Best authorship attribution credentials
book...@yahoo.com
from at www.mayrysydney.com.
(quote)
Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets—she is the most
articulate, literate, educated, and motivated writer of the times with
hundreds of connections to the source materials of the plays, and her
love life matches the sonnet story. Because she was a woman, however,
she was not allowed to write plays for the public theater.
(unquote)
Here are some other leading attributes of Mary Herbert I find that
rank her a significant candidate to have written the canon.
1. She was an especially talented Renaissance Woman, allowed to be as
accomplished as Queen Elizabeth in languages, sports, musical
instruments, medical training, and mathematics. She knew John Dee,
studied symbolic geometry and alchemy, and wrote letters to friends in
musical code.
2. She, like Bacon, had literary goals for England.
a. She completed and published her brother, Phillip Sydney,
signal works on The Defense of Poetry, etc..
a. She was patron of the most important literary circle in
English history: the Wilton Circle.
b. She is known to have influenced Donne, Marvell, Herebert, and
Milton, although seemingly not Shakespeare.
3. She was the first woman to publish a play in English, publish
original dramatic verse, and not apologize for publishing her
work.
4. Scholars find links to Shakespeare in the sonnets and FF,
and her work is known to be used as a source in the canon.
I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
bookburn
Alan Jones
<book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j529t313nh1m74n52...@4ax.com...
[...]
>
> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
What was her practical knowledge and experience of the public stage?
Alan Jones
Tom Veal
> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> (quote)
> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
The "anomaly" is that evidence survives concerning Mary Sidney
Herbert's taste in drama, both in her own translations and her
brother's writings. Those tastes are distinctly non-Shakespearean. Two
lesser, but perhaps significant, points are her residence well away
from London and her husband's enmity toward the Earl of Essex, to whom
Shakespeare pays tribute in "Henry V".
Oh, and one might want to take note of the works that the countess
left behind under her own name, which aren't wretched (better than the
Earl of Oxenford's poetry) but scarcely of the Bard's caliber and
infused with a conventional Protestant piety that he never displayed.
book...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Okay, she evidently sponsored an acting troop, so that's a start. I
was wondering how close she was to Oxford and his similar vocation.
I'll check a few sources and get back on this. bb
>
book...@yahoo.com
I can find evidence in Shakespeare of his indebtedness to studies in
pastoral traditions and familiarity with Bible verse. Perhaps this
comes down to evaluating one example, if you would care to suggest it.
Would it be her published play?
> Two
>lesser, but perhaps significant, points are her residence well away
>from London and her husband's enmity toward the Earl of Essex, to whom
>Shakespeare pays tribute in "Henry V".
I find colorful commentary accounting for her relations with Essex and
others under the heading of romantic adventures, which seem very
bizarre and arcane, including the escapades of her two sons who
consorted with James. Part of the reason she may have hidden her
authorship is suggested to be about what is alluded to in the canon.
>Oh, and one might want to take note of the works that the countess
>left behind under her own name, which aren't wretched (better than the
>Earl of Oxenford's poetry) but scarcely of the Bard's caliber and
>infused with a conventional Protestant piety that he never displayed.
Your point on "conventional Protestant piety of style" noted for
future reference. Of course, one wonders if she was burdened by
standards of writing assumed necessary for noble women when writing in
her own name, and did she adopt other standards for communicating with
the public as a playwright? Possibly a comparative study of her
imagery would reveal more on "caliber" and "conventional piety." I'm
going to try to find a sonnet she wrote and post it here with one of
Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon, and Shakespeare, just for fun. bb
book...@yahoo.com
A survey of available info on the Internet turns up the following
about her knowledge and experience of the public stage:
a. The play she wrote, a closet drama, The Tragedy of Antonie
(1592), Shakespeare may have used as source material for his Antony
and Cleopatra (1607).
b. She was not only a patron of the arts, but of dramatists,
mostly of the university wits sort.
c. She had plays performed at Wilton in Wiltshire, whose archives
are said to have once held "Mary’s letter to her son, sent in 1606,
saying “We have the man Shakespeare here – bring King James!” And that
Heminges received thirty pounds (a huge amount) for the King’s Men’s
performance of “As You Like It” played at Wilton."
d. Her brother, Philip Sidney, had London theater involvement.
http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
>>
book...@yahoo.com
Furthermore, about her tastes in drama, I discover the following.
1. Robin P. Williams, Samuel Shoenbaum, and Fred Faulkes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney#Life_and_work
suggest that computer analysis of the canon has Warwickshire words
and imagery of kitchen gardens. Her natural taste is for a very
extensive variety of verse forms.
An Internet bibliography with clickable sites at the above includes:
1. General:
luminarium.org The Works of Mary (Sidney) Herbert – for some of the
original texts and Psalms
Noel Kinnamon's website on Mary Sidney
2. Shakespearean authorship question:
Anne Underwood - "Was the Bard a woman?" in Newsweek International,
June 2004.
Mary Sidney website by Robin P. Williams
Robin P. Williams's Mary Sidney Society website
Fred Faulkes's Tiger Heart Chronicles website
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney"
I would also mention that in the course of her literary career,
involving not only a plan to develop English poetry but intent
communication with leading writiers and poets, that her tastes would
be expected to develop significantly, perhaps in line with those of
Shakepseare.
>> Two
>>lesser, but perhaps significant, points are her residence well away
>>from London and her husband's enmity toward the Earl of Essex, to whom
>>Shakespeare pays tribute in "Henry V".
>
>I find colorful commentary accounting for her relations with Essex and
>others under the heading of her romantic adventures, which seem very
>bizarre and arcane, including the escapades of her two sons who
>consorted with James. Part of the reason she may have hidden her
>authorship is suggested to be about what is alluded to in the canon.
>
>>Oh, and one might want to take note of the works that the countess
>>left behind under her own name, which aren't wretched (better than the
>>Earl of Oxenford's poetry) but scarcely of the Bard's caliber and
>>infused with a conventional Protestant piety that he never displayed.
>
>Your point on "conventional Protestant piety of style" noted for
>future reference. Of course, one wonders if she was burdened by
>standards of writing assumed necessary for noble women when writing in
>her own name, and did she adopt other standards for communicating with
>the public as a playwright? Possibly a comparative study of her
>imagery would reveal more on "caliber" and "conventional piety." I'm
>going to try to find a sonnet she wrote and post it here with one of
>Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon, and Shakespeare, just for fun. bb
Here's a comment on women's conventionally pius style and Mary's
burden by it; from
http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
During Mary’s early lifetime, women “were strongly discouraged from
literary activity, even any public self-assertion”. As with some
Shakespeare heroines, her poetic skills and her powers of creative
synthesis allowed her, through say the Psalms male voices, “to speak
most for herself when speaking as another”.
bb
Tom Veal
of Avon", but I didn't get around to finishing a review. Maybe I'll
get busy on it now.
If you look at your own replies closely, you'll see that you're
already explaining away anomalies, just as the advocates of all the
other non-Stratfordian Shakespeares have to do.
On Mar 10, 7:27 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 1. Robin P. Williams, Samuel Shoenbaum, and Fred Faulkeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sidney#Life_and_work
> suggest that computer analysis of the canon has Warwickshire words
> and imagery of kitchen gardens. Her natural taste is for a very
> extensive variety of verse forms.
>
> An Internet bibliography with clickable sites at the above includes:
>
> 1. General:
> luminarium.org The Works of Mary (Sidney) Herbert - for some of the
> burden by it; fromhttp://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
book...@yahoo.com
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:05:10 -0700 (PDT), Tom Veal
<Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Robin Williams' publicist sent me an unsolicited copy of "Sweet Swan
>of Avon", but I didn't get around to finishing a review. Maybe I'll
>get busy on it now.
Doing an actual book review sounds incisive. I'll be hoping to see it
and other's comments on it, as I try to get the gist of what
Schoenbaum and Faulkes also say. The latest view published about the
MSH authorship attribution seems to be Anne Underwood, "Was the Bard a
woman?" in Newsweek International, June 2004, so I want to see that. I
admire MSH for what I know about her legend, and the titles of these
published studies sound interesting, too. She really is an under-
rated subject to study, even apart from her links to Shakespeare.
>If you look at your own replies closely, you'll see that you're
>already explaining away anomalies, just as the advocates of all the
>other non-Stratfordian Shakespeares have to do.
I, myself, am only responding to what seem to be leading questions
about the proposition of MSH's attribution, at this point. As I carry
on, perhaps I can, indeed, bring up corresponding anomalies about the
other candidates also. Hopefully, I can at least bringing forward some
of what critics have focused on in dealing with the MSH attribution
since the 19th C., as I suppose Williams, Schoenbaum, and Faulkes are
doing. Then I can conclude with what Bate, Vickers, and others are
saying now.
lackpurity
> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> (quote)
> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> justify.
MM:
That's a good one. LOL
> Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
> authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets--she is the most
> articulate, literate, educated, and motivated writer of the times with
> hundreds of connections to the source materials of the plays, and her
> love life matches the sonnet story. Because she was a woman, however,
> she was not allowed to write plays for the public theater.
> (unquote)
>
> Here are some other leading attributes of Mary Herbert I find that
> rank her a significant candidate to have written the canon.
>
> 1. She was an especially talented Renaissance Woman, allowed to be as
> accomplished as Queen Elizabeth in languages, sports, musical
> instruments, medical training, and mathematics. She knew John Dee,
> studied symbolic geometry and alchemy, and wrote letters to friends in
> musical code.
>
> 2. She, like Bacon, had literary goals for England.
> a. She completed and published her brother, Phillip Sydney,
> signal works on The Defense of Poetry, etc..
> a. She was patron of the most important literary circle in
> English history: the Wilton Circle.
> b. She is known to have influenced Donne, Marvell, Herebert, and
> Milton, although seemingly not Shakespeare.
MM:
I'm sure there was a mutual influence, Shakespeare/Mary Sidney.
> 3. She was the first woman to publish a play in English, publish
> original dramatic verse, and not apologize for publishing her
> work.
>
> 4. Scholars find links to Shakespeare in the sonnets and FF,
> and her work is known to be used as a source in the canon.
>
> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
> bookburn
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
I basically agree with what you've written. Masters have one thing in
common, they come to teach us the truth about our relationship with
the Creator, and to take us Home. That is what makes them great. For
example, hypothetically we could have two Masters and they are both
bricklayers. One might be a better bricklayer than the other. Still,
they would be equal from a spiritual POV. I know that we are
discussing authorship, here, but I just wanted to point out that both,
Mary Sidney and Shakespeare, were more than just writers.
Mary Sidney Herbert was a Holy Lady, and she was constantly obeying
the Supreme Being. That could have been the reason for the
"Protestant Piety," angle in her works. After all, from the Creator's
POV, the comedies and tragedies angle had been pretty well-covered by
Marlowe, and I know we're discussing the canon of Shakespeare, as
well.
Masters can have different talents, but be equal spiritually. For
example, Bacon had a talent with science. They just use their talents
to the max in order to carry out the Lord's work. Donne had his
talents, and Aemilia Lanyer had hers.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:14:22 -0800, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:44 GMT, "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >>news:j529t313nh1m74n52...@4ax.com...
> >>[...]
>
> >>> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> >>> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> >>> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> >>> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> >>> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
> >>What was her practical knowledge and experience of the public stage?
>
> >>Alan Jones
>
> >Okay, she evidently sponsored an acting troop, so that's a start. I
> >was wondering how close she was to Oxford and his similar vocation.
> >I'll check a few sources and get back on this. bb
>
> A survey of available info on the Internet turns up the following
> about her knowledge and experience of the public stage:
>
> a. The play she wrote, a closet drama, The Tragedy of Antonie
> (1592), Shakespeare may have used as source material for his Antony
> and Cleopatra (1607).
> b. She was not only a patron of the arts, but of dramatists,
> mostly of the university wits sort.
> c. She had plays performed at Wilton in Wiltshire, whose archives
> are said to have once held "Mary's letter to her son, sent in 1606,
> Heminges received thirty pounds (a huge amount) for the King's Men's
> performance of "As You Like It" played at Wilton."
> d. Her brother, Philip Sidney, had London theater involvement.
>
> http://www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk/mary-sidney-herbert.htm
MM:
Since we are discussing possibilities here, I'd like to make a
suggestion. Remember what her brother said, regarding the writing of
"Arcadia?" He wrote that it was "her commandment," to write it. This
clearly indicates that Sir Philip Sidney knew that she was God in
human form. Now, what did God want to do? It seems that in her early
years, perhaps before she started writing herself, it was her desire
to SERVE Marlowe, Shakespeare, Sidney, Greville, and others. She
might have been content to let them be in the forefront. Later, she
might have received orders to write in the "Protestan Piety," style,
to which Tom Veal mentioned. This is just something to consider, I'd
say. Of course, I'm of the opinion that William Shakespeare of
Stratford wrote the canon.
Michael Martin
Christian Lanciai
bookb...@yahoo.com skrev:
With all due respect for Mary Sidney, the Countess of Pembroke,
certainly indispensable in the Shakespeare mystery, but I find it a
little difficult to associate the authorship of plays like "Othello",
"Macbeth" and "King Lear" with a lady.
Chris
book...@yahoo.com
<clan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>bookb...@yahoo.com skrev:
>> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
>> from at www.mayrysydney.com.
>>
>> (quote)
>> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
>> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
>> justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
>> authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets?she is the most
Of course, in the first place, it may not be necessary to argue that
she wrote the whole canon; I see that Robin Williams says she possibly
wrote the sonnets and some of the long poems and plays.
No question that there were caveats against a lady publishing, I
suppose more than Oxford faced, including serious social mores of the
times about women in general. One biography notes: "As a woman she
was barred from participating in his (her brother Sidney's) elaborate
funeral and from publishing in any of the volumes of elegies put out
by the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Leiden."
The irony is that she did complete her illustrious brother's
unfinished poems very well and assumed he mantle of critic, too. Would
it serve any purpose to ask if any other women who wrote psedonomously
as a man went undetected? If undetected, we wouldn't likely know.
Is it doubt about a lady doing tragedy when she wouldn't be familiar
with it? The way MSH assumed her dead brother's unfinished literary
work reminds me of Antigony. She had the deaths of relatives all
around her. A brother and three sisters all died young. Both parents
one year. Her own son died on the day his sister was born. I
understand she lived in seclusion because of a disfigured face that
once was beautiful, pocked by plague she may have got while nursing
Elizabeth's bout with it. Two of her famous sons were known to be
James's playboys, big-time.
If she was as passionate, direct, and familiar with people as they
say, this all seems a recipe for classical tragedy. Some of her life
reads like Anna Karenina. Her own published play, a closet drama, is
The Tragedy of Antonie (1592), which I haven't read so don't know how
it compares with Shakespeare's big four. bb
She apparently was a favorite of Elizabeth I's, who was another
woman breaking the mold.
If you really mean that ladies don't have it in their make-up to do
tragedy, but they might be able to do comedy, or something else, you
ought to have more
Christian Lanciai
The best examples of ladies capable of writing tragedies were perhaps
the Brontë sisters. Although both "Wuthering Heights" and "Jane Eyre"
end positively, they are great tragedies of men, in this case
Rochester and Heathcliff, but an even better example is Mary Shelley's
"Frankenstein", a great tragedy of a scientist. So ladies are indeed
not restricted in talent to write only comedies. Still, I find it
difficult to to put Mary Sidney and what we know of her in a mind to
be able to create such characters as the ravings of Othello, the
madness of king Lear and the Macbeth trap of power complexities. And
what about the passionate 'dark lady' sonnets?
C(hris)
book...@yahoo.com
There's an interesting study about the 16th C. “The Woman
Controversy”, sometimes as the querelle des femmes (“debate about
women”), described at http://members.cox.net/leeblouin/Lecture_20.htm
It seem both women and men were outspoken about their status, women as
"froward" and women replying with satire and mockery.
Most Mary Sidney Herbert biographers are attracted to the mystery of
the Dark Lady in the Sonnets and aspects of her life that relate to
it. I find an account of parts of it at
http//www.marysidney.com/pages .
(quote)
Scholars believe the Shakespearean sonnets tell the story of the
poet’s passionate affair with a younger man, who then had an affair
with a dark-haired, dark-eyed woman close to the poet’s heart. The
dark-haired woman was newly married, perhaps to a man named Will. No
one has ever been able to positively identify the younger man or the
dark-haired woman in relation to William Shakespeare (or any of the
other candidates).
But Mary’s documented love life has a striking resemblance to these
sonnets. After her husband died, Mary (43 years old) had an affair
with a younger man, Dr. Matthew Lister (33 years old), whom she could
not marry because of their differences in social status, but she was
with him for the rest of her life. There was strife in the
relationship, however, when she thought her younger lover was having
an affair with her dark-haired, dark-eyed niece, Mary Wroth (19 years
old and newly married), whom Mary Sidney had helped raise. It turns
out that Mary Wroth was not having an affair, however, with Dr.
Lister, but with Will Herbert (also newly married), Mary Sidney’s
oldest son.
(unquote)
Christian Lanciai
Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been her son William
Herbert. Next halt: would it then be possible, that a mother would
favour one of her sons with so many love sonnets while completely
ignoring the other, Philip, although they are both placed on a level
as the "Incomparable Pair" of the First Folio?
C(hris)
Peter Farey
Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> her son William Herbert.
As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
have been the poet who wrote it.
Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
because the initials of the person they think of as the
poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
way, I find it strange that so many of them happily join
the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
just throw it away.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Tom Reedy
wrote:
> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > her son William Herbert.
>
> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> have been the poet who wrote it.
What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
TR
> Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
> because the initials of the person they think of as the
> poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
>
> Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
> way, I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> just throw it away.
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
book...@yahoo.com
I suspect you're ahead of me on how noble Elizabethan players
navigated the field, so appreciate your pass of the ball as I look
toward the goal of getting something said about MSH, who was not just
a cheer leader. So far, there seems to be little opposition to my
having a kick or two, although no doubt some could defend their end
very well.
Mothers are a mystery to me, as I suspect they are to Shakespeare:
just look at how Coriolanus' mother, Volumnia, does him in with
patriotic gore, Gertrude is too self-centered to see herself as Hamlet
does, and R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
Looking up about Shakespeare's mothers to see what more can be told
about his treatment of mothers, possibly compared to MSH as a mother,
I see the Freudian psychoanalytic community notices his absent and
negative treatment of mothers, but positive treatment of fathers, and
especially fathers' treatment of daughters.
