Proof of Pseudonym
John Ciccarelli
Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford? Something other that the "Thy will
Shakes a Spear" reference. Some physical document that connects Oxford with
this name in a literary sense. Also, why is that this name doesn't appear
in print prior to 1593 with the publication of Venus and Adonis, a
dedication to a young, lesser nobleman?
Richard Kennedy
proof, of course, I mean some document that is of undisputable provenance,
something as pure as bottled spring water and beyond all question.
There is also no proof of that kind that the Stratford man wrote the works of
Shakespeare.
And that's where we are. The Stratfordians say that they have many pointers
to the Stratford man, but the Oxfordians say they have a great many more
pointing to Oxford, not the least being that the great first folio of 1623 was
dedicated to the friends and family of Oxford, of recent discussion.
PFStreitz
paul streitz
PFStreitz
from Stratford with the name "William Shakespeare." This spelling of the name
did not appear in Stratford until 1597, and prior to that the spellings were
more likely to be Shak or Shack or some variant.
I won't bore you all with this argument which has been covered here before.
paul streitz
John Ciccarelli
PFStreitz <pfst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991124203539...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
John Ciccarelli
William Shakespeare as being Oxford. That is simply as assumption with no
basis in fact.
William Shakespeare was the Stratford man's given name. His name appeared
in a humbling tribute in Venus and Adonis other third party literary
illusions and is later a high ranking member of Burbage's company. The
'Stratford man' then mentions Burbage and the patrons of the first folio in
his will. Jonson refers to Shakespeare as "Sweet Swan of Avon". Even
approaching this from a simple perspective, the Stratford Man has more of
claim to the name then Oxford, which associates both the actor and literary
writer. However, Oxford has no claim to the name in either respect. The
bottom line is the Stratford Man has a claim to the name and Oxford does
not. So how can you assume a pseudonym is being used?
Richard Kennedy <stai...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:383C9622...@teleport.com...
John Ciccarelli
Elizabethans. Do we deny that Edward De Vere was not the Earle of Oxford,
because he often wrote his name as 'Oxenforde' or is their another an estate
called Oxenforde with the last name De Vere, with the lineage count of 17
and his name being Edward. Name spelling was not consistent for either
nobles or commoners, so your assumption about the name not appearing until
1597 is not applicable. Using the same arguement you can say that the Earle
of Oxford disappeared from English soceity and another nobleman called
Oxenforde misteriously appeared and took his place.
PFStreitz <pfst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991125225450...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
PFStreitz
This is not the case. The given name of the man from Stratford was
"Shakspere," or variants thereof. Check your facts. Riverside Shakespeare
might be a good place to start. (although they make the mistake of "Susanna
Shakespeare" when her name was not entered in the baptism record that way. I
have the graphic.) The first appearance of the name "Shakespeare" in Stratford
was not until 1597, four years after the publication of VA.
Obviously, you are new to this part of the debate, so to recap: The first part
of the Stratfordian argument is that William Shakspere and William Shakespeare
refer to the same man in Stratford. This is notg the case. The names of the
man from Stratford, his children and his wife are all something other than
Shakespeare. Two, the different spellings indicate different pronunciations as
evidenced by the magic "e" rule of spelling-pronuciation, and this is clearly
understood by the writer of Shakspere's will.
This does not mean that the man from Stratford did or did not write the works,
but it does show that if he did write the works, then he did so under a
different spelling and pronunciation. Why a man would choose to write under a
slightly different spelling and yet keep the birth spelling for his children,
wife and on his will, is the hard question for Stratfordian apologists. There
simply has never been a coherent answer given.
>So how can you assume a pseudonym is being used?
You can assume a pseudonym is being used because there was no living person
with this name.
paul streitz
John W. Kennedy
>
> >William Shakespeare was the Stratford man's given name.
>
> This is not the case. The given name of the man from Stratford was
> "Shakspere," or variants thereof.
Liar.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Dave Kathman
>
> Exactly what documentary proof exists that connects the name William
> Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford?
None whatsoever.
> Something other that the "Thy will
> Shakes a Spear" reference.
No such reference exists. We've been over
this in exhaustive detail in this newsgroup.
> Some physical document that connects Oxford with
> this name in a literary sense.
It doesn't exist. Nor does any document which
connects Oxford with this name in a nonliterary
sense, or any sense whatsoever.
> Also, why is that this name doesn't appear
> in print prior to 1593 with the publication of Venus and Adonis, a
> dedication to a young, lesser nobleman?
Probably because Shakespeare hadn't written
anything for publication before then.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Alvin Sidwick
spelling was not an Elizabethan concept, and when making records, it is
not at all surprising that the people of Stratford would spell
Shakespeare's name in some shorter variant.
-- Sidwick
Dave Kathman
>
> >John Ciccarelli wrote:
> >>
> >> Exactly what documentary proof exists that connects the name William
> Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford?
>
> carried a spear and wore a helmet that made her invisible.
This sentence contains at least two howlingly, blatantly
false statements. First of all, Pallas Athena was not
known as "Hasti Vibrans", either in antiquity or in
the 16th century. Terry Ross and I have searched in vain
for any such references, and if you have found one, we
would be extremely grateful if you would share it with us.
Second, Pallas Athena was not the Greek Goddess of the
theater; Dionysus was the god of the theater. Pallas
Athena has nothing to do with the theater, except in
made-up Oxfordian fantasies.
Why do you keep posting blatantly false statements?
I hesitate to call them "lies", because I've come to
realize with some sadness that you actually believe
these falsehoods that you post. But no amount of
belief will turn a falsehood into truth.
> For an Elizabethan
> educated in the Roman Greek classics, there would be a meaning to a name such
> as Shake-spear. That is, it would be associated with the theater.
No, it would not. See above.
> For me, I
> interpret it something like a name for us such as "Johnny Limelight."
Whatever floats your boat. But the opinions of badly
misinformed Oxfordians do not generally count as evidence.
> For anyone writing for the theater, it would be an obvious pen name. Either
> Oxford or the man from Stratford, who could change his name to a more
> theatrical one by adding an "e." to indicate shake instead of shak or shack.
But Shakespeare's father John's name was often spelled
with the "e", from the 1550s on. It was spelled
"Shakespeare" in 1569 and 1573. And the name "Shakespeare"
was often spelled without the "e" (e.g. Shaxberd) in
literary contexts.
> The connection to Oxford is a quote, I believe from Gabriel Harvey in a speech
> at Oxford in Latin, (I may be wrong about who said it) where he flatters
> Oxford by stating "thy countenance shakes spears" or something like that. This
> would connect Oxford in a direct way to the phrase in speech given a public
> place and I believe it was printed.
Gabriel Harvey never said "thy countenance shakes spears"
to Oxford. He wrote "vultus tela vibrat" in the middle
of a long Latin poem address to Oxford. "Thy countenance
shakes spears" is not an impossible translation, but it
would not be the first one an educated Elizabethan
would have thought of. As Terry Ross has shown, the
Latin noun "telum" (of which "tela" is the accusative
plural") was almost never translated into English as
"spear" in the 16th century.
> Why Kathman doesn't tell you this I don't know.
I have posted all this information many times before,
but I don't have the time to repost it every
few days. Why none of it ever sinks in to your
brain, I don't know.
> He knows the facts better than
> I do.
That's sadly apparent.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Dave Kathman
>
> >> This is not the case. The given name of the man from Stratford was
> >> "Shakspere," or variants thereof.
> >
> >Liar.
>
Haven't we been through this before? William Shakespeare's
father John's name was spelled "Shakespeare" in 1569 and 1573,
and it was spelled "Shakespere" dozens of times before 1593.
There are only four written references to William Shakespeare
before 1593, and two of them (in the 1587 Lambert lawsuit)
spell the name with the magic first "e". Lurkers should
consult my article on "The Spelling and Pronunciation of
Shakespeare's Name" at:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name1.html
The article has links to comprehensive lists of written
references to William Shakespeare in both literary and
non-literary contexts, with the spellings used in the
original documents.
> As I have said before, for those that have not followed this argument, the man
> from Stratford was not "Shakespeare" on his baptism record, the names of his
> children, the names of his wife, his legal will, nor is on his gravestone. If
> he used a pseudonym fine, but he certainly does not seemed to have adopted the
> name for himself.
For those that have not followed this argument, there is
no significant difference in the spelling of the
name "Shakespeare" in liteary and non-literary contexts.
It was the same name. Please see the above article for details.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
paul streitz
"John Ciccarelli" <john...@dellnet.com> wrote:
> Marlowe's name was also spelled differently in his lifetime among
other
The name and pronunciation doesn't qualify or disqualify anyone from
authorship. But it should be pointed out that Shakspere, if the
author, was very consistent in the spelling of Shakespeare Shake-speare
as an author. He was also consistent, but less, in keeping the names
associated with his family, children, legal wills, gravestone, name of
wife, etc., something that was "Shack" or "Shak" in his spelling. Why
he engaged in these two different patterns, if the author, is the
question. There is simply no easy one to one correspondence between
the name of the author and the name that exists in Stratford.
paul streitz
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
paul streitz
"John Ciccarelli" <john...@dellnet.com> wrote:
> nobles or commoners, so your assumption about the name not appearing
until > 1597 is not applicable.
You are pushing the point here. First, Oxford alwas was clearly Oxford
or a close variant. It was not "Soxford" or "Boxford" that indicated a
completely different pronunciation.
Second, what is strange about "Shakspere" is that the name when it came
to his family, etc., was amazingly consistent. Far more spellings with
a Shak than a Shake. And again, not until 1597 was it
spelled "Shakespeare." But again, not this way when applied to family
matters.
One can make all the excuses, rationalizations or whatever to explain
this, but the point is that the man who is buried in Stratford-on-Avon
is labelled "Shackspere" on his grave.
PFStreitz
>> "Shakspere," or variants thereof.
>
>Liar.
If so, show me one listing in Stratford of the name "Shakespeare" before 1593.
As I have said before, for those that have not followed this argument, the man
from Stratford was not "Shakespeare" on his baptism record, the names of his
children, the names of his wife, his legal will, nor is on his gravestone. If
he used a pseudonym fine, but he certainly does not seemed to have adopted the
name for himself.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
>>
>> Exactly what documentary proof exists that connects the name William
Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford?
"Hasti Vibrans" or Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of the theater, who
carried a spear and wore a helmet that made her invisible. For an Elizabethan
educated in the Roman Greek classics, there would be a meaning to a name such
as Shake-spear. That is, it would be associated with the theater. For me, I
interpret it something like a name for us such as "Johnny Limelight."
For anyone writing for the theater, it would be an obvious pen name. Either
Oxford or the man from Stratford, who could change his name to a more
theatrical one by adding an "e." to indicate shake instead of shak or shack.
The connection to Oxford is a quote, I believe from Gabriel Harvey in a speech
at Oxford in Latin, (I may be wrong about who said it) where he flatters
Oxford by stating "thy countenance shakes spears" or something like that. This
would connect Oxford in a direct way to the phrase in speech given a public
place and I believe it was printed.
Why Kathman doesn't tell you this I don't know. He knows the facts better than
I do.
paul streitz
Alvin Sidwick
first-year Latin (or, for that matter, Drama) student knows that. As we
all know, he did NOT carry a spear, but rather wine. And if you shake
wine, you spill it.
Athena's best-known possession was not a spear, though she may have
carried one. It was the (ae)gis, a shield to which was attached the
head of Medusa. The helmet was, I believe, a possession of Hermes.
-- Sidwick
____________________________________________________
"I wanna be a Maenad too!"
Erik Nielsen
> known as "Hasti Vibrans", either in antiquity or in
> the 16th century.
"CENTURION: Well, no, sir. Umm, I think it's a joke, sir,... like, uh,
'Sillius Soddus' or... 'Biggus Dickus', sir.
GUARD #4: [chuckling]
PILATE: What's so... funny about 'Biggus Dickus'?
CENTURION: Well, it's a joke name, sir."
-- G. Chapman and J. Cleese, who are getting a good deal more mention in
this NG than one would suspect, 1979
Somehow, "Hasti Vibrans" doesn't seem quite right to me...
-- Sidwick
____________________________________________----
Terry Ross
> >John Ciccarelli wrote:
> >>
> >> Exactly what documentary proof exists that connects the name William
> Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford?
>
> "Hasti Vibrans" or Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of the theater, who
> carried a spear and wore a helmet that made her invisible.
Once again, Paul is demonstrating the gaps in his knowledge. We have
earlier seen Paul trying to advance arguments based on his nonreading of
book(s) by Eva Turner Clark, and we have also seen his unfamiliarity with
*Titus Andronicus*. Now he is parading before us his ignorance of
classical antiquity. It is not true -- indeed, it is false -- to suggest
that "Hasti vibrans" was an epithet for Athena or Minerva. The term was
never used thus by Virgil. It was never used thus by Ovid. It was never
used thus by Horace or Catullus. It was never used thus by Seneca. It
was never used thus by Terence or Plautus. Indeed, the term was never
used in any fashion by any classical author at any time that I know of
(and believe me, I have looked). I challenge Paul to come up with a
single instance of the term "hastivibrans" from any source whatsoever
before the 17th Century.
