Shakespeare's rival is now his co-author

[marco]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote William Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part II—or was it Christopher Marlowe? After more than 400 years, Marlowe has been given joint credit for all three of the Henry VI plays long thought to have been the work of Shakespeare alone, the Telegraph reports.

Marlowe gets the credit in the upcoming New Oxford Shakespeare collection of Shakespeare's works. For the first new edition of the collection in 30 years, an international team of scholars worked to identify co-authors of Shakespeare works.

The collection also includes works that Shakespeare has been declared the co-author of for the first time, like Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. Gary Taylor of Florida State University, one of the new edition's editors, tells the Guardian that the1986 edition identified eight of 39 plays as collaborations, and the new edition lists co-authors for 17 of 44 plays.

He says the team has "strongly and clearly" identified Marlowe—who was stabbed to death in mysterious circumstances when he was just 29 years old—as co-author of the Henry VI plays, despite his supposed rivalry with Shakespeare.



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/24/400-years-later-shakespeare-rival-is-now-his-co-author.html

marc

[marco]

WS on loans


Which happies those that pay the willing loan; Sonnets: VI

For loan oft loses both itself and friend, Hamlet: I, iii

Advantaging their loan with interest King Richard III: IV, iv


William Shakespeare, a gentleman

[Morten St. George]

Post by marco
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote William Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part II—or was it Christopher Marlowe? After more than 400 years, Marlowe has been given joint credit for all three of the Henry VI plays long thought to have been the work of Shakespeare alone, the Telegraph reports.
Marlowe gets the credit in the upcoming New Oxford Shakespeare collection of Shakespeare's works. For the first new edition of the collection in 30 years, an international team of scholars worked to identify co-authors of Shakespeare works.
The collection also includes works that Shakespeare has been declared the co-author of for the first time, like Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. Gary Taylor of Florida State University, one of the new edition's editors, tells the Guardian that the1986 edition identified eight of 39 plays as collaborations, and the new edition lists co-authors for 17 of 44 plays.
He says the team has "strongly and clearly" identified Marlowe—who was stabbed to death in mysterious circumstances when he was just 29 years old—as co-author of the Henry VI plays, despite his supposed rivalry with Shakespeare.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/24/400-years-later-shakespeare-rival-is-now-his-co-author.html
marc

Marco, This is the second time that you post a link to a superficial article on this matter. It would be far more helpful if you could kindly post a link to the research paper in which these academics summarize the evidence, so that we can read it and evaluate their conclusion that that Marlowe co-authored some of Shakespeare.

I’m curious: What do Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson have to say about this?

The Stratfordians have traditionally acknowledged that Shakespeare had co-authors but bringing Marlowe into the picture is potentially a game changer for Stratfordian theory. The is because co-authors Middleton and Fletcher were 17th century playwrights but Marlowe was a 16th century playwright, thereby upsetting part of the Stratfordian narrative.

I’ve been skeptical that Marlowe was a playwright at all granted that the Stationers’ Register entries in his name were all posthumous as were the publications of his works. Moreover, I suspect that playwriting, unlike poetry, was not a commonplace activity in the 16th century. It seems that a good playwright really needed to have contact with the London theater or its playing companies and there was little evidence that Marlowe had any such contact.

My latest research, however, suggests that Marlowe, during his long absences from Cambridge, should have had contact with Charles Howard regarding strategy. And now it turns out that Howard was also the patron of an acting company called the Admiral’s Men, which just happened to perform Marlovian plays. Thus, through Howard, Marlowe could have acquired inroads to the London theater.

Recently I read something interesting:

"It must be stressed, that Shakespeare’s knowledge of seamanship, navigation and the navy is different in kind and in degree from his acquaintance with law, medicine, music and other arts, which is of a general sort and not beyond the reach of one who is highly intelligent and versatile. But here it is professional. He is drawing on a whole body of unified knowledge in the manner of one who understands it from within."

Ironically, this makes Howard himself a better candidate than Marlowe.

[marco]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by marco
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote William Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part II—or was it Christopher Marlowe? After more than 400 years, Marlowe has been given joint credit for all three of the Henry VI plays long thought to have been the work of Shakespeare alone, the Telegraph reports.
Marlowe gets the credit in the upcoming New Oxford Shakespeare collection of Shakespeare's works. For the first new edition of the collection in 30 years, an international team of scholars worked to identify co-authors of Shakespeare works.
The collection also includes works that Shakespeare has been declared the co-author of for the first time, like Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. Gary Taylor of Florida State University, one of the new edition's editors, tells the Guardian that the1986 edition identified eight of 39 plays as collaborations, and the new edition lists co-authors for 17 of 44 plays.
He says the team has "strongly and clearly" identified Marlowe—who was stabbed to death in mysterious circumstances when he was just 29 years old—as co-author of the Henry VI plays, despite his supposed rivalry with Shakespeare.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/24/400-years-later-shakespeare-rival-is-now-his-co-author.html
marc

Marco, This is the second time that you post a link to a superficial article on this matter. It would be far more helpful if you could kindly post a link to the research paper in which these academics summarize the evidence, so that we can read it and evaluate their conclusion that that Marlowe co-authored some of Shakespeare.
I’m curious: What do Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson have to say about this?
The Stratfordians have traditionally acknowledged that Shakespeare had co-authors but bringing Marlowe into the picture is potentially a game changer for Stratfordian theory. The is because co-authors Middleton and Fletcher were 17th century playwrights but Marlowe was a 16th century playwright, thereby upsetting part of the Stratfordian narrative.
I’ve been skeptical that Marlowe was a playwright at all granted that the Stationers’ Register entries in his name were all posthumous as were the publications of his works. Moreover, I suspect that playwriting, unlike poetry, was not a commonplace activity in the 16th century. It seems that a good playwright really needed to have contact with the London theater or its playing companies and there was little evidence that Marlowe had any such contact.
My latest research, however, suggests that Marlowe, during his long absences from Cambridge, should have had contact with Charles Howard regarding strategy. And now it turns out that Howard was also the patron of an acting company called the Admiral’s Men, which just happened to perform Marlovian plays. Thus, through Howard, Marlowe could have acquired inroads to the London theater.
"It must be stressed, that Shakespeare’s knowledge of seamanship, navigation and the navy is different in kind and in degree from his acquaintance with law, medicine, music and other arts, which is of a general sort and not beyond the reach of one who is highly intelligent and versatile. But here it is professional. He is drawing on a whole body of unified knowledge in the manner of one who understands it from within."
Ironically, this makes Howard himself a better candidate than Marlowe.

stylometry [or computer analysis]

marc

[Morten St. George]

Post by marco

Post by Morten St. George

Post by marco
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote William Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part II—or was it Christopher Marlowe? After more than 400 years, Marlowe has been given joint credit for all three of the Henry VI plays long thought to have been the work of Shakespeare alone, the Telegraph reports.
Marlowe gets the credit in the upcoming New Oxford Shakespeare collection of Shakespeare's works. For the first new edition of the collection in 30 years, an international team of scholars worked to identify co-authors of Shakespeare works.
The collection also includes works that Shakespeare has been declared the co-author of for the first time, like Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. Gary Taylor of Florida State University, one of the new edition's editors, tells the Guardian that the1986 edition identified eight of 39 plays as collaborations, and the new edition lists co-authors for 17 of 44 plays.
He says the team has "strongly and clearly" identified Marlowe—who was stabbed to death in mysterious circumstances when he was just 29 years old—as co-author of the Henry VI plays, despite his supposed rivalry with Shakespeare.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/10/24/400-years-later-shakespeare-rival-is-now-his-co-author.html
marc

Marco, This is the second time that you post a link to a superficial article on this matter. It would be far more helpful if you could kindly post a link to the research paper in which these academics summarize the evidence, so that we can read it and evaluate their conclusion that that Marlowe co-authored some of Shakespeare.
I’m curious: What do Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson have to say about this?
The Stratfordians have traditionally acknowledged that Shakespeare had co-authors but bringing Marlowe into the picture is potentially a game changer for Stratfordian theory. The is because co-authors Middleton and Fletcher were 17th century playwrights but Marlowe was a 16th century playwright, thereby upsetting part of the Stratfordian narrative.
I’ve been skeptical that Marlowe was a playwright at all granted that the Stationers’ Register entries in his name were all posthumous as were the publications of his works. Moreover, I suspect that playwriting, unlike poetry, was not a commonplace activity in the 16th century. It seems that a good playwright really needed to have contact with the London theater or its playing companies and there was little evidence that Marlowe had any such contact.
My latest research, however, suggests that Marlowe, during his long absences from Cambridge, should have had contact with Charles Howard regarding strategy. And now it turns out that Howard was also the patron of an acting company called the Admiral’s Men, which just happened to perform Marlovian plays. Thus, through Howard, Marlowe could have acquired inroads to the London theater.
"It must be stressed, that Shakespeare’s knowledge of seamanship, navigation and the navy is different in kind and in degree from his acquaintance with law, medicine, music and other arts, which is of a general sort and not beyond the reach of one who is highly intelligent and versatile. But here it is professional. He is drawing on a whole body of unified knowledge in the manner of one who understands it from within."
Ironically, this makes Howard himself a better candidate than Marlowe.

stylometry [or computer analysis]
http://youtu.be/K-aAUwAFZlQ
marc

Thanks Marco. I see that Marlovian co-authoship of the Henry VI plays is not a brand new discovery but I don’t recall reading about it when I checked out Marlovian websites last year. Someone should inform the Marlovians about this discovery if they (the Marlovians) still exist.