According to papers presented at a recent convention, reviewed at
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/16/6,
S's fleshed-out mothers are few, and those tend to be cruel,
neglectful, and cold, although strong women are also limned. The
attitude of psychiatry-oriented commentators is evidently that an
author does represent experiences from his/her own biography.
Just to whiff the depths of some jealous treatment of MSH, I suppose
it could serve to report on the kind of stuff she is said to have been
up to. After going this far down field, I may need to pass the ball
and avoid a couple tacklers.
1. On her voyeurism, John Baker says at his Marlowe site,
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/sonnets.htm:
(quote)
Mary's reputation has not survived in tact, indeed her first
biographer suggested that the father of her children was her own
brother. It would seem more likely to have been one of his close
friends or servants. Keep in mind that the theme of Venus and Adonis
involves a younger boy who is "inducted" or "induced" or "seduced"
into heterosexual matters by the lovely blond Venus, long known to
have been patterned on Mary Sidney Herbert.
As a matter of fact Venus and Mary share the salacious habit of
finding sexual enjoyment in watching their horses mate. Indeed much
of the poem caters to this perversion, as if it was devised by the
poet to appeal to Mary's tastes in these private matters.
(unquote)
Even at the Mary Sidney Society site
http://www.marysidneysociety.org/marysidney.html
the following is allowed mention, as if in proof of sorts.
(quote)
There has never been an explanation for why Ben Jonson (considered to
have been a protégé of Mary Sidney’s and definitely a close friend of
William Herbert’s) mentions a bawd and a whore and a mature
gentlewoman in the eulogy’s introduction.
(unquote)
2. About MSH as mother, the Mary Sidney Society also notes the
following.
(quote)
This same son [Will Herbert] acted as bawd for the King, effectively
changing the power structure at court by providing King James with a
new lover, George Villiers (who eventually became the Duke of
Buckingham), and thus procuring for himself the office of Lord
Chamberlain. Mary’s younger son, Philip Herbert, acted as whore to the
King in exchange for an earldom, a rare honor for a second son.
(unquote)
I begin to wonder if these are the "Incomparable Pair" associated with
publication of the FF and MSH an incomparable mother. The Oxfordian
scheme of incest and bawdy almost seems pale by comparison, especially
if, as they try to say, one of the Herberts was the result of an early
laison between her and Marlowe, who went to live with her after his
"death." Reminds me of Chaucer's Parson, "If gold rust, what shall
iron do?" bb
John W. Kennedy
> On Mar 14, 6:05 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>>
>>> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
>>> her son William Herbert.
>> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
>> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
>> have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
Foster's paper appears to be no longer on-line (except via JSTOR), but I
think I recall him adducing several instances in which a dedication was
signed by the publisher and the dedicatee was the author. In addition,
in period language, the "begetter" of a literary work is overwhelmingly
likely to mean the author, and "our ever-living poet" to mean God
(ποιητής, of course, literally means "maker"), and the "eternity
promised" to mean Christian salvation and Heaven. As far as I can
recall, the only weak point is in the necessary assumption that "W. H."
is a misprint for "W. S." or "W. SH.", but such errors do indeed exist
in other printed documents of the time.
Frankly, this is the /only/ theory I have ever seen that leaves intact
the fundamental likelihood that Thorpe was a human being writing in
English. No twisted metaphors, no tacit assumption that Shakespeare is
the Greatest Poet Who Ever Was or Ever Shall Be, and no riddles.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
John W. Kennedy
> ...R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
¿Que?
--
John W. Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it to
Windows?
book...@yahoo.com
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>book...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ...R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
>
>¿Que?
Well, here's what one of the psychiatrists said.
(quote)
In fact, mothers as fleshed-out characters are portrayed in only three
of Shakespeare's 39 plays, Dorothy Grunes pointed out. They are the
Duchess of York in "Richard III," Gertrude in "Hamlet," and Volumnia
in "Coriolanus."
Moreover, she continued, the three mothers "use their sons for their
own ends, for power or to play out their own intrapsychic conflicts.
They are cold, neglectful, or cruel," and their relationships with
their sons are tortured. For example, Volumnia exploits her son
Coriolanus to fulfill her own ambitions. The Duchess of York
externalizes her own failings onto her son Richard. Hamlet is unable
to tolerate his mother's having married his uncle.
(unquote)
Jim KQKnave
parts, from 2002. Here is part 1:
Message-ID: <20020512180541...@mb-mh.aol.com>
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
Tom Veal
Sidney Herbert hyothesis is now posted at
http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
On Mar 9, 7:27 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> (quote)
> Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
> authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets--she is the most
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Christian Lanciai wrote:
> > >
> > > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > > her son William Herbert.
> >
> > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> What other work of the era was published and dedicated to
> the author?
I don't know, Tom. Foster (having earlier pointed out that
this is not a 'dedication' as such) says "Prefatory greet-
ings to the author from friends and other well-wishers are,
admittedly, a familiar convention of Renaissance texts,
especially in books offered for public sale." He gives no
specific examples but, although it was after Shakespeare's
death, I would have thought that much of the introductory
material in the First Folio fitted his description quite
well, wouldn't you?
Personally, I would agree with John that Foster's interpre-
tation is the best one there is, but only as an explanation
of how most people were intended to read it at the time,
including the assumption that 'W.H.' was just a misprint
(similar to the word 'sieh' on the monument).
What I think may have been the true meaning, however, is
very different, and is written by someone who has had the
poems published as a gift to the poet, but who for obvious
reasons prefers to remain anonymous.
* "W.H." are the initials of the name under which the
"onlie begetter" (Marlowe) was living at the time.
* "That eternitie" is not eternal bliss, but the same
immortality the poet promised the addressee in sonnets
such as 81:
Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read,
And tongues to be your being shall rehearse
When all the breathers of this world are dead.
You still shall live - such virtue hath my pen -
Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
* "Our ever-living poet" is not God, but Marlowe, and plays
upon the fact that he is thought to be dead, but is in
fact still alive.
* The "well-wishing adventurer" is one of the first two
named members of the just-formed Virginia Company, either
the Earl of Southampton or the Earl of Pembroke.
* In the absence of a more esoteric meaning (such as what-
ever two Tau crosses might mean to the initiated) this is
still Thomas Thorpe, but only in the role of a message-
bearer for the real "well-wisher".
> > Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
> > because the initials of the person they think of as the
> > poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
> >
> > Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
> > way, I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> > the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> > highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> > which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> > just throw it away.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
book...@yahoo.com
<Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>FWIW, my review of "Sweet Swan of Avon", the book promoting the Mary
>Sidney Herbert hyothesis is now posted at
>http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
An interesting site to visit, too. Here's my note on the first part
of the review.
(quote)
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Random Reading (2): A Distaff Shakespeare?
(snip)
. . . . Suppose that we pretend for a moment that there is a
genuine mystery about the authorship of the plays attributed to
Shakespeare; is Mary Sidney Herbert a plausible candidate for the
role?
Robin Williams, whose account of Lady Pembroke’s accomplishments can
reasonably be described as worshipful, seems so thrilled by the idea
of a great female author that she neglects to notice that greatness
comes in many forms. Keats and Dickens were both great, but neither
could have written like the other. Similarly, the Countess of
Pembroke, on the available evidence, could not, or would not, have
written like Shakespeare.
. . . .
(snip)
TV in his review goes on to say:
(quote)
In other respects, too, Lady Pembroke’s known tastes and habits rub
incongruously against Shakespeare’s works. She was a staunch
Protestant whose faith comes across plainly in her writings. The plays
give scarcely any clues to the author’s religious stance.
The Countess’s imagery, in the words of her 20th Century editor,
“allude[s] to life at court, to the experiences of an aristocratic
wife, and to motherhood” [Mary Patterson Hannay, “Mary Herbert”,
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004)]. Miss Williams cherry
picks a few items (gardens, cooking, lawn bowling, antipathy toward
war) from Caroline Spurgeon’s Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells
Us (1935), with a view to demonstrating the author’s “feminine”
proclivities, but she doesn’t examine whether imagery characteristic
of Lady Pembroke’s attested writings is prominent in Shakespeare. So
far as I can tell, it isn’t.
(unquote)
Here is someone's comment on comparative analysis of styles, from
Talk: Mary Sidney, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Sidney
(quote)
I'm worried about this passage:
"A close examination of her writing style clearly demonstrates that
they are two different writers. Mary Sidney is predominently a
religious writer, interested in human and divine learning and
spirituality in all its aspects, while William Shakespeare's focus is
on the human personality, deception, love, passion and on "the surface
of the earth". Shakespeare's main inspiration was Ovid, but both
authors share a deep love for the Bible, for poetry, beauty and the
Classics."
Surely writing style is much different from the subject or topic about
which one writes, yet no citation or evidence is given in support of
the claim that there is a difference in writing style, but only a
difference in focus. It seems that if one were to write under a
pseudonym and also under one's real name, one could very well be doing
it because one wants to be publicly associated with some of the works
and not with others (i.e., Sidney could have wanted to be recognized
as a religious writer, and not as the largely political writer
Shakespeare was). Couldn't it be that Sidney did this intentionally?
This is far from my area of research, but I'd like to see some better
citations and a clearer NPOV. KSchutte 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(unquote)
I'm snipping the rest for now, after having lost my paragraph about
analyzing men and women's styles, but shall return. Are you up to
doing a review on Canadian librarian Fred Faulkes, The Tiger Heart
Chronicles (2007)? Maybe you should consider editing what's on
Wikipedia about MSH, too. bookburn
Jim KQKnave
Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
You have this strange habit of arguing like an
anti-strat when it suits you.
Your statment is misleading, because you make it sound
as though the author himself dedicated the work to
himself. In fact, Thorpe, the publisher, was in the habit of writing
dedications or other prefatory matter that included
someone involved in the publication. These examples
are from the footnote in Foster's paper:
The four dedications [by Thorpe] (each with an epigraph and epistle) are as
follows: (1) "TO HIS KIND, AND TRVE FRIEND: EDWARD BLVNT," in *Lucans
First Booke*; (2) "To a true fauorer of forward spirits, Maister
*John Florio*," in *Epictetus* (1610); (3) "TO THE HONORABLEST PATRON
OF MUSES AND GOOD MINDES, LORD WILLIAM, Earle of Pembroke [sic],
Knight of the Honourable Order &c.," in *St. Augustine*; and (4)
"TO THE RIGHT HO-/*norable* WILLIAM Earle of PEMBROKE, *Lord* Chamberlaine
to his Maiestie, one of his most Honora-/ *ble Priuie Counsell, and Knight*
of the most noble order of the Garter, &c.*," in *Epictetus* (1616).
The three anonymous prefaces that appear certainly to be Thorpe's,
from both internal and external evidence, are (1) "TO THE CHRI- / stian
Reader," in *The Handmaid of Repentance*; (2) "To the Reader of this
Apologie," in *Barnevels Apology*; and (3) "To the Reader," in
*A Christians Preparation*.
So you could ask, as in the case with the Blunt dedication
"What other publication is dedicated to a friend of the
publishers who had nothing to do with the writing of
the book itself"? But, in fact, that is what Thorpe did.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 6:05 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> >>> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> >>> her son William Herbert.
> >> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> >> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> >> have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
>
> Foster's paper appears to be no longer on-line (except via JSTOR), but I
> think I recall him adducing several instances in which a dedication was
> signed by the publisher and the dedicatee was the author.
I printed the essay or got a copy from Dave Kathman. I, too, thought
Foster cited instances of dedications by publishers to authors but
couldn't find any when I just now went through the essay. I skimmed
so could have missed them. I'm very sure, though, that I read about
instances someone found.
> In addition,
> in period language, the "begetter" of a literary work is overwhelmingly
> likely to mean the author, and "our ever-living poet" to mean God
> (ποιητής, of course, literally means "maker"), and the "eternity
> promised" to mean Christian salvation and Heaven. As far as I can
> recall, the only weak point is in the necessary assumption that "W. H."
> is a misprint for "W. S." or "W. SH.", but such errors do indeed exist
> in other printed documents of the time.
>
> Frankly, this is the /only/ theory I have ever seen that leaves intact
> the fundamental likelihood that Thorpe was a human being writing in
> English. No twisted metaphors, no tacit assumption that Shakespeare is
> the Greatest Poet Who Ever Was or Ever Shall Be, and no riddles.
I'm in total agreement with you, John. I consider the Foster essay
the best piece of Shakespeare-related detective work I've ever read--
except for Diana Price's finding that parenthesis marks in Jonson's
work indicate that the texts within them are to be taken as ironic.
And, needless to say, the Crowley Interpretation of the Sonnets.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
> In article <4e20e350-2b11-45ee-8adc-9a538bb6a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
>
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
>
> You have this strange habit of arguing like an
> anti-strat when it suits you.
No, I argue like Tom Reedy, and I am a Stratfordian, therefore I argue
like a Stratfordian--not just when it suits me, but all the time.
And I asked simple question, because I want to knwo the answer. Are
you saying asking simple questions is a deceptive, antiStratfordian
tactic?
> Your statment is misleading,
I did not make a statement; I asked a question.
> because you make it sound
> as though the author himself dedicated the work to
> himself.
I don't see how you get that from what I wrote, but then again, you
hallucinated that I made a statement, so I suppose there's no real
explanation available.
> In fact, Thorpe, the publisher, was in the habit of writing
> dedications or other prefatory matter that included
> someone involved in the publication. These examples
> are from the footnote in Foster's paper:
>
> The four dedications [by Thorpe] (each with an epigraph and epistle) are as
> follows: (1) "TO HIS KIND, AND TRVE FRIEND: EDWARD BLVNT," in *Lucans
> First Booke*; (2) "To a true fauorer of forward spirits, Maister
> *John Florio*," in *Epictetus* (1610); (3) "TO THE HONORABLEST PATRON
> OF MUSES AND GOOD MINDES, LORD WILLIAM, Earle of Pembroke [sic],
> Knight of the Honourable Order &c.," in *St. Augustine*; and (4)
> "TO THE RIGHT HO-/*norable* WILLIAM Earle of PEMBROKE, *Lord* Chamberlaine
> to his Maiestie, one of his most Honora-/ *ble Priuie Counsell, and Knight*
> of the most noble order of the Garter, &c.*," in *Epictetus* (1616).
> The three anonymous prefaces that appear certainly to be Thorpe's,
> from both internal and external evidence, are (1) "TO THE CHRI- / stian
> Reader," in *The Handmaid of Repentance*; (2) "To the Reader of this
> Apologie," in *Barnevels Apology*; and (3) "To the Reader," in
> *A Christians Preparation*.
I don't have time right now to look into this, but I will next week.
TR
>
> So you could ask, as in the case with the Blunt dedication
> "What other publication is dedicated to a friend of the
> publishers who had nothing to do with the writing of
> the book itself"? But, in fact, that is what Thorpe did.
>
> See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
>
> The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Tom Reedy
wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> > > > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > > > her son William Herbert.
>
> > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to
> > the author?
>
> I don't know, Tom. Foster (having earlier pointed out that
> this is not a 'dedication' as such) says "Prefatory greet-
> ings to the author from friends and other well-wishers are,
> admittedly, a familiar convention of Renaissance texts,
> especially in books offered for public sale." He gives no
> specific examples but, although it was after Shakespeare's
> death, I would have thought that much of the introductory
> material in the First Folio fitted his description quite
> well, wouldn't you?
Yes, I agree. So I suppose the "dedication" is supposed to be taken as
a short congratulatory piece from one friend to the other. that would
make more sense than a "dedication," although it does begin like one:
"To the . . . "
> Personally, I would agree with John that Foster's interpre-
> tation is the best one there is, but only as an explanation
> of how most people were intended to read it at the time,
> including the assumption that 'W.H.' was just a misprint
> (similar to the word 'sieh' on the monument).
IIRC, there is more than one state of the printing, indicating that
corrections were made during the course of the printing. It would be
instructive to determine which sheet the corrections were made on to
see if any of them were on the same sheet as the dedication (I know
it's nor really that, but it's been referred to as such I use the term
for convenience). If the dedication was on a sheet that had already
been broken up when the others were printed, there would have been no
opportunity to correct the misprint, of course.
I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back to this next
week.
TR
John W. Kennedy
> IIRC, there is more than one state of the printing, indicating that
> corrections were made during the course of the printing. It would be
> instructive to determine which sheet the corrections were made on to
> see if any of them were on the same sheet as the dedication (I know
> it's nor really that, but it's been referred to as such I use the term
> for convenience). If the dedication was on a sheet that had already
> been broken up when the others were printed, there would have been no
> opportunity to correct the misprint, of course.
I don't know about the 17th century, but the 18th generally did the
front matter last.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Christian Lanciai
snip of a few days...
>
> >Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been her son William
> >Herbert. Next halt: would it then be possible, that a mother would
> >favour one of her sons with so many love sonnets while completely
> >ignoring the other, Philip, although they are both placed on a level
> >as the "Incomparable Pair" of the First Folio?
>
> >C(hris)
>
> I suspect you're ahead of me on how noble Elizabethan players
> navigated the field, so appreciate your pass of the ball as I look
> toward the goal of getting something said about MSH, who was not just
> a cheer leader. So far, there seems to be little opposition to my
> having a kick or two, although no doubt some could defend their end
> very well.
>
> Mothers are a mystery to me, as I suspect they are to Shakespeare:
> just look at how Coriolanus' mother, Volumnia, does him in with
> patriotic gore, Gertrude is too self-centered to see herself as Hamlet
> does, and R III's mother who used him for her own ends.
>
> Looking up about Shakespeare's mothers to see what more can be told
> about his treatment of mothers, possibly compared to MSH as a mother,
> I see the Freudian psychoanalytic community notices his absent and
> negative treatment of mothers, but positive treatment of fathers, and
> especially fathers' treatment of daughters.
>
> S's fleshed-out mothers are few, and those tend to be cruel,
> neglectful, and cold, although strong women are also limned. The
> attitude of psychiatry-oriented commentators is evidently that an
> author does represent experiences from his/her own biography.
>
> Just to whiff the depths of some jealous treatment of MSH, I suppose
> it could serve to report on the kind of stuff she is said to have been
> up to. After going this far down field, I may need to pass the ball
> and avoid a couple tacklers.