The first instance of the term "hastivibrans" that I have been able to
locate occurs in Thomas Fuller's *Worthies of Warwickshire* (1662).
Fuller says,
"WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE was born at Stratford on Avon in this county, in whom
three eminent Poets may seem in some sort to be compounded. 1. Martial in
the Warlike sound of his Sur-name (whence some may conjecture him of a
Military extraction,) Hasti-vibrans, or Shake-speare."
Fuller also compares Shakespeare to Ovid for his wit and to Terence for
being "an exact Comaedian, yet never any Scholar." The term
"hastivibrans" seems to have been coined by Fuller. Like the Roman poet
Martial, Shakespeare had a "warlike" name. Fuller wittily translates
"Shakespeare" into the Latin "hastivibrans" (a term he seems to have
coined), but he does not say that either the English or the Latin name is
a pseudonym or that either version has the slightest connection to Pallas
Athena or Minerva.
It is also false to state, as Paul ignorantly said, that Athena was the
"goddess of the theater." Pallas (an epithet used of both Athena and
Minerva) was a goddess of war. She was also the patron goddess of
spinning, weaving (indeed, the inventor of weaving), and what used to be
called "women's work": indeed, the name "Minerva" was sometimes used by
itself in this sense by Virgil and Ovid, just as the name of the goddess
Ceres could mean "food." Pallas was the goddess of wisdom, learning, and
the arts; she was the goddess of health. She was the first to cultivate
olives, and therefore the olive tree was sacred to her. In Latin,
"Palldos arbor" is the olive tree; sometimes the word "Pallas" itself has
this meaning: "infusa Pallade" is oil. The owl ("Palladis ales") was also
sacred to her.
She was not, however, as Paul (echoing an error that anti-Stratfordians
have told themselves for generations) has claimed, the patron of drama --
that was the job of Dionysus. Some anti-Stratfordians have asserted that
since Athena was the patron of Athens, and since Athens was the home of
Greek theater, the epithet "Pallas" might well imply "theater." Yet
Athens was also the home of democracy, as well as a center of philosophy
and art, and by the same reasoning, anyone coming across the name "Pallas"
could be expected to say "ah yes, democracy." In Athens itself, the plays
were performed at a Dionisia, or festival of Dionysus.
> For an Elizabethan educated in the Roman Greek classics, there would
> be a meaning to a name such as Shake-spear. That is, it would be
> associated with the theater. For me, I interpret it something like a
> name for us such as "Johnny Limelight."
It is amusing to see Paul, whose ignorance of both the classics and
Elizabethan literature is profound, speak about what any word would have
meant "for an Elizabethan educated in the Roman Greek classics." As I
noted, the term "hastivibrans" appears to have been coined by Fuller. He
compares the name in its warlike sound to that of the Roman poet Martial.
He does not associate the name per se with the theater, but he does
associate it with the playwright William Shakespeare, who was, as Fuller
reminds us, "born at Stratford on Avon."
> For anyone writing for the theater, it would be an obvious pen name.
> Either Oxford or the man from Stratford, who could change his name to
> a more theatrical one by adding an "e." to indicate shake instead of
> shak or shack.
No, it was not an "obvious pen name"; it was (according to the coiner of
the term "hastivibrans") the actual name of the actual William Shakespeare
of Stratford on Avon in Warwickshire. Fuller says nothing about adding or
subtracting an "e" -- for him the name of the man from Stratford and the
playwright was Shakespeare, and for Fuller the two were a single man.
Fuller does not say that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym; he calls it the
"surname" of the William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon in Warwickshire
who wrote the plays and poems that have come down to us under his name.
> The connection to Oxford is a quote, I believe from Gabriel Harvey in
> a speech at Oxford in Latin, (I may be wrong about who said it)
> where he flatters Oxford by stating "thy countenance shakes spears" or
> something like that. This would connect Oxford in a direct way to the
> phrase in speech given a public place and I believe it was printed.
I see Paul is as unfamiliar with Gabriel Harvey as he is with Eva Turner
Clark, or Shakespeare, or classical antiquity. I have posted at length on
Harvey's "speech at Oxford ... given in a public place." To correct a few
of Pauls boo-boos -- it was not a "speech" but a poem in dactylic
hexameter; it was not "given [i.e., 'delivered aloud'] in a public space"
but was prepared in manuscript and then printed. The poem has been
reprinted once since the 16th Century, in Thomas Jameson's 1938
dissertation "The *Gratulationes Valdinenses* of Gabriel Harvey." Harvey
translates the line Paul is trying to refer to as "your glance shoots
arrows." There are other possible translations (but it is highly unlikely
that a contemporary would have translated Harvey's words as "shakes
spears"), and there is no reason to think that anything in the poem refers
to any pseudonym used by Oxford.
>
> Why Kathman doesn't tell you this I don't know. He knows the facts better than
> I do.
Yes, Dave knows the facts better than you do. And now, if you will read
this post, you may pick up a few new facts yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <81n1be$hgt$1...@news01.arb1.te.uudial.us.uu.net>,
> "John Ciccarelli" <john...@dellnet.com> wrote:
> other
>
> The name and pronunciation doesn't qualify or disqualify anyone from
> authorship. But it should be pointed out that Shakspere, if the
> author, was very consistent in the spelling of Shakespeare Shake-speare
> as an author. He was also consistent, but less, in keeping the names
> associated with his family, children, legal wills, gravestone, name of
> wife, etc., something that was "Shack" or "Shak" in his spelling.
That's a lie and you know it.
John W. Kennedy
>
> >John Ciccarelli wrote:
> >>
> >> Exactly what documentary proof exists that connects the name William
> Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford?
>
> "Hasti Vibrans" or Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of the theater,
No she wasn't. Not even a little bit. This claim is a complete fantasy
made up by Oxfordians for Oxfordians.
> The connection to Oxford is a quote, I believe from Gabriel Harvey in a speech
> at Oxford in Latin, (I may be wrong about who said it) where he flatters
> Oxford by stating "thy countenance shakes spears" or something like that.
"Something like that," indeed. The Latin word in question is a general
word applying to all sorts of weapons; it _might_ mean "spear", but
normally doesn't.
> Why Kathman doesn't tell you this I don't know. He knows the facts better than
> I do.
Et ille respondens ait: Tu dicis.
Terry Ross
> PFStreitz wrote:
> >
> > >John Ciccarelli wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Exactly what documentary proof exists that connects the name William
> > Shakespeare as a psuedonym with Oxford?
> >
> > "Hasti Vibrans" or Pallas Athene was the Greek Goddess of the theater,
>
> No she wasn't. Not even a little bit. This claim is a complete fantasy
> made up by Oxfordians for Oxfordians.
Actually it predates Looney's invention of Oxfordianism by at least 30
years. It would be more accurate to say that it is a blunder developed by
Baconians that has been seized upon by Oxfordians. (Marlites have also
been known to borrow it). The pioneer Baconian William Henry Smith
referred in 1887 to "Thomas Fuller's appropriation of the name
'Hasta-vibrans' to the author of the Shake-speare plays." As I have
already said in other posts, Fuller did not adapt an existing Latin
epithet and apply it to Shakespeare, he seems to have coined the term
"hastivibrans" as a witty play on the actual surname of the actual author
of the works: William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon in Warwickshire.
While William Henry Smith could find no place where Pallas bore an epithet
in any language that might be translated as "Shake-Spear," he did quote
approvingly the opinion of a linguist that "as she was represented with a
spear, anybody might have called her allegorically "The Shake-speare
Goddess."
"Anybody might have" is not the same as "people generally did."
"Hastivibrans" was not an epithet for Pallas (or for anybody else), but
there were a great many epithets for the goddess. For example, Athena was
Tritogeneia (Trito-born), Parthenos (virgin), Polias (guardian of the
city), Ergane (worker); In the *Aeneid*, Virgil refers to Minerva as
"innupta" (2.31), "armipotens" (2.425), "armisona" (3.544), and "praeses
belli" (11.483). No classical author, however, ever referred to her as
"hastivibrans." Indeed, there is no such classical word at all: there is
no entry in the Oxford Latin Dictionary for "hastivibrans." Nor is there
any similar Greek word. Athena was often depicted with a spear, but so
were many other Greek deities. There were occasions when she shook a
spear, but the same is true of many classical figures. Nor was a spear
the only thing she shook -- she sometimes shook the aegis (and other
classical characters also shook non-spears). While there does not seem to
have been a classical epithet meaning "spear-shaking," there were a number
of epithets meaning "earth-shaking" or "earth-shaker," but such terms
generally referred to Poseidon or Neptune.
paul streitz
>
> Haven't we been through this before? William Shakespeare's
> father John's name was spelled "Shakespeare" in 1569 and 1573,
>
references of Matus to John Shakespeare, but when you look at the
actual graphic, the spelling is not in fact "Shakespeare." So this is
an untrusty source. The list I have of John, is as follows, perhaps
you can add to my list
1552 April 29 "John Shakyspere" charged with making a refuse heap
1557 John "Shakyspeyr."
1557? "Johannem Shakespere," Other records of the name in Stratford
and vicinity include a reference to the estate of Richard Shakespeare
mentioning his son
1558 "John Shakespeyr" reference as a constable
1556 Gilbertus filius Johannis Shakespeare" christening of
Shakespeare's brother
1558 "John Shakespeyr" reference as a constable
1556 "Gilbertus filius Johannis Shakespeare,"
1563, "Margareta filia Johannis Shakespeare," birth record of
Shakspere's sister
1567 reference to John Shakespeare as "Mr. Shakespeyr,"
1570 "John Shappere alias Shakespere de Stratford upon Haven." of
lending money at interest (usury)
1571 January 21 1571 to April 2, 1572, Rogers (clerk) spelled the
name "Shakespere;" thereafter "Shaxpere"
1572 "John Shakspere" acccused of illegal wool dealing
1590 "Johannes Shakespere." list of tenants of the Earl of Warwick,
one finds Shakespeare's father
1592 "John Shakespere" listed as not attending church
Hardly overwhelming evidence that this was John Shakespeare>
and it was spelled "Shakespere" dozens of times before 1593.
> There are only four written references to William Shakespeare
> before 1593, and two of them (in the 1587 Lambert lawsuit)
> spell the name with the magic first "e".
I don't want to get into recounting the various spellings, but saying
that it was spelled "Shakespere" dozens of times before 1593 is a
severe stretch, if dozens of times means thirty-six or more. But that
is avoiding the issue, the fact is that even you can't find one time
that it is spelled William Shakespeare before 1593.
Lurkers should consult my article on "The Spelling and Pronunciation of
> Shakespeare's Name" at:
>
> http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name1.html
>
Lukers should beware of this. Not all references to Shakspere and
family are concluded. (It omits for example how the man from Stratford
named his children.) They are not listed in chronological order, which
makes things confusing.
> The article has links to comprehensive lists of written
> references to William Shakespeare in both literary and
> non-literary contexts, with the spellings used in the
> original documents.
>
> > As I have said before, for those that have not followed this
argument, the man
> > from Stratford was not "Shakespeare" on his baptism record, the
names of his
> > children, the names of his wife, his legal will, nor is on his
gravestone. If
> > he used a pseudonym fine, but he certainly does not seemed to have
adopted the
> > name for himself.
>
> For those that have not followed this argument, there is
> no significant difference in the spelling of the name "Shakespeare"
in liteary and non-literary contexts. It was the same name. Please see
the above article for details.
This is a complete denial of your own evidence. One can simply add the
names in different ways, using your own lists. The problem you have
created for your own Stratfordian position is that the evidence that
you have assembled argues against the very point you are trying to
prove. And now you have backed yourself into a corner, you flatly deny
what your own evidence indicates.
>
There are differences between those of a personal and family nature and
those of other legal contexts (law suits, tax evasion, land deals), and
literary references, there are differences by time period, there are
differences between Stratford and London.
One can only quote the Elizabeth review for a different conclusion,
From the Elizabethan Review
Shakespeare’s Name
By Richard Lester
Thus, in sum, there is a robust statistically significant difference
between the names used for the author, actor, and theater man and those
used for the Stratford man, and it appears one would have to resort to
extreme assumptions in order to change this basic result. But how can
one explain this in terms of the people and events of the time. There
seem to be three possibilities:
1. The Stratford man chose to use ‘Shakespeare’ for his London literary
and acting affairs, while keeping his Shakspere-like names for
Stratford and personal affairs. But he did use ‘Shakespeare’ in
Stratford in situations where he presumably had a choice and, according
to this explanation, would have used ‘Shakspere.’ Also, there seems to
be no plausible reason for him to maintain two different but similar
names.