It seems that linguistic analysis was used by many experts to determine authorship of an anonymous play called Edward III. Here are the results:

* William Shakespeare -- Edward Capell (1760), A.S. Cairncross (1935), Eliot Slater (1988), Eric Sams (1996)

* George Peele -- Tucker Brooke (1908)

* Christopher Marlowe, with Robert Greene, George Peele, and Thomas Kyd -- J.M. Robertson (1924)

* Michael Drayton-- E.A. Gerard (1928) and H.W. Crundell (1939)

* Robert Wilson -- S.R. Golding (1929)

* Thomas Kyd -- W. Wells (1940) and G. Lambrechts (1963)

* Robert Greene -- R.G. Howarth (1964)

* William Shakespeare and one other -- Jonathan Hope (1994)

* William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe -- Robert A.J. Matthews and Thomas V.N. Merriam (1994)

* William Shakespeare and others (not Marlowe) -- Giorgio Melchiori (1998)

* Thomas Kyd (60%) and William Shakespeare (40%) -- Brian Vickers (2009)

* William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe (III,i,ii)— Hartmut
Ilsemann (2014)

Doesn’t exactly instill a lot of confidence, does it?

In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?

In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

I’m sure there are circumstances where stylometry can prove useful but Shakespeare isn’t one of them. Probably to save time, Shakespeare seems to have occasionally purchased or borrowed large amounts of material from other authors and then improved or modified it to fit his own purposes. I would be hesitant to classify that as a collaboration.

Also consider this possibility: Scholars could be mistaken in thinking that Marlowe exerted strong influence on Shakespeare. Maybe the truth is that Shakespeare (whoever the real Shakespeare may be) wrote some or all of Marlowe and then reused his own material from those earlier plays for his Shakespearean plays. That would surely distort stylometric results.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George
In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?
In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

Oh for cat’s sake, before you start mucking about with stylometry, try
to acquire more than an elementary smattering of English grammar.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?
In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

Oh for cat’s sake, before you start mucking about with stylometry, try
to acquire more than an elementary smattering of English grammar.

My English grammar is so bad that I can’t even figure out what I did wrong. But it doesn’t matter much: everyone here already knows that English isn’t my strong point.

My sarcastic remarks allude to alleged literary scholars who claim that an author who uses "thou" is distinguishable from an author who uses "you". They seem to think that every writer has an exclusive preference for one or the other. Pure nonsense.

In the real world, Shakespeare is far and away the easiest author of his epoch to identify. No other author (except Marlowe not really Marlowe) can match his talent for being irrational yet not really irrational.

Here’s a citation that Marco posted a few days ago:

The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Sonnets: XXXIII

I know what a "region cloud" is. Do you?

Here’s a citation from Hamlet:

Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.

Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?

It’s a real shame: if you literary scholars had half a brain, Shakspere would be down and out in a flash.

Post by John W Kennedy
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?
In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

Oh for cat’s sake, before you start mucking about with stylometry, try
to acquire more than an elementary smattering of English grammar.

My English grammar is so bad that I can’t even figure out what I did wrong. But it doesn’t matter much: everyone here already knows that English isn’t my strong point.

It’s not a question of the grammar you use, but a question of your
thinking that certain English vocabulary choices are merely stylistic,
when they in fact bear on literal meaning.

Post by Morten St. George
My sarcastic remarks allude to alleged literary scholars who claim that an author who uses "thou" is distinguishable from an author who uses "you". They seem to think that every writer has an exclusive preference for one or the other. Pure nonsense.

It is indeed pure nonsense, and no English scholar would ever say such a
thing.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
In the real world, Shakespeare is far and away the easiest author of his epoch to identify. No other author (except Marlowe not really Marlowe) can match his talent for being irrational yet not really irrational.

The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Sonnets: XXXIII
I know what a "region cloud" is. Do you?

Do you? Just saying “I know” proves nothing.

Post by Morten St. George
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?

There is indeed nothing particularly odd about it. I could have told you
its exact meaning in elementary school.

Post by Morten St. George
It’s a real shame: if you literary scholars had half a brain, Shakspere would be down and out in a flash.

You are a perfect specimen of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

[Don]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:19:24 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?
In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

Oh for cat’s sake, before you start mucking about with stylometry, try
to acquire more than an elementary smattering of English grammar.

My English grammar is so bad that I can’t even figure out what I did wrong. But it doesn’t matter much: everyone here already knows that English isn’t my strong point.

It’s not a question of the grammar you use, but a question of your
thinking that certain English vocabulary choices are merely stylistic,
when they in fact bear on literal meaning.

My sarcastic remarks allude to alleged literary scholars who claim that an author who uses "thou" is distinguishable from an author who uses "you". They seem to think that every writer has an exclusive preference for one or the other. Pure nonsense.

It is indeed pure nonsense, and no English scholar would ever say such a
thing.

In the real world, Shakespeare is far and away the easiest author of his epoch to identify. No other author (except Marlowe not really Marlowe) can match his talent for being irrational yet not really irrational.

The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Sonnets: XXXIII
I know what a "region cloud" is. Do you?

Do you? Just saying “I know” proves nothing.

Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?

There is indeed nothing particularly odd about it. I could have told you
its exact meaning in elementary school.

It’s a real shame: if you literary scholars had half a brain, Shakspere would be down and out in a flash.

You are a perfect specimen of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

"Dunning–Kruger effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively
unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly
assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. The bias
was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger
of Cornell University in 1999."

ROTFL

[Morten St. George]

"Dunning–Kruger effect
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively
unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly
assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. The bias
was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger
of Cornell University in 1999."

I see that psychology has made great strides in recent years. When I was a kid, we didn’t get much beyond studying the theories of Freud and Jung. I’m wondering if they have now come up with a term that we could use to describe the Stratfordians. Do you know? This mental aberration is marked by an unrelenting persistence to retain certain beliefs even in the face of enormous contrary evidence.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?

There is indeed nothing particularly odd about it. I could have told you
its exact meaning in elementary school.

Since there is nothing particularly odd about it, I imagine that you are able to cite similar or comparable wording from the plays of Jonson, Middleton, or Fletcher, no?

The truth of the matter is that the insertion of these comments on two of Merlin’s cosmological passages hardly fit the Stratfordian narrative of an actor who wrote plays to earn a little extra money on the side. Indeed, this is a problem with Stratfordian theory in general: the plays are more complex than they needed to be for the purpose for which they were supposedly written.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?

There is indeed nothing particularly odd about it. I could have told you
its exact meaning in elementary school.

Since there is nothing particularly odd about it, I imagine that you are able to cite similar or comparable wording from the plays of Jonson, Middleton, or Fletcher, no?
The truth of the matter is that the insertion of these comments on two of Merlin’s cosmological passages hardly fit the Stratfordian narrative of an actor who wrote plays to earn a little extra money on the side. Indeed, this is a problem with Stratfordian theory in general: the plays are more complex than they needed to be for the purpose for which they were supposedly written.

The connection between the Moon and the ocean tides had been known in
England at least from the time of Bede. For the rest, have you ever read
“Beowulf” or any of the Norse sagas?

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.

The connection between the Moon and the ocean tides had been known in
England at least from the time of Bede. For the rest, have you ever read
“Beowulf” or any of the Norse sagas?

If it is true, as you insinuate, that Beowulf and the Norse sagas refer to the Moon as the "moist star", then I will concede that you make a valid argument. Please cite the specific saga, or any pre-Shakespearean source for that matter, where the Moon is unambiguously referred to as a moist star.

It seems your earlier insinuation that those lines are so simple that they could be understood by anyone in elementary school does not hold water:

"It’s not actually a sentence. Nor is it immediately clear how it could become a sentence. In fact, its so unclear how the passage could become a sentence that it has effectively baffled 400 years worth of Shakespearean scholars and is almost universally cut from performances (presenting, as it does, an almost undeliverable challenge for any actor)."