>
>
> (quote)
> Mary's reputation has not survived in tact, indeed her first
> biographer suggested that the father of her children was her own
> brother. It would seem more likely to have been one of his close
> friends or servants. Keep in mind that the theme of Venus and Adonis
> involves a younger boy who is "inducted" or "induced" or "seduced"
> into heterosexual matters by the lovely blond Venus, long known to
> have been patterned on Mary Sidney Herbert.
>
> As a matter of fact Venus and Mary share the salacious habit of
> finding sexual enjoyment in watching their horses mate. Indeed much
> of the poem caters to this perversion, as if it was devised by the
> poet to appeal to Mary's tastes in these private matters.
> (unquote)
>
> the following is allowed mention, as if in proof of sorts.
>
> (quote)
> There has never been an explanation for why Ben Jonson (considered to
> have been a protégé of Mary Sidney's and definitely a close friend of
> William Herbert's) mentions a bawd and a whore and a mature
> gentlewoman in the eulogy's introduction.
> (unquote)
>
> 2. About MSH as mother, the Mary Sidney Society also notes the
> following.
>
> (quote)
> This same son [Will Herbert] acted as bawd for the King, effectively
> changing the power structure at court by providing King James with a
> new lover, George Villiers (who eventually became the Duke of
> Buckingham), and thus procuring for himself the office of Lord
> Chamberlain. Mary's younger son, Philip Herbert, acted as whore to the
> King in exchange for an earldom, a rare honor for a second son.
> (unquote)
>
> I begin to wonder if these are the "Incomparable Pair" associated with
> publication of the FF and MSH an incomparable mother. The Oxfordian
> scheme of incest and bawdy almost seems pale by comparison, especially
> if, as they try to say, one of the Herberts was the result of an early
> laison between her and Marlowe, who went to live with her after his
> "death." Reminds me of Chaucer's Parson, "If gold rust, what shall
> iron do?" bb
All this is extremely interesting but hardly answers my question, but
on the contrary increase the doubts as to Mary's possible authorship
of Shakespeare, especially when you consider *Shakespeare's*
particular almost hostile standing to mothers, there being only three
mother characters in the whole canon and all three quite unmotherly.
To this idiosyncracy should be added the particular case of MacDuff,
one of *Shakespeare's* most clearcut heroic and honest characters,
"born of no mother". A mother could hardly have penned plays of so
very unmotherly mother characters, if you pardon my gibe.
C(hris)
book...@yahoo.com
But I understand Lady Macduff as a comparison figure to Lady Macbeth
is motherly. Search skins show:
(quoting variously)
She and her home serve as contrasts to Lady Macbeth and the hellish
world of Inverness.
Lady Macduff represents all the good people slaughtered by Macbeth.
She loves her family, and is distressed at her husband's departure.
The murder of Duncan was essentially the death of his own loyalty;
the murder of Banquo the death of his conscience; the death of an
innocent woman and child the end of his own humanity.
(unquote)
I think we have to consider how adroitly Shakespeare manages these
aspects of plot in terms of mode of regard. Motherhood is
significantly there, if not always dwelled upon? bb
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I would agree with John that Foster's interpre-
> > tation is the best one there is, but only as an explanation
> > of how most people were intended to read it at the time,
> > including the assumption that 'W.H.' was just a misprint
> > (similar to the word 'sieh' on the monument).
>
> IIRC, there is more than one state of the printing,
> indicating that corrections were made during the course
> of the printing. It would be instructive to determine
> which sheet the corrections were made on to see if any
> of them were on the same sheet as the dedication (I know
> it's nor really that, but it's been referred to as such
> I use the term for convenience). If the dedication was
> on a sheet that had already been broken up when the
> tunity to correct the misprint, of course.
According to the facsimile contained in Stephen Booth's
edition, both the title page and the 'dedication' appear
on sig.A, which consists of only 2 pages (i.e. 4 sides).
The former is A1r and the latter A2r, the other two sides
being blank. The First sonnet is on B1r. It would there-
fore presumably have been possible, if any misprint had
been spotted in T.T.'s message, for the other (unused)
half of the 'A' sheet to be used as a cancel title page
without affecting the sonnets themselves.
<snip>
> I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back to
> this next week.
I'd welcome some discussion of this. In my opinion the idea
that it was a message from the 'Fair Youth' is an interest-
ing one even if the rest is just as JWK described it.
Peter Farey
Tom Veal wrote:
>
> FWIW, my review of "Sweet Swan of Avon", the book prom-
> oting the Mary Sidney Herbert hypothesis is now posted at
> http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
Thanks for pointing it out. Sounds like the sort of book
I'll be happy to give a miss. Useful review.
However, I did bridle a little bit at your statement that:
"*Every* anti-Stratfordian theorist lays out much the
same 'evidence' for whichever noble personage he favors.
One can always find, in the abundance of the plays,
poems and sonnets, incidents that somewhat resemble
events in any given biography."
Whilst this may well be true of many anti-Stratfordians,
it is certainly not true of me. In fact I wrote the foll-
owing for the Wikipedia item on "Marlovian theory":
"Faked (or wrongly presumed) death, disgrace, banishment,
and changed identity are of course major ingredients in
Shakespeare's plays. Unlike adherents of the Oxfordian
theory, however, Marlovians have little time for seeking
parallels between Marlowe's known or predicted life and
these stories, since one can find whatever one wants to
find in them if one looks hard enough."
I would make an exception of the Sonnets, however, in
which (if they are in fact autobiographical) the circum-
stances described do seem hard to relate to Shakespeare.
Also there are some places in the plays where it is diff-
icult to know just why something was included if it were
not some sort of in-joke for those privy to something
unknown to most of us.
Not all of us favour a "noble personage" either, of course!
One small typo I noticed BTW - you wrote 'John Audrey'
which should of course have been 'Aubrey'. (Speaking of
whom, I see that Roy Dotrice, at 82, has just revived
his wonderful 1-man show based upon 'Brief Lives'. I do
hope that someone manages to record it for posterity, as
they did once before, back in the days of black and
white TV!)
Art Neuendorffer
>
> "Faked (or wrongly presumed) death, disgrace,
> banishment, and changed identity are of course
> major ingredients in Shakespeare's plays."
. False Deaths
-------------------------------------
c.1590 Henry VI, Parts II and III
.
c.1590-1591 Henry VI, Part I
.
c.1592 Richard III
_____ The Comedy of Errors
.
c.1593 Titus Andronicus
_____ Taming of the Shrew
.
c.1594 Two Gentlemen of Verona
_____ Love's Labour's Lost
_____ Romeo And Juliet...........Juliet
.
c.1595 Richard II
_____ A Midsummer Night's Dream..Thisbe
.
c.1596 King John
_____ The Merchant of Venice
.........................................
. The Merchant of Venice Act 5, Scene 1
.
JESSICA: In such a night
. Did Thisbe fearfully o'ertrip the dew
. And saw the lion's shadow ere himself
. And ran dismay'd away.
.........................................
c.1597 Henry IV part I...Falstaffe
.
c.1597-1598 Henry IV part II
.
c.1599 Much Ado About Nothing......Hero
_____ Henry V
_____ Julius Ceasar......Brutus, Titinius
_____ As You Like It
.
c.1601 Twelfth Night.......Sebastian, Viola
_____ Hamlet..............Claudius, Hamlet
.
c.1602 Troilus and Cressida (1609)
.
c.1603 All's Well That Ends Well (1623)..Helena
------------------------------------------------
Edward de Vere
..................................................
"No longer mourn for me when I am dead,
Than you shall hear-the surly sullen bell;
Give warning to the world that I am fled
.
From this vile world, with vilest worms to dwell;
.
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it."
------------------------------------------------
c.1604 Measure for Measure (1623)....Claudio
_____ Othello (1622)................Desdemona
.
c.1605 King Lear (1608)
_____ Macbeth (1623)
.
c.1606 Antony and Cleopatra (1623)....Cleopatra
.
c.1607 Coriolanus (1623)
_____ Timon of Athens (1623)
.
c.1608 Pericles Prince of Tyre (1609)..Thaisa, Marina
.
c.1609 Cymbeline (1623).....Imogen/Fidele, Posthumous
.
c.1610 The Winter's Tale (1623)...........Hermione
.
c.1611 The Tempest (1623)...Prospero, Ferdinand, Alonso
.
c.1612 Henry VIII (1623)
----------------------------------
I have concluded that Oxford probably lived in hiding
until his actual death in 1612:
..............................................................
1) Oxford certainly didn't die on St.John's day/Midsummer's Night.
A death that went totally unnoticed & without a trace.
2) Oxford's widow didn't bother to write
her Will until Nov. 25, 1612.
3) Lear's favorite daughter (Cordelia) was married
so it would have been nice if Oxford had known
that his favorite daughter (Susan) was married.
4) Once he had a male heir entering puberty Oxford probably
would have been much happier living a gay lifestyle in hiding,
while being allowed to work in peace on the rest of
his oeuvre (including, possibly, KJV & Don Quixote).
5) It would have been strange for Oxford to die
just as Neville's five year payment ran out.
The flurry of 1608/9 activity was to thank Neville
for his patronage (& not because Oxford had died).
6) The Ashbourne painting & the Wellbeck painting
are similar in many ways...including, possibly,
having Oxford's TWO dates of death written in gold.
7) Oxford's swan song: _The Tempest_ (A COMEDY!)
was performed in court on Nov. 1, 1611.
8) The 1612 MINERVA BRITANNA "MENTE VIDEBOR"
___________ anagram is clearly "DE VERE IN TOMB".
Presumably, the burial had to be soon after Oxford's actual death.
9) The MINERVA BRITANNA Banner Folding clearly demonstrates
how the Equidistant Linear Sequence decoding is to be performed:
----------------------------------------------------------------
- V I [V] I T U R I
N G [E] N I O C Æ
- T E [R] A M O R T
_ I S [E] R U N T.
VIVITUR INGENIO, CÆTERA MORTIS ERUNT.
"all thinges perish and come to theyr last end,but workes
of learned WITS and monuments of Poetry abide for EUER."
----------------------------------------------------
July 6th 1604 - *Edward VEARE* earl of oxford (burial)
-----------------------------------------------------
*VARE* : continue, endure, keep on, last (Danish)
*VARE* : A wand or *STAFF* of authority or justice.
Prospero: This airy charm is for, I'll break my *STAFF*
. Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
. And deeper than did ever plummet sound
. I'll drown my book.
-------------------------------------------
July 6th
--------------------------------------------------
July 6, 1189 - King Henry II dies
July 6, 1415 - Jan Hus, Bohemian reformer (burned at the stake)
July 6, 1483 - Richard III is crowned king of England.
July 6, 1533 - Ludovico Ariosto dies
July 6, 1535 - Sir Thomas More executed
July 6, 1553 - King Edward VI of England dies
July 6, 1560 - The Treaty of Edinburgh is signed by Scotland &
England.
July 6, 1609 - Bohemia is granted freedom of religion.
---------------------------------------------------------
. CHRISTOPHER
. THOR'S CIPHER.
-----------------------------------------------------
Queen Elizabeth dies: THURSday, March 24.
Queen Mary __ THURSday, November 17.
King Edward VI. THURSday, July 6.
Henry VIII _____ THURSday, Jan. 28.
.
. BloomsDay of James Joyce's _Ulysses_:
THURSday June 16, 1904 exactly 301 (52 week "years")
. after Oxford's "death" THURSday June 24, 1604
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta33.htm
.
<<A great number of scholars and philosophers,
among them Sir Francis Bacon & Wolfgang von Goethe,
have been suspected of affiliation with the R(osicrucian) O(rder)>>
....................................................
THE CREST OF JOHANN VALENTIN ANDREÆ.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/img/14000.jpg
....................................................
<<The reference to four red roses and a white cross in the Chymical
Marriage of Christian Rosencreutz identified Johann Valentin Andreæ
as its author, for his family crest, shown above,
consisted of four red roses and a white cross.>>
--------------------------------------------
____*OXENFORD*
.
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
____ *FOX* : *REV* (Norwegian)
-------------------------------------------------------
__ \_*_/
__ _\_/
_ * _X * Edward de Vere, Erle of Oxenford was buryed
__ _/_\ __________ the 6th daye of Julye Å 1604
__ _/ *_\ ____________ [ *St. PROSPERO's EVE* ]
.
<<The strange, large 'X' type symbol appears to have been put there
much later. According to Paul Altrocchi, this must have happened
many decades later "...since pencils withsuch a sharp point did
not appear until the late 1600's." It really is anybody's guess
who put it there - perhaps an over-enthusiastic Oxfordian?>>
- _The Death of Edward de Vere_ by Michael Llewellyn
------------------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 16
.
So should the lines of life that life repair,
Which this, Time's *PENCIL* , or my PUPIL PEN,
Neither in inward *WORTH* nor outward fair,
Can make you live yourself in eyes of men.
....................................
____ *VERD* : *WORTH* (Norwegian)
-----------------------------------------------
1604 WHITgift dies on February 29th.
1604 1000th anniversary of St.Augustine's death.
1604 Tomb of Christian Rosenkreutz discovered.
1604 Hamlet published
1604 FAMA Fraternitatis published
1604 Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (V1) published
1604 Oxford dies on the Feastday of John the Baptist.
1604 Oxford buried on *St. PROSPERO's EVE*
1604 Kepler's NOVA/AVON.
1604 Susan marries Pembroke on the Feastday of John the Devine
---------------------------------------------------
Goethe's poem :"The Mysteries," in which Brother Mark is
guided to the Temple where the Rose Cross is on the door.
-----------------------------------------------
J.W. von Goethe: _Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship_
. Book II Chapter X
.
WHEN our friends began to think of going home, they looked about them
for their clergyman; but he had vanished, and was nowhere to be found.
.
'It is not polite in the man, who otherwise displayed
good breeding,' said Madam Melina, 'to desert a company
that welcomed him so kindly, without taking leave.'
'I have all the time been thinking,' said Laertes,
'where I can have seen this singular man before.
I fully intended to ask him about it at parting.'
'I too had the same feeling,' said Wilhelm, 'and certainly
I should not have let him go, till he had told us something
more about his circumstances. I am much mistaken
if I have not ere now spoken with him somewhere.'
'And you may in truth,' said Philina, 'be mistaken there.
This person seems to have the air of an acquaintance,
because he looks like a man, and not like *JACK or KIT* '
'What is this?' said Laertes. 'Do not we two look like men?'
'I know what I am saying,? cried Philina;
'and if you cannot understand me, nEVER mind. In the end
my words will be found to require no commentary.'
---------------------------------------------
. Beaumont and Fletcher. Philaster.
. Act the Fifth Scene IV
.
1ST CIT.: I'll have a leg, that's certain.
2ND CIT.: I'll have an arm.
3RD CIT.: I'll have his nose, and at mine own charge
. build a college and clap't upon the gate.
4TH CIT.: I'll have his little gut to string a *KIT* with;
. For certainly a royal gut will sound like silVER.
---------------------------------------------
. sudore non supore - by labour not sleep
.......................................
. http://www.st-ives.info/
.
As I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven sacks, Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven KITs;
KITs, cats, sacks and wives -
How many were going to St Ives?
--------------------------------------------
____ *OXENFORD*
____ {anagram}
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
.
____*KITS*
----------------------------------------------
Peter Bull's 14 letter *TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW*
is somewhat less impressive but quite similar
to John Rollett's 15 letter discovery of
*HENRY-WR-IOTH-ESLEY* in the Sonnets
dedication (: i.e., a name closely associated with
William Shakespeare which is broken into 4 pieces).
.
Rollett's solution is clearly statistically significant
in its own right. Peter Bull's *TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW*
is probably statistically significant as well given
the apriori existence & legitimacy of Rollett's find.
---------------------------------------------------
[T]hou wilt restore, to be my comfort still:
[I]s't not enough to torture me alone,
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
--------------------------------------------------
(W)hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
(I)n things of great receipt with ease we prove
(S)hall Will in others seem right gracious,
(H)e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
.
Sonnet 135: WhoEVER hath her *WISH* , thou hast thy 'Will,'
.
. King Lear Act 2, Scene 4
.
REGAN: so will you *WISH ON* me,
.
. Measure for Measure Act 2, Scene 1
.
FROTH: I nEVER come into any room in a *TAP-house*
. but I am drawn in.
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Massinger: _A New Way to Pay Old Debts_
. Act I Scene I
.
[Enter] TAPWELL, WELLBORN [in tattered apparel,] and FROTH
.
TAP. [to his wife.] Cry out for help!
.
WELL. Stir, and thou diest:
Your potent prince, the constable, shall not save you.
Hear me ungrateful hell-hound! Did not I
Make purses for you? Then you lick?d my boots,
And thought your holiday cloak too coarse to clean them.
?Twas I that, when I heard thee swear if ever
Thou couldst arrive at forty pounds thou wouldst
Live like an emperor, ?twas I that gave it
In ready gold. Deny this, wretch!
.
TAP. I must, sir;
For, from the tavern to the *TAPhouse* , all,
On forfeiture of their licenses, stand bound
Ne?er to remember who their best guests were,
If they grew poor like you.
.
WELL. They are well rewarded
That beggar themselves to make such cuckolds rich.
----------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
--------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
.
. <= 12 =>
.
137 T T T Y I B(W)W W W O T
136 I S A T W I(I)A T T F T
135 W A M T W N(S)A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F(H)V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A[O]A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B[N]D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T(T)A A A O T
130 M C[I I}I B(A)T I T I M
129 T I{I}S I P(P)O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D{T)W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W{T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
.99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
.98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
.97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
.96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
.95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
.94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
.93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
.92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
.91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
.90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
.89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
.88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
.87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
.86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
.85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
.84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
.83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
----------------------------------
Recalculated for first 12 lines:
-------------------------------------------
*KITM-MARL-LOW* probability ~ 1/760
----------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
.
Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):
.
. 4 K's
. 68 M's
. 41 L's
.
. This automatically gives:
.
. 4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
. 68 x 41 "M-L" pairs
.
However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns
.
Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
. "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
. in the Bull array
.
. "K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
. "M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
-------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
.to count (for whole 14 lines):
.
50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
.8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
.
. "IT" probability: 50/4000
. "AR" probability: 8/4000
. "OW" probability: 31/4000
--------------------------------------------
. Now applying the
.
"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500
.
. to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
. "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
.
gives [E]xpected [V]alue of
.
. "KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
. "MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500
.
Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
----------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
. two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!
.
. For these two strings to share the SAME "M"
.