2. The author references were all strongly influenced by the name that
appeared in Venus and Adonis, Lucrece and Palladis Tamia. But this
answer just shifts the question to why these seminal documents,
especially the first two, which were certainly author-approved, used
the ‘Shakespeare’ spelling. And this, of course, leads us back to the
double name hypotheses above, or to the third possibility.
3. The Stratford man was in fact not the author and therefore the two
type names had different origins and intentions. But if so, one would
also have to conclude that the actor’s name in some ways came from, or
was confused with, the writer’s name.
> Dave Kathman
> dj...@ix.netcom.com
paul streitz
interesting points and I will check them out. However, since in your
view everything points to Stratford, and not one iota of evidence
points to Oxford, I must say you cannot be said to be an unbiased
source.
thanks again.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
his family.
1558 Sept. 15 Christening "Ione Shakspere daughter to Iohn Shakspere"
1562 Dec. 2 Christening "Margareta filia Iohannis Shakspere"
1563 April 30 Burial "Margareta filia Iohannis Shakspere"
1564 April 26 Christening "Gulielmus filius Iohannes Shakspere"
(William son of John)
1566 Oct 13 Christening "Gibertus filius Iohannis Shakspere"
1569 April 15 Christening "Ione the daughter of Iohn Shakspere"
1571 Sept 28 Christening "Anna filia magistri Shakspere"
1580 May 3 Christening "Edmund sonne to Mr. Iohn Shakspere"
1582 Nov 17 Marriage license " Wm Shaxpere et Anna Whateley de
Temple
Grafton"
1582 Nov 28 Band of sureties "willm Shagspere one thone partie and
Ann hathwey
of Stratford"
1583 May 26 Christening "Susanna daughter to William Shakespere.
1585 Feb 2 Christening "Hamnet & Iudith sonne and daughter to
William Shakspere"
1596 Aug 11 Burial "Hamnet filius William Shakspere"
1596 Oct 20 Grant of arms "Iohn Shakespere of Stratford;"
motto "Shakespere, non sanz droict"
1601 Sept 8 Burial "Mr. Johanes Shakspear(e)"
1607 June 5 Marriage "Iohn Hall gentlema & Susanna Shaxspere"
1608 Sept 9 Burial "Mayry Shaxspere wydowe"
1612 Feb 3 Burial "Gilbertus Shakspere adolescens"
1613 Feb 4 Burial "Rich: Shakspere"
1616 Mar 25 Legal will In title "Willm Shackspeare of Stratford on
Avon"
with three signatures, William Shakspere, Willm Shakspere, William
Shakspeare
1616 April 25 Burial record "will Shakspere gent"
1616 Nov 23 Christening "Shaksper fillius Thomas Quyny gent."
Inscription on Grave "Shakspeare"
1617 May 8 Burial record "Shakespere fillius Tho. Quyny, gent."
1623 Aug 8 Burial record "Mrs. Shakspeare."
The record speaks for itself.
paul streitz
Erik Nielsen
most frequently (it seems) "Shakspere", but also in a variety of other
ways including "Shakes", "Shacks", "Shaxes", and a "Shag"... this
"proves" only that Elizabethans stood upon spelling no more than Peter
Quince stood upon points.
Erik Nielsen
> 1552 April 29 "John Shakyspere" charged with making a refuse heap
> 1557 John "Shakyspeyr."
> 1557? "Johannem Shakespere," Other records of the name in Stratford
> and vicinity include a reference to the estate of Richard Shakespeare
> mentioning his son
> 1558 "John Shakespeyr" reference as a constable
> 1556 Gilbertus filius Johannis Shakespeare" christening of
> Shakespeare's brother
> 1558 "John Shakespeyr" reference as a constable
> 1556 "Gilbertus filius Johannis Shakespeare,"
> 1563, "Margareta filia Johannis Shakespeare," birth record of
> Shakspere's sister
> 1567 reference to John Shakespeare as "Mr. Shakespeyr,"
> 1570 "John Shappere alias Shakespere de Stratford upon Haven." of
> lending money at interest (usury)
> 1571 January 21 1571 to April 2, 1572, Rogers (clerk) spelled the
> name "Shakespere;" thereafter "Shaxpere"
> 1572 "John Shakspere" acccused of illegal wool dealing
> 1590 "Johannes Shakespere." list of tenants of the Earl of Warwick,
> one finds Shakespeare's father
> 1592 "John Shakespere" listed as not attending church
>
> Hardly overwhelming evidence that this was John Shakespeare>
I am not going to respond to all of your post, because it's late and I
find it (the post) boring, but this is just classic. I don't think I'll
comment on it either.
-- Sidwick
"We are arrant knaves, believe none of us."
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
PFStreitz wrote:
> Here again is a list of names that the man from Stratford used for
> himself and his family.
Oh? He wrote his baptismal record? Wouldn't that prove
he was a genius and therefore almost certainly the
author of the plays ascribed to him? (I won't get into
his burial record.)
--Bob G.
Erik Nielsen
bit of evidence, it certainly hasn't been posted on THIS board.
-- Sidwick
Terry Ross
> Terry, thank you for your detailed reply. You have raised some
> interesting points and I will check them out. However, since in your
> view everything points to Stratford, and not one iota of evidence
> points to Oxford, I must say you cannot be said to be an unbiased
> source.
Paul, you still don't understand the way this works. Whatever bias you
suspect me of harboring has nothing to do with whether Athena or Dionysius
was the patron deity of drama. It has nothing to do with whether the word
"hastivibrans" appears in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. It has nothing
to do with Jameson's edition of Harvey's *Gratulationes Valdinenses*. It
has nothing to do with Thomas Fuller's tribute to William Shakespeare of
Stratford on Avon in his *Antiquities of Warwickshire*. I do not have
some special rules of evidence that I apply to Shakespeare or Oxford that
I would not use if we were discussing Samuel Daniel or Edmund Spenser.
Like you, I have seen many anti-Stratfordians who repeated the tale that
"hastivibrans" was a classical epithet for Pallas. While I didn't recall
ever coming across the term in any classical text, until Dave and I
checked, we had no reason to suspect that the claim was completely false.
I have not been able to trace "hastivibrans" further back than Fuller
(1662). Unless somebody can find an early citation, we are justified in
thinking that Fuller coined the term for his witty tribute to the surname
of William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. "Hastivibrans," thus, was
never an epithet for Athena, but was from the moment of its first
appearance explicitly an epithet for the great Warwickshire playwright.
If you find an earlier instance of the word, don't hesitate to tell us
about it.
While many errors of anti-Stratfordians are easy to spot, it is not always
easy tracing them to their sources. I suspect that you have been relying
on Ogburn of late (while Clark's description of Harvey's poem contains
errors, at least she was a skillful enough reader of Ward to know that he
was discussing a poem): Ogburn did not know (because he had never bothered
to check or had forgotten what Ward wrote) that Harvey's lines about
Oxford appeared not in a speech delivered aloud to the queen and court but
in a poem. Ogburn's discussion of this "speech" is the sheerest
moonshine, containing descriptions of events that we know did not occur.
The ultimate source for Ogburn is a series of misunderstandings about the
translation of a small part of this poem in Ward's biography of Oxford.
Ward's itself translation is a shoddy piece of work (as I can demonstrate
at length, if you are interested), and a good translation had been
available since 1938, but even Oxfordians who have stumbled across
Jameson's edition seem compelled to conceal their knowledge of it from
other Oxfordians. Gradually, over decades of Oxfordians lazily relying on
previous Oxfordian accounts rather than checking for themselves, Harvey's
poem became transmuted by those who could not understand Ward and who
never glanced at Jameson (let alone at Harvey's original) into the public
oration upon which Ogburn spins such delirious fantasies.
Until I checked Harvey's poem, I had no reason to suspect just how
wretched and tendentious Ward's translation was -- in fact, from Ogburn's
description, I had no idea that what Ward translated was in verse or that
Ward had translated only a small part of the poem. I had no idea that the
largest section of the poem is an elaboration of a passage from
Macchiavelli that was itself based on a passage in Plutarch. Despite
whatever bias you may think I harbor, I found Harvey's work interesting in
its own right, but for Oxfordians, it seems, Harvey only existed on this
planet in order to be misquoted centuries later as a prop for the view
that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works.
>
> thanks again.
Any time Paul. At some point you may begin to wonder why it is that I and
other people who share what you seem to consider a "bias" are so often
right about the facts while so much of what Oxfordians tell you three
times is true turns out to be absolutely false. Could it be that
Oxfordianism itself is based upon nothing but errors (lazily repeated over
the decades) and wishful thinking?
Nigel Davies
> Here again is a list of names that the man from Stratford used for himself and
> his family.
>
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1562 Dec. 2 Christening "Margareta filia Iohannis Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1563 April 30 Burial "Margareta filia Iohannis Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1564 April 26 Christening "Gulielmus filius Iohannes Shakspere"
> (William son of John)
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1566 Oct 13 Christening "Gibertus filius Iohannis Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1569 April 15 Christening "Ione the daughter of Iohn Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1571 Sept 28 Christening "Anna filia magistri Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1580 May 3 Christening "Edmund sonne to Mr. Iohn Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1582 Nov 17 Marriage license " Wm Shaxpere et Anna Whateley de
> Temple
> Grafton"
> 1582 Nov 28 Band of sureties "willm Shagspere one thone partie and
> Ann hathwey
> of Stratford"
> 1583 May 26 Christening "Susanna daughter to William Shakespere.
> 1585 Feb 2 Christening "Hamnet & Iudith sonne and daughter to
> William Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1596 Aug 11 Burial "Hamnet filius William Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1596 Oct 20 Grant of arms "Iohn Shakespere of Stratford;"
> motto "Shakespere, non sanz droict"
> 1601 Sept 8 Burial "Mr. Johanes Shakspear(e)"
> 1607 June 5 Marriage "Iohn Hall gentlema & Susanna Shaxspere"
> 1608 Sept 9 Burial "Mayry Shaxspere wydowe"
> 1612 Feb 3 Burial "Gilbertus Shakspere adolescens"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1613 Feb 4 Burial "Rich: Shakspere"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1616 Mar 25 Legal will In title "Willm Shackspeare of Stratford on
> Avon"
> with three signatures, William Shakspere, Willm Shakspere, William
> Shakspeare
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1616 April 25 Burial record "will Shakspere gent"
Exactly the same as the Master of the Wardrobe's records of 15th. March 1604
which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
cloth to be worn for this procession.
> 1616 Nov 23 Christening "Shaksper fillius Thomas Quyny gent."
> Inscription on Grave "Shakspeare"
> 1617 May 8 Burial record "Shakespere fillius Tho. Quyny, gent."
> 1623 Aug 8 Burial record "Mrs. Shakspeare."
>
> The record speaks for itself.
It does indeed. Elizabethan spelling was imprecise not least demonstrated by the
man's own will. How come you're the only guy on the planet incapable of coming
to terms with the fact?
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
sceacan spere
You clearly have little understanding of linguistics in an anthropological
context. Please do us all a favour and stop posting such nonsensical drivel
until you have, at least, perused the subject. You should be able to back
up your claims with linguistic data of more substance than the "magic e".
This data should include the noting of phonetic shifts in sound from old
english to middle english to modern english, the time frame of these shifts,
and their geographical context. If that isn't a daunting enough task, then
you have to marry your findings to some sort of standard orthography. Good
luck, you'll need it. Oh, remember Shaw's "ghoti"="fish" it'll help you get
in the right frame of mind.
Greg Reynolds
used Shakespeare, which you always overlook. So this is Shakespeare you're talking about. Do
you doubt that?
These were mostly other people recording his name anyway, right?
When was Oxenforde EVER called Shakespeare?
Greg Reynolds
PFStreitz wrote:
> Here again is a list of names that the man from Stratford used for himself and
> his family.
>
> 1558 Sept. 15 Christening "Ione Shakspere daughter to Iohn Shakspere"
> 1562 Dec. 2 Christening "Margareta filia Iohannis Shakspere"
> 1563 April 30 Burial "Margareta filia Iohannis Shakspere"
> 1564 April 26 Christening "Gulielmus filius Iohannes Shakspere"
> (William son of John)
>
> 1566 Oct 13 Christening "Gibertus filius Iohannis Shakspere"
> 1569 April 15 Christening "Ione the daughter of Iohn Shakspere"
> 1571 Sept 28 Christening "Anna filia magistri Shakspere"
> 1580 May 3 Christening "Edmund sonne to Mr. Iohn Shakspere"
> 1582 Nov 17 Marriage license " Wm Shaxpere et Anna Whateley de
> Temple
> Grafton"
> 1582 Nov 28 Band of sureties "willm Shagspere one thone partie and
> Ann hathwey
> of Stratford"
> 1583 May 26 Christening "Susanna daughter to William Shakespere.