The full article, illustrating numerous Stratfordian attempts to rectify the situation, can be found here:

http://american-shakespeare.com/?p=577

Rather than Beowulf, I think Shakespeare was influenced by the following (my translation):

Jupiter closer to Venus than to the Moon,
Appearing in full whiteness,
Venus hidden under the whiteness, Neptune,
From Mars struck through the white gravel.

Note that Merlin, like Shakespeare, does not write in sentences.

So, is the moist star the Moon (as you claim) or is it Neptune? In Shakespeare’s day, the planet Neptune was not yet discovered, but surely, in the given context, it had to be something in the night sky, so Shakespeare refers to it as a star. Marlowe give us "that night-wandering, pale, and wat'ry star" where "watery" is a synonym of "moist".

We also disagree on the eclipse: You imply that it’s a lunar or solar eclipse but I’m going with an interplanetary eclipse (Venus hidden).

Further comments?

[laraine]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.

Neptune is the Roman god of the oceans, so "Neptune's empire" sounds
like a metaphor for the oceans ---classical Roman mythology. (That god
is called Poseidon in Greek mythology.)

C.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
The connection between the Moon and the ocean tides had been known in
England at least from the time of Bede. For the rest, have you ever read
“Beowulf” or any of the Norse sagas?

If it is true, as you insinuate, that Beowulf and the Norse sagas refer to the Moon as the "moist star", then I will concede that you make a valid argument. Please cite the specific saga, or any pre-Shakespearean source for that matter, where the Moon is unambiguously referred to as a moist star.
"It’s not actually a sentence. Nor is it immediately clear how it could become a sentence. In fact, its so unclear how the passage could become a sentence that it has effectively baffled 400 years worth of Shakespearean scholars and is almost universally cut from performances (presenting, as it does, an almost undeliverable challenge for any actor)."
http://american-shakespeare.com/?p=577
Jupiter closer to Venus than to the Moon,
Appearing in full whiteness,
Venus hidden under the whiteness, Neptune,
From Mars struck through the white gravel.
Note that Merlin, like Shakespeare, does not write in sentences.
So, is the moist star the Moon (as you claim) or is it Neptune
In Shakespeare’s day, the planet Neptune was not yet discovered, but surely, in the given context, it had to be something in the night sky, so Shakespeare refers to it as a star. Marlowe give us "that night-wandering, pale, and wat'ry star" where "watery" is a synonym of "moist".
We also disagree on the eclipse: You imply that it’s a lunar or solar eclipse but I’m going with an interplanetary eclipse (Venus hidden).
Further comments?

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine
Neptune is the Roman god of the oceans, so "Neptune's empire" sounds
like a metaphor for the oceans ---classical Roman mythology. (That god
is called Poseidon in Greek mythology.)

Thanks, Laraine, for putting this thread back on track, but, of course, we all know who Neptune was.

Referring to the Earth as the "moist star" makes sense because of its large oceans and bluish color, but referring to the Moon as the "moist star" (as universally claimed by the Stratfordians) is absolutely ridiculous notwithstanding the Moon’s effect on the tides.

As pointed out already, Marlowe referred to Neptune as the "wat’ry star" while Shakespeare used the term "moist star", all reaffirmed when S reuses Marlowe’s "wat’ry" to give us "wat’ry Neptune". Neptune, not the Moon, is the moist star.

In 1781, shortly after the discovery of the planet Uranus, the pope in Rome issued a Papal Bull condemning the prophecies of Nostradamus. For two centuries the prophecies had evaded condemnation but apparently those hints of the existence of invisible planets suddenly became too much for the Church to handle.

Marlowe drops an obscure hint:

Invisible to all are here:
The planets seven, the gloomy air,

Note three things about this: a) the colon directly points to the planets seven as invisible, b) it says "the planets seven" instead of "the seven planets", and c) the classical seven planets were in fact visible, not invisible.

Though there were seven planets in ancient times, Marlowe lived in Copernican times. Now the planets were only Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. That’s six planets in total, so we need one more (ie. Neptune) to give us the seventh planet, the invisible planet.

Chances are fair that Marlowe (and Shakespeare) concluded that Neptune could be an invisible planet.

[marco]

moist

Bounding between the two moist elements, Toilus and Cressida: I, iii
When at their mothers' moist eyes babes shall suck, King Henry VI, part I: I, i

Disasters in the sun; and the moist star Hamlet: I, i
The juice of egypt's grape shall moist this lip: Antony and Cleopatra: V, ii

The moist impediments unto my speech, King Henry IV, part II: IV, v
moist it again, and frame some feeling line The Two Gentlemen of Verona: III, ii

moist hesperus hath quench'd his sleepy lamp, All's Well that Ends Well: II, i
Give me your hand: this hand is moist, my lady. Othello: III, iv

Age? have you not a moist eye? a dry hand? a King Henry IV, part II: I, ii


William Shakespeare, gentleman

[marco]

planet

Endings: no, I was not born under a rhyming planet, Much Ado About Nothing: V, ii
As if some planet had unwitted men-- Othello: II, iii

There's some ill planet reigns: The Winter's Tale: II, i
No planet is of mine. Antony and Cleopatra: V, ii

It is a bawdy planet, that will strike The Winter's Tale: I, ii
If I do wake, some planet strike me down, Titus Andronicus: II, iv

And therefore is the glorious planet sol Toilus and Cressida: I, iii
Ruled, like a wandering planet, over me, King Henry VI, part II: IV, iv


William Shakespeare, gentleman

[laraine]

Post by marco
moist
Bounding between the two moist elements, Toilus and Cressida: I, iii
When at their mothers' moist eyes babes shall suck, King Henry VI, part I: I, i
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star Hamlet: I, i
The juice of egypt's grape shall moist this lip: Antony and Cleopatra: V, ii
The moist impediments unto my speech, King Henry IV, part II: IV, v
moist it again, and frame some feeling line The Two Gentlemen of Verona: III, ii
moist hesperus hath quench'd his sleepy lamp, All's Well that Ends Well: II, i

Hesperus is Venus.

"In classical antiquity, the seven classical planets are the
seven non-fixed objects visible in the night sky:

the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn"

(also used in the Middle Ages)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet


Neptune was first seen by telescope in 1846.

C.

Post by marco
Give me your hand: this hand is moist, my lady. Othello: III, iv
Age? have you not a moist eye? a dry hand? a King Henry IV, part II: I, ii
William Shakespeare, gentleman

[John W Kennedy]

Post by laraine

Post by marco
moist
Bounding between the two moist elements, Toilus and Cressida: I, iii
When at their mothers' moist eyes babes shall suck, King Henry VI, part I: I, i
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star Hamlet: I, i
The juice of egypt's grape shall moist this lip: Antony and Cleopatra: V, ii
The moist impediments unto my speech, King Henry IV, part II: IV, v
moist it again, and frame some feeling line The Two Gentlemen of Verona: III, ii
moist hesperus hath quench'd his sleepy lamp, All's Well that Ends Well: II, i

Hesperus is Venus.
"In classical antiquity, the seven classical planets are the
the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn"
(also used in the Middle Ages)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet
Neptune was first seen by telescope in 1846.

Actually, even Galileo saw it. But it was not understood to be a planet
until 1846. (Uranus, which is visible to the naked eye under ideal
conditions, has been traced back over two thousand years, but was not
recognized as a planet until 1783.)

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
Actually, even Galileo saw it. But it was not understood to be a planet
until 1846. (Uranus, which is visible to the naked eye under ideal
conditions, has been traced back over two thousand years, but was not
recognized as a planet until 1783.)

Thanks for pointing out that I made a grievous error in referring to Uranus as a planet rather than as a "celestial body" which is the term that I should have used.

Toward the end of the second prose introduction to the Nostradamus prophecies, we read:

"Que toutes ces figurès sont justement adaptées, par ces divines lettres aux choses celestes visibles, c'est assavoir par Saturne, Jupiter & Mars & les autres conjoints, comme plus à plain par aucuns quatrains l'on pourra voir."

English translation (1672):

"All these Figures are justly fitted by the sacred Scripture, to the visible Coelestial things, viz. Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, and others joyned with them, as more at large may be seen in some of my Stanza's."

In Merlin’s prophecy, between the "visible" planets Jupiter and Mars, we find the invisible planet Neptune.

Needless to say, the Papal Court was quite upset, declaring, in 1781, that "no one should dare to read the prophecies of Nostradamus, under pain of incurring excommunication, and of being sentenced to the gallies."

Relevance? The cited prose introduction directly borrows ideas and wording from a then unpublished manuscript called Historia de los Incas, the author of which, as I have determined in my investigations, was Marlowe’s mentor and Shakespeare’s friend.

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine
"In classical antiquity, the seven classical planets are the
the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn"
(also used in the Middle Ages)

Laraine, Marlowe and Shakespeare did not live in the Middle Ages. By their day, Copernicus's heliocentric system had replaced the old planetary view among the world’s intellectuals.