"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
. of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:
.
. [L]M T F T I I
. F A F T W I T
. S S S A W B A
. N I A A C G T
. A S A T T A I
. A V A W V[O]T
. A T M F A T A
. B T M W A N G
. W R A I A T I
.
Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.
.
. How does this compare with and
. expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
. Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
.
. TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
. So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
. the final "OW" is ~0.39
.
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760
.
A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
--------------------------------------------------------
. Now things get interesting:
--------------------------------------------
____*OXENFORD*
.
____*R.O. : FOX DEN*
____*R(osicrucian) O(rder) : FOX DEN*
.
_______4 *KITs*
------------------------------------------------------------
. "KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:
.
<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.
.
2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"
.
. The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
. of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":
.
. S
. A M
. A M[T]
. F[I]B M
. [K]H L A B
. A F T Y
. C[I I}
. I{I}
. V [T] {T}
.
. {T}
.
. So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
. the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
. [; ignoring the "K" & "T"]
.
Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
. left right pairs in the "Bull array":
---------------------------------------------
. Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
.
. TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
. for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
----------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
. PLUS 4 close "KIT"s
.
. ~ 1/(760 x 4700) ~1/3,600,000!!!
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.masoncode.com/Great%20Seal%20Sonnets.htm
As an Oxfordian the base 17 pyramid is ideal!
-----------------------------------------------
A nice pattern emerges if
the sonnets are written out in
boustrophedon "ox path" style:
..................................................
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* -- Milton (1630)
.
---------- *SONET EYES*
...
---------------- * 154
--------------- 0 0 153
-------------- 0 * * 151
------------- 0 * * * 148
------------ 0 0 Y * * 144
----------- 0 * 0 * * * 139
---------- 0 * * 0 * 0 0 133
-------------------------------------------
--------- * * * * 0 * 0 * 125
-------- * * * * 0 0 * * * 117
------- * * 0 * 0 * * * * * 108
------ 0 * * * * 0 * 0 * * * 98
----- * * * * 0 * 0 * * 0 * * 87
---- * * * * * * 0 * * * * * * 75
--- 0 0 * * * * 0 0 * * * * * 0 62
-- * * * * * * * * * 0 * * 0 0 * 48
- 0 * 0 0 0 * * * 0 0 0 * * 0 * 0 33
. 0 0 * * 0 * 0 * 0 * * * * 0 * 0 0 17
----------------------------------------------------
What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd bones,
The labour of an age in piled *STONES* ,
.....................................
_____*STONES*
_____{anagram}
_____*SONETS*
.....................................
Or that his hallow'd relics should be hid
*Under a STAR-Y-pointing PYRAMID* ?
Dear son of memory, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
-----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
wrote:
> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> > Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> > her son William Herbert.
>
> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> have been the poet who wrote it.
MM:
Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts to rewrite
history. I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."
Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he became the NEW
Male Parent, with William Shakespeare being the old parent. That's
William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher Marlowe. We have to
watch these attempts of Anti-Strats to distort the truth. The FF was
dedicated to the two Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that,
also.
> Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient fact
MM:
I'd say your so-called "fact," doesn't appear to be a fact, at all.
It appears to be another Anti-Strat allegation.
> because the initials of the person they think of as the
> poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
MM:
Whoop De Do! I just explained that ONE was the OLD PARENT, and W. H.
was the NEW MALE PARENT. Get it?
> Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the same
> way,
MM:
Constrained? The issue is W. H., the begetter. I guess you might
consider going back to the drawing boards.
> I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> just throw it away.
MM:
It corroborates Stratfordianism, very clearly, Mr. Farey.
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 6:05 am, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> >>> Intriguing! "Mr. W.H." would then definitely have been
> >>> her son William Herbert.
> >> As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> >> a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> >> have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > What other work of the era was published and dedicated to the author?
>
> Foster's paper appears to be no longer on-line (except via JSTOR), but I
> think I recall him adducing several instances in which a dedication was
> signed by the publisher and the dedicatee was the author. In addition,
> in period language, the "begetter" of a literary work is overwhelmingly
> likely to mean the author,
MM:
Shakespeare was making W. H. the new Father of his child (Sonnets) and
also the canon. It was like transferring custody.
> and "our ever-living poet" to mean God
> (ποιητής, of course, literally means "maker"), and the "eternity
> promised" to mean Christian salvation and Heaven. As far as I can
> recall, the only weak point is in the necessary assumption that "W. H."
> is a misprint for "W. S." or "W. SH.", but such errors do indeed exist
> in other printed documents of the time.
MM:
It doesn't seem to be an error. MSH was his wife, previously, and it
makes perfect sense to leave the sonnets and canon to her son, William
Herbert.
> Frankly, this is the /only/ theory I have ever seen that leaves intact
> the fundamental likelihood that Thorpe was a human being writing in
> English. No twisted metaphors, no tacit assumption that Shakespeare is
> the Greatest Poet Who Ever Was or Ever Shall Be, and no riddles.
MM:
Every Living Poet means that he was ONE with God. Who could be
greather than that?
Michael Martin
Christian Lanciai
Indeed, here at last we have a proper, decent and natural mother in
Shakespeare, but what does the author do to her? He has her children
slaughtered in front of her eyes, and she is herself most brutally
murdered, in fact, of all the brutal murders in Macbeth, this is the
most horrendous, as children are involved.
This is at the same time completely in line with the "theatre of
cruelty" as launched 20 years earlier with 'Tamburlaine' - nothing has
changed, the exaggerated cruelty is still the same, while all the poet
has in mind is the dramatic impact.
Together with the three earlier problematic mothers in Shakespeare,
this poses a most intriguing insight into the poet's relationship with
mothers at large. Freudians must immediately relish delving into the
possible secrets of the poet's relationship with his own mother, if he
had one at all and was not like Macduff. In fact, it's not too far-
fetched to suspect the poet's attitude towards mothers as the result
of a relationship with a step-mother, lady Macduff then representing
an ideal mother which the poet never had or could reach.
Another Shakespeare mystery.
C(hris)
Tom Reedy
It's not peculiar to Shakespeare. Nobody wants to go to the theater,
watch a movie or TV show, or read a book about good mothers or happy
families. They're no fun. Even in fairy tales they're flatter and less
interesting than witches and evil step-mothers.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Exactly. Anti-Stratfordians seem nearly incapable of understanding
that non-journalistic authors choose characters mainly for what they
do for their stories, not to reveal biographical matter.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
Even writers who mine their own lives for their material make the
characters and events a lot more interesting than they were in
reality. A lot of what passes for biography and autobiography is
heavily fictionalized, also.
TR
Tom Veal
wrote:
> However, I did bridle a little bit at your statement that:
>
> "*Every* anti-Stratfordian theorist lays out much the
> same 'evidence' for whichever noble personage he favors.
> One can always find, in the abundance of the plays,
> poems and sonnets, incidents that somewhat resemble
> events in any given biography."
>
> Whilst this may well be true of many anti-Stratfordians,
> it is certainly not true of me.
Fair enough. My remark applies to the various pretenders from the
nobility, not to Christopher Marlowe.
> One small typo I noticed BTW - you wrote 'John Audrey'
> which should of course have been 'Aubrey'. (Speaking of
> whom, I see that Roy Dotrice, at 82, has just revived
> his wonderful 1-man show based upon 'Brief Lives'. I do
> hope that someone manages to record it for posterity, as
> they did once before, back in the days of black and
> white TV!)
>
Thanks for the correction.
Peter Farey
"lackpurity" wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> MM:
> Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts
> to rewrite history.
Don Foster is not an "anti-Strat". He is an English Pro-
fessor at Vassar and, like most such professors (including
Michael Egan and Park Honan) is staunchly Stratfordian.
He did, however, acknowledge the possible relevance of his
argument to those of the opposite persuasion by saying:
"One hypothesis [to explain his findings], which I leave
others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
of *Shake-speares Sonnets*."
> I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."
Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?
> Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he
> became the NEW Male Parent, with William Shakespeare
> being the old parent.
Ah, so you didn't look up "only" at the same time, then?
> That's William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher
> Marlowe. We have to watch these attempts of Anti-Strats
> to distort the truth. The FF was dedicated to the two
> Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that, also.
It was dedicated to William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip,
Earl of Montgomery, not to a 'Mr' anybody. As Foster says
about "Mr.W.H.":
"None but the party faithful still suppose that Thomas
Thorpe, a commoner, would dare address Lord Pembroke
or Lord Southampton as "Master," or with so brief a
greeting. Thorpe well knew how to address a social
superior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
in *St. Augustine* and the 1616 *Epictetus*. These are
impeccable in their Renaissance courtesy and, if any-
thing, somewhat too abject in tone. Nor has any member
of the Southampton or Pembroke schools cited any other
epistler who omitted a lord's title. To suggest that
Thorpe's "Mr. W. H." stands for Pembroke or Southamp-
ton (or for anyone else above the rank of esquire) is
to grasp at straws."
> > Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient
> > fact.
>
> MM:
> I'd say your so-called "fact," doesn't appear to be a
> fact, at all. It appears to be another Anti-Strat
> allegation.
The FACT is that Don Foster was unable to find any
example of the word "begetter" meaning anyone other
than the author himself except in one case, where it
was made quite clear that the normal "male parent"
conceit was being deliberately reversed.
> > because the initials of the person they think of as
> > the poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
>
> MM:
> Whoop De Do! I just explained that ONE was the
> OLD PARENT, and W. H. was the NEW MALE
> PARENT. Get it?
Yes, it makes no more sense than it did the first time.
> Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the
> same way,
>
> MM:
> Constrained? The issue is W. H., the begetter. I
> guess you might consider going back to the drawing
> boards.
I guess you might consider talking sense for once, but
I know it ain't never going to happen.
> > I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> > the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> > highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> > which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> > just throw it away.
>
> MM:
> It corroborates Stratfordianism, very clearly, Mr. Farey.
Which is why Foster said "One hypothesis, which I leave
others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
of *Shake-speares Sonnets*." Right.
Alan Jones
"mother" who conceives and brings forth the poem, but its seed was planted
by someone else, Mr W.H. He may be the subject of the poem (though that
does stretch the "begetter" metaphor) or more likely the person who
suggested an idea or theme.
Alan Jones
Peter Farey
This is of course the standard line, which ignores
the very good points that Foster is making against
such a theory. In fact I have been unable to find any
attempt to refute the point he makes about the poet
himself being the "onlie begetter". G. Blakemore
Evans disagrees but (other than citing the exception
which Foster himself identified and explained) he
gives no reason for rejecting it. I did actually ask
Dave Kathman (who wrote an item on Mr. W.H. for the
Oxford DNB) whether he could think of any attempt to
refute Foster's evidence, but he could recall none
other than the New Cambridge mention either.
Even if we ignore his claim that "begetter" in every
other case means the poet, however, you appear to be
forgetting the fact that there are 154 different poems
(and thus 154 'ideas' or 'themes' to be suggested) in
all, and no fewer than three different 'subjects'
addressed in them. 'W.H.', on the other hand, is said
to be the "onlie begetter".
Incidentally, Foster's explanation of the "onlie" is
that Thorpe is in fact 'certifying' that they are all
by Shakespeare. My own would be that whereas the
"Shakespeare" plays were created to some extent by
both Marlowe *and* Shakespeare the Sonnets are
exclusively by the former. (Personally, I'd have
probably given Sonnet 145 to William, but I could
be wrong, or the writer of the 'dedication' may not
have known it.)
Tom Reedy
MM"s scholarship is about as good as his spiritual explications. A new
thread should be started with the title "Is MM a moron or what?" It
would be hard to answer in the negative, going by this and his many
other posts.
TR
lackpurity
wrote:
> "lackpurity" wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > MM:
> > Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts
> > to rewrite history.
>
> Don Foster is not an "anti-Strat".
MM:
I didn't say he was. You still believe that Marlowe faked his death
and wrote Shakespeare's canon. Correct? I'm not much into quoting a
lot of names as you do. You, apparently, think that just by dropping
names you lend some authority to the Anti-Strat theory.
> He is an English Pro-
> fessor at Vassar and, like most such professors (including
> Michael Egan and Park Honan) is staunchly Stratfordian.
MM:
Maybe different people have different definitions of the word? Maybe
we should coin a word, such as "agnostic," to apply to some fence
straddlers?
> He did, however, acknowledge the possible relevance of his
> argument to those of the opposite persuasion by saying:
>
> � "One hypothesis [to explain his findings], which I leave
> � others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
> � of *Shake-speares Sonnets*."
MM:
How he could come up with such a hypothesis is incredible, IMO.
> > I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."
>
> Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
> the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?
MM:
That's right. It didn't say the "begetter," was a male author.
Sorry, better luck next time, Anti-Strat. I see you're indulging in
your usual evasive tactics, without an qualms whatsoever. Incredible.
> > Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he
> > became the NEW Male Parent, with William Shakespeare
> > being the old parent.
>
> Ah, so you didn't look up "only" at the same time, then?
MM:
More evasion, apparently.
> > That's William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher
> > Marlowe. �We have to watch these attempts of Anti-Strats
> > to distort the truth. �The FF was dedicated to the two
> > Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that, also.
>
> It was dedicated to William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip,
> Earl of Montgomery, not to a 'Mr' anybody. As Foster says
> about "Mr.W.H.":
MM:
As I mentioned, the two Herbert brothers.
> � "None but the party faithful still suppose that Thomas
> � Thorpe, a commoner, would dare address Lord Pembroke
> � or Lord Southampton as "Master," or with so brief a
> � greeting. Thorpe well knew how to address a social
> � superior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
> � in *St. Augustine* and the 1616 *Epictetus*. These are
> � impeccable in their Renaissance courtesy and, if any-
> � thing, somewhat too abject in tone. Nor has any member
> � of the Southampton or Pembroke schools cited any other
> � epistler who omitted a lord's title. To suggest that
> � Thorpe's "Mr. W. H." stands for Pembroke or Southamp-
> � ton (or for anyone else above the rank of esquire) is
> � to grasp at straws."
MM:
We are talking about a young man, here. Shakespeare was his Master,
apparently, and Mr. W. H. was his disciple. If his mother was still
living, then it becomes more obvious. Let's keep those facts in
mind. Then it becomes congruent, conveying the accurate relationship
of Mr. W. H.. You appear to be on the wrong trail, here, Mr. Farey.
> > > Stratfordians are forced to ignore this inconvenient
> > > fact.
>
> > MM:
> > I'd say your so-called "fact," doesn't appear to be a
> > fact, at all. It appears to be another Anti-Strat
> > allegation.
>
> The FACT is that Don Foster was unable to find any
> example of the word "begetter" meaning anyone other
> than the author himself except in one case, where it
> was made quite clear that the normal "male parent"
> conceit was being deliberately reversed.
MM:
All right. I've patiently explained that the Sonnets were the child
of William Shakespeare of Stratford. He was the first begetter, then
WS made Mr. W. H. the second begetter. I know this doesn't help your
Marlovian theory, that is why I suggested that you go back to the
drawing boards.
> > > because the initials of the person they think of as
> > > the poet had the initials 'W.S.', and not 'W.H.'.
>
> > MM:
> > Whoop De Do! �I just explained that ONE was the
> > OLD PARENT, and W. H. was the NEW MALE
> > PARENT. Get it?
>
> Yes, it makes no more sense than it did the first time.
MM:
You'd rather go around in circles like a ship without a rudder?
> > Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the
> > same way,
>
> > MM:
> > Constrained? �The issue is W. H., the begetter. �I
> > guess you might consider going back to the drawing
> > boards.
>
> I guess you might consider talking sense for once, but
> I know it ain't never going to happen.
MM:
What else can I do? I explain the truth very clearly, but then you
might be thinking of defending your erroneous and fantastic Marlovian
Theory?
> > > I find it strange that so many of them happily join
> > > the Strats in totally ignoring Foster's claims. It seems
> > > highly illogical to me. It is in fact a piece of evidence
> > > which *supports* the anti-Strat position, Chris. Don't
> > > just throw it away.
>
> > MM:
> > It corroborates Stratfordianism, very clearly, Mr. Farey.
> Which is why Foster said "One hypothesis, which I leave
> others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
> of *Shake-speares Sonnets*." Right.
MM:
Ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if Anti-Strats use
them, thinking that Strats are ignorant and/or gullible. Better luck
next time. :-) You Anti-Strats are incredible, how you want to
rewrite history with such reckless abandon. Okay. We'll be watching
your attempts.
Tom Reedy
I take it back. He's obviously a moron. The name of the thread should
be "Is MM a fucking brain-dead idiot or what?"
TR
Paul Crowley
news:frljdn$67t$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Alan Jones wrote:
>> The natural sense of "begetter" would seem to be
>> "inspirer". The poet is the "mother" who conceives
>> and brings forth the poem, but its seed was planted
>> by someone else, Mr W.H. He may be the subject of
>> the poem (though that does stretch the "begetter"
>> metaphor) or more likely the person who suggested
>> an idea or theme.
>
> This is of course the standard line, which ignores
> the very good points that Foster is making against
> such a theory. In fact I have been unable to find any
> attempt to refute the point he makes about the poet
> himself being the "onlie begetter". G. Blakemore
> Evans disagrees but (other than citing the exception
> which Foster himself identified and explained) he
> gives no reason for rejecting it. I did actually ask
> Dave Kathman (who wrote an item on Mr. W.H. for the
> Oxford DNB) whether he could think of any attempt to
> refute Foster's evidence, but he could recall none
> other than the New Cambridge mention either.
>
> Even if we ignore his claim that "begetter" in every
> other case means the poet,
It is clear from the grammar that
the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
instance. One person is already
indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
poet' ? Did he promise himself 'all
happinesse and that eternity'?
TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
THESE INSVING SONNETS
Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
AND THAT ETERNITIE
PROMISED
BY
OVR EVER-LIVING
POET
WISHETH
THE WELL-WISHING
ADVENTVRER IN
SETTING
FORTH.
T.T.
SHAKE-SPEARES,
SONNETS.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:cf027b5d-ea5f-4382...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Together with the three earlier problematic mothers in Shakespeare,
>>>> this poses a most intriguing insight into the poet's relationship with
>>>> mothers at large. Freudians must immediately relish delving into the
>>>> possible secrets of the poet's relationship with his own mother, if he
>>>> had one at all and was not like Macduff. In fact, it's not too far-
>>>> fetched to suspect the poet's attitude towards mothers as the result
>>>> of a relationship with a step-mother, lady Macduff then representing
>>>> an ideal mother which the poet never had or could reach.
