriolanus* and *Antony and
Cleopatra* were written before 1579, you should also believe that Mark
Twain was a "lesser writer" than Leckey, and that Spenser was a "lesser
writer" than Skelton.

Of course, the entire presumption is silly beyond belief. If it were
true, then each generation would be condemned to a lesser level of
artistic success than the previous one, as the borrowing between authors
across time goes in only one direction. Within a given generation, it
requires that any writer who wishes to be great must refrain from being
influenced by any contemporary (since those contemporaries have almost
inevitably borrowed from writers who are less than exalted, and are
therefore themselves the lesser for it). There is no winning strategy for
a writer, but the best tactic is to determine who the greatest writer ever
was, and to be influenced only by him or her. Let us take Homer as the
top writer. Joyce then was wise to be influenced by Homer, as that gave
him a shot at being second only to the blind bard among the all-time
greats. Unfortunately Joyce ruined everything by being influenced by
hundreds of other (and lesser) writers, including hack journalists and
contributors of filler items to the Dublin papers; Joyce presumptively
reduced his status below theirs by his borrowing.

Shakespeare, of course, is one of the worst writers ever if this
presumption has any validity. Every work shows signs of borrowing, and
Shakespeare was so eclectic in his influences that we must consign him to
the same trashcan as Joyce. Don't even get me started on Milton -- he
seemed to have read everything ever written in English, Latin, and Greek
(and a good deal of Italian and French as well, to say nothing of Hebrew),
and from this library in his mind fashioned some of the most universally
derivative -- and presumptively worst -- poetry every written.

Do you suppose Crowley's principle of influence is wrong? Could it be
that many great writers are magpies, taking influences from countless
sources greater and lesser, and transmogrifying these materials (and
whatever else may come their way) into art? Was Samuel Johnson correct
when he said, "a man will turn over half a library to make one book"?

>
> The patented "Terry Ross" strategy is to cover the topic in bulsh....

I had to stop reading at this point. I try to keep my posts as free of
coarseness as Crowley's are free of learning (NOTE: there are two L's in
"bull").

Roger Nyle Parisious

unread,
Jul 31, 2002, 1:26:05 PM7/31/02
to
</