Post by laraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet
Neptune was first seen by telescope in 1846.
C.

Post by marco
Give me your hand: this hand is moist, my lady. Othello: III, iv
Age? have you not a moist eye? a dry hand? a King Henry IV, part II: I, ii
William Shakespeare, gentleman

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
"In classical antiquity, the seven classical planets are the
the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn"
(also used in the Middle Ages)

Laraine, Marlowe and Shakespeare did not live in the Middle Ages. By their day, Copernicus's heliocentric system had replaced the old planetary view among the world’s intellectuals.

No, it hadn’t. Kepler didn’t publish his three laws until 1619, without
which heliocentrism didn’t amount to much more than a thought experiment.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet
Neptune was first seen by telescope in 1846.
C.

Post by marco
Give me your hand: this hand is moist, my lady. Othello: III, iv
Age? have you not a moist eye? a dry hand? a King Henry IV, part II: I, ii
William Shakespeare, gentleman

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
"In classical antiquity, the seven classical planets are the
the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn"
(also used in the Middle Ages)

Laraine, Marlowe and Shakespeare did not live in the Middle Ages. By their day, Copernicus's heliocentric system had replaced the old planetary view among the world’s intellectuals.

No, it hadn’t. Kepler didn’t publish his three laws until 1619, without
which heliocentrism didn’t amount to much more than a thought experiment.

Sir, I added the phrase "among the world’s intellectuals" to clarify that I was not suggesting universal acceptance of the heliocentric theory at that time.

Didn’t Giordano Bruno become famous for advocating Copernicanism at Oxford University during the 1580s? A few notable scholars on the continent also championed the new theory.

By Mortenian theory, Bruno (the schoolmaster Holofernes in LLL) became a close friend of Shakespeare at the French Embassy in London and he also had acquaintance with the young Marlowe (the page Moth in LLL).

[laraine]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
Neptune is the Roman god of the oceans, so "Neptune's empire" sounds
like a metaphor for the oceans ---classical Roman mythology. (That god
is called Poseidon in Greek mythology.)

Thanks, Laraine, for putting this thread back on track, but, of course, we all know who Neptune was.

There might be people reading this group who aren't familiar with Greek
mythology (or heliocentrism), so it seems wise to me to make sure the
important details are specified. What schools teach and what people read
today is different than when all of us were young, I'm sure!

Post by Morten St. George
Referring to the Earth as the "moist star" makes sense because of its large oceans and bluish color, but referring to the Moon as the "moist star" (as universally claimed by the Stratfordians) is absolutely ridiculous notwithstanding the Moon’s effect on the tides.

I suppose most really had no idea what the surface of the moon was like
until some info. on it in was published.

Post by Morten St. George
As pointed out already, Marlowe referred to Neptune as the "wat’ry star" while Shakespeare used the term "moist star", all reaffirmed when S reuses Marlowe’s "wat’ry" to give us "wat’ry Neptune". Neptune, not the Moon, is the moist star.

From Hero and Leander, starts at line 107:

Nor that night-wandering, pale, and watery star
...more over-rules the flood
Than she the hearts of those that near her stood.


The Stephen Orgel edition notes say that 'star' is supposed
to indicate 'moon', but don't explain any more than that.
I don't see why we should reject the 'tides' explanation.

Post by Morten St. George
In 1781, shortly after the discovery of the planet Uranus, the pope in Rome issued a Papal Bull condemning the prophecies of Nostradamus. For two centuries the prophecies had evaded condemnation but apparently those hints of the existence of invisible planets suddenly became too much for the Church to handle.

Interesting history...

Post by Morten St. George
The planets seven, the gloomy air,
Note three things about this: a) the colon directly points to the planets seven as invisible,

I think you need to read more of the context of the plot.
Mephisto gives Faustus the power to be invisible.
The lines you list are in the B text, and the call to
the planets seven is part of M's charm/spell.

Post by Morten St. George
b) it says "the planets seven" instead of "the seven planets", and c) the classical seven planets were in fact visible, not invisible.
Though there were seven planets in ancient times, Marlowe lived in Copernican times.

Of course --Now, I don't know when the Sun and Moon were officially
taken off the list of planets.

C.

Post by Morten St. George
Now the planets were only Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. That’s six planets in total, so we need one more (ie. Neptune) to give us the seventh planet, the invisible planet.
Chances are fair that Marlowe (and Shakespeare) concluded that Neptune could be an invisible planet.

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine
I suppose most really had no idea what the surface of the moon was like
until some info. on it in was published.

Laraine, you don’t need a telescope to see that the Moon has no blue color and therefore no water.

Post by laraine
Nor that night-wandering, pale, and watery star
...more over-rules the flood
Than she the hearts of those that near her stood.
The Stephen Orgel edition notes say that 'star' is supposed
to indicate 'moon', but don't explain any more than that.
I don't see why we should reject the 'tides' explanation.

As far as I am aware, in the classical world view, moons, comets and planets were things that moved in the night sky, and a star was something that was fixed in the night sky. Therefore, referring the Moon as a "star" makes no sense.

I have asked John to cite any pre-Shakespearean source where the Moon is unambiguously referred to as a moist star and I very much doubt that he will find one. Typically, Stratfordians like to explain everything and they frequently resort to nonsense to do so.

Post by laraine
I think you need to read more of the context of the plot.
Mephisto gives Faustus the power to be invisible.
The lines you list are in the B text, and the call to
the planets seven is part of M's charm/spell.

In general, Marlowe and Shakespeare tend to mask their interpretations of Merlin’s prophecies, and in such circumstances it can become permissible to look at segments of text out of context.

To illustrate the invisible, Marlowe follows "the planets seven" with "the gloomy air", and air is indeed invisible so logically these seven cannot be the classical seven planets which are visible. A Copernican seventh planet, invisible, is fully plausible as Marlowe’s intention here.

Post by laraine
Of course --Now, I don't know when the Sun and Moon were officially
taken off the list of planets.

Copernicus effectively did away with that but, according to John, his theories didn't become official until the early 17th century.

[laraine]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
I suppose most really had no idea what the surface of the moon was like
until some info. on it in was published.

Laraine, you don’t need a telescope to see that the Moon has no blue color and therefore no water.

But it might have whitish or darkish water on it!

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
Nor that night-wandering, pale, and watery star
...more over-rules the flood
Than she the hearts of those that near her stood.
The Stephen Orgel edition notes say that 'star' is supposed
to indicate 'moon', but don't explain any more than that.
I don't see why we should reject the 'tides' explanation.

As far as I am aware, in the classical world view, moons, comets and planets were things that moved in the night sky, and a star was something that was fixed in the night sky. Therefore, referring the Moon as a "star" makes no sense.

Clearly, we will have to read more about early astronomy.

But just as a hasty start, I see this in the Mark Musa translation of Dante,
Paradise Canto II:

From Intro: (by editor)
Now on the threshold of the First Heavenly sphere, that of the moon....

On Line 30, Beatrice says:
"Direct your mind and gratitude," she said, "to God, who raised us up
to his first star"

Musa Note for Line 30: The "first star" is the moon. It is the closest "star"
or "planet" (for Dante, these terms are interchangeable) to the earth
and the first approached by the traveler and Beatrice as they rise toward
Paradise.