>>
>>>> Another Shakespeare mystery.
>>
>>> It's not peculiar to Shakespeare. Nobody wants to go to the theater,
>>> watch a movie or TV show, or read a book about good mothers or happy
>>> families. They're no fun. Even in fairy tales they're flatter and less
>>> interesting than witches and evil step-mothers.
Ignorant Stratfordianism goes rampant.
Some ugly fact raises its head, and
Strats flee to the nearest pile of dirt
they can raise to create confusion.
The point being made is about the
RELATIVE proportion of '[bad mothers
to good' in Shake-speare, as compared
with other authors, and as compared
(generally) with the relative proportion
of 'bad fathers to good', or 'bad husbands
to good', or 'bad wives to good', or 'bad
children to good', or 'bad brothers to
good' . . . etc., etc.
Of course, there are bad mothers in
literature generally, but there are also
good ones, as well as both sorts of
fathers, of wives, of husbands, brothers,
sisters, etc., etc.
>> Exactly. Anti-Stratfordians seem nearly incapable of understanding
>> that non-journalistic authors choose characters mainly for what they
>> do for their stories, not to reveal biographical matter.
>>
>> --Bob G.
Another (necessarily ignorant) Strat
chimes in.
> Even writers who mine their own lives for their material make the
> characters and events a lot more interesting than they were in
> reality. A lot of what passes for biography and autobiography is
> heavily fictionalized, also.
Grass is green, God is Love, paint
dries slowly. Rain is wet. Let's recite
as many irrelevant facts as we can.
It is quite easy to list the poet's
main interests -- as seen in the canon
-- and to summarise his prevailing
attitudes, and then see who fits best.
Let's take the indisputable fact that
the poet shows mothers unfavourably.
Which candidate had an unloving mother
(who remarried shortly after the death of
a beloved father)? The poet generally
shows fathers as honest and honourable.
Whose much loved father died when
he was twelve?
The poet is peculiarly concerned about
bastardy, and how it can have a
devastating effect on an individual.
He also often portrays major characters
as fathering bastards? Which candidate
suffered persecution over alleged
bastardy? Which fathered one or more
bastard sons?
The poet does not say much about
brothers or sisters, never showing a
deep or close relationship with one.
Which candidate was, in effect, an
only child?
On a related issue, I recently heard
William Hague talking about Pitt, the
Younger -- on whom he has written a
biography. Pitt died (at the age of 46)
leaving huge debts (of £40,000) which
the grateful Parliament paid off. The
interviewer was puzzled as to how
such an able person could so neglect
his private affairs. Hague replied that
he understood the matter perfectly.
When he had been Leader of the
Opposition, he had been so deeply
involved in all the exciting matters of
politics, that he had also quite
neglected his own affairs. He never
had any idea how much he had in his
bank account and he did not want to
know. On leaving office, he found
himself broke.
ALL great artists are also of this
nature. Their work is to them so
important that they have no time for,
nor interest in, money, often ending
up in poverty. This is yet another
disqualification of the Stratman (in
addition to his illiteracy). Such a
tight-fisted, small-minded, litigatious
provincial low-life could never have
been any kind of artist.
It is quite incredible that people
continue to believe in him.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Tom Reedy" <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cf027b5d-ea5f-4382...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> Together with the three earlier problematic mothers in Shakespeare,
> >>>> this poses a most intriguing insight into the poet's relationship with
> >>>> mothers at large. Freudians must immediately relish delving into the
> >>>> possible secrets of the poet's relationship with his own mother, if he
> >>>> had one at all and was not like Macduff. In fact, it's not too far-
> >>>> fetched to suspect the poet's attitude towards mothers as the result
> >>>> of a relationship with a step-mother, lady Macduff then representing
> >>>> an ideal mother which the poet never had or could reach.
>
> >>>> Another Shakespeare mystery.
>
> >>> It's not peculiar to Shakespeare. Nobody wants to go to the theater,
> >>> watch a movie or TV show, or read a book about good mothers or happy
> >>> families. They're no fun. Even in fairy tales they're flatter and less
> >>> interesting than witches and evil step-mothers.
>
> Ignorant Stratfordianism goes rampant.
> Some ugly fact raises its head,
What ugly fact? That some of Shakespeare's mothers are less than
perfect examples of motherhood?
and
> Strats flee to the nearest pile of dirt
> they can raise to create confusion.
>
> The point being made is about the
> RELATIVE proportion of '[bad mothers
> to good' in Shake-speare, as compared
> with other authors, and as compared
> (generally) with the relative proportion
> of 'bad fathers to good', or 'bad husbands
> to good', or 'bad wives to good', or 'bad
> children to good', or 'bad brothers to
> good' . . . etc., etc.
Why don't you count them up, and get back to us with the exact
proportion? It would do you good to read--or at least skim through--
the plays.
> Of course, there are bad mothers in
> literature generally, but there are also
> good ones, as well as both sorts of
> fathers, of wives, of husbands, brothers,
> sisters, etc., etc.
And there are also good mothers in Shakespeare, as well as both sorts
of fathers, of wives, of husbands, brothers, sisters, etc., etc.
> >> Exactly. Anti-Stratfordians seem nearly incapable of understanding
> >> that non-journalistic authors choose characters mainly for what they
> >> do for their stories, not to reveal biographical matter.
>
> >> --Bob G.
>
> Another (necessarily ignorant) Strat
> chimes in.
>
> > Even writers who mine their own lives for their material make the
> > characters and events a lot more interesting than they were in
> > reality. A lot of what passes for biography and autobiography is
> > heavily fictionalized, also.
>
> Grass is green, God is Love, paint
> dries slowly. Rain is wet. Let's recite
> as many irrelevant facts as we can.
Your the person citing irrelevant facts. Your method is the same as
MM's: sheer fantasy.
> It is quite easy to list the poet's
> main interests -- as seen in the canon
> -- and to summarise his prevailing
> attitudes, and then see who fits best.
>
> Let's take the indisputable fact that
> the poet shows mothers unfavourably.
Only it's not a fact, indisputable or otherwise, so everything that
follows is pure bullshit. But that's teh nature of OXfordism: it tends
to make one spout bullshit because that's all they know.
TR
Peter Groves
> wrote:
>
> > "lackpurity" wrote:
>
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > > have been the poet who wrote it.
>
> > > MM:
> > > Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts
> > > to rewrite history.
>
> > Don Foster is not an "anti-Strat".
>
> MM:
> I didn't say he was. You still believe that Marlowe faked his death
> and wrote Shakespeare's canon. Correct? I'm not much into quoting a
> lot of names as you do. You, apparently, think that just by dropping
> names you lend some authority to the Anti-Strat theory.
>
> > He is an English Pro-
> > fessor at Vassar and, like most such professors (including
> > Michael Egan and Park Honan) is staunchly Stratfordian.
>
> MM:
> Maybe different people have different definitions of the word? Maybe
> we should coin a word, such as "agnostic," to apply to some fence
> straddlers?
>
> > He did, however, acknowledge the possible relevance of his
> > argument to those of the opposite persuasion by saying:
>
> > ? others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
> > ? of *Shake-speares Sonnets*."
>
> MM:
> How he could come up with such a hypothesis is incredible, IMO.
>
> > > I just looked up "begetter," and it is a "male parent."
>
> > Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
> > the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?
>
> MM:
> That's right. It didn't say the "begetter," was a male author.
> Sorry, better luck next time, Anti-Strat. I see you're indulging in
> your usual evasive tactics, without an qualms whatsoever. Incredible.
>
> > > Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he
> > > became the NEW Male Parent, with William Shakespeare
> > > being the old parent.
>
> > Ah, so you didn't look up "only" at the same time, then?
>
> MM:
> More evasion, apparently.
>
> > > That's William Shakespeare of Stratford, not Christopher
> > > to distort the truth. ?The FF was dedicated to the two
> > > Herbert Brothers, so this is congruent with that, also.
>
> > It was dedicated to William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip,
> > Earl of Montgomery, not to a 'Mr' anybody. As Foster says
> > about "Mr.W.H.":
>
> MM:
> As I mentioned, the two Herbert brothers.
>
> > ? Thorpe, a commoner, would dare address Lord Pembroke
> > ? or Lord Southampton as "Master," or with so brief a
> > ? greeting. Thorpe well knew how to address a social
> > ? superior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
> > ? in *St. Augustine* and the 1616 *Epictetus*. These are
> > ? impeccable in their Renaissance courtesy and, if any-
> > ? thing, somewhat too abject in tone. Nor has any member
> > ? of the Southampton or Pembroke schools cited any other
> > ? epistler who omitted a lord's title. To suggest that
> > ? Thorpe's "Mr. W. H." stands for Pembroke or Southamp-
> > ? ton (or for anyone else above the rank of esquire) is
> > ? to grasp at straws."
> > > OLD PARENT, and W. H. was the NEW MALE
> > > PARENT. Get it?
>
> > Yes, it makes no more sense than it did the first time.
>
> MM:
> You'd rather go around in circles like a ship without a rudder?
>
> > > Since anti-Stratfordians are not constrained in the
> > > same way,
>
> > > MM:
TR
Is it perhaps the case, given that "Crowley" is clearly a Swiftian exercise
by some English professor, a clever but slightly over-the-top parody of an
insane Looneyite, that "MM" is some sort of retaliation by the anti-strats,
a kind of counter-parody? Not so effective, however, because while
"Crowley" parodies elements found in most Oxfordians -- solipsistic or
lawyer-like argumentation, fantasies about aristocracy, aggression
compensating for epistemological insecurity , and so on -- "MM" is just a
freak who resembles no actual Stratfordian (and in any case, he appears to
think that Jesus Christ wrote the plays).
--
Peter G.
"A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
Templars." (Umberto Eco)
Christian Lanciai
My only argument in this thread was the likelihood that Shakespeare
more probably was written by a man than by a woman. With all respect
of the accomplishments of Mary Sidney Herbert, but I don't think any
mother could write a scene about a mother having both herself and her
children slain on stage.
You must admit, though, that the unmotherliness of *Shakespeare's*
mothers invites speculation.
C(hris)
David Kathman
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
No, it's not, though most people have read it that way because of a
(usually unexamined) belief that "our ever-living poet" must be the
author of the sonnets.
> One person is already
> indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> 'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
> poet' ?
No.
> Did he promise himself 'all
> happinesse and that eternity'?
No. God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century usage, was the
only one capable of "promising eternity" to somebody.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Reynolds
> "Tom Reedy" <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Phonier Than Thou Michael Martin, self-annointed hedge-priest to HLAS,
represents the trinity (SHAMrock) in that he is stupid, dishonest, AND
obnoxious. No one else offers such a triple threat. He is satisfying
only himself.
Sat Urday
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > It is clear from the grammar that
> > the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> > instance.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's not, though most people have read it that way because of a
> (usually unexamined) belief that "our ever-living poet" must be the
> author of the sonnets.
. UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL G = 33th letter (Masonic)
. NIL VERO-VERIU(S) S = 19th letter (Islamic)
. OUR EVER-LIVIN(G) G = 33th letter (Masonic)
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO. A native of Mantua, Vergil had
parents of humble origin. His father was either a POTTER or the
hired man of a certain MAGUS, an attendant on the magistrates.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
. http://pagan-home.com/gods/ptah.htm
.
<<Ptah's centre of worship was a city variously called the City of
the White Walls, or *HET-ka-Ptah* , which is now known as Memphis.
*HET-ka-Ptah* was translated by the Ancient Greeks as AEGYPTos
and later into English as EGYPT. Ptah's name is thought to mean
"The OPENer." Ptah's basic function as The OPENer represents
the commencement of the cycle of manifestation, and it is
He who is seen as the Architect (or sometimes *POTTer* )
which began the creation of the current cosmic manifestation.
This also relates in that Ptah was seen as the Shaper
who OPENED a channel for manifestation from one
plane to another, as well as the divine, creative fire.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
. WE-EVER, JOHN, 1599
Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion.
.
They burn in love, THY CHILDREN Shakespear [HET] them
Go, wo thy Muse, more NYMPhish brood BEGET them
------------------------------------------------------
[HET], v. t. & i. To *PROMISE*. [Obs.] --Chaucer.
--------------------------------------------------------
_________________ <= 33 =>
.
___ /T/ OT __ [H] EONLIEBEGE TTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
__- /O/ NN _ [E T] SMRWHALLH APPINESSEANDTHATETE
__ /R/ NI___ [T(I)E] *PROMISED*BYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
_ /W/ IS___ [H E T H] THEWELL WISHINGADVENTVRERIN
___________________________ SETTIN GFORTH-TT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Paul Crowley" wrote:
> >
> > Did he promise himself 'all
> > happinesse and that eternity'?
http://www.comptons.com/encyclopedia/ARTICLES/0125/01492736_A.html
.
<<Ptah was often portrayed as:
. a bearded,
. bald male figure who wore a tight cap
. and an elaborately decorated neckcollar,
.
and whose body was wrapped in a tight garment that left only his hands
free. The MENaT, the symbol of pleasure and HAPPINESS, hung down
the back of his neck. He sat or stood on a pedestal symbolic of Ma'at,
who represented TRUTH, and held in his hands the ankh, a symbol
of life, and the scepter, a symbol of power. Sometimes he was shown
at his POTTER's wheel. The hieroglyphs that represented his name
included the meanings "to open," "to engrave," "to carve,"
& "to chisel."
.
Ptah's chief attribute was his power to give form to everything,
and he was called the Architect of the Universe. He shaped the
gods, the cities, the nomes, or provinces, of EGYPT, and all
things of beauty. According to one text, Ptah was the father
of Atum, who later became the sun-god Ra.
The EGYPTians believed that Ra would originate thoughts. Then
the god of intelligence, Thoth, would give words to Ra's thoughts.
But it was Ptah who gave these thoughts form. Ptah was assisted
by Ma'at, goddess of truth and justice, and by the god Khnemu,
who shaped humans on his own POTTER's wheel.>>
ROMANS 9:21 Hath not the POTTER power over the clay,
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
> > indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> > 'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
> > poet' ?
>
> No.
>
> > Did he promise himself 'all
> > happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> No. God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century usage, was the
> only one capable of "promising eternity" to somebody.
Now God, deBeers, and the Star Registry share the responsibility.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> FWIW, my review of "Sweet Swan of Avon", the book promoting the Mary
> Sidney Herbert hyothesis is now posted athttp://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
>
> On Mar 9, 7:27 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> > from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> > (quote)
> > Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> > anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> > justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
> > authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets--she is the most
> > articulate, literate, educated, and motivated writer of the times with
> > hundreds of connections to the source materials of the plays, and her
> > love life matches the sonnet story. Because she was a woman, however,
> > she was not allowed to write plays for the public theater.
> > (unquote)
>
> > Here are some other leading attributes of Mary Herbert I find that
> > rank her a significant candidate to have written the canon.
>
> > 1. She was an especially talented Renaissance Woman, allowed to be as
> > accomplished as Queen Elizabeth in languages, sports, musical
> > instruments, medical training, and mathematics. She knew John Dee,
> > studied symbolic geometry and alchemy, and wrote letters to friends in
> > musical code.
>
> > 2. She, like Bacon, had literary goals for England.
> > a. She completed and published her brother, Phillip Sydney,
> > signal works on The Defense of Poetry, etc..
> > a. She was patron of the most important literary circle in
> > English history: the Wilton Circle.
> > b. She is known to have influenced Donne, Marvell, Herebert, and
> > Milton, although seemingly not Shakespeare.
>
> > 3. She was the first woman to publish a play in English, publish
> > original dramatic verse, and not apologize for publishing her
> > work.
>
> > 4. Scholars find links to Shakespeare in the sonnets and FF,
> > and her work is known to be used as a source in the canon.
>
> > I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> > case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> > the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> > be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> > mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
> > bookburn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent review, Tom. Do you think the author will give you any
feedback about it?
--Bob
lackpurity
> The natural sense of "begetter" would seem to be "inspirer".
MM:
A male parent could be many things. "Owner," for example.
> The poet is the
> "mother" who conceives and brings forth the poem, but its seed was planted
> by someone else, Mr W.H. �
MM:
If you want to call William Shakespeare a "mother," I suppose it's
your prerogative. I'd prefer to recognize his male sex and call him
"father." He was the old father, but Mr. W. H. became the new father.
> He may be the subject of the poem (though that
> does stretch the "begetter" metaphor) or more likely the person who
> suggested an idea or theme.
MM:
You mean all the sonnets? There were many subjects in them. Mr. W.
H. became the owner of the sonnets, written by William Shakespear of
Ye Old Stratford on Avon.
> Alan Jones
Michael Martin
Elizabeth
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:frljdn$67t$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> It is clear from the grammar that
> the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> instance. One person is already
> indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> 'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
> poet' ? Did he promise himself 'all
> happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
> THESE INSVING SONNETS
> Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
> AND THAT ETERNITIE
> PROMISED
> BY
> OVR EVER-LIVING
> POET
> WISHETH
> THE WELL-WISHING
> ADVENTVRER IN
> SETTING
> FORTH.
> T.T.
> SHAKE-SPEARES,
> SONNETS.
>
> Paul.
The word 'begetter' is punned. It's meant
both figuratively and literally.
William Herbert had a long-time affair with the
exquisite Lady Mary Wroth (her famous Penshurst
portrait used to be online, now there are only
smudgy black and white versions, the original
is justifiably famous).
James I brought Mary Sidney (the niece) to
court in 1604 and married her to one of his
favorites, Robert Wroth. Wroth was a vicious
sonfabitch, an alcoholic who liked to beat up
on Wroth.
Despite the fact that Herbert and Wroth were
first cousins (Mary and Philip Sidney were her
aunt and uncle, their little brother Robert was
Wroth's father) they produced two normal
children. a boy and a girl, both later married well.
So there's your 'begetter.'
The children would have been born between the
time Mary was brought to Court and the printing
of the Shake-speare Sonnets.
Our Poet, who cannot be Shacksper or the earl,
is ribbing his son/cousin Pembroke by calling him
the 'onlie begetter' (of two children by the publication
of the Sonnets in 1609) and as well as the 'begetter'
or inspiration for the Sonnets.
In his dedication to his Epigrammes, Jonson
definitively identifies Herbert and Mr. W. H..
and Francis, Lord Verulam, as Our Poet.