> 1585 Feb 2 Christening "Hamnet & Iudith sonne and daughter to
> William Shakspere"
> 1596 Aug 11 Burial "Hamnet filius William Shakspere"
> 1596 Oct 20 Grant of arms "Iohn Shakespere of Stratford;"
> motto "Shakespere, non sanz droict"
> 1601 Sept 8 Burial "Mr. Johanes Shakspear(e)"
> 1607 June 5 Marriage "Iohn Hall gentlema & Susanna Shaxspere"
> 1608 Sept 9 Burial "Mayry Shaxspere wydowe"
> 1612 Feb 3 Burial "Gilbertus Shakspere adolescens"
> 1613 Feb 4 Burial "Rich: Shakspere"
> 1616 Mar 25 Legal will In title "Willm Shackspeare of Stratford on
> Avon"
> with three signatures, William Shakspere, Willm Shakspere, William
> Shakspeare
>
> 1616 April 25 Burial record "will Shakspere gent"
> 1616 Nov 23 Christening "Shaksper fillius Thomas Quyny gent."
> Inscription on Grave "Shakspeare"
> 1617 May 8 Burial record "Shakespere fillius Tho. Quyny, gent."
> 1623 Aug 8 Burial record "Mrs. Shakspeare."
>
> The record speaks for itself.
>
> paul streitz
Dave Kathman
You keep quoting the record very selectively, even
when the complete record has been pointed out to
you time and time again. I am pasting in below
the complete list of non-literary references to
William Shakespeare of Stratford, from my web site
at http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name2.html.
There you will find many instances of the spelling
"Shakespeare" which you have inexplicably omitted
from your selective list, even though they have been
pointed out to you many times. I can think of no other
explanations for your behavior other than: 1) conscious
deception, or 2) obtuseness so extreme as to be
almost mind-boggling.
Lurkers, for an exhaustive discussion of the spelling
and pronunciation of Shakespeare's name, written by
a person with three degrees in linguistics (namely
me), go to:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name1.html
This article contains links to complete lists of
all known references to William Shakespeare of
Stratford in both literary and non-literary contexts.
As for the rest of Streitz' tired half-truths,
I have corrected him too many times to count, so
at this point I'm just going to ask that anybody
who is tempted to take him seriously just e-mail
me, and I'll try to point you to some of these
earlier discussions.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
****************************
List of Non-literary References to William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon
Contents
Description of List Entries
A Note on Dates
Key to Abbreviations
Chronological List of Non-literary References
Description of List Entries
Entries in the lists below contain the following information, in order:
the year the document was written or printed, as near as we can
tell (or, if the precise year is not known, a range of most likely
years);
a description of the document;
the date of the document, if known;
Shakespeare's name as it appears in the document, with some
context if appropriate;
if the document is handwritten, a note of that fact along with
the name of the writer, if known;
if the document is printed, a note of that fact along with the
name of the printer and publisher, if known;
a note of where to find a transcription of the document,
including volume and page number; for handwritten documents, this is
followed by a note of
where to find a facsimile of the original, for readers who wish
to check transcriptions for themselves.
A Note on Dates
In some cases all we have is a transcription of a document known to have
been written earlier; in such cases the reference is listed under the
year when the
extant document was written (as near as we can tell) with the year of
the original added in parentheses. For example, all the Stratford Parish
Register entries
we have from before 1600 are transcriptions from the now-lost original,
made in 1600 (probably by the vicar, Richard Byfield) because of a
decree that all
paper records be transcribed onto more permanent parchment. Since it is
the spelling of the name "Shakespeare" in particular documents that is
at issue here,
and since we have no way of knowing whether the transcription follows
the original entries in spelling, I have treated the pre-1600 Parish
Register entries as
documents from 1600. Similarly, several of the printed literary
references were printed several years after they were actually written;
these are listed under the
year they actually appeared in print, with the probable date of writing
added in parentheses.
Key to Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used:
EKC = E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of the Facts
and Problems (1930) (2 volumes; thus EKC I = volume I, EKC II = volume
II)
HP = J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, Outlines of the Life of
Shakespeare (9th edition, 1890) (2 volumes, distinguished as with EKC).
SS = Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life
(1975)
SS2 = Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: Records and Images
(1981)
Wallace = Charles William Wallace, "New Light on Shakespeare"
(Part 2), The Times (London), May 1, 1914, p. 4.
Chronological list of non-literary references to William Shakespeare of
Stratford
1582 (Entry of License in the Bishop of Worcester's Register; Nov. 27)
"Wm Shaxpere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 70)
1582 (Bond of Sureties; Nov. 28)
"William Shagspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 63)
1588 (Bill of complaint in Queen's Bench case of Shakespeare v. Lambert)
"Willielmo Shackespere"
"Willielmo Shackespere" (in same document, John's surname
spelled "Shackespere" (11x),
"Shackspere" (2x), "Shackspeare" (1x)
(handwritten) (EKC II, 35)
1594 (Record of payment to Chamberlain's Men; December 28)
"Will. Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 319; facs. SS, 136)
1596 (Writ for sureties of the peace by William Wayte; Michaelmas
Term)
"William Shakspere"
(handwritten) (SS, 146, with facs.)
1597 (Exemplification of Fine for purchase of New Place; Stratford; May
4)
"Willielmum Shakespeare"
"Willielmi Shakespeare"
"Willielmo Shakespeare"
"Willielmo Shakespeare"
"WIllielmus Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 95-96; facs. SS, 174)
1597 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London; November 15)
"William Shackspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 87; facs. SS, 162)
1598 (letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney; January 24)
"Mr. Shaksper"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 101)
1598 (Noate of corne & malte; Stratford; February 4)
"Wm. Shackespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 99; facs. SS, 179)
1598 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London; October 1)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 87; facs. SS, 162)
1598 (address of letter from Richard Quiney to Shakespeare;
October 25)
"Mr. Wm. Shackespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 102; facs. SS, 180)
1598 (letter from Adrian Quiney to Richard Quiney; c. October 30)
"Mr. Sha."
(handwritten) (EKC II, 103)
1598 (letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney; November 4)
"Mr. Wm. Shak."
(handwritten) (EKC II, 103)
1598 (Chamber Account of Stratford; Christmas)
"mr. Shaxspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 96; facs. SS, 179)
1598-9 (List of tax defaulters, St. Helen's parish, London)
"Willelmus Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 88; facs. SS, 162)
1599 (Inventory of property of Thomas Brend, whose son Sir Nicholas
owned the grounds on which the Globe stood; May 16)
"Willielmi Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1599 (List of tax defaulters; Residuum London of Pipe Roll for 1598-9;
October 6))
"Willelmus Shakspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 88; facs. SS, 163)
1600 (1564) (Baptisms, Stratford Parish Register; April 26)
"Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere"
(handwritten; probably Richard Byfield) (EKC II, 1; facs. SS,
21))
1600 (1583) (Baptisms, Stratford Parish Register; May 26)
"Susanna daughter of William Shakspere"
(handwritten; Richard Byfield) (HP II, 51; facs. SS, 76)
1600 (1585) (Baptisms, Stratford Parish Register; February 2)
"Hamnet & Judeth sonne and daughter to William Shakspere"
(handwritten; Richard Byfield) (EKC II, 3; facs. SS, 76)
1600 (1596) (Burials, Stratford Parish Register; August 11)
"Hamnet filius William Shakspere"
(handwritten; Richard Byfield) (EKC II, 4; facs. SS, 164)
1600 (List of tax defaulters; Residuum Sussex of Pipe Roll for 1599-
1600; October 6)
"Willelmus Shakspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 88; facs. SS, 163)
1601 (Will of Thomas Whittington of Shottery; Worcester Probate
Registry; March 25)
"Mr. Wyllyam Shaxspere"
"Wyllyam Shaxspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 42; facs. SS, 68)
1601 (Deed transfering the Globe and other Southwark properties
from Nicholas Brend to Sir Matthew Brown and John
Collett as security for a 2500-pound debt; October 7)
"Richard Burbadge and William Shackspeare gent."
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1601 (Updated deed for the above transaction; October 10)
"Richard Burbage and William Shakspeare gentlemen"
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1602 (Diary of John Manningham; March 13)
"Shakespeare"
"Shakespeare"
(handwritten; John Manningham) (EKC II, 212; facs. SS, 152)
1602 (Conveyance of land in Old Stratford by William and John
Combe to Shakespeare; May 1)
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
"William Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 107 (part); HP II, 17 (full); facs. SS,
189)
1602 (Copy of entry in Court Roll of Rowington Manor, relating to
Shakespeare's purchase of a cottage on Chapel Lane; September
28)
"Willielmi Shackespere"
"Willielmus Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 111; facs. SS, 191)
1602 (Foot of Fine for New Place; Michaelmas term)
"Willielmum Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 96; facs. SS, 175)
1603 (Warrant under Signet Seal for Royal letters patent creating the
King's Men; May 17)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (HP II, 82; facs. SS, 197)
1603 (Royal letters patent creating the King's Men; May 19)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 72; facs. SS, 197))
1603-1616 (endorsement on lease of property east of New Place;
Stratford)
"Mr. William Shaxpeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 96)
1604 (Shakespeare v. Rogers; note of hearing in Court of Record)
"Willielmus Shexpere"
"Willielmo Shexpere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 113 (part); HP II, 77 (full); facs.
SS, 182)
1604 (From Account of Sir George Home, Master of the Great Wardrobe,
for the Proceeding of King James through London on March 15,
1604; R.O. Chamberlain's Books)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 73; facs. SS, 199)
1604 (Survey of Rowington Manor; relates to Chapel Lane cottage;
October 24)
"William Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 112; facs. SS, 191)
1605 (Will of Augustine Phillips; May 4)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 73; facs. SS, 204)
1605 (Assignment of interest in lease of tithes from Ralph Huband to
Shakespeare; July 24)
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
"Shakespeare"
"William Shakespear"
"William Shakespear"
(handwritten; Francis Collins) (EKC II, 119 (part);
HP II, 19 (full); facs. SS, 193)
1606 (Survey of Rowington Manor; relates to Chapel Lane cottage;
August 1)
"Willielmus Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 112)
1608 (Deed transferring the Globe and other properties from
John Collett to Sir Thomas Bodley; November 11)
"Richard Burbadge & William Shakespeare gent"
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1608 (Arrest warrant for John Addenbrooke, related to suit by
Shakespeare; December 17)
"Willielmo Shackspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 114)
1608 (Precept to empanel jury for Shakespeare v. Addenbrooke;
December 21)
"Willielmum Shackspeare"
(handwritten) (HP II, 78)
1608 (List of potential jurors in Shakespeare v. Addenbrooke; no date)
"Willielmum Shakespere"
(handwritten) (HP II, 78)
1609 (Precept to bind jurors to appear in court; February 15)
"Willielmum Shackspeare"
(handwritten) (HP II, 78)
1609 (List of jurors in Shakespeare v. Addenbrooke; no date)
"Willielmum Shackspere"
(handwritten) (HP II, 78; facs. SS, 183)
1609 (Precept to arrest Addenbrooke, related to suit by Shakespeare;
March 15)
"Willielmo Shackspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 115)
1609 (Shakespeare v. Addenbrooke, Stratford Court of Record; June 7)
"Willielmus Shackspeare"
"Willielmo Shackspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 115)
1610 (Fine relating to purchase of land in Old Stratford)
"Willielmum Shakespere"
"Willielmi Shakespere"
"Willielmo Shakespere"
"Willielmo Shakespere"
"Willielmo Shakespere"
"Willielmus Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 109)
1611 (Bill of Complaint for Chancery suit of Richard Lane et al. v.
Dominus Carewe et al.; relates to Shakespeare's holdings of
tithes)
"William Shackspeare"
"William Shackspeare"
"William Shackspeare"
"William Shackspeare"
"Shakspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 122; HP II, 25)
1611 (Contribution list for Highways Bill; September 11)
"Mr. William Shackspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 153; facs. SS, 229)
1611 (Inventory of goods of Robert Johnson, late of Stratford; October
5)
"Mr. Shaxper"
(handwritten; Alexander Aspinall) (EKC II, 32)
1612 (Bellott v. Mountjoy, deposition of Joan Johnson; May 11)
"Mr. Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 90 (relevant part); facs. SS2, 27)
1612 (Bellott v. Mountjoy, deposition of Daniell Nicholas; May 11)
"Wm: Shakespeare"
"Shakespeare"
"Sh"
"Shakespere"
"Shakespe"
"Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 90 (relevant part); facs. SS2, 28)
1612 (Bellott v. Mountjoy, deposition of William Shakespeare; May 11)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 91; facs. SS, 212 and SS2, 30)
1612 (Signature on above; May 11)
"Willm Shakp"
(handwritten; William Shakespeare)(EKC II, 92; facs.