Which could indicate... that the terms star and planet were once more
interchangeable than they are today.

~~~~~~
Another source is the Faustus play itself, which is said to describe
a fairly traditional solar system rather than a Copernican one.

In fact, Faustus asks Mephisto Q&A about the solar system, and
I see that the seven planets are listed. Check it out...
Sorry if Marlowe is a bit disappointing here, but it would
have been pretty dangerous for him to have done it the novel way,
I imagine. There are quite a lot of controversial ideas in the
play already anyway.

If you find something Copernican, let us know.

C.

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
I suppose most really had no idea what the surface of the moon was like
until some info. on it in was published.

Laraine, you don’t need a telescope to see that the Moon has no blue color and therefore no water.

But it might have whitish or darkish water on it!

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
Nor that night-wandering, pale, and watery star
...more over-rules the flood
Than she the hearts of those that near her stood.
The Stephen Orgel edition notes say that 'star' is supposed
to indicate 'moon', but don't explain any more than that.
I don't see why we should reject the 'tides' explanation.

As far as I am aware, in the classical world view, moons, comets and planets were things that moved in the night sky, and a star was something that was fixed in the night sky. Therefore, referring the Moon as a "star" makes no sense.

Clearly, we will have to read more about early astronomy.
But just as a hasty start, I see this in the Mark Musa translation of Dante,
From Intro: (by editor)
Now on the threshold of the First Heavenly sphere, that of the moon....
"Direct your mind and gratitude," she said, "to God, who raised us up
to his first star"
Musa Note for Line 30: The "first star" is the moon. It is the closest "star"
or "planet" (for Dante, these terms are interchangeable) to the earth
and the first approached by the traveler and Beatrice as they rise toward
Paradise.

Here’s another footnote:

"There was a fable in Dante’s day that the dark patches on the moon were a sign that Cain was being punished there for killing Abel. (We call the dark patches the man in the moon.) Dante is puzzled because up close there are no patches; the moon is like a perfect pearl lit by sunlight."

But where’s the water? You really need to tell us who said there was water on the moon before you can expect us to believe that in ancient or medieval times the moon was referred to as the "watery star" (Marlowe) or as the "moist star" (Shakespeare). On the other hand, a star or planet can be deemed to be watery merely by virtue of being called Neptune because this was the name of the ancient god of the sea.

Post by laraine
Which could indicate... that the terms star and planet were once more
interchangeable than they are today.

I concede that poets could refer to the planets as wandering stars but I doubt that astronomers used the words "planet" and "star" interchangeably.

Post by laraine
~~~~~~
Another source is the Faustus play itself, which is said to describe
a fairly traditional solar system rather than a Copernican one.
In fact, Faustus asks Mephisto Q&A about the solar system, and
I see that the seven planets are listed. Check it out...
Sorry if Marlowe is a bit disappointing here, but it would
have been pretty dangerous for him to have done it the novel way,
I imagine. There are quite a lot of controversial ideas in the
play already anyway.
If you find something Copernican, let us know.

The extensive question and answer dialogue on the nature of the solar system (likely somewhat awkward and unusual for a 16th century play) certainly implies discontent with the traditional view and a desire to learn more.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George
"There was a fable in Dante’s day that the dark patches on the moon were a sign that Cain was being punished there for killing Abel. (We call the dark patches the man in the moon.) Dante is puzzled because up close there are no patches; the moon is like a perfect pearl lit by sunlight."
But where’s the water? You really need to tell us who said there was water on the moon before you can expect us to believe that in ancient or medieval times the moon was referred to as the "watery star" (Marlowe) or as the "moist star" (Shakespeare). On the other hand, a star or planet can be deemed to be watery merely by virtue of being called Neptune because this was the name of the ancient god of the sea.

In Shakespeare the planets such as the moon often are people. And people especially women leak a lot! I need not tell you that Elizabeth was the embodiment of all the Gods especially the Moon, she knows was called the Moon to, because she states it in the sonnets, when she says Mortal Moon, she's talking about herself.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
Which could indicate... that the terms star and planet were once more
interchangeable than they are today.

I concede that poets could refer to the planets as wandering stars but I doubt that astronomers used the words "planet" and "star" interchangeably.

Post by laraine
~~~~~~
Another source is the Faustus play itself, which is said to describe
a fairly traditional solar system rather than a Copernican one.
In fact, Faustus asks Mephisto Q&A about the solar system, and
I see that the seven planets are listed. Check it out...
Sorry if Marlowe is a bit disappointing here, but it would
have been pretty dangerous for him to have done it the novel way,
I imagine. There are quite a lot of controversial ideas in the
play already anyway.
If you find something Copernican, let us know.

The extensive question and answer dialogue on the nature of the solar system (likely somewhat awkward and unusual for a 16th century play) certainly implies discontent with the traditional view and a desire to learn more.

[A***@germanymail.com]

Post by g***@btinternet.com

Post by Morten St. George
"There was a fable in Dante’s day that the dark patches on the moon were a sign that Cain was being punished there for killing Abel. (We call the dark patches the man in the moon.) Dante is puzzled because up close there are no patches; the moon is like a perfect pearl lit by sunlight."
But where’s the water? You really need to tell us who said there was water on the moon before you can expect us to believe that in ancient or medieval times the moon was referred to as the "watery star" (Marlowe) or as the "moist star" (Shakespeare). On the other hand, a star or planet can be deemed to be watery merely by virtue of being called Neptune because this was the name of the ancient god of the sea.

In Shakespeare the planets such as the moon often are people. And people especially women leak a lot! I need not tell you that Elizabeth was the embodiment of all the Gods especially the Moon, she knows was called the Moon to, because she states it in the sonnets, when she says Mortal Moon, she's talking about herself.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
Which could indicate... that the terms star and planet were once more
interchangeable than they are today.

I concede that poets could refer to the planets as wandering stars but I doubt that astronomers used the words "planet" and "star" interchangeably.

Post by laraine
~~~~~~
Another source is the Faustus play itself, which is said to describe
a fairly traditional solar system rather than a Copernican one.
In fact, Faustus asks Mephisto Q&A about the solar system, and
I see that the seven planets are listed. Check it out...
Sorry if Marlowe is a bit disappointing here, but it would
have been pretty dangerous for him to have done it the novel way,
I imagine. There are quite a lot of controversial ideas in the
play already anyway.
If you find something Copernican, let us know.

The extensive question and answer dialogue on the nature of the solar system (likely somewhat awkward and unusual for a 16th century play) certainly implies discontent with the traditional view and a desire to learn more.

Art N

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George
I concede that poets could refer to the planets as wandering stars but I doubt that astronomers used the words "planet" and "star" interchangeably.

But Morten, why do you continue to speculate, here conceding and doubting, instead of researching.

Instead, like most romantics, you retrofit current era mores [habits] projecting them onto the past — and thus you create a thread of some 50 entries based on a simple initial misconception:—

What did the Elizabethans mean by “astrology”?

This can be confusing since in Shakespeare’s day the words astronomy and astrology were interchangable; astronomy could mean horoscopes and predictions while astrology could mean what astronomy does today. Although history prefers to hide the fact, most medieval and Renaissance astronomers were really astrologers who, however interested they might have been in why and how their science worked, earned their livings through horoscope readings for kings and magnates using techniques expounded by Ptolemy back in the second century. It was, in fact, during Shakespeare’s time that––with the invention of telescopes that enabled viewers to see farther than the naked eye––the two disciplines began to separate.

In Shakespeare’s day, ordinary folks tended to use terms like “the stars” to mean luck or fortune and the names of the planets for some quality that was thought specific to that planet, as Mars to anger or Venus to love. Those who knew more about it it knew that these were only bits of a complex system based primarily on numbers. And although elaborate calculations were required to create horoscopes, the core rationale of astrology was (and still is) based on an abstraction: the nature––one might almost term it the personality––of the elementary numbers and how they act and interact on all levels of existence.

Phil Innes

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Morten St. George
I concede that poets could refer to the planets as wandering stars but I doubt that astronomers used the words "planet" and "star" interchangeably.

But Morten, why do you continue to speculate, here conceding and doubting, instead of researching.

Honestly, conducting research to see if, once upon a time, there was an astronomer who confused planets and stars isn’t worth the time and effort. However, as Laraine pointed out, such confusion can be found in literature.

Post by v***@gmail.com
What did the Elizabethans mean by “astrology”?

A more pertinent question would be: What did Shakespeare mean by "astrology"? That is, assuming that you can find a single instance of the words "astrology" or "astrologer" somewhere in the vast Shakespearean canon because I couldn’t.

How do explain that the largest literary vocabulary ever seen fails to include astrology or astrologer? Didn’t Shakespeare write lots of history plays and didn’t English kings and queens, including Elizabeth, have astrologers? Don’t you think that a little astrology could have added some intrigue to the plays? Yet, nothing. Why?

I think it was because Shakespeare got scared: Merlin placed a curse on astrologers!

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Morten St. George
I concede that poets could refer to the planets as wandering stars but I doubt that astronomers used the words "planet" and "star" interchangeably.

But Morten, why do you continue to speculate, here conceding and doubting, instead of researching.

Honestly, conducting research to see if, once upon a time, there was an astronomer who confused planets and stars isn’t worth the time and effort. However, as Laraine pointed out, such confusion can be found in literature.

That's not the confusion Morten. Astrologer and Astronomer were cognate: they had the same meaning, and neither did professing one deny the other.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
What did the Elizabethans mean by “astrology”?

A more pertinent question would be: What did Shakespeare mean by "astrology"? That is, assuming that you can find a single instance of the words "astrology" or "astrologer" somewhere in the vast Shakespearean canon because I couldn’t.

You fail to understand that astrologer and and astronomer were interchangeable. You insist on your misconception;

Cym III.ii.27 O, learned indeed were that astronomer


Here is the text within its context — and there really is only one sense to it:—

O, learned indeed were that astronomer
That knew the stars as I his characters;
He'd lay the future open. You good gods,
Let what is here contained relish of love,

Post by Morten St. George
How do explain that the largest literary vocabulary ever seen fails to include astrology or astrologer? Didn’t Shakespeare write lots of history plays and didn’t English kings and queens, including Elizabeth, have astrologers? Don’t you think that a little astrology could have added some intrigue to the plays? Yet, nothing. Why?