Herbert cannot be Oxford's Mr. W. H. as Oxford
was writing letters trying to get Bridget Vere into
the wealthiest family in England via a marriage to
the heir to the greatest fortune in England (Lord
Henry Herbert's). Mr. W. H. would not inherit
the title for four or so years.
The Oxfordians have done the same thing to Oxford
that the Strats have done to Shacksper. Oxford
is a 'predator on youths' -- well that much was true
but the Rules of Class prevented Oxford from predating
on an earl or an earl's heir and as a true earl Oxford
would not do that.
There's no way that Oxford, who was growing sick
in any event, fell in love with William Herbert. The
whole premise is too icky to contemplate. Oxford
was kept away from Court by the Sumptuary Act
in any even. As soon as Oxford died, Parliament
revoked it.
I cannot believe how much twisting is done to the
lives of Elizabethans just so sectarian factions can
get their hands on the Shakespeare works.
Elizabeth
>
> > TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
> > THESE INSVING SONNETS
> > Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
> > AND THAT ETERNITIE
> > PROMISED
> > BY
> > OVR EVER-LIVING
> > POET
> > WISHETH
> > THE WELL-WISHING
> > ADVENTVRER IN
> > SETTING
> > FORTH.
> > T.T.
> > SHAKE-SPEARES,
> > SONNETS.
>
> > Paul.
The Poet means 'immortality' as in my Sonnets
will make you immortal.
John W. Kennedy
> Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
> the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?
Did you actually think the reincarnation of Simon Magus would read the
Bible?
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
lackpurity
wrote:
> Alan Jones wrote:
>
> > The natural sense of "begetter" would seem to be
> > "inspirer". The poet is the "mother" who conceives
> > and brings forth the poem, but its seed was planted
> > by someone else, Mr W.H. �He may be the subject of
> > the poem (though that does stretch the "begetter"
> > metaphor) or more likely the person who suggested
> > an idea or theme.
>
> This is of course the standard line, which ignores
> the very good points that Foster is making against
> such a theory. In fact I have been unable to find any
> attempt to refute the point he makes about the poet
> himself being the "onlie begetter".
MM:
The poet was William Shakespeare, who died in 1623. The "onlie
begetter," is clearly Mr. W. H. I'll leave it to the sagacity of the
readers, if they want to believe Farey's ridiculous theory that
Marlowe faked his death, etc., etc...
I don't care what Foster says, just read the quote. It clearly refers
to Mr. W. H.. Stratfordian theory overwhelmingly defeats
Marlovianism. Course, if anyone wants to go to fantasyland with
Marlovians, they can. :-)
> G. Blakemore
> Evans disagrees but (other than citing the exception
> which Foster himself identified and explained) he
> gives no reason for rejecting it.
MM:
Why don't we just forget these guys and read what was written by T.
T.? Hmmmm?? T. T. makes it clear that Mr. W. H. is the "onlie
begetter."
> I did actually ask
> Dave Kathman (who wrote an item on Mr. W.H. for the
> Oxford DNB) whether he could think of any attempt to
> refute Foster's evidence, but he could recall none
> other than the New Cambridge mention either.
MM:
Now what? More cavalry? Incredible. It's pretty simple, what was
written.
> Even if we ignore his claim that "begetter" in every
> other case means the poet, however,
MM:
Well? What about the timeline? Was Shakespeare dead or alive? Would
you mind telling us that? That would make a lot of difference.
> you appear to be
> forgetting the fact that there are 154 different poems
> (and thus 154 'ideas' or 'themes' to be suggested) in
> all, and no fewer than three different 'subjects'
> addressed in them. 'W.H.', on the other hand, is said
> to be the "onlie begetter".
MM:
His Sonnets had one main theme, Sat Guru Bhakti. Course, he discussed
a lot of versions or branches of it, and even discussed some personal
events, such as the Dark Lady. I would dismiss Mr. Farey's numbers,
154 and 3. Course, if anybody wants to believe them, go ahead.
That's right. W. H. is clearly seen as the "onlie begetter." Is that
tough one, Mr. Farey? :-)
> Incidentally, Foster's explanation of the "onlie" is
> that Thorpe is in fact 'certifying' that they are all
> by Shakespeare.
MM:
Well, there goes my respect for Mr. Foster. The "onlie," is about Mr.
W. H., not about certifying authorship by Shakespeare. Let's get
real.
> My own would be that whereas the
> "Shakespeare" plays were created to some extent by
> both Marlowe *and* Shakespeare the Sonnets are
> exclusively by the former. �
MM:
Shakespeare wrote the sonnets and his canon. Marlowe had his own
works. That's mine.
> (Personally, I'd have
> probably given Sonnet 145 to William,
MM:
Incredible. You're only going to give him ONE of his 154 sonnets?
> but I could
> be wrong,
MM:
You're wrong about so many things, IMO.
> or the writer of the 'dedication' may not
> have known it.)
MM:
Well, you just don't have much faith in the dedication. I think it is
right on accurate.
John W. Kennedy
> The natural sense of "begetter" would seem to be "inspirer".
But it is not "the natural sense of 'begetter'"--not in a
male-seed/female-soil culture, as the West was until very recently. The
earliest use of "beget" as "inspire" that I can think of offhand is in
C. S. Lewis's "Perelandra" (1943), and even there it is treated as
paradoxical.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"
lackpurity
MM:
Crowley, I've got to give you credit. You're correct on this one.
> One person is already
> indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> 'Mr W.H'. �
MM:
Absolutely.
Is he also 'our ever-lving
> poet' ? �
MM:
Crowley, you were doing pretty well up to this point.
> Did he promise himself 'all
> happinesse and that eternity'?
MM:
No, he promised that to his BELOVEDS, such as Mr. William Herbert.
William Shakespeare must have known that Mary Sidney Herbert, the
Divine Feminine, wouldn't live but five more years. SO, with his
magnificent foresight, he must have left the sonnets to Mr. William
Herbert.
I'll leave it Oxfordians, Marlovians, Baconians, Derbyites, etc., to
refute my case. It appears to be a tough one for them.
> TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
> THESE INSVING SONNETS
> Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
> AND THAT ETERNITIE
> PROMISED
> BY
> OVR EVER-LIVING
> POET
> WISHETH
> THE WELL-WISHING
> ADVENTVRER IN
> SETTING
> FORTH.
> T.T.
> SHAKE-SPEARES,
> SONNETS.
>
> Paul.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Yes, Crowley is right. It's very clear.
> though most people have read it that way because of a
> (usually unexamined) belief that "our ever-living poet" must be the
> author of the sonnets.
MM:
You think someone else had achieved Eternal Life, or the level of God-
Realization?
> > One person is already
> > indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> > 'Mr W.H'. �Is he also 'our ever-lving
> > poet' ?
>
> No.
>
> > Did he promise himself 'all
> > happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> No. �God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century usage, was the
> only one capable of "promising eternity" to somebody.
MM:
Masters promise it, just as Christ promised it. Shakespeare was such
a Master. If you've ever read the canon, you might have noticed the
extensive use of "Shepherds." Why? Because Masters are the Good
Shepherds and they come to collect their sheep (disciples,) promising
them eternal life and God-Realization.
> Dave Kathman
> d...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Martin
> > TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
> > THESE INSVING SONNETS
> > Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
> > AND THAT ETERNITIE
> > PROMISED
> > BY
> > OVR EVER-LIVING
> > POET
> > WISHETH
> > THE WELL-WISHING
> > ADVENTVRER IN
> > SETTING
> > FORTH.
> > T.T.
> > SHAKE-SPEARES,
> > SONNETS.
>
> > Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
> "Tom Reedy" <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in message
MM:
Am I an upstart crow? LOL
Michael Martin
> "A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
> Templars." (Umberto Eco)- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
MM;
Correction. Shakespeare died in 1616. The FF was out in 1623.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Tom Reedy" <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cf027b5d-ea5f-4382...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> Together with the three earlier problematic mothers in Shakespeare,
> >>>> this poses a most intriguing insight into the poet's relationship with
> >>>> mothers at large. Freudians must immediately relish delving into the
> >>>> possible secrets of the poet's relationship with his own mother, if he
> >>>> had one at all and was not like Macduff. In fact, it's not too far-
> >>>> fetched to suspect the poet's attitude towards mothers as the result
> >>>> of a relationship with a step-mother, lady Macduff then representing
> >>>> an ideal mother which the poet never had or could reach.
>
> >>>> Another Shakespeare mystery.
>
> >>> It's not peculiar to Shakespeare. Nobody wants to go to the theater,
> >>> watch a movie or TV show, or read a book about good mothers or happy
> >>> families. They're no fun. Even in fairy tales they're flatter and less
> >>> interesting than witches and evil step-mothers.
>
> Ignorant Stratfordianism goes rampant.
> Some ugly fact raises its head, and
> Strats flee to the nearest pile of dirt
> they can raise to create confusion.
MM:
Where do Anti-Strats flee? Fantasyland is a fairly popular
destination. LOL
> The point being made is about the
> RELATIVE proportion of '[bad mothers
> to good' in Shake-speare, as compared
> with other authors, and as compared
> (generally) with the relative proportion
> of 'bad fathers to good', or 'bad husbands
> to good', or 'bad wives to good', or 'bad
> children to good', or 'bad brothers to
> good' �. . . etc., etc.
MM:
Why belittle Shakespeare? Everybody knew that even before he wrote
the canon. Shakespeare came to "lay foundations for eternity," as he
wrote in the Sonnets. You don't do him justice, Crowley.
> Of course, there are bad mothers in
> literature generally, but there are also
> good ones, as well as both sorts of
> fathers, of wives, of husbands, brothers,
> sisters, etc., etc.
MM:
No kidding?
> >> Exactly. Anti-Stratfordians seem nearly incapable of understanding
> >> that non-journalistic authors choose characters mainly for what they
> >> do for their stories, not to reveal biographical matter.
>
> >> --Bob G.
>
> Another (necessarily ignorant) Strat
> chimes in.
MM:
Shakespeare's main theme was "mysticism," something which most members
of HLAS seem reluctant to even consider.
> > Even writers who mine their own lives for their material make the
> > characters and events a lot more interesting than they were in
> > reality. A lot of what passes for biography and autobiography is
> > heavily fictionalized, also.
>
> Grass is green, God is Love, paint
> dries slowly. �Rain is wet. �Let's recite
> as many irrelevant facts as we can.
MM:
Practice what you preach. You could lay off the proportions of good
mothers to bad, for example. That was highly irrelevant and
immaterial.
> It is quite easy to list the poet's
> main interests -- as seen in the canon
> -- and to summarise his prevailing
> attitudes, and then see who fits best.
MM:
Have you ever listed Mysticism or Sat Guru Bhakti?
> Let's take the indisputable fact that
> the poet shows mothers unfavourably.
> Which candidate had an unloving mother
> (who remarried shortly after the death of
> a beloved father)? �The poet generally
> shows fathers as honest and honourable.
> Whose much loved father died when
> he was twelve?
MM:
I think Crowley has lost the forest because of the trees.
> The poet is peculiarly concerned about
> bastardy, and how it can have a
> devastating effect on an individual.
MM:
That meant cryptically, that we have lost access to OUR FATHER.
Mysticism, Crowley. Get it?
> He also often portrays major characters
> as fathering bastards? �Which candidate
> suffered persecution over alleged
> bastardy? �Which fathered one or more
> bastard sons?
MM:
Immaterial and irrelevant.
> The poet does not say much about
> brothers or sisters, never showing a
> deep or close relationship with one.
> Which candidate was, in effect, an
> only child?
MM:
Immaterial and irrelevant.
MM:
Off into fantasyland we go. LOL
> It is quite incredible that people
> continue to believe in him.
>
> Paul.
MM:
Not to me.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Jesus Christ said, according to the Bible, that he came with a sword
to detach a mother from a daughter, a father from a son. He also said
that our enemies would be our own family members.
Shakespeare wrote similarly, trying to point out that worldly
relationships will not last. They are temporary, so a wise man will
find a Master, and the Master will attach him to the Creater.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
"lackpurity" wrote:
>
> David Kathman wrote:
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >
> > > It is clear from the grammar that
> > > the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> > > instance.
> >
> > No, it's not,
>
> MM:
> Yes, Crowley is right. It's very clear.
Sorry Dave. Against Crowley alone you may have had a
chance, but with MM supporting him?!
<snip>
> > > Did he promise himself 'all
> > > happinesse and that eternity'?
> >
> > No. God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century
> > usage, was the only one capable of "promising eternity"
> > to somebody.
>
> MM:
> Masters promise it, just as Christ promised it. Shake-
> speare was such a Master. If you've ever read the canon,
> you might have noticed the extensive use of "Shepherds."
Yes, come on Dave. You really ought to take a look at the
canon if you're going to try and take on Crowley and MM.
You'll find it's really not all that difficult once you get used
to the funny language.
<snip>
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Peter Farey
David Kathman wrote:
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> > instance.
>
> No, it's not, though most people have read it that way
> because of a (usually unexamined) belief that "our ever-
> living poet" must be the author of the sonnets.
>
> > One person is already
> > indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> > poet' ?
>
> No.
>
> > Did he promise himself 'all
> > happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> No. God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century
> usage, was the only one capable of "promising eternity"
> to somebody.
The problem is that the writer of Sonnet 125 apparently
did not believe in that sort of eternity ("which proves
more short than waste or ruining"), only in the sort of
eternity he describes in Sonnet 81:
Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read,
And tongues to be your being shall rehearse
When all the breathers of this world are dead.
You still shall live - such virtue hath my pen -
Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
I think that the writer of of the 'dedication' wasn't
actually Thorpe, but the person to whom those words
were addressed. He is in effect saying that he wishes
the poet the same sort of eternity that the poet had
promised him, (and that the publication of the Sonnets
had been undertaken with this in mind). The crucial
question is who were the most likely people to have
referred to themselves as an "adventurer...setting forth"
at the end of May 1609?
It was nevertheless the intention that most people would
read it in the way you do, and assume that 'W.H.' was a
misprint too.
christia...@gmail.com
Jesus Christ had nothing to do with Shakespeare. He plays no part
whatsoever in any of his plays or poems.
I find it reasonable to assume that Shakspere himself had nothing to
do with the poems and plays published in the Shakespeare name in
corrupt versions during his lifetime and posthumously in edited
versions except formally, that is lending his name to what could not
or would not be published in the names of others. I find it reasonable
to assume that Oxford started the whole thing as a dashing theatre
pioneer, that Marlowe was his protegé from the beginning and a
brilliant fulfiller of the art bringing the English drama to
perfection but was disrupted by intrigues and had to disappear
underground, that Derby had almost the same interest in the theatre as
Oxford his father-in-law, that Bacon acted as a kind of protector and
guardian of the theatre, finding it in his own interest to support it
and protect it for its excellent influence on the public, and that
Jonson had even less to do with the Shakespeare canon than Shakspere.
I therefore find it reasonable to assume that Marlowe wrote the 154
sonnets, that the dedication was written by no one less than TT, who
must have put those initials there himself as the publisher of them
Thomas Thorpe, and that there is no real mystery about that. However,
I find it reasonable to assume that neither William Herbert nor Henry
Wriothesley can be exempt from the suspicion of having been the
object.
C(hris)
Paul Crowley
news:ef6e2caa-5e73-4c34...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
>> It is clear from the grammar that
>> the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
>> instance.
>
> No, it's not, though most people have read it that way because of a
> (usually unexamined) belief that "our ever-living poet" must be the
> author of the sonnets.
Thanks for the correction. I have not
read Don Foster on this (or if I have
it was a long time ago and I've quite
forgotten it).
But when someone publishes a book
of sonnets and refers to 'our . . poet'
the assumption has to be that readers
will see it as being to author of the
sonnets. Did Don Foster explain why
T.T. encoded a double meaning -- with
one which would deceive nearly all
readers?
>> One person is already
>> indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
>> 'Mr W.H'. Is he also 'our ever-lving
>> poet' ?
>
> No.
>
>> Did he promise himself 'all
>> happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> No. God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century usage, was the
> only one capable of "promising eternity" to somebody.
That is only true in a strictly literal
sense. And here the phrase is 'that
eternity'. It is something which the
author of the Sonnets does frequently
promise within the text. God may be
thought to promise eternity (although
it is hard to see how anyone here
deserves it in the religious sense) but
He does not promise 'that eternity'.
The proposal that this dedication was
intended in a religious sense rings false.
The text is full of jokes and obscure
allusions (few of which we get) such as
'all happinesse' (whatever that might
mean), the printing play on 'setting
out', and the 'wisheth the well-wishing
adventurer . . '.
lackpurity
wrote:
MM:
You're confusing two planes of consciousness. Where men live, is not
considered eternity. It is considered an illusion.
> I think that the writer of of the 'dedication' wasn't
> actually Thorpe, but the person to whom those words
> were addressed.
MM:
You believe Thorpe is a liar? You're going to add him to your list of
conspirators?
> He is in effect saying that he wishes
> the poet the same sort of eternity that the poet had
> promised him,
MM:
He's referring to Mr. W. H., not William Shakespeare. It is very
clear that Mr. W. H. is the "adventurer," i.e. disciple, and
Shakespeare was his Master.
> (and that the publication of the Sonnets
> had been undertaken with this in mind).
MM:
The poet, WS, already had achieved ETERNITY. The wishes for eternity
were for Mr. W. H..
> The crucial
> question is who were the most likely people to have
> referred to themselves as an "adventurer...setting forth"
> at the end of May 1609?
MM:
Give me a break. The adventurer was Mr. W. H., and no one else. No
other fantasy.
> It was nevertheless the intention that most people would
> read it in the way you do, and assume that 'W.H.' was a
> misprint too.
MM:
Mr. W. H. seems to be clearly the truth, and he is William Herbert.
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>-
Michael Martin
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ef6e2caa-5e73-4c34...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> It is clear from the grammar that
> >> the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> >> instance.
>
> > No, it's not, though most people have read it that way because of a
> > (usually unexamined) belief that "our ever-living poet" must be the
> > author of the sonnets.
>
> Thanks for the correction. �I have not
> read Don Foster on this (or if I have
> it was a long time ago and I've quite
> forgotten it).
MM:
Incredible, now you're going off on a tangent?