SS, 212 and SS2, 30)
1612 (Note in margin of second set of interrogatories in Bellott-
Mountjoy case; June 19)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (SS2, 39; facs. SS2, 31)
1612 (Bellott v. Mountjoy, deposition of Daniell Nicholas; June 19)
"Mr. William Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare"
"Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 93 (relevant part); facs. SS, 210 and
SS2, 32)
1612 (Bellott v. Mountjoy, deposition of William Eaton; June 19)
"Mr. Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare"
"Mr. Shakespeare" (crossed out)
(handwritten) (EKC II, 93 (relevant part); facs. SS2, 34)
1612 (Bellott v. Mountjoy, deposition of Nowell Mountjoy; June 19)
"Mr. Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 93 (relevant part); facs. SS2, 37)
1613 (Will of John Combe; January 28)
"Mr. William Shackspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 127; facs. SS, 187)
1613 (Conveyance for Blackfriars Gatehouse; March 10)
(2 copies exist, one of which lacks the last mention of
Shakespeare's name)
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 154 (part); HP II, 31 (full); facs. SS,
221)
1613 (Signature on above)
"William Shakspe~"
(handwritten; William Shakespeare)(EKC II, 157)
1613 (Mortgage for Blackfriars Gatehouse; March 11)
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 157 (part); HP II, 34 (full); facs. SS,
225)
1613 (Signature on above)
"Wm Shakspe~"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 158)
1613 (Account of Thomas Screvin, steward to Francis Manners,
6th Earl of Rutland; for making an impresa; March 31)
"Mr. Shakspeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Screvin?) (EKC II, 153; facs. SS, 220)
1614 (Survey of freeholders in Oldstratford and Welcombe; September 5)
"Mr. Shakspeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Greene) (EKC II, 141; facs. SS, 231)
1614 (Articles between Shakespeare and William Replingham; related to
enclosure; October 28)
"William Shackespeare"
"William Shackespeare"
"William Shackespeare"
"William Shackespeare"
"William Shackespeare"
"William Shackespeare"
"William Shackespeare"
"Mr. Shakspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 141; facs. SS, 232)
1614 (Diary of Thomas Greene; November 17)
"Shakspeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Greene) (EKC II, 142; facs. SS, 233,
and SS2, 76)
1614 (Diary of Thomas Greene; December 23)
"Mr. Shakspeare"
"my Cosen Shakespeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Greene) (EKC II, 143; facs. SS2, 78)
1615 (Diary of Thomas Greene; January 9)
"Mr. Shakspeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Greene) (EKC II, 143; facs. SS2, 80)
1615 (Diary of Thomas Greene; January 11)
"my cosen Shakspeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Greene) (SS2, 83; facs. SS2, 82)
1615 (Bill of Complaint in Bendishe, et al. v. Bacon; April 26)
"Willyam Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 159)
1615 (Answer to Bill of Complaint in Bendishe et al. v. Bacon; May 5)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 161)
1615 (Diary of Thomas Greene; September)
"W Shakspeare"
(handwritten; Thomas Greene) (EKC II, 143; facs. SS2, 86)
1615 (From Plea of Thomasina Ostler in suit of Ostler v. Heminges,
Coram Rege Roll 1454; October 9)
"Willelmum Shakespeare"
"Willelmo Shakespeare"
"Willelmo Shakespeare"
"Willelmo Shakespeare"
"Willelmus Shakespeare"
"Willelmus Shakespeare"
"Willelmus Shakespeare"
"Willelmus Shakespeare"
"Willelmo Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 58-63)
1616 (Cast list of Every Man In His Humour in Ben Jonson's Works)
"Will. Shakespeare"
(printed) (EKC II, 71)
1616 (Cast list of Sejanus in Ben Jonson's Works)
"Will. Shake-Speare"
(printed) (EKC II, 72)
1616 (Shakespeare's Will; March 25)
"William Shackspeare"
"William Shackspeare"
"William Shackspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 170; facs. SS, 243-5)
1616 (Signatures on above)
"William Shakspere"
"Willm Shakspere"
"William Shakspeare"
(handwritten; William Shakespeare) (EKC II, 171)
1616 (Burials, Stratford Parish Register; April 25)
"Will. Shakspere, Gent"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 8; facs. SS, 250)
1616-22 (Monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford)
"Shakspeare"
(engraved in stone) (EKC II, 182)
1617 (Estreats of Rowington Court Rolls; relates to Chapel Lane
cottage; April 18)
"Wm. Shakespere" (referred to as deceased)
(handwritten) (EKC II, 112)
1619 (Answer of John Heminges and Henry Condell in suit of Witter
v. Heminges
and Condell (Court of Requests); April 28)
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 52-57)
1622 (Indenture transferring the Globe and other properties
to Matthew Brend; February 21)
"Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare, gent."
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1623 (Anne Shakespeare's grave marker, Stratford)
"Anne wife of William Shakespeare"
(engraved on brass marker) (EKC II, 9)
1623 (Cast list in First Folio)
"William Shakespeare"
(printed) (EKC II, 77)
1624 (Deed assigning the use of the Globe to Sir Mathew Brend's
new wife Frances; March 12)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1633 (Deed describing the properties of Sir Mathew Brend)
"William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (Wallace)
1635 (John Hall's gravestone, Stratford)
"Will: Shakespeare, Gent."
(engraved on stone) (EKC II, 11)
1635 (Answer of Cuthbert Burbadge, Winifred Robinson, and William
Burbadge to Petition of Robert Benfield and Heliard Swanston
to the Lord Chamberlain; R.O. Lord Chamberlain's Books;
c. August 1)
"Shakspere"
"Shakspeare"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 66)
Dave Kathman
Peter Zenner
on the spelling of the name 'Shakespeare'. I don't think
that the spelling is the thing we should be looking at though.
It is known that, at the time, people wrote down what they
heard and not an accepted spelling -- because there were
no accepted spellings unless a word had been used so much
that it was recognised.
So, going on pronunciation, it is fairly obvious that the Stratford
man and his fellow townspeople used a short 'a' -- Shacks, Shaks,
Shax, Shags -- whereas the London people used a long 'a', i.e.,
Shakes. In English, that 'e' which this list has dubbed 'the magic e',
indicates the way the 'a' should be pronounced. The man who
wrote the works wanted people to pronounce the name 'Shake-
speare', whereas the Stratford man was quite happy with his
'Shak-spere' pronunciation right through to 1616.
It was a pseudonym, used at the suggestion of Richard Field,
the publisher. Sonnets 38 & 39 are to Field. The lines
"And he that calls on thee, let him bring forth
Eternal numbers to outlive long date."
indicate that the author is addressing a publisher and the line
"When thou thyself dost give invention light"
refers to Field's publishing of 'Venus and Adonis', which was
"the first heir" of Marlowe's "invention". In the penultimate line
of Sonnet 39, the author wrote
"And that thou teachest how to make one twain"
He was Marlowe and now he is Marlowe and Shakespeare.
It was the idea of Richard Field to use the Shakespeare
name as he was the only one who knew the real Shakespeare.
Can anybody give me an alternative, sensible, explanation
of Sonnets 38 & 39? How would those lines fit in with the
case for any of the other candidates, including the man from
Stratford himself?
Peter Zenner
+44 (0) 1246 271726
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
Nigel Davies
> Thankyou, Dave Kathman, for posting all those variants
> on the spelling of the name 'Shakespeare'. I don't think
> that the spelling is the thing we should be looking at though.
> It is known that, at the time, people wrote down what they
> heard and not an accepted spelling -- because there were
> no accepted spellings unless a word had been used so much
> that it was recognised.
>
> So, going on pronunciation, it is fairly obvious that the Stratford
> man and his fellow townspeople used a short 'a' -- Shacks, Shaks,
> Shax, Shags -- whereas the London people used a long 'a', i.e.,
> Shakes. In English, that 'e' which this list has dubbed 'the magic e',
> indicates the way the 'a' should be pronounced. The man who
> wrote the works wanted people to pronounce the name 'Shake-
> speare', whereas the Stratford man was quite happy with his
> 'Shak-spere' pronunciation right through to 1616.
In September 1572, Oxford wrote to Burghley:
"But now for the suruaier whiche yowre Lordship hathe named, I must get him by
yowre Lordships meanes, and for yowre Lordships sake, for I ame vtterly
vnaquantte withe him".
He spells the word "sake" here as "sake". With the magic "e".
Just one month later on 31 October 1572, Oxford wrote to Burghley again:
"This bearer hathe sum ned of yowre Lordships fauoure, whiche when he shall
speake withe yowre Lordship I pray yow, for my sak he may finde yow the more his
furtherer and helper in his cause."
Here he spells the word "sake" as "sak". No magic "e".
Oxford's connection with Shakespeare was so non-existent that he never used the
words "shake", "spear" or "Shakespeare" but his own use of the word "sake" shows
you that spelling is a perilous indicator of how words "should be pronounced"
and that inconsistency in spelling was rife no matter where you came from in
England.
Are you now going to extend your argument to say that Oxford varied his
pronunciation of the word "sake" from one month to the other depending on his
mood because sometimes he spelled the word with the magic "e" and at other times
without? Or would you agree that the word was pronounced exactly the same way
with a long "a" every time, it's just its spelling that was inconsistent?
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Trent
Peter Zenner <pe...@pzenner.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:823a2h$s6j$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Thankyou, Dave Kathman, for posting all those variants
> on the spelling of the name 'Shakespeare'. I don't think
> that the spelling is the thing we should be looking at though.
> It is known that, at the time, people wrote down what they
> heard and not an accepted spelling -- because there were
> no accepted spellings unless a word had been used so much
> that it was recognised.
>
> So, going on pronunciation, it is fairly obvious that the Stratford
> man and his fellow townspeople used a short 'a' -- Shacks, Shaks,
> Shax, Shags -- whereas the London people used a long 'a', i.e.,
> Shakes. In English, that 'e' which this list has dubbed 'the magic e',
> indicates the way the 'a' should be pronounced. The man who
> wrote the works wanted people to pronounce the name 'Shake-
> speare', whereas the Stratford man was quite happy with his
> 'Shak-spere' pronunciation right through to 1616.
No. It is, I believe, pretty much accepted that your short 'a' sound of
Shakspere would actually have been sounded as the low middle vowel, much
like the way 'a' in 'father' or the 'o' of 'pot' is pronounced in my part of
the world today (Southern Ontario, Canada). This sound was raised and
fronted during the transition from middle to modern English, becoming the
'a' sound of 'shake', in what has become known as The Great Vowel Shift
(centered, of course, in London). While this transformation was pretty much
complete in London by the time of Shakespeare's appearance, the change was
by no means universal. The sound that you seem to be assuming is the vowel
sound of 'mat' or 'shack'. This
sound (like most short vowels) wasn't shifted. As a result, the name would
have remained Shakspere, even in London. Of course, this discussion assumes
the recognition of the silent 'e' rule as universal at the time. I don't
think that assumption can be made with 100% certainty given, as you
correctly noted, the lack of any sort of standard orthography.
Trent
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3845A681...@erols.com...
> Gee, those Stratford writers were wonderfully prescient. Although we
> can only guess how they might have pronounced "Shakspere" (and all
> variant spellings), the overwhelming majority of the local documents
> spelled the local's name as if they knew *our* rules for short-a
> spellings.
>
> --Volker
Not at all. The so-called 'magic e' is the remnant of the schwa at the end
of such words as shake, make, and name as they were pronounced in middle
English. As the low-middle vowel shifted up and forward, the schwa fell
silent. This is the genesis of the 'silent e' rule. In 'Shakspere', the
schwa disappeared by virtue of being sandwiched, if you will, between two
much stronger vowel sounds. The schwa wasn't pronounced so it wasn't
written. Still, the 'a' in 'Shakspere' would have retained its low-middle
'a' value and have been shifted up and forward. Since this sound was
identical to the vowel sounds of such words as 'shake', 'make' and 'name',
it is only natural that the 'Shak' of 'Shakspere' would come to be spelled
'Shake'. That this spelling occurs more regularly in London than it does in
Stratford, simply reinforces one of the general principles of linguistic
drift: linguistic change centered in a large concentrated population
radiates out slowly to smaller, more isolated populations.
PFStreitz
>which lists "Shakspere" among "Players" (i.e. Actors) who were given scarlet
>cloth to be worn for this procession.
If so, then it is entirely possible, even likely that Shakspere received
scarlet cloth.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
There are clearly Elizabeth's hand writing that show the use of the silent e to
denote pronunciation.
There are further writings of this sort back into the 13th century using this
device to denote pronunciation.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
has been pointed out to you time and time again.
I am quoting the record selectively. I am pointing out that the names most
closely associated with Shakspere: how he signed his will, how he named his
children, what the name of his wife was, etc., all are "Shak" or variants
thereof.
>I am pasting in below the complete list of non-literary references to >William
Shakespeare of Stratford
It may be the complete list of reference to "William" but it is not the
complete list in reference to "William and family." you omit these references
because it begins to pile up non-Shakespeare listings.