There are VERY MANY astrological references in the The Work, Morten.

Post by Morten St. George
I think it was because Shakespeare got scared: Merlin placed a curse on astrologers!

VERY MANY

but only two references to Merlin

H4 III.i.144 Of the dreamer Merlin and his prophecies,

and look! here is a mystery to become excited about

Then comes the time, who lives to see't,
That going shall be used with feet.
This prophecy Merlin shall make; for I live before his
time.

Though you note it is spoken by the Fool.

Cordially, Phil

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
You fail to understand that astrologer and and astronomer were interchangeable. You insist on your misconception;
Cym III.ii.27 O, learned indeed were that astronomer

To be fair, I think you should have informed the group that this is the only instance of the word "astronomer" in the entire canon. There is also one instance of "astronomers" and one instance of "astronomy". That makes a total of three words out of a total, per the Folger Library, of 884,647 words.

I think these words (three in total) are so infrequent that they could possibly be accounted for by editorial revision or even the work of a collaborator. Let’s reassert that the words "astrology" and "astrologer" are nowhere to be found.

I concur with what you say about a weak distinction between astrologers and astronomers in that epoch, so I suspect that Shakespeare became confused when Merlin distinguishes astronomers (astronomes) who are praised, from astrologers (astrologi) who are condemned. I continue to maintain that Shakespeare deliberately and purposely avoided use of the words astrology and astrologer.

[marco]

.
How long have you been a sectary astronomical? King Lear: I, ii

But when he performs, astronomers foretell it; it Toilus and Cressida: V, i

And yet methinks I have astronomy, Sonnets: XIV


William Shakespeare, gentleman

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George
I concur with what you say about a weak distinction between astrologers and astronomers in that epoch, so I suspect that Shakespeare became confused when Merlin distinguishes astronomers (astronomes) who are praised, from astrologers (astrologi) who are condemned. I continue to maintain that Shakespeare deliberately and purposely avoided use of the words astrology and astrologer.

It is not a weak distinction, there is no distinction, and astronomer is as astrologer.

While The Author may have avoided use of the word astronomer or astrologer in the main, he hardly skimped on astrological references.

What if any is your point?

Phil Innes

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
It is not a weak distinction, there is no distinction, and astronomer is as astrologer.

A Shakespearean dictionary (1611) has the following entries:

««
Astrología, prediction of things to come by the course of stars.

Astrólogo, a foreteller of things to come by the course of stars, an astrologer.

Astrónamo, an astronomer, a professor of the knowledge of heavenly motions.

Astronomía, astronomy, knowledge of heavenly motions.
»»

Perhaps you see no distinction among these terms but I do. Indeed, it looks like these terms had pretty much the same meaning back in Shakespeare’s day as they do today.

Post by v***@gmail.com
While The Author may have avoided use of the word astronomer or astrologer in the main, he hardly skimped on astrological references.
What if any is your point?

My point is that Shakespeare stood at the avant-garde of separating astronomy from astrology.

In Shakespeare, you Stratfordians only see someone who wrote great plays, but I see a universal genius with interest in many fields including the sciences.

[marco]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
It is not a weak distinction, there is no distinction, and astronomer is as astrologer.

««
Astrología, prediction of things to come by the course of stars.
Astrólogo, a foreteller of things to come by the course of stars, an astrologer.
Astrónamo, an astronomer, a professor of the knowledge of heavenly motions.
Astronomía, astronomy, knowledge of heavenly motions.
»»
Perhaps you see no distinction among these terms but I do. Indeed, it looks like these terms had pretty much the same meaning back in Shakespeare’s day as they do today.

Post by v***@gmail.com
While The Author may have avoided use of the word astronomer or astrologer in the main, he hardly skimped on astrological references.
What if any is your point?

My point is that Shakespeare stood at the avant-garde of separating astronomy from astrology.
In Shakespeare, you Stratfordians only see someone who wrote great plays, but I see a universal genius with interest in many fields including the sciences.

.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
It is not a weak distinction, there is no distinction, and astronomer is as astrologer.

««
Astrología, prediction of things to come by the course of stars.
Astrólogo, a foreteller of things to come by the course of stars, an astrologer.
Astrónamo, an astronomer, a professor of the knowledge of heavenly motions.
Astronomía, astronomy, knowledge of heavenly motions.
»»

SHAKESPEARE WROTE A DICTIONARY? DID YOU MEAN AN ELIZABETHAN DICTIONARY?

Post by Morten St. George
Perhaps you see no distinction among these terms but I do. Indeed, it looks like these terms had pretty much the same meaning back in Shakespeare’s day as they do today.

ITS WOT I'VE BEEN GOING ON ABOUT, MATE

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
While The Author may have avoided use of the word astronomer or astrologer in the main, he hardly skimped on astrological references.
What if any is your point?

My point is that Shakespeare stood at the avant-garde of separating astronomy from astrology.

CUSPID, YOU MIGHT SAY.

Post by Morten St. George
In Shakespeare, you Stratfordians only see someone who wrote great plays, but I see a universal genius with interest in many fields including the sciences.

AND "WE STRATFORDIANS" AS YOU PUT IT THINK SHAKESPEARE WROTE GREAT PLAYS WITHOUT GENIUS OR INTEREST IN "MANY FIELDS"?

:)

THE FAULT IS NOT IN YOUR STARS MORTEN, IT'S IN OTHER PEOPLE, ISN'T IT?

CORDIALLY, PHIL

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
SHAKESPEARE WROTE A DICTIONARY? DID YOU MEAN AN ELIZABETHAN DICTIONARY?

I have four things to say about that:

1. By 1611 (the given publication date), Elizabeth was long dead so it hardly seems appropriate to call it Elizabethan.

2. In the context of a time frame (a date was given), Shakespearean can be assumed to refer to the epoch of Shakespeare in the same way that Elizabethan refers to the epoch of Elizabeth I and Jacobean to the epoch of James I.

3. Authorship of that dictionary is in fact attributed to a Shakespearean candidate (whose involvement I just happen to support).

4. Wikipedia uses words like "shouting" and "obnoxious" when referring to writing in all caps.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

SHAKESPEARE WROTE A DICTIONARY? DID YOU MEAN AN ELIZABETHAN DICTIONARY?>

1. By 1611 (the given publication date), Elizabeth was long dead so it hardly seems appropriate to call it Elizabethan.
2. In the context of a time frame (a date was given), Shakespearean can be assumed to refer to the epoch of Shakespeare in the same way that Elizabethan refers to the epoch of Elizabeth I and Jacobean to the epoch of James I.
3. Authorship of that dictionary is in fact attributed to a Shakespearean candidate (whose involvement I just happen to support).

You MUST always state the candidate's name and NEVER say JUST "Shakespeare" to anything which is not known to carry the actual name of Shakespeare. We are NOT mind readers. Anyone can claim any book is by somebody, you cannot simply state it as a fact as you did, when it is not a fact. In this case the Dictionary is "attributed" to someone, which implies that there is NO name on it all.
As you frequently say such a book could have been faked. And therefore you should demand a Carbon test on it, before assuming it's a genuine publication of the period.

Post by Morten St. George
4. Wikipedia uses words like "shouting" and "obnoxious" when referring to writing in all caps.

Tell me what it says about this then?
FUCK OFF MORTEN YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
SHAKESPEARE WROTE A DICTIONARY? DID YOU MEAN AN ELIZABETHAN DICTIONARY?

1. By 1611 (the given publication date), Elizabeth was long dead so it hardly seems appropriate to call it Elizabethan.

Does it not? Even though presumably this dictionary you cite [laugh] was compiled of Elizabethan words and appearing 8 years after her death. I don't really think it contained Elvys lyrics, Morgan. Elvis as he is now called.

So the dictionary was not about SHAKESPEARE but about the ENTIRE Elizabeth period. Get it? Or does it matter if I write this from New York City?

Post by Morten St. George
2. In the context of a time frame (a date was given), Shakespearean can be assumed to refer to the epoch of Shakespeare in the same way that Elizabethan refers to the epoch of Elizabeth I and Jacobean to the epoch of James I.

You don't mean to say that Jacobean related to James?

But a Shakespearean dictionary would relate to works of Shakespeare not of Elizabeth and James?

Surely you understand Morgan, that much of his muchness about The Author came after this period, and when we say Elizabethan period, it is not to slight Shakespeare, but normative to cite the era when millions of people spoke the language of the time whether they ever heard a Shakespeare play or not.

Post by Morten St. George
3. Authorship of that dictionary is in fact attributed to a Shakespearean candidate (whose involvement I just happen to support).