> But when someone publishes a book
> of sonnets and refers to 'our . . �poet'
> the assumption has to be that readers
> will see it as being to author of the
> sonnets. �
MM:
You got that right. The EVER LIVING POET is William Shakespeare, and
no other impostor.
> Did Don Foster explain why
> T.T. encoded a double meaning -- with
> one which would deceive nearly all
> readers?
MM:
TT wrote only one meaning. That meaning is clear. Here it is again.
William Shakespeare was the Ever Living Poet. Mr. W. H., i.e. William
Herbert, was the only begetter, or the NEW MALE PARENT of the sonnets.
Read it and weep, you Anti-Strats.
> >> One person is already
> >> indicated as 'the onlie begetter' and
> >> 'Mr W.H'. �Is he also 'our ever-lving
> >> poet' ?
>
> > No.
>
> >> Did he promise himself 'all
> >> happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> > No. �God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century usage, was the
> > only one capable of "promising eternity" to somebody.
>
> That is only true in a strictly literal
> sense. �And here the phrase is 'that
> eternity'. �It is something which the
> author of the Sonnets does frequently
> promise within the text. �God may be
> thought to promise eternity (although
> it is hard to see how anyone here
> deserves it in the religious sense) but
> He does not promise 'that eternity'.
MM:
God has sent the Saints to rescue us, but we often prefer to kill or
torture them. They will take us to the ETERNAL TRUE HOME, if we will
have faith in them.
> The proposal that this dedication was
> intended in a religious sense rings false.
MM:
It is true as true can be, with nothing false about it. It involves
two people, Sat Guru William Shakespeare and disciple Mr. William
Herbert. The reference to "adventurer," means that the disciple is
embarking on a spiritual journey through vast planes of consciousness.
> The text is full of jokes and obscure
> allusions (few of which we get) such as
> 'all happinesse' (whatever that might
> mean), the printing play on 'setting
> out', and the 'wisheth the well-wishing
> adventurer . . '.
MM:
Some seeds always fall on barren ground, and that is why so many
Saints have been misunderstood, tortured, and killed.
Michael Martin
> >> TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
> >> THESE INSVING SONNETS
> >> Mr. W.H. ALL HAPPINESSE
> >> AND THAT ETERNITIE
> >> PROMISED
> >> BY
> >> OVR EVER-LIVING
> >> POET
> >> WISHETH
> >> THE WELL-WISHING
> >> ADVENTVRER IN
> >> SETTING
> >> FORTH.
> >> T.T.
> >> SHAKE-SPEARES,
> >> SONNETS.- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
>
> > David Kathman wrote:
>
> > > Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > > > It is clear from the grammar that
> > > > the 'begetter' is not the poet in this
> > > > instance.
>
> > > No, it's not,
>
> > MM:
> > Yes, Crowley is right. �It's very clear.
>
> Sorry Dave. Against Crowley alone you may have had a
> chance, but with MM supporting him?!
MM:
LOL
> <snip>
>
> > > > Did he promise himself 'all
> > > > happinesse and that eternity'?
>
> > > No. God did, since God, in early seventeenth-century
> > > usage, was the only one capable of "promising eternity"
> > > to somebody.
>
> > MM:
> > Masters promise it, just as Christ promised it. �Shake-
> > speare was such a Master. �If you've ever read the canon,
> > you might have noticed the extensive use of "Shepherds."
>
> Yes, come on Dave. You really ought to take a look at the
> canon if you're going to try and take on Crowley and MM.
MM:
Taking things out of context? Focus on Shepherds, also, as I did.
> You'll find it's really not all that difficult once you get used
> to the funny language.
MM:
It takes a mystic to explain mystic writings. I've been saying this
for going on three years now. Those who don't know zilch about
mysticism just might try to distort the truth, either purposely or
inadvertebtly, and they might take worlds like Mr. W. H. and say it is
merely a misprint.
Michael Martin
> <snip>
lackpurity
MM:
Your opinion is noted. I disagree. Did you, by any chance, happen to
read the poem by John Donne referring to Jesus' wife, Mary Magdalene?
I think that poem belies your opinion.
> I find it reasonable to assume that Shakspere himself had nothing to
> do with the poems and plays published in the Shakespeare name in
> corrupt versions during his lifetime and posthumously in edited
> versions except formally, that is lending his name to what could not
> or would not be published in the names of others.
MM:
Well, that's your opinion. I disagree. The evidence, IMO, belies
your opinion.
> I find it reasonable
> to assume that Oxford started the whole thing as a dashing theatre
> pioneer,
MM:
To write the canon would require more talent than that. One would
have to be a Perfect Mystic Adept to write it. I find that contention
to be unreasonable. Oxford was no world-class writer. Maybe even a
school kid might notice that?
> that Marlowe was his protegé from the beginning
MM:
I think you would need to prove that for most readers. Marlowe had
some major influences, including Sir Philip Sidney, Mary Sidney, Fulke
Greville, and Edmund Spenser. Oxford was a student, not the Master,
IMO. That fiasco on the tennis court should be enough proof that his
discernment wasn't too cool. LOL
> and a
> brilliant fulfiller of the art bringing the English drama to
> perfection but was disrupted by intrigues and had to disappear
> underground,
MM:
I personally think that he had more honor than that. He prophesied
that he was going to be destroyed, and I don't consider him to be a
liar, but many Anti-Strats will pigeonhole him with reckless abandon.
Course, the faked-death hypothesis makes so many people liars. Too
many for me.
> that Derby had almost the same interest in the theatre as
> Oxford his father-in-law,
MM:
They were learning mysticism from the Masters. The theater was a
sideshow.
> that Bacon acted as a kind of protector and
> guardian of the theatre, finding it in his own interest to support it
> and protect it for its excellent influence on the public,
MM:
Why did it have an excellent influence on the public? Primarily
because of William Shakespeare. That's why, and Bacon respected his
predecessors.
> and that
> Jonson had even less to do with the Shakespeare canon than Shakspere.
MM:
Well, I consider that hypothesis to be ridiculous, as William
Shakespeare wrote it. Jonson was one of his most prominent disciples.
> I therefore find it reasonable to assume that Marlowe wrote the 154
> sonnets,
MM:
I didn't notice any good logic behind your assumption. It's certainly
your prerogative to assume whatever.
> that the dedication was written by no one less than TT,
MM:
We can agree on that, then. Amazing.
> who
> must have put those initials there himself as the publisher of them
> Thomas Thorpe, and that there is no real mystery about that. However,
> I find it reasonable to assume that neither William Herbert nor Henry
> Wriothesley can be exempt from the suspicion of having been the
> object.
>
> C(hris)
MM:
The object was William Herbert and no other.
Michael Martin
Christian Lanciai
snip of earlier arguments, that were ignored anyway.
> On Mar 18, 3:40 am, christian.lanc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Jesus Christ had nothing to do with Shakespeare. He plays no part
> > whatsoever in any of his plays or poems.
>
> MM:
> Your opinion is noted. I disagree. Did you, by any chance, happen to
> read the poem by John Donne referring to Jesus' wife, Mary Magdalene?
> I think that poem belies your opinion.
>
And what has Mary Magdalene to do with Shakespeare?
> > I find it reasonable to assume that Shakspere himself had nothing to
> > do with the poems and plays published in the Shakespeare name in
> > corrupt versions during his lifetime and posthumously in edited
> > versions except formally, that is lending his name to what could not
> > or would not be published in the names of others.
>
> MM:
> Well, that's your opinion. I disagree. The evidence, IMO, belies
> your opinion.
>
> > I find it reasonable
> > to assume that Oxford started the whole thing as a dashing theatre
> > pioneer,
>
> MM:
> To write the canon would require more talent than that. One would
> have to be a Perfect Mystic Adept to write it. I find that contention
> to be unreasonable. Oxford was no world-class writer. Maybe even a
> school kid might notice that?
>
I didn't say Oxford wrote the canon. I said he started the Elizabethan
theatre business and probably came out with some very good ideas, that
later were developed by others.
> > that Marlowe was his protegé from the beginning
>
> MM:
> I think you would need to prove that for most readers. Marlowe had
> some major influences, including Sir Philip Sidney, Mary Sidney, Fulke
> Greville, and Edmund Spenser. Oxford was a student, not the Master,
> IMO. That fiasco on the tennis court should be enough proof that his
> discernment wasn't too cool. LOL
>
> > and a
> > brilliant fulfiller of the art bringing the English drama to
> > perfection but was disrupted by intrigues and had to disappear
> > underground,
>
> MM:
> I personally think that he had more honor than that. He prophesied
> that he was going to be destroyed, and I don't consider him to be a
> liar, but many Anti-Strats will pigeonhole him with reckless abandon.
> Course, the faked-death hypothesis makes so many people liars. Too
> many for me.
>
If you call a person a liar you have to prove he is a liar. That you
have never proved, so your argument is pointless. Stratfordians wallow
in calling anyone a liar who doesn't conform to their established
lies.
> > that Derby had almost the same interest in the theatre as
> > Oxford his father-in-law,
>
> MM:
> They were learning mysticism from the Masters. The theater was a
> sideshow.
>
> > that Bacon acted as a kind of protector and
> > guardian of the theatre, finding it in his own interest to support it
> > and protect it for its excellent influence on the public,
>
> MM:
> Why did it have an excellent influence on the public? Primarily
> because of William Shakespeare. That's why, and Bacon respected his
> predecessors.
>
The chronicle plays are perfect education of the audience in British
history, teaching them all that constantly went wrong and thus
gradually developing a critical mind against wrong authorities. That's
just one example. The poet was an idealist, idealizing for instance
ancient Romans and Greeks and other heroes but above all representing
the humanistic ideal mainly based on the writings of Montaigne,
bringing good humanist notions out to the audience, inspiring some
intelligence by provoking some thought.
> > and that
> > Jonson had even less to do with the Shakespeare canon than Shakspere.
>
> MM:
> Well, I consider that hypothesis to be ridiculous, as William
> Shakespeare wrote it. Jonson was one of his most prominent disciples.
>
> > I therefore find it reasonable to assume that Marlowe wrote the 154
> > sonnets,
>
> MM:
> I didn't notice any good logic behind your assumption. It's certainly
> your prerogative to assume whatever.
>
> > that the dedication was written by no one less than TT,
>
> MM:
> We can agree on that, then. Amazing.
>
> > who
> > must have put those initials there himself as the publisher of them
> > Thomas Thorpe, and that there is no real mystery about that. However,
> > I find it reasonable to assume that neither William Herbert nor Henry
> > Wriothesley can be exempt from the suspicion of having been the
> > object.
> >
> > C(hris)
>
> MM:
> The object was William Herbert and no other.
>
> Michael Martin
I wouldn't be too sure. The name is not written out, and TT can only
have refrained from writing it out for some reason.
C.
lackpurity
> snip of earlier arguments, that were ignored anyway.
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:40�am, christian.lanc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Jesus Christ had nothing to do with Shakespeare. He plays no part
> > > whatsoever in any of his plays or poems.
>
> > MM:
> > Your opinion is noted. �I disagree. �Did you, by any chance, happen to
> > read the poem by John Donne referring to Jesus' wife, Mary Magdalene?
> > I think that poem belies your opinion.
>
> And what has Mary Magdalene to do with Shakespeare?
MM:
She was Mary Sidney Herbert.
> > > I find it reasonable to assume that Shakspere himself had nothing to
> > > do with the poems and plays published in the Shakespeare name in
> > > corrupt versions during his lifetime and posthumously in edited
> > > versions except formally, that is lending his name to what could not
> > > or would not be published in the names of others.
>
> > MM:
> > Well, that's your opinion. �I disagree. �The evidence, IMO, belies
> > your opinion.
>
> > > I find it reasonable
> > > to assume that Oxford started the whole thing as a dashing theatre
> > > pioneer,
>
> > MM:
> > To write the canon would require more talent than that. �One would
> > have to be a Perfect Mystic Adept to write it. �I find that contention
> > to be unreasonable. �Oxford was no world-class writer. �Maybe even a
> > school kid might notice that?
>
> I didn't say Oxford wrote the canon. I said he started the Elizabethan
> theatre business and probably came out with some very good ideas, that
> later were developed by others.
MM:
All right. I thought you meant authorship.
> > > that Marlowe was his proteg� from the beginning
>
> > MM:
> > I think you would need to prove that for most readers. �Marlowe had
> > some major influences, including Sir Philip Sidney, Mary Sidney, Fulke
> > Greville, and Edmund Spenser. �Oxford was a student, not the Master,
> > IMO. �That fiasco on the tennis court should be enough proof that his
> > discernment wasn't too cool. �LOL
>
> > > and a
> > > brilliant fulfiller of the art bringing the English drama to
> > > perfection but was disrupted by intrigues and had to disappear
> > > underground,
>
> > MM:
> > I personally think that he had more honor than that. �He prophesied
> > that he was going to be destroyed, and I don't consider him to be a
> > liar, but many Anti-Strats will pigeonhole him with reckless abandon.
> > Course, the faked-death hypothesis makes so many people liars. �Too
> > many for me.
>
> If you call a person a liar you have to prove he is a liar. That you
> have never proved, so your argument is pointless.
MM:
I don't remember pigeonholing anyone as a liar. I think you must have
misunderstood me.
> Stratfordians wallow
> in calling anyone a liar who doesn't conform to their established
> lies.
MM:
Whom did I call a liar? My contention is that the massive-conspiracy-
silent theory would have required many people to be liars. Anti-
Strats are often plugging that theory, not me.
MM:
Jast as I use "MM." :-)
Michael Martin
Dominic Hughes
No. You're a dodo. Or a loony bird.
Dom
nordicskiv2
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "lackpurity" wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > As Don Foster has convincingly argued, the "begetter" of
> > > a poem according to the generally accepted conceit would
> > > have been the poet who wrote it.
> > MM:
> > Here we go again, more Anti-Strat distortions or attempts
> > to rewrite history.
> Don Foster is not an "anti-Strat". He is an English Pro-
> fessor at Vassar and, like most such professors (including
> Michael Egan and Park Honan) is staunchly Stratfordian.
>
> He did, however, acknowledge the possible relevance of his
> argument to those of the opposite persuasion by saying:
>
> "One hypothesis [to explain his findings], which I leave
> others to expound, is that Shakespeare was not the author
> of *Shake-speares Sonnets*."
> > I just looked up "begetter,"
Congratulations are in order!
> > and it is a "male parent."
> Wow! No, really? So all that "begatting" by the blokes in
> the Bible was about having kids. Whatever next?
> > Obviously, the Sonnets were dedicated to W. H. and he
> > became the NEW Male Parent, with William Shakespeare
> > being the old parent.
> Ah, so you didn't look up "only" at the same time, then?
Of course not, Peter -- he couldn't find "onlie" in his
dictionary.
[...]
Elizabeth
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:44 GMT, "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><bookb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:j529t313nh1m74n52...@4ax.com...
> >[...]
>
> >> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> >> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> >> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> >> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> >> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
>
> >Alan Jones
>
> Okay, she evidently sponsored an acting troop, so that's a start. I
> was wondering how close she was to Oxford and his similar vocation.
> I'll check a few sources and get back on this. bb
We aren't allowed to know about Sir Nicholas
Bacon's five-part policy to keep the Protestant
Queen alive, prevent a civil war between
English Protestants and English Catholics (there
were a couple of thousand English Protestants,
and nearly four million English Catholics) and
resist a war with Spain (the Pope had issued
a bull announcing that a 'war without end'
commenced the instant the heretical Queen took
the English throne).
The fourth part of the policy was to create an
English Protestant literary movement to 1) unite
the English people behind their 'glorious history'
(the Shakespeare history plays), 2) advance
literacy at a time when male literacy hovered
around 2%; 3) create a propaganda mechanism
to promote English Protestantism while 4) main-
taining the Bacon-Jewell policy of via media in
all things (the reason Francis, Lord Verulam's
arms feature 'mediocria firm' as Hall and Marston
satirically pointed out when they exposed the
identity of the author of the Shakespeare works.
When the first generation of this project (for
which Sir Nicholas Bacon gets no credit since the
Strats have thoroughly demonized and discredited
his genius son) . . . waned . . . the teenage
Countess of Pembroke stepped into the gap.
The glorious works that came out of the Sidney
faction were the LITERARY extention of Sir
Nicholas Bacon's Elizabethan Protestant literary
movement. The first generation of writers like
Sir Thomas Hoby, Sir Roger Asham, Bishop
John Jewell, the 'illustrious Cooke sisters,
what passed for the English literati, were good but
not gifted.
For some reason, probably because
God likes England best, He sent Sir Nicholas
a polymath genius who essentially dedicated his
life to his father's policies and ideals. Kind of wore
him out at the end since the policy had five parts.
We have eight of Francis, Lord Verulam's letters
to Burghley asking for his help in achieving Part III,
the English academy of arts and sciences but
Cecil was only an obstructionist.
Mary Sidney should be WORLD FAMOUS for
patronizing Part II, the most glorious part of Sir Nicholas'
polies but since we have THE WRONG AUTHOR
we're always told that Southampton, maybe
Essex and Mary's son Pembroke were the patrons
of the Shakespeare works. Mary MADE a literary
movement. We would not have the Elizabethan
Protestant Shakespeare works without her. She's
all 'in them.'
So what were Shacksper's motivation to spend
decades of his life producing history's greatest
literary works?
The fact that the Strats could not figure out his
motive until Sir Sidney Lee sensibly said 'he wrote
for money' says it all.
lackpurity
MM:
He (WS) was trying to enlighten humanity. Bacon got a lot of credit.
He was a Sat Guru after William Shakespeare's death. Ben Jonson
discussed his greatness, just as he did for Shakespeare.
> The fact that the Strats could not figure out his
> motive until Sir Sidney Lee sensibly said 'he wrote
> for money' says it all.
MM:
It was a service to humanity.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> I therefore find it reasonable to assume that Marlowe
> wrote the 154 sonnets, that the dedication was written
> ials there himself as the publisher of them Thomas
> Thorpe, and that there is no real mystery about that.
> However, I find it reasonable to assume that neither
> William Herbert nor Henry Wriothesley can be exempt
> from the suspicion of having been the object.
What Don Foster has to say about the order in which
the information is presented is interesting:
Many authors (Robert Greene, George Gascoigne,
Thomas Lodge, and so on) used this formulaic greet-
ing (with slight variations) for virtually all their
dedications. The only noteworthy difference between
Thorpe's epigraph and these others, apart from the
extra pointing, is that his signature appears at the
bottom, rather than before "wisheth," so that his
verb and direct object are necessarily transposed -
"To [the addressee], happiness and eternity wishes
[the epistler]," rather than the usual "To [the
addressee], [the epistler] wishes happiness and
eternity."