Further, nothing you have ever shown dates "Shakespeare" before 1593 or 1597 in
Stratford.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
accepted spelling -- because there were no accepted spellings unless a word had
been used so much that it was recognised.
>The man who wrote the works wanted people to pronounce the name 'Shake-
speare', whereas the Stratford man was quite happy with his 'Shak-spere'
pronunciation right through to 1616.
Agreed.
paul streitz
PFStreitz
the man's own will. How come you're the only guy on the planet incapable of
coming to terms with the fact?
The fact is that the spelling was imprecise, but in Stratford it was very
weighted toward Shak.
My statement is, there is no neat, one to one correspondence between the author
William Shakespeare and the name of the man in Stratford. There are possible
explanations, but Kathman's statement is clearly not true. There were
differences, what they mean is another matter.
paul streitz
Erik Nielsen
> So, going on pronunciation, it is fairly obvious that the Stratford
> man and his fellow townspeople used a short 'a' -- Shacks, Shaks,
> Shax, Shags -- whereas the London people used a long 'a', i.e.,
> Shakes. In English, that 'e' which this list has dubbed 'the magic e',
> wrote the works wanted people to pronounce the name 'Shake-
> speare', whereas the Stratford man was quite happy with his
> 'Shak-spere' pronunciation right through to 1616.
And, if the "e" indicates so reliably a change in punctuation and not an
exercise in corner-cutting by bored Stratford clerks, etc., this
proves? I am not at all sure that it proves anything. In high school I
had a friend named Corinna. This Corinna had an English teacher, in all
other respects an estimable educator and person, who absolutely insisted
that Corinna's name was pronounced with a short "I", despite Corinna's
repeated protestations that it was pronounced with more of a long "e"...
the name, given its full valuation, looks more impressive, just as the
author might be called "William," "Wm.", or even "W.", but "Will?"
Never!
...
> "And he that calls on thee, let him bring forth
> Eternal numbers to outlive long date."
Um, call me stupid (actually, don't...), but it sounds more like he's
talking about descendants. "Numbers" was indeed archaic printing slang,
but not this early -- periodicals would not appear for another hundred
years. So the pun would have no meaning to an Elizabethan or Jacobean.
> Can anybody give me an alternative, sensible, explanation
> of Sonnets 38 & 39? How would those lines fit in with the
> case for any of the other candidates, including the man from
> Stratford himself?
Maybe Shakespeare is not trying to fit in with a "case", but instead
write what is known as poetry. It is far from a requirement that poems
(or anything else) must be autobiographical in any way. Maybe he was
just trying to write a work of literature which would inspire and
impress his fellow man... the sonnets of Shakespeare are POEMS, not a
long and convoluted signature.
Go to!
-- Sidwick
Trent
PFStreitz <pfst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991201230631...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> Nonsense,
Of course, it is nonsensical to actually use linguistic research when
discussing linguistics. How could anyone even consider the notion?
>
> There are clearly Elizabeth's hand writing that show the use of the silent
e to
> denote pronunciation.
I don't believe anyone is contesting the silent e rule. Now, how standard
it was in the orthography of the day is a valid question. How it came into
existence is also a valid question. Again, the effect of regional dialects
on the orthography of the day needs to be given consideration. I believe
the 'a' in Shakspere had the same value as the 'a' in shake prior to the mid
Eng. to mod. Eng. vowel shifts. I'm stupid enough to think that this belief
is valid and can be exemplified using linguistic principles and research.
>
> There are further writings of this sort back into the 13th century using
this
> device to denote pronunciation.
There is no question that an 'e' following a vowel-consonant word ending
changed the value of the preceding vowel. The 'e' was pronounced, however,
as a schwa. The question is, given the lack of any standard orthography,
can one simply say that the 'a' in Shakspere was different than the 'a' in
shake based solely on the lack of an 'e'. My belief is that the name
Shakspere did originally contain a schwa and that it disappeared by being
overpowered by the vowel sounds preceding it and following it. It wasn't
pronounced so it wasn't written. The fact that there are so many variant
spellings of Shakespeare indicates, at least, that speakers of the language
clearly understood that the vowel sounds of Shakspere were equivalent to the
vowel sounds of Shakespeare. This assumption is about as outrageous as
expecting an Australian to understand the English spoken by a Liverpudlian.
Not outrageous at all.
John W. Kennedy
> Um, call me stupid (actually, don't...), but it sounds more like he's
> talking about descendants. "Numbers" was indeed archaic printing slang,
> but not this early -- periodicals would not appear for another hundred
> years. So the pun would have no meaning to an Elizabethan or Jacobean.
There is a pun, but it is on "numbers" = "verses", a standard
Elizabethan meaning of the word.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
PFStreitz
will go further in examining this specifically.
But I believe that the entire quote for Gabriel Harvey in referring to Oxford
was
"Pallas striking her shiled with her spear shaft will attend thee... Poebous
Apollo has cultivated thy mind in the arts. English poetical measures have
been sung by thee long enough. Let that Courtly Epistle -- more polished even
that the writings of Castiglione himself -- witness how grealy thous dost
excell in letters. I have seen many Latin verses of thin, yea, even more
English verses are extant; thou has drunk deep draghts not only of the Muses of
France adn Italy, but has learned the manners of many men, and the arts of
foreign countries...Thine yes flash fkire, they countenance shakes a spear..."
Is this it, I mean the entire piece or do you have it as something different?
The reason I am more likely to trust Oxfordians, and that was right from the
start when I had not made any definite choices as to authorship, is the
Stratfordians seem more to me to be a religious cult. All roads lead to
Stratford, nothing points in any other direction. Given the fairly impressive
pile of circumstantial evidence surrounding Oxford this seems more dogmatic
than scientific.
Kathman's rigid defense of the name issue is a case in point. It could very
well be that if the man from Stratford had written the works, he decided to
use to different names. This is pointed out in the Elizabethan review as a
possiblity. But Kathman has hardened his list into a dogma, "there are
absolutely no differences." Certainly there are differences, perhaps
explainable, perhaps not, but differences there are
Look forward to your comments.
paul streitz
Terry Ross
> First the way, I have seen it is "hasti vibrans" Since you question
> this I will go further in examining this specifically.
"Hasti" is not a possible form of "hasta," which is a first declension
noun. Fuller, the coiner of the term "hasti-vibrans," was a good enough
latinist to know that the combining form for "hasta" was "hasti-" and thus
"hastivibrans" would be "spearshaking." In the meantime, while you are
"going further in examining this specifically," you should retract your
claim that Pallas (Athena or Minerva) or anybody else was ever known as
"hastivibrans" until Fuller coined the term as a witty tribute to William
Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon in Warwickwhire.
> But I believe that the entire quote for Gabriel Harvey in referring to
> Oxford was "Pallas striking her shiled with her spear shaft will
> attend thee... Poebous Apollo has cultivated thy mind in the arts.
> English poetical measures have been sung by thee long enough. Let
> that Courtly Epistle -- more polished even that the writings of
> Castiglione himself -- witness how grealy thous dost excell in
> letters. I have seen many Latin verses of thin, yea, even more
> English verses are extant; thou has drunk deep draghts not only of the
> Muses of France adn Italy, but has learned the manners of many men,
> and the arts of foreign countries...Thine yes flash fkire, they
> countenance shakes a spear..."
>
> Is this it, I mean the entire piece or do you have it as something
> different?
Paul, even you should note the ellipses in the passage you quote, which
ought to tell you that it is incomplete. What your source is quoting is
part of B. M. Ward's shoddy translation of part of Gabriel Harvey's poem
to Oxford in book 4 of *Gratulationes Valdinenses*. The entire Oxford
section of book 4 is available at
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/gv4.html
Harvey translated less than a third of the Harvey's long poem on Oxford,
and his translation is, to put it mildly, unreliable. To give one teeny
example, there is in the Latin no "spear shaft" for Pallas to be striking
on her shield. Perhaps Ward's silliest mistranslation of all is his
taking "artesque forenses" for "and the arts of foreign countries."
Harvey's *Gratulationes Valdinenses* was translated in 1938 by Thomas
Jameson. Here is Jameson's version of the part that Ward attempted to
translate:
=======
This is my "Hail"; thus, thus it pleased me to say Welcome to you and the
other nobles, though your splendid fame asks, great Earl, a more
grandiloquent poet than I. Your virtue does not creep the earth, nor is
it confined to a song; it wondrously penetrates the aetherial orbs! Up and
away! with that mind and that fire, noble heart, you will surpass
yourself, surpass others; your great glory will everywhere spread beyond
the frozen ocean! England will discover in you its hereditary Achilles.
Go, Mars will see you in safety and Hermes attend you; aegis-sounding
Pallas will be by and will instruct your heart and spirit, while long
since did Phoebus Apollo cultivate your mind with the arts. Your British
numbers have been widely sung, while your Epistle testifies how much you
excel in letters, being more courtly than Castiglione himself, more
polished. I have seen your many Latin things, and more English are
extant; of French and Italian muses, the manners of many peoples, their
arts and laws you have drunk deeply. Not in vain was Sturmius himself
known to you, nor so many Frenchmen and polished Italians, nor Germans.
But, O celebrated one, put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books,
your impractical writings! Now is need of swords! Steel must be
sharpened! Everywhere men talk of camps, everywhere of dire arms! You
must even deal in missiles! Now war is everywhere, everywhere are the
Furies, and everywhere reigns Enyo. Take no thought of Peace; all the
equipage of Mars comes at your bidding. Suppose Hannibal to be standing at
the British gates; suppose even now, now, Don John of Austria is about to
come over, guarded by a huge phalanx! Fated events are not known to man,
for the Thunderer's counsels are not plain: what if suddenly a powerful
enemy should invade our borders? if the Turk should arm his immense
cohorts against us? What if the terrible trumpet should now resound the
"Taratantara"? You are being observed as to whether you would care to
fight boldly. I feel it; our whole country believes it: your blood boils
in your breast, virtue dwells in your brow, Mars keeps your mouth, Minerva
is in your right hand, Bellona reigns in your body, and Martial ardor,
your eyes flash, your glance shoots arrows: who wouldn't swear you
Achilles reborn?
========
Here is a page that shows the original Latin, Ward's version, and
Jameson's in parallel columns:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/shspessay/gveng1.html
Compare the Latin with both Ward and Jameson, and you will see that the
latter is much more accurate. Nevertheless, although an good English
translation has been available for over sixty years, Oxfordians to this
day prefer Ward's botched attempt at part of Harvey to Jameson's complete
edition.
> The reason I am more likely to trust Oxfordians, and that was right
> from the start when I had not made any definite choices as to
> authorship, is the Stratfordians seem more to me to be a religious
> cult.
This newsgroup has a contest to see who the village idiot is, and there
may also be contestants for the title of village atheist. I don't think
attacks on religion serve to advance an argument on the authorship matter,
and I certainly cannot see how "Stratfordians" comprise a cult.
> All roads lead to Stratford, nothing points in any other direction.
That church to which all roads lead grew somewhat beyond the status of a
cult, don't you think? The problem that you see has nothing to do with
cultishness. Let the question be investigated using any neutral tools
available to literary history, and the answer will turn out the same: the
great bulk of the works commonly attributed to William Shakespeare of
Stratford on Avon were indeed written by him. Nothing points to Oxford or
Marlowe or Bacon, although there is some pointing to collaboration with
Fletcher and revision by Middleton.
> Given the fairly impressive pile of circumstantial evidence
> surrounding Oxford this seems more dogmatic than scientific.
Paul, I think I am probably more familiar with the Oxfordian literature
than you are. I can see how it might be superficially appealing to
someone who (for whatever reason) cannot accept Shakespeare's authorship
of his works, but by and large Oxforidana is hopelessly riddled with
errors and special pleading. If you do not notice the errors, perhaps it
is because you have not yet learned enough about the literature and
history of the period. If you try tracking some part of that "fairly
impressive pile of circumstantial evidence" to its sources, you will find
that there is, surprisingly often, literally nothing there -- as is the
case with Ogburn's fictional account of the content and circumstances of
Harvey's fantasied public oration before the queen and her court in praise
of Oxford.
> Kathman's rigid defense of the name issue is a case in point. It
> could very well be that if the man from Stratford had written the
> works, he decided to use to different names. This is pointed out in
> the Elizabethan review as a possiblity. But Kathman has hardened his
> list into a dogma, "there are absolutely no differences." Certainly
> there are differences, perhaps explainable, perhaps not, but
> differences there are
You don't seem to have read what Dave has said very carefully. Dave does
indeed find differences, but those differences do not indicate that
William Shakespeare of Stratford and William Shakespeare the playwright
were different people or had different names. There are differences
between written and printed sources. There are differences between London
sources and those outside London. He is in a position to speak about
those differences because he has done the research, and he has made it
available for inspection by all.
Anti-Stratfordians have long maintained that William Shakespeare of
Stratford (the one Fuller gave the sobriquet "hastivibrans") and William
Shakespeare the playwright were different people, and that their names
were spelled differently. How should one investigate such a claim?