'That dictionary'. I hope you don't mean Florio or Cotgrave's French and Italian :: English. Or the blokes doing the King James taking time off to whip up a dictionary on the side.

What indeed is this dictionary to which you coyly refer?

Post by Morten St. George
4. Wikipedia uses words like "shouting" and "obnoxious" when referring to writing in all caps.

SHOUTING SURE. Rolling on the floor laughing out loud. But the older, dare I say 'Shakespearean' use of the word is 'deserving of censure' which is exactly what I felt about your adventures into English everything.

But this is why we need you as President of HLAS — you have every fault of the speculator, and demonstrate every one every day.

Cordially, Phil

[g***@btinternet.com]

There is no such thing as a Shakespearian Dictionary dated to 1611. Shakespeare never produced a dictionary, nobody made a dictionary. As you say none of these words below appear in any Shakespeare plays.

Post by Morten St. George
««
Astrología, prediction of things to come by the course of stars.
Astrólogo, a foreteller of things to come by the course of stars, an astrologer.
Astrónamo, an astronomer, a professor of the knowledge of heavenly motions.
Astronomía, astronomy, knowledge of heavenly motions.
»»

They look like Latin words to me, perhaps someone forged it!

Post by Morten St. George
Perhaps you see no distinction among these terms but I do. Indeed, it looks like these terms had pretty much the same meaning back in Shakespeare’s day as they do today.

Of course they do, but none of them mean that they were separate back then. An astrology does indeed track the heavenly motions. When we say "many happy returns" we mean that the Sun as returned to the same point in the sky as when we are born. Predictions in astrology are based on the movement of the heavenly bodies or the position in the sky. In relationship to people the movement of the planets are related to the birth chart of the person a prediction is being made about. So all the things mentioned applied to the astrology as much as what they do the modern term of astronomy.
The difference now is the modern astronomy would dismiss astrology out of hand. Since to the astrologer a planet can go backwards or as they call it retrograde in it's movement. And of course the real planet does not go backwards at all.

Post by Morten St. George
My point is that Shakespeare stood at the avant-garde of separating astronomy from astrology.

No he didn't it was many years later when that happened.

Post by Morten St. George
In Shakespeare, you Stratfordians only see someone who wrote great plays, but I see a universal genius with interest in many fields including the sciences.

Well I thank you for the compliment, but like me Shakespeare was simply an amateur when it came to the stars. Don't forget doctors of the day would have used astrology to tell you what is wrong with you. Have you not seen the start of Shakespeare In Love? So he would have a lot of experience from going to the doctor!
In one of his plays he mentions the water (urine) being taken to a doctor and that the doctor could tell what was wrong with the man from that. Well a modern doctor can do the same. But they will not use the same technique as the doctor in the 16th century!

[John W Kennedy]

Post by g***@btinternet.com
There is no such thing as a Shakespearian Dictionary dated to 1611.
Shakespeare never produced a dictionary, nobody made a dictionary. As
you say none of these words below appear in any Shakespeare plays.

«« Astrología, prediction of things to come by the course of
stars.
Astrólogo, a foreteller of things to come by the course of stars, an astrologer.
Astrónamo, an astronomer, a professor of the knowledge of heavenly motions.
Astronomía, astronomy, knowledge of heavenly motions. »»

They look like Latin words to me, perhaps someone forged it!

Spanish.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
Spanish.

Wrong. I cited a well-known Italian to English dictionary called Queen Anna’s New World of Words. In all fairness to you, however, it seems modern Italian has not retained the accent marks.

Since you are an expert in Spanish, have a look at these lines from another Shakespearean classic:

Hi nimirum de Tirambel per Atlanticum Mare usque ad Mare Mediterraneum, illi autem de Coya per Mare Australe usque ad hanc insulam nostram. De priore autem expeditione, videtur auctor ille vester, aliquid a sacerdote Aegyptio quem citat hausisse.

Two consecutive Spanish words were inserted into this all-Latin text. Can you find them? Why do these Spanish words convey a different meaning than their Latin equivalent?

[marco]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Spanish.

Wrong. I cited a well-known Italian to English dictionary called Queen Anna’s New World of Words. In all fairness to you, however, it seems modern Italian has not retained the accent marks.
Hi nimirum de Tirambel per Atlanticum Mare usque ad Mare Mediterraneum, illi autem de Coya per Mare Australe usque ad hanc insulam nostram. De priore autem expeditione, videtur auctor ille vester, aliquid a sacerdote Aegyptio quem citat hausisse.
Two consecutive Spanish words were inserted into this all-Latin text. Can you find them? Why do these Spanish words convey a different meaning than their Latin equivalent?

.

[laraine]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Spanish.

Wrong. I cited a well-known Italian to English dictionary called Queen Anna’s New World of Words. In all fairness to you, however, it seems modern Italian has not retained the accent marks.

After López died, his son Francisco Solano López became the new president
and led the country through the disastrous Paraguayan War that lasted for
five years. After the end of the armed conflict, Asunción was occupied by
Brazilian troops until 1876.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asunci%C3%B3n

Now, I've seen Lopez without the accent elsewhere.

C.

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine
Now, I've seen Lopez without the accent elsewhere.

It looks like that, in the cited Italian to English dictionary (1611), acute accents were artificially added to the Italian words as a pronunciation aid for English readers. These accents do not appear in an earlier Italian to English dictionary (1598) nor in a Shakespearean book (1607) about Lady Jane Grey (Giovanna Graia).

Shakespeare had undeniable interest in Italy and the Italian language: Italy is the setting for many of the plays, Italian words are sporadically seen in the dialogues, and Italian source material has been identified in instances where no English translation was available. The Stratfordians claim that Shakspere merely imagined everything Italian but that is hardly credible. The real Shakespeare almost certainly had genuine Italian ties which could imply a connection with the dictionaries and book just mentioned.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George
Shakespeare had undeniable interest in Italy and the Italian language: Italy is the setting for many of the plays, Italian words are sporadically seen in the dialogues, and Italian source material has been identified in instances where no English translation was available. The Stratfordians claim that Shakspere merely imagined everything Italian but that is hardly credible. The real Shakespeare almost certainly had genuine Italian ties which could imply a connection with the dictionaries and book just mentioned.

He certainly did. The Bassino family who were connected to the Lord Chamberlain were of Italian extract. Emilia of that family along with Angela and another woman were granted permission to act on the stage. Emilia later brought out a book "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" which is very much like Shakespeare's work as to lead me to believe that most of it is Shakespeare's work. She also went to see an astrologer Simon Forman!
Emilia can be seen in this portrait playing the role of Anne Boylyn in the Shakespeare about Henry VIII.
Loading Image...
Anne would not have worn a 16th century ruff. And who would have commissioned a portrait of Anne in the 1590's?
Shakespeare didn't need to write a book about Lady Jane Grey, since she is in the plays already. But as is the case most often with you Mutton, you are too stupid to spot her in the plays.

Unlike you Americans, Shakespeare was not a sexist pig!

[Morten St. George]

Post by g***@btinternet.com
He certainly did. The Bassino family who were connected to the Lord Chamberlain were of Italian extract. Emilia of that family along with Angela and another woman were granted permission to act on the stage. Emilia later brought out a book "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" which is very much like Shakespeare's work as to lead me to believe that most of it is Shakespeare's work. She also went to see an astrologer Simon Forman!

Emilia is listed under "Other Candidates" on the Shakespeare Authorship Trust website. It seems she had the needed contacts to have known the real Shakespeare and perhaps even to have provided some assistance if only as a music liaison, so, just a couple of weeks ago, I checked out her lengthy Salve Deus poem which begins as follows:

Sith Cynthia is ascended to the rest
Of endlesse joy and true Eternitie,
That glorious place that cannot be exprest
By any wight clad in mortalitie,
In her almightie love so highly blest,
And crown’d with everlasting Sov’raigntie;
Where Saints and Angells do attend her Throne,
And she gives glorie unto God alone.

In brief, I was disappointed, finding nothing to suggest that she was a Shakespearean insider, nor do I consider the quality of her poetry to be up to par with Shakespeare but I’m sure others would disagree.

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Shakespeare didn't need to write a book about Lady Jane Grey, since she is in the plays already. But as is the case most often with you Mutton, you are too stupid to spot her in the plays.

By Mortenian theory, Jane was the wife of the Fair Youth in the Sonnets and the teenage mom of a Shakespearean coauthor. I imagine that reflections on her would also appear in the plays but I have not searched for this.

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Unlike you Americans, Shakespeare was not a sexist pig!

It’s a mistake to generalize like that.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
He certainly did. The Bassino family who were connected to the Lord Chamberlain were of Italian extract. Emilia of that family along with Angela and another woman were granted permission to act on the stage. Emilia later brought out a book "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum" which is very much like Shakespeare's work as to lead me to believe that most of it is Shakespeare's work. She also went to see an astrologer Simon Forman!