In other words, the usual order would have been some-
thing like:
TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H.
.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTVRER.
T.T.
IN.SETTING.
FORTH.
.
WISHETH.
ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
By switching the initials to the end, however, it then
becomes possible to interpret it *either* as above *or*
for the well-wisher in fact to be a separate person as
I (with considerable support from the charter of the
Virginia Company) suggest. The reasons for thinking
that Thorpe might describe himself as an "adventurer...
setting forth" at that time pales into insignificance
against the reason Southampton or Pembroke would have
for describing themselves in such a way.
lackpurity
wrote:
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
MM:
I can't believe how you and Foster take such liberties with it. For
those who don't appreciate the confusion, here it is again:
'TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF THESE INSVING SONNETS MR. W.H. ALL
HAPPINESSE AND THAT ETERNITIE PROMISED BY OUR EVER-LIVING POET WISHETH
THE WELL-WISHING ADVENTVRER IN SETTING FORTH.'
It is all Sat Guru Bhakti. Mr. W. H., i.e. William Herbert is the new
male parent of the sonnets. Mr. W. H. was only 29 years old, so he is
congruent with the concept of a relatively new, young disciple, an
adventurer. Shakespeare lived for seven more years, so it must have
been with his permission, otherwise we would have had evidence
otherwise. Being the owner of those sonnets would have been an
adventure. That is quite easy to understand.
Michael Martin
Peter Farey
"lackpurity" wrote:
>
> MM:
> I can't believe how you and Foster ... [blah blah blah
> blah blah blah] ... That is quite easy to understand.
I find myself heartily supporting the advice given to
you by Tom Reedy in the "If you quiz us..." thread on
the ninth inst., and suspect that I am by no means the
only one.
Paul Crowley
news:frq6bp$kvb$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> What Don Foster has to say about the order in which
> the information is presented is interesting:
>
> Many authors (Robert Greene, George Gascoigne,
> Thomas Lodge, and so on) used this formulaic greet-
> ing (with slight variations) for virtually all their
> dedications. The only noteworthy difference between
> Thorpe's epigraph and these others, apart from the
> extra pointing, is that his signature appears at the
> bottom, rather than before "wisheth," so that his
> verb and direct object are necessarily transposed -
> "To [the addressee], happiness and eternity wishes
> [the epistler]," rather than the usual "To [the
> addressee], [the epistler] wishes happiness and
> eternity."
>
> In other words, the usual order would have been some-
> thing like:
<snip>
If you allow yourself the freedom to
change the order of words in historical
documents, and to read in typos, you
can get them to say pretty much
anything you want.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Personally, I would agree with John that Foster's interpre-
> > > tation is the best one there is, but only as an explanation
> > > of how most people were intended to read it at the time,
> > > including the assumption that 'W.H.' was just a misprint
> > > (similar to the word 'sieh' on the monument).
>
> > IIRC, there is more than one state of the printing,
> > indicating that corrections were made during the course
> > of the printing. It would be instructive to determine
> > which sheet the corrections were made on to see if any
> > of them were on the same sheet as the dedication (I know
> > it's nor really that, but it's been referred to as such
> > I use the term for convenience). If the dedication was
> > on a sheet that had already been broken up when the
> > others were printed, there would have been no oppor-
> > tunity to correct the misprint, of course.
>
> According to the facsimile contained in Stephen Booth's
> edition, both the title page and the 'dedication' appear
> on sig.A, which consists of only 2 pages (i.e. 4 sides).
> The former is A1r and the latter A2r, the other two sides
> being blank. The First sonnet is on B1r. It would there-
> fore presumably have been possible, if any misprint had
> been spotted in T.T.'s message, for the other (unused)
> half of the 'A' sheet to be used as a cancel title page
> without affecting the sonnets themselves.
For all we know, that might have been done, since only 13 copies have
survived.
> > > What I think may have been the true meaning, however, is
> > > very different, and is written by someone who has had the
> > > poems published as a gift to the poet, but who for obvious
> > > reasons prefers to remain anonymous.
>
> > > * "W.H." are the initials of the name under which the
> > > "onlie begetter" (Marlowe) was living at the time.
>
> > > * "That eternitie" is not eternal bliss, but the same
> > > immortality the poet promised the addressee in sonnets
> > > such as 81:
>
> > > Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
> > > Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read,
> > > And tongues to be your being shall rehearse
> > > When all the breathers of this world are dead.
> > > You still shall live - such virtue hath my pen -
> > > Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
>
> > > * "Our ever-living poet" is not God, but Marlowe, and plays
> > > upon the fact that he is thought to be dead, but is in
> > > fact still alive.
>
> > > * The "well-wishing adventurer" is one of the first two
> > > named members of the just-formed Virginia Company, either
> > > the Earl of Southampton or the Earl of Pembroke.
>
> > > * In the absence of a more esoteric meaning (such as what-
> > > ever two Tau crosses might mean to the initiated) this is
> > > still Thomas Thorpe, but only in the role of a message-
> > > bearer for the real "well-wisher".
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back to
> > this next week.
>
> I'd welcome some discussion of this. In my opinion the idea
> that it was a message from the 'Fair Youth' is an interest-
> ing one even if the rest is just as JWK described it.
I reread Foster's article last night, and I now agree with him
completely. IIRC, the last time I read it I had some reservations
about the Thorpe examples he used, but I can't think of what they were
anymore, and in any case that was about two years ago.
I can see how the secretary "S" could be confused with an "H" (see the
sixth and ninth examples of "H" in the Jean de Beauchesne alphabet at
http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/alphabets.html), but that
wouldn't explain the wider, unpointed gap between the "H" and "ALL,"
so it seems most probable it was meant to read "SH."
TR
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
wrote:
> "lackpurity" wrote:
>
> > MM:
> > I can't believe how you and Foster ... [blah blah blah
> > blah blah blah] ... That is quite easy to understand.
>
> I find myself heartily supporting the advice given to
> you by Tom Reedy in the "If you quiz us..." thread on
> the ninth inst., and suspect that I am by no means the
> only one.
>
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
MM:
For three years I've been expounding the truth about Shakespeare. It
has been rejected by most, so nothing will surprise me. Shakespeare,
himself, ran into the same problem with respect to Robert Greene,
Chettle, and others. It's nothing new. When Shakespeare was Jesus he
was crucified. When he was Julius Caesar, he was assassinated. When
he was Socrates, he was poisoned. So, he has rarely been properly
respected.
If you want to align yourself with Reedy, that is your problem, as I
see it.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
MM:
I don't know whether the wholesale mutilation of Thorpe's dedication
was a laughing matter or a crying matter? I'm leaning towards the
latter, however. Maybe Farey will find solace with Reedy?
Michael Martin
Tom Veal
but.net> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 1:24 am, Tom Veal <TomV...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > FWIW, my review of "Sweet Swan of Avon", the book promoting the Mary
> > Sidney Herbert hyothesis is now posted athttp://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2008/03/random-readin-1.html.
>
> > On Mar 9, 7:27 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Mary (Sidney) Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621),
> > > from atwww.mayrysydney.com.
>
> > > (quote)
> > > Unlike every other proposed authorship candidate, Mary Sidney has no
> > > anomaly (like being dead) that needs an elaborate explanation to
> > > justify. Everything about her fits neatly and remarkably into the
> > > authorship of the Shakespearean plays and sonnets--she is the most
> > > articulate, literate, educated, and motivated writer of the times with
> > > hundreds of connections to the source materials of the plays, and her
> > > love life matches the sonnet story. Because she was a woman, however,
> > > she was not allowed to write plays for the public theater.
> > > (unquote)
>
> > > Here are some other leading attributes of Mary Herbert I find that
> > > rank her a significant candidate to have written the canon.
>
> > > 1. She was an especially talented Renaissance Woman, allowed to be as
> > > accomplished as Queen Elizabeth in languages, sports, musical
> > > instruments, medical training, and mathematics. She knew John Dee,
> > > studied symbolic geometry and alchemy, and wrote letters to friends in
> > > musical code.
>
> > > 2. She, like Bacon, had literary goals for England.
> > > a. She completed and published her brother, Phillip Sydney,
> > > signal works on The Defense of Poetry, etc..
> > > a. She was patron of the most important literary circle in
> > > English history: the Wilton Circle.
> > > b. She is known to have influenced Donne, Marvell, Herebert, and
> > > Milton, although seemingly not Shakespeare.
>
> > > 3. She was the first woman to publish a play in English, publish
> > > original dramatic verse, and not apologize for publishing her
> > > work.
>
> > > 4. Scholars find links to Shakespeare in the sonnets and FF,
> > > and her work is known to be used as a source in the canon.
>
> > > I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> > > case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> > > the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. It might
> > > be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> > > mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> feedback about it?
>
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Judging by what she says on her Web site, the author is basking in the
admiration of anti-Stratfordian feminists, so I doubt that she'll pay
much attention to a negative blog post. If she does, I'll report her
response.
Greg Reynolds
> MM:
> For three years I've been expounding the truth about Shakespeare.
No, you are clueless about Shakespeare and Jesus.
You are posting idiocy because I ordered you to post idiocy.
I am your Master and you have no escape.
> It
> has been rejected by most, so nothing will surprise me.
Do not entertain yourself, lackie. Entertain me, your Master, with
more idiocy.
>Shakespeare,
> himself, ran into the same problem with respect to Robert Greene,
> Chettle, and others.
Yes, these childish revelations of yours are perfect, lackie. Keep up
the idiocy. Pretend to know what you're talking about. You looking
smart -- it's priceless!
> It's nothing new. When Shakespeare was Jesus he
> was crucified.
This is the stupidity we want. More dopiness, please. Serve it up!
> When he was Julius Caesar, he was assassinated.
What happened when he was your pet? Starved to death? LOL
>When
> he was Socrates, he was poisoned. So, he has rarely been properly
> respected.
This is honest stupidity. Very good, lackie. More of this, please.
> If you want to align yourself with Reedy, that is your problem, as I
> see it.
Tom studies Shakespeare. No wonder you don't understand him. Give him
a break. Just concentrate on your gaudy twisted misunderstandings,
lackie.
God gave you a keyboard, lackie -- USE IT! I want ten dopey essays a
day! Get on it!
it is typical to ask anyone here to substantiate his or her words. We
won't bother you, holy man, because you such a source of fun.
Especially your hypocrisy in challenging an anti-Strat when you cannot
even explain something as simple as yourself!
Your dishonest teaching defies history and divinity--keep it up!
I am your Master and you shall not want, lackie, but get us more
stupid posts, please!!!
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote
(in the ever less relevantly titled "Best authorship
attribution credentials" thread):
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back
> > > to this next week.
> >
> > I'd welcome some discussion of this. In my opinion the idea
> > that it was a message from the 'Fair Youth' is an interest-
> > ing one even if the rest is just as JWK described it.
>
> I reread Foster's article last night, and I now agree
> with him completely. IIRC, the last time I read it I had
> some reservations about the Thorpe examples he used, but
> I can't think of what they were anymore, and in any case
> that was about two years ago.
>
> I can see how the secretary "S" could be confused with an
> "H" (see the sixth and ninth examples of "H" in the Jean
> de Beauchesne alphabet at
> http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/alphabets.html),
> but that wouldn't explain the wider, unpointed gap between
> the "H" and "ALL," so it seems most probable it was meant
> to read "SH."
That's good. So for the sake of *this* discussion, let us
accept Foster's claims that "Mr.W.H." is in fact William
Shakespeare, "our ever-living poet" is God, and "that
eternity" is an after-life in heavenly bliss. OK? This
appears to be something which JWK would also be prepared
to accept and which Dave Kathman seems to be not entirely
averse to either.
My question remains, nevertheless. Was the "well-wishing
adventurer" really Thomas Thorpe, or was he someone else
for whom TT was simply passing on the message?
Don Foster says (p.44) "Thorpe is without question the
well-wishing adventurer", but I'm not sure that the evid-
ence he gives really supports that conclusion.
As I pointed out earlier, he had this to say about the
unusual order in which the elements of the message are
presented. :
Many authors (Robert Greene, George Gascoigne,
Thomas Lodge, and so on) used this formulaic greet-
ing (with slight variations) for virtually all their
dedications. The only noteworthy difference between
Thorpe's epigraph and these others, apart from the
extra pointing, is that his signature appears at the
bottom, rather than before "wisheth," so that his
verb and direct object are necessarily transposed -
"To [the addressee], happiness and eternity wishes
[the epistler]," rather than the usual "To [the
addressee], [the epistler] wishes happiness and
eternity."
He suggests that Thorpe "doubtless inverted the order
to prevent the reader from mistaking the second appos-
itive, "the well-wishing adventurer", for a reference
to "W.H."". But to do this Thorpe had no need to
change the order to such an extraordinary extent.
Even if he had had to use the same words (which of
course he didn't have to) the sequence I suggested
would have easily solved that problem:
TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H.
.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTVRER.
T.T.
IN.SETTING.
FORTH.
.
WISHETH.
ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
By moving the initials to the end, however, he makes
it possible to interpret it not just as it appears
above but for the well-wisher in fact to be a separ-
ate person. Whilst the subject of the verb 'wisheth'
is clearly the "well-wishing adventurer", the init-
ials "T.T." should really be within the body of the
text for it grammatically to say that he was too.
Secondly, Foster claims that the meaning of "setting
forth" is fairly obvious; "like a merchant-adventurer
setting forth, Thorpe has set forth a book in a comm-
ercial adventure." He goes on to give an example of
the words "set forth" meaning "publish". What he does
not do, however, is to notice that the setting forth
in the publishing sense is transitive ("set forth a
booke") whereas the usage here is intransitive, which
would usually indicate the start of a *journey* of
some sort. In any case, the significant characteristic
of a merchant-adventurer was not just the risky
mercantile element, but the fact that the trade was
carried on *overseas*, which is certainly not in any
way relevant to Thorpe in this context.
Thirdly, there is no dedication as such. Foster tells
us that "Thorpe well knew how to address a social sup-
erior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
in *St. Augustine* and *Epictetus*." We may therefore
wonder why no dedication to some noble wasn't included
with the Sonnets as it had been for *Venus and Adonis*
and *The Rape of Lucrece*. It would surely not have
been beyond his wit to find someone who could not
possibly have been associated with their content in
any way if that was considered a problem. If, on the
other hand, the writer of the introductory epistle
were a noble himself, and the publication a gift to
the poet, that would certainly explain it.
The main reason for suggesting that, rather than
Thorpe, the 'epistler' was for example either the Earl
of Southampton or of Pembroke would be the proximity
of the date of the registration of the Sonnets to
that of the granting of the 2nd Virginia Charter.
The Sonnets were entered in the Stationers' Company
Register on Saturday 20th May 1609. Just *three days*
later, Tuesday 23rd May, the second Virginia Charter
was granted:
"and that suche counsellors and other officers maie
be appointed amonngest [the members] to manage and
direct their affaires [as] are willinge and readie
to adventure with them; as also whose dwellings are
not so farr remote from the cittye of London but
that they maie at convenient tymes be readie at hande
to give advice and assistance upon all occacions
requisite.... And further wee establishe and ordaine
that Henrie, Earl of Southampton, William, Earl of
Pembrooke, [followed by fifty other named people]
shalbe oure Counsell for the said Companie of
Adventurers and Planters in Virginia."
Were those who stayed behind referred to as adventurers,
though? The following makes it quite certain:
"And finallie, oure will and pleasure is ... that all
and singuler person and persons which shall at anie
time or times hereafter adventure anie somme or sommes
of money in and towards the said plantacion...and
shalbe admitted by the said Counsell and Companie as
adventurers of the said Colonie,...and shalbe enrolled
in the booke or record of the adventurers of the said
Companye, shall and maie be accompted, accepted, taken,
helde and reputed Adventurers of the said Collonie..."
The granting of the Charter and the planned voyage must
have been very big news, and the members would have
borne the name 'adventurer' with some pride (and poss-
ibly resented anyone else using it) so it seems unlikely
that anyone other than those members or the voyagers
themselves would, without good reason, have spoken of
himself as an "adventurer...setting forth" that May.
Given that the two most popular candidates for the
Sonnets' "fair youth" are the first two names on that
list, therefore, might not the "well-wishing adventurer"
in fact be one of them? If we take it, as seems quite
likely, that the poet had been sending the sonnets as
'verse letters' to his friend over many years, is it
not possible for the latter to have had them published
as a gift to him now, whilst taking care to protect his
own identity?
Finally, Don Foster points out (n.2) that "It is worth
note in passing that in 1609 Thorpe clearly had not yet
had any association with Pembroke, either direct or
indirect..." which, if true, may perhaps push the ident-
ity of the true writer a little more Southamptonwards?
As far as I know, this is a quite reasonable suggestion
which has never yet been given a decent airing anywhere.
It would therefore be quite nice if just a few of our
more sensible contributors could join in this time? It
may not surprise anyone to know that I find 'debating'
anything with Art, Paul or Michael to be a complete
waste of time.
Surely we at HLAS can still do better than that.
Tom Reedy
wrote:
I find your speculations interesting, but ultimately unprovable in the
absence of any material evidence, so I really don't know what there is
to discuss.
> It
> may not surprise anyone to know that I find 'debating'
> anything with Art, Paul or Michael to be a complete
> waste of time.
And yet we've all had our day when--out of frustration or just to try
to set the record straight for unwary readers--we've attacked them
head-on. And it hasn't been a complete waste of time: witness the
latest attempt by Dom. While he has not and will not make any progress
on Crowley's insane beliefs, his posts are quite interesting and
informative.
> Surely we at HLAS can still do better than that.
I've about come to the conclusion that not very many intelligent
people are interested in discussing authorship or its related topics,
and most of those that are interested are not all that intelligent--
Crowley, Art N., MM, etc.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
last to make himself both the well-wishing adventurer in setting forth
(on his publishing venture) and to sign his dedication. No mystery
whatever, as far as I'm concerned. One addition--that your re-write
separates the two instances of "wish" that it seems to me Thorpe
wanted close together. Oh, and why would the dedicatee know who made
the dedication? "Well-wishing adventurer in setting forth" is much
too vague to specify an unnamed person, it seems to me.
--Bob G.