Certainly not by assuming from the start that the glover's on and the
playwright had names that were spelled differently, which is the
anti-Stratfordian tactic. Why not look at every contemporary occurrence
of William Shakespeare's name in contemporary documents? This seems to me
to be an essential first step: first, get a complete list.
Dave actually compiled two lists: one is every contemporary reference to
Shakespeare as an author, a poet, or a playwright; the other is every
contemporary nonliterary reference to William Shakespeare. Dave then
published the lists, both on this newsgroup and on the Shakespeare
Authorship page. Each list is arranged in chronological order. Each
entry on the list contains the original source of the reference, the name
in its actual spelling, a note whether the name is printed or handwritten,
and a citation to Dave's source for the entry information.
Oxfordians have from time to time criticized the conclusions Dave drew
from his researches, and they have from time to time proposed other ways
to group the data, but when they go off on name-spelling projects of their
own, they generally start with Dave's lists, which are the most careful,
complete, and comprehensive that have ever been published in any medium.
Dave also wrote an essay based on his findings. He concludes,
=====
1. "Shakespeare" was by far the most common spelling of the name in both
literary and non-literary contexts, and there is no significant difference
in spelling patterns when we take into account such factors as handwritten
vs. printed and Stratford vs. London spellings;
2. there is no evidence that the variant spellings reflected a consistent
pronunciation difference, but there is considerable evidence that they
were seen as more or less interchangeable;
3. there is no evidence whatsoever that hyphenation in Elizabethan times
was ever thought to indicate a pseudonym, and other proper names of real
people were also sometimes hyphenated.
=======
Equally thorough was Dave's compilation of every note and comment in
Oxford's Geneva Bible. He has made his complete list of annotations
available to all. We know that the Oxfordian Roger Stritmatter has been
doing his own work on Oxford's Bible -- have you ever seen any of the data
Stritmatter (we assume) must have collected by now?
You are, of course, free to believe whatever Oxfordian material you read,
but at some time you should ask yourself whether you're getting more truth
from your opponents than from your compadres.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross tr...@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/xmas/xmas.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Crowley
> Gabriel Harvey never said "thy countenance shakes spears"
> to Oxford. He wrote "vultus tela vibrat" in the middle
> of a long Latin poem address to Oxford. "Thy countenance
> shakes spears" is not an impossible translation, but it
> would not be the first one an educated Elizabethan
> would have thought of.
So what would be 'the first one an educated Elizabethan
would have thought of'? Or better -- what would be the
second or third -- given Elizabethan predilections for
alliteration and assonance -- and allowing for Oxford's
express wishes at the time for martial employment?
Terry Ross writes elsewhere in this thread:
> The poem has been
> reprinted once since the 16th Century, in Thomas Jameson's 1938
> dissertation "The *Gratulationes Valdinenses* of Gabriel Harvey." Harvey
> translates the line Paul is trying to refer to as "your glance shoots
> arrows."
This is an appalling translation. Who wants to be told
that ' your glance shoots arrows'? What does it mean?
That you're green with envy or jealousy? We can
discount Jameson's efforts as a transparent attempt
NOT to translate 'vibrat' as 'shake' nor 'tela' as 'spear'.
(No doubt, he was hopeful of going on to better things
such as becoming a Shakespearean 'scholar'.)
Can any of the poetical Strats around here do better?
The criteria are:
(1) some alliteration
(2) some assonance
(3) a martial reference
(4) it must be strongly complimentary.
Good luck -- and sometime before 2000 a.d. please.
Paul.
Terry Ross
> Dave Kathman <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38420E...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > Gabriel Harvey never said "thy countenance shakes spears"
> > to Oxford. He wrote "vultus tela vibrat" in the middle
> > of a long Latin poem address to Oxford. "Thy countenance
> > shakes spears" is not an impossible translation, but it
> > would not be the first one an educated Elizabethan
> > would have thought of.
>
> So what would be 'the first one an educated Elizabethan
> would have thought of'?
"Weapons."
> Or better -- what would be the
> second or third
"Darts" and "shafts."
> -- given Elizabethan predilections for alliteration and assonance --
> and allowing for Oxford's express wishes at the time for martial
> employment?
But that is just what is at issue in the poem. Harvey urges Oxford to put
away his feeble pen and bloodless books, to imagine that England is under
some dire threat from Hannibal or Don John, and to ready himself for
fighting, even in a time of peace. He is asked (in the longest section of
the poem, a part that Ward didn't get around to translating) to follow the
example of Philopoemon, who, even in peacetime imagines that the features
of the landscape are part of a potential battlefield. Harvey does not
know (nobody at this time knows) whether Oxford would be up to the
challenge, should it ever arise, but Harvey envisions an Oxford who could
be. Alas, his behavior at the time of England's greatest peril later
demonstrated that he was not up to it.
>
> Terry Ross writes elsewhere in this thread:
> > The poem has been
> > reprinted once since the 16th Century, in Thomas Jameson's 1938
> > dissertation "The *Gratulationes Valdinenses* of Gabriel Harvey." Harvey
> > translates the line Paul is trying to refer to as "your glance shoots
> > arrows."
>
> This is an appalling translation. Who wants to be told
> that ' your glance shoots arrows'? What does it mean?
Why is it an appalling translation? Harvey has given us a blazon of a
hypothetically warlike Oxford: The war god Bellona rules over his body;
the war goddess Minerva lies in his right hand, blood boils in his breast,
Mars seizes his mouth. "Your glance shoots arrows" seems apt enough. We
are, Paul, in the realms of exaggeration and metaphor. By the way, just
how much of Harvey's poem have you read? If you want to see an appalling
translation, look at Ward's rendering of "artesque forenses" as "and the
arts of foreign countries." Perhaps Ward though that law was a forensic
art because it was only practiced by foreigners.
> That you're green with envy or jealousy?
I'd say he's probably flushed red with all the bellicosity popping out all
over his body. It's hard not to take the lines as mock-heroic.
> We can discount Jameson's efforts as a transparent attempt NOT to
> translate 'vibrat' as 'shake' nor 'tela' as 'spear'. (No doubt, he was
> hopeful of going on to better things such as becoming a Shakespearean
> 'scholar'.)
By "no doubt" I assume you mean that you are speaking with 100% ignorance
of the matter, having never seen Harvey's *Gratulationes Valdinenses* or
Jameson's translation. Your "discount" seems to be that of an Oxfordian
coupon clipper, who feels empowered to "discount" any scholarship that
does not agree with Oxfordian blundering (and Ward's translation is
laughably bad).
One reason not to translate "tela" as "spear" is that "tela" is plural;
there are cases when the plural form may be construed with a singular
meaning, but why should we do so in this instance? More to the point, we
can be pretty sure that readers in Harvey's day would not have reacted the
way the Oxfordian view requires that they would have: for Oxfordians "thy
countenance shake[s a] spear[s]" was the inevitable English rendering that
must have occurred to any reader of Harvey's poem.
Remember, if you can, the burden Oxfordians labor under: they need to
demonstrate that their laddie was ever at any time by anyone referred to
as Shakespeare -- or, indeed, by any other pseudonym. The reason they
hold fast to Ward is that if they misread his mistranslation outlandishly
enough, they can persuade themselves either that Harvey knew Oxford was
already using the moniker "Shakespeare" or that Harvey inspired Oxford to
use the name by his insistent association of Oxford with shaking and
spears. Neither of these alternatives was the case, but
Oxfordians cling now to one and now to the other. Nowhere does
Harvey ever suggest that Oxford was Shakespeare or that he was known as
"Shakespeare" or that he had any pseudonym at all. Nor is there in his
poem to Oxford that "insistent association" that exists only in Ward's
mistranslation.
Harvey's poem is in dactylic hexameter. His diction is classical. He
more than once uses such distinctively Ovidian terms as "tonans"
("thunderer") for Jupiter. I have matched every instance of "tela" in the
*Metamorphoses* and *Aeneid*, the greatest Latin works in dactylic
hexameter, with their corresponding English terms in Golding's Ovid and
the Phaer/Twynne Virgil (I also compared the Vulgate to the Douay-Rheims
bible), and I can on that basis say that "spear" or "spears" would have
been a very unlikely Elizabethan translation for "tela." The Oxfordian
view, which is based not on any checking into Elizabethan translations but
on a misreading of Ward, insists that "spear" is the inevitable
translation.
>
> Can any of the poetical Strats around here do better?
> The criteria are:
> (1) some alliteration
> (2) some assonance
> (3) a martial reference
> (4) it must be strongly complimentary.
I think the first criterion should be accuracy, something that was not
Ward's strong suit. If you wish to impose additional criteria, then you
can use "your face waves weapons" for "vultus / tela vibrat" This has
alliteration, assonance, a martial reference, is as complimentary as
Ward's version, and is a more accurate rendering of the original.
There is nothing in the text to specify the kind of weapon that Oxford's
face is brandishing. Jameson's version is apt enough, but one could also
reasonably translate "tela" as "darts" or (if you are wedded to "shakes")
"shafts." "Darts," "arrows," and "shafts" are more common Elizabethan
translations of "tela" than "spear" or "spears." Now, if Harvey had
depicted Oxford on horseback, we could have translated it as "your look
levels lances" which should be more than enough alliteration even for you.
> Good luck -- and sometime before 2000 a.d. please.
Sometime before 2000 A.D. some Oxfordian may not only consult Jameson's
work but even admit to doing so -- but I doubt it. The only Oxfordian I
know of who can be proven to have seen Jameson cannot bring himself to
admit it, and such Oxfordians as Paul will dismiss it out of hand because
they prefer to live in a cloud of Ogburnian unknowing.
paul streitz
1. "Shakespeare" was by far the most common spelling of the name in
both literary and non-literary contexts, and there is no significant
difference in spelling patterns when we take into account such factors
as handwritten vs. printed and Stratford vs. London spellings;
This is simply not true. There are significant differences. First,
Kathman omits differences by time period. There are no spellings
of "William Shakespeare" before 1593, to start. There are differences
between whether the name is used in regards to himself and family
(will, wife, names of children, monument of tomb) etc. Even the
Elizabethan Review concluded as such.
Yes, praise to Kathman for his list and its accuracy, but his
conclusions are simply not born out by his own list. Continuing to
defend Kathman for his wished for, but not supportable conclusions,
seems to me be a defense of the undefensible, and again Stratfordian
religious dogman. From your point of view, the man from Stratford
wrote the works, therefore his name must be Shakespeare, therefore any
variations are due to Elizabethan spelling patterns, and what do they
matter anyway because they would be pronounced the same, despite the
recognition of the will writer of rule of the silent "e."
While one can admire your scholarship on many other issues. This seems
to be reflex defense of your compatriot.
paul streitz
paul streitz
Thanks for your lengthy reply, let me take some time to digest it. And
I will get back to you.
PFStreitz
contemporary documents? This seems to me to be an essential first step: first,
get a complete list. <<
Agreed. This is exactly what I said to Kathman months before. I also pointed
out that he should include the names of Shakspere's children, wife, family
members , etc. Also include the spellings of his father's name. Right agreed.
Have Kathman produce a complete list. But he has refused to do this. He
claims that his list of "William's" names only. But I would thinkl it very
relevant how a man named his children. How is wife spelt her married name,
etc., as indications that of how the man spelt his name, and as a consequence
pronounced it.
Look, I am tired of this thread as far as the name goes. If Kathman doesn't
want to produce a complete list as a subject for investigation, then let's end
thisd discussion.
paul streitz
Nigel Davies
> > Harvey
> > translates the line Paul is trying to refer to as "your glance shoots
> > arrows."
>
> This is an appalling translation. Who wants to be told
> that ' your glance shoots arrows'? What does it mean?
It's rather like "There's daggers in men's smiles". Or "If looks could kill". Or
"His looks could kill at 20 paces". It's a perfectly acceptable and meaningful
phrase.
What is bewildering is what "thy countenance shakes spears" could mean. What
sense can be made out of, and who would want to be told that, "spears would
shake by someone looking at them"? It's ridiculous and meaningless.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Terry Ross
> >Why not look at every contemporary occurrence of William Shakespeare's name in
> contemporary documents? This seems to me to be an essential first step: first,
> get a complete list. <<
>
> Agreed. This is exactly what I said to Kathman months before.
It is exactly what Dave has done.
> I also pointed out that he should include the names of Shakspere's
> children, wife, family members , etc. Also include the spellings of
> his father's name. Right agreed.
That could also be done; what's stopping you? Obviously you cannot claim
that the spelling "Shakespeare" did not exist before 1593 since you now
know that "Shakespeare" was used of John Shakespeare in 1569 and 1573, and
that John's name (as Dave has told you) was spelled "Shakespere" dozens
of times before 1593 -- or is it your contention that Shakespeare's father
also assumed a "pseudonym"?
> Have Kathman produce a complete list. But he has refused to do this.
> He claims that his list of "William's" names only.
Dave has produced a complete list. It is a list of every instance of
William Shakespeare's name. I don't know what infirmity prevents you from
doing the additional work that might be involved in producing the list
that YOU now want.
> But I would thinkl it very relevant how a man named his children.
He named them Susanna, Hamnet, and Judith.
> How is wife spelt her married name, etc., as indications that of how
> the man spelt his name, and as a consequence pronounced it.
So you think his wife spelled her married name in a variety of ways?
> Look, I am tired of this thread as far as the name goes. If Kathman
> doesn't want to produce a complete list as a subject for
> investigation, then let's end thisd discussion.
Dave has produced a complete list. If you wish to produce some other
list, then by all means, do so. I might be interested in seeing it
myself. The original anti-Stratfordian claim, however, was that William
Shakespeare of Stratford had a different name from William Shakespeare the
playwright. The claim was that the "two" people could be distinguished on
the basis of the spellings of their names. This claim is demonstrably
false. The practice of some Oxfordians to use the name "Shaksper" for
William Shakespeare of Stratford and "Shakespeare" for the playwright is
fundamentally dishonest ("Shaksper" was used exactly once for Shakespeare
of Stratford and exactly once for Shakespeare the writer; "Shakespeare"
was the most common spelling of the name for both Shakespeare of Stratford
and for Shakespeare the writer).
Of course you're tired of the thread. I'm sure you're also tired of the
Eva Turner Clark dating thread. You will soon tire of the "hasti-vibrans"
thread. Oxfordians on this newsgroup also seem to have tired of the
Peacham thread. This thread-fatigue seems to set in when Oxfordians begin
to grasp that on yet one more point the evidence is against them.
For the life of me I cannot understand why Oxfordians will accuse Dave or
me of behaving as if we are in the grip of a disabling mindset that blinds
us to the "evidence" about Oxford and then these same people will ask Dave
or me to do more spadework for them. I guess it's flattering in a way.
Paul knows that he cannot trust what the Oxfordians tell him, and while he
doesn't want to believe what Dave tells him, he still trusts Dave more
than he trusts himself or his fellows.
It's really very touching.
Paul Crowley
> > > Gabriel Harvey never said "thy countenance shakes spears"
> > > to Oxford. He wrote "vultus tela vibrat" in the middle
> > > of a long Latin poem address to Oxford. "Thy countenance
> > > shakes spears" is not an impossible translation, but it
> > > would not be the first one an educated Elizabethan
> > > would have thought of.
> >
> > So what would be 'the first one an educated Elizabethan
> > would have thought of'?
>
> "Weapons."
>
> > Or better -- what would be the
> > second or third
>
> "Darts" and "shafts."
<snips>
"your face waves weapons" for "vultus / tela vibrat" This has
> alliteration, assonance, a martial reference, is as complimentary as
> Ward's version, and is a more accurate rendering of the original.
> There is nothing in the text to specify the kind of weapon that Oxford's
> face is brandishing. Jameson's version is apt enough, but one could also
> reasonably translate "tela" as "darts" or (if you are wedded to "shakes")
> "shafts." "Darts," "arrows," and "shafts" are more common Elizabethan
> translations of "tela" than "spear" or "spears." Now, if Harvey had
> depicted Oxford on horseback, we could have translated it as "your look
> levels lances" which should be more than enough alliteration even for you.
Great Terry, you've obviously got a talent for this sort
of thing.
Now how about some suitable pseudonyms for Oxford
assuming, just for the moment, that he wanted to combine
the literary to the martial image, and that he was using
Harvey's poem as a starting point.
"Will Wavesweapons" or "Will Looklevellances" somehow
don't ring right. "Ivan Arrowshaft" is too Russian as well
embodying no action. I think we need "Will" with a verb-nown
surname (with alliteration and assonance, of course). But I'm
no good at these sorts or word games. I look forward to
your suggestions. --- Or those from anyone else.
Paul.
Terry Ross
> Terry, this is what Kathman says
>
> 1. "Shakespeare" was by far the most common spelling of the name in
> both literary and non-literary contexts, and there is no significant
> difference in spelling patterns when we take into account such factors
> as handwritten vs. printed and Stratford vs. London spellings;
>
> This is simply not true. There are significant differences. First,
> Kathman omits differences by time period. There are no spellings
> of "William Shakespeare" before 1593, to start.
There are only four instances at all before 1593. Here is every pre-1593
entry from Dave's list:
1582 (Entry of License in the Bishop of Worcester's Register; Nov. 27)
"Wm Shaxpere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 70)
1582 (Bond of Sureties; Nov. 28)
"William Shagspere"
(handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 63)
1588 (Bill of complaint in Queen's Bench case of Shakespeare v. Lambert)
"Willielmo Shackespere"
"Willielmo Shackespere" (in same document, John's surname
spelled "Shackespere" (11x),
"Shackspere" (2x), "Shackspeare" (1x)
(handwritten) (EKC II, 35)
The pre-1593 spellings are "Wm Shaxpere", "William Shagspere", "Willielmo
Shackespere", and "Willielmo Shackespere". All four are handwritten. I
assume you accept all four as referring to William Shakespeare of
Stratford. Two of the four include the middle "e" that you think is a
sign that the name was pronounced differently from the name without that
"e." By your reasoning, then, William Shakespeare of Stratford must have
assumed the playwright's "pseudonym" with its "different pronunciation" by
1588.
> There are differences between whether the name is used in regards to
> himself and family (will, wife, names of children, monument of tomb)
> etc. Even the Elizabethan Review concluded as such.
"Even the Elizabethan Review"? Please. Anybody, relying on Dave's lists,
is free to group the spellings any way he or she likes. I have yet to see
any interpretation of the data superior to Dave's. The original
anti-Stratfordian claim (another "greatest hit" of the Baconians that has
been swiped by the Oxfordians) was that Shakespeare of Stratford and
Shakespeare the playwright had different names that could be distinguished
by spelling. I should think that the presence of any overlap at all
between the spellings of Shakespeare of Stratford's name and the spellings
of Shakespeare the playwright's name would be sufficient to invalidate
this notion. Dave, however, has gone beyond that and shown that
Shakespeare of Stratford's name was spelled with your "magic 'e'" in 71%
of the instances and Shakespeare the writer's name was spelled with your
"magic 'e'" 88% of the time.
> Yes, praise to Kathman for his list and its accuracy, but his
> conclusions are simply not born out by his own list.
Sure they are; you just need to read more carefully.
> Continuing to defend Kathman for his wished for, but not supportable
> conclusions, seems to me be a defense of the undefensible, and again
> Stratfordian religious dogman.
Dave's lists and essay on the spelling and pronunciation of the name are
not, of course, matters of religious dogma, but many religious dogmas are
quite defensible. Have you never heard of theology? Milton was not the
only poet who attempted to justify the ways of God to man. You may have
no religious beliefs yourself, but your suggestion that all religious
dogmas are indefensible smacks of bigotry.
> From your point of view, the man from Stratford wrote the works,
> therefore his name must be Shakespeare, therefore any variations are
> due to Elizabethan spelling patterns, and what do they matter anyway
> because they would be pronounced the same, despite the recognition of
> the will writer of rule of the silent "e."
This is false. Before I saw Dave's lists, while I was aware that there
was considerable variation in the spelling of Shakespeare's name (and of
Henslowe's and Spenser's and Marlowe's and Sidney's and Gascoigne's and
the names of many other notables of the time), I did not know whether
"first 'e'" spellings were predominant in references both to Shakespeare
of Stratford and to Shakespeare the playwright.
> While one can admire your scholarship on many other issues. This seems
> to be reflex defense of your compatriot.
Dave's got the goods on this one; there's no need for the reflex to come
into play at all.
PFStreitz
>entry from Dave's list:
>
>1582 (Entry of License in the Bishop of Worcester's Register; Nov. 27)
> "Wm Shaxpere"
> (handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 70)
>
>1582 (Bond of Sureties; Nov. 28)
> "William Shagspere"
> (handwritten) (EKC II, 41; facs. SS, 63)
>
>1588 (Bill of complaint in Queen's Bench case of Shakespeare v. Lambert)
> "Willielmo Shackespere"
> "Willielmo Shackespere" (in same document, John's surname
> spelled "Shackespere" (11x),
> "Shackspere" (2x), "Shackspeare" (1x)
> (handwritten) (EKC II, 35)
Exactly, there is no "William Shakespeare" before 1593. I could not agree
more. One can give whatever reasons, but before 1593 the man from Stratford
never spelled his name "Shakespeare."
paul streitz
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
What you mean, Paul, is that before 1593 we have no records of
William Shakespeare's being referred to as, "Shakespeare." However,
his father's name is recorded with that spelling more than once, so--
if we want to go out on a limb and claim that he took his father's
name--we DO have records of his name's being spelled that way. Not
that it matters. It is clear that the bumpkin and the poet shared
the same cluster of names.
--Bob G.
PFStreitz
if we want to go out on a limb and claim that he took his father's name--we DO
have records of his name's being spelled that way.
Where is it recorded? In what is it recorded? Exactly how is it recorded?
Maltus refers to "John Shakespeare" doing this and that but when you look at
the actual inscription it is something else. Several Stratfordians have said
it was spelled "Shakespeare" but there are no listings. Further, one has to
make sure that the listing is not an attribution to "Shakespeare," but in fact
the actual document is the graphic reveals something else.
I have yet to see one specific recording of "John Shakespeare."
paul streitz
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
1552 April 29 "John Shakyspere" charged with making a refuse heap 1557
John "Shakyspeyr."
1557? "Johannem Shakespere," Other records of the name in Stratford and
vicinity include a reference to the estate of Richard Shakespeare
mentioning his son
1558 "John Shakespeyr" reference as a constable
1556 Gilbertus filius Johannis Shakespeare" christening of
Shakespeare's brother
1558 "John Shakespeyr" reference as a constable
1556 "Gilbertus filius Johannis Shakespeare,"
1563, "Margareta filia Johannis Shakespeare," birth record of
Shakspere's sister
1567 reference to John Shakespeare as "Mr. Shakespeyr," 1570 "John
Shappere alias Shakespere de Stratford upon Haven." of lending money at
interest (usury)
1571 January 21 1571 to April 2, 1572, Rogers (clerk) spelled the name
"Shakespere;" thereafter "Shaxpere"
1572 "John Shakspere" acccused of illegal wool dealing 1590 "Johannes
Shakespere." list of tenants of the Earl of Warwick, one finds
Shakespeare's father
1592 "John Shakespere" listed as not attending church
Dave Kathman
>
> PFStreitz wrote:
> > I am not sure these are right. The way the listings are done, they
> > seem to attribute spellings to Shakespeare, but then sometimes the
> > actual graphic says something different.
>
> > For example in the Norton edition of Shakespeare, it lists Susan
> > Shakespeare, but when I found the actual graphic, it was not
> > "Shakespeare."
> >
> > That's my problem. Who has a list that does not gloss over
> > inconsistencies?
> >
> > paul streitz
> >
> I would imagine we need not a list but photographs of all the written
> versions of the name. I've no idea where you could get one.
In my lists of written instances of William Shakespeare's
name, I include references to photographs of the record
in question, where these are available. Many of them
are available in Samuel Schoenbaum's *William Shakespeare:
A Documentary Life* and *William Shakespeare: Records
and Images*.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
PFStreitz
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
I would imagine we need not a list but photographs of all the written
versions of the name. I've no idea where you could get one. Meanwhile,
I would take the interpretations of those in the field as to what was
written before I'd take your because (1) they have more experience than
you and (2) it's clear from the many ways they spell the name that they
are sincerely trying to get each spelling right.
PFStreitz
Thanks for the post. I will look at both books.
paul streitz
cyndi...@my-deja.com
pfst...@aol.com (PFStreitz) wrote:
> I am not sure these are right. The way the listings are done, they
seem to
> attribute spellings to Shakespeare, but then sometimes the actual
graphic says
> something different.
>
> For example in the Norton edition of Shakespeare, it lists Susan
Shakespeare,
> but when I found the actual graphic, it was not "Shakespeare."
>
> That's my problem. Who has a list that does not gloss over
inconsistencies?
>
> paul streitz
>
My personal opinion, Shakespeare was a woman:
http://members.juara.com/integrity/shakes.htm
maybe that's why she kept her identity a secret
cyndi...@my-deja.com
pfst...@aol.com (PFStreitz) wrote:
> I am not sure these are right. The way the listings are done, they
seem to
> attribute spellings to Shakespeare, but then sometimes the actual
graphic says
> something different.
>
> For example in the Norton edition of Shakespeare, it lists Susan
Shakespeare,
> but when I found the actual graphic, it was not "Shakespeare."
>
> That's my problem. Who has a list that does not gloss over
inconsistencies?
>
> paul streitz
>
http://members.juara.com/integrity/shakes.htm