Sith Cynthia is ascended to the rest

Cynthia = Queen Elizabeth is dead!

Post by Morten St. George
Of endlesse joy and true Eternitie,
That glorious place that cannot be exprest
By any wight clad in mortalitie,
In her almightie love so highly blest,
And crown’d with everlasting Sov’raigntie;
Where Saints and Angells do attend her Throne,
And she gives glorie unto God alone.
In brief, I was disappointed, finding nothing to suggest that she was a Shakespearean insider, nor do I consider the quality of her poetry to be up to par with Shakespeare but I’m sure others would disagree.

The picture tells you everything. When she played Juliet she was 14 years old and from Italy. Exactly the same year it was first performed.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Shakespeare didn't need to write a book about Lady Jane Grey, since she is in the plays already. But as is the case most often with you Mutton, you are too stupid to spot her in the plays.

By Mortenian theory, Jane was the wife of the Fair Youth in the Sonnets and the teenage mom of a Shakespearean coauthor. I imagine that reflections on her would also appear in the plays but I have not searched for this.

Jane Grey was not the wife of the fair youth, since the fair youth was William Shakespeare. And it was Queen Elizabeth calling him that.

The plays relate to Elizabeth's life, especially when she was younger. Mary Tudor crops up in several. As with all the "real" people in Shakespeare plays, the documented and true historical events fit precisely with the characters involved. It's just a question of finding out which characters are the people. As your too thick to find Jane yourself and you haven't read Shakespeare, I will tell you the character names so you can find the clues to her life. Lavina and Imogen. The last deals with a Queen in the play. To help you further that Queen is Catherine Parr, who she stayed with.

Back to the female actress' in Shakespeare plays. They were given special privileges by the Queen to act on the stage. One of them Angela looks like the Queen, except she had black hair. Hence the Queen's own words in the sonnets, a put down of herself, about black wires (hairs) growing on her head.
The three actress form the core of Shakespeare's plays and limit the main female roles to just three. That's how you know that he had three women to work with. You see Shakespeare doesn't write the words first, he bases everything on the people he has to play the parts. There are NO auditions for anything in a Shakespeare play. You are literally typecast into a role. It does make it easier to write the plays. For example if you have an actor that plays the drum a lot, then you write the part round him.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Unlike you Americans, Shakespeare was not a sexist pig!

It’s a mistake to generalize like that.

The difference in Shakespeare days is the people who run the country are born into the role. The people in charge of running the country hated the fact a woman was in command. And would NEVER have elected one even if they had the option to do so. To stand for running the country you have to have certain qualities to win an election. As you American's have never elected a woman to power it shows that your nation is sexist. However even the UK is sexist, since the population as a whole doesn't vote for the PM. They are appointed by a party. But even then the women are of a certain type and background.
Imagine if Marilyn Monroe had stood for election as president. Can you imagine a "dumb blonde" being elected? However if she was a monarch then there is no choice. You get a dumb blonde, however unpopular or popular the person is. That's exactly what the Elizabethan people got, a dumb blonde. That's why you have a problem with how HER choices effected Shakespeare. How she could see talent in a young boy from Stratford and you see a dumb local.
And before you say anything about dumb blondes being a put down, then all it is a description of how they appeared to most people. In other-words they do not act or think in the same way a person who has been trained in politics to behave in this context. Nine times out of ten they are very clever and can easily outwit a dumb male who follows the rules of the game.
Elizabeth would have made mincemeat of you Mutton! Then again so would have Marilyn Monroe!!

[Morten St. George]

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Cynthia = Queen Elizabeth is dead!

It took me nearly a half hour to figure out that Cynthia was a virgin and that’s how you got Elizabeth out of it. Are you also claiming that Shakespeare used Emila as a pen name to write this eulogy to Elizabeth that otherwise he never wrote?

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Jane Grey was not the wife of the fair youth, since the fair youth was William Shakespeare. And it was Queen Elizabeth calling him that.

Sonnet 2 begins as follows:

"When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,"

So, which is it: Is the Fair Youth more than forty years old (in which case he would hardly be a youth) or are we dropping back in time to the 1550s?

Stratfordians have claimed that, on poetic evaluations, the Sonnets were written around the time of Venus and Adonis (1593) and Lucrece (1594) which would put us back to 1554, the year of Jane’s death.

As previously noted, Shakespeare wrote an entire book about his mom Jane (writing it in Italian only to put it beyond the reach of Stratfordians), so there can be no doubt that the Fair Youth is Jane’s husband Guildford Dudley, brother of Robert Dudley (Elizabeth’s favorite). Jane’s sister married Henry Herbert, father of the First Folio dedicatees.

Post by g***@btinternet.com
As you American's have never elected a woman to power it shows that your nation is sexist. However even the UK is sexist, since the population as a whole doesn't vote for the PM. They are appointed by a party. But even then the women are of a certain type and background.

Like men, women can be either good or bad. Unfortunately, it’s mostly the bad ones who decide to go into politics, of which your Iron Lady is a classic example.

[marco]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Cynthia = Queen Elizabeth is dead!

It took me nearly a half hour to figure out that Cynthia was a virgin and that’s how you got Elizabeth out of it. Are you also claiming that Shakespeare used Emila as a pen name to write this eulogy to Elizabeth that otherwise he never wrote?

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Jane Grey was not the wife of the fair youth, since the fair youth was William Shakespeare. And it was Queen Elizabeth calling him that.

"When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,"
So, which is it: Is the Fair Youth more than forty years old (in which case he would hardly be a youth) or are we dropping back in time to the 1550s?
Stratfordians have claimed that, on poetic evaluations, the Sonnets were written around the time of Venus and Adonis (1593) and Lucrece (1594) which would put us back to 1554, the year of Jane’s death.
As previously noted, Shakespeare wrote an entire book about his mom Jane (writing it in Italian only to put it beyond the reach of Stratfordians), so there can be no doubt that the Fair Youth is Jane’s husband Guildford Dudley, brother of Robert Dudley (Elizabeth’s favorite). Jane’s sister married Henry Herbert, father of the First Folio dedicatees.

Post by g***@btinternet.com
As you American's have never elected a woman to power it shows that your nation is sexist. However even the UK is sexist, since the population as a whole doesn't vote for the PM. They are appointed by a party. But even then the women are of a certain type and background.

Like men, women can be either good or bad. Unfortunately, it’s mostly the bad ones who decide to go into politics, of which your Iron Lady is a classic example.

.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Cynthia = Queen Elizabeth is dead!

It took me nearly a half hour to figure out that Cynthia was a virgin and that’s how you got Elizabeth out of it. Are you also claiming that Shakespeare used Emila as a pen name to write this eulogy to Elizabeth that otherwise he never wrote?

It's well known to most historians of Elizabeth that she was a multitude of these gods. Roy Strong calls it The Cult of Elizabeth. But he bases this on the fact that Elizabeth as she grew old wasn't beautiful, using actually false descriptions and the terrible pictures we have of her, to back it up that she wasn't beautiful in Real Life. However if you actually reverse that and say the she was beautiful even in her 60's. Then it's no surprise that these poets and painters which depict her as a beauty do so. In the same way Shakespeare does in his sonnets telling her that she is more beautiful than the Sun!

As for Emilia, when she had the poems published she had little money left and needed to sell things. She probably got most of the poems from Shakespeare himself, then added a few things and lines of her own merits. Very few copies were printed as it broke the law.

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Jane Grey was not the wife of the fair youth, since the fair youth was William Shakespeare. And it was Queen Elizabeth calling him that.

"When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,"
So, which is it: Is the Fair Youth more than forty years old (in which case he would hardly be a youth) or are we dropping back in time to the 1550s?

Elizabeth knows that Shakespeare is good looking and the early sonnets probably date around to when he was about 14 years old. When she first encountered him in the forest near Robert Dudley home. As you can imagine when a 14 year old lad tell a 45 year old woman, who though she is one of the most beautiful women ever, thinks she looks like the back end of a bus, the reply he will get. So she answers his arrogant sonnets urging her to marry and make more beautiful children, with the reply when you get older!
It's not that complicated. Well it is if you think that Elizabeth looked liked the back end of a bus, when she looked like VENUS! As do Stratfordians, who fail to spot the connection.

Post by Morten St. George
Stratfordians have claimed that, on poetic evaluations, the Sonnets were written around the time of Venus and Adonis (1593) and Lucrece (1594) which would put us back to 1554, the year of Jane’s death.
As previously noted, Shakespeare wrote an entire book about his mom Jane (writing it in Italian only to put it beyond the reach of Stratfordians), so there can be no doubt that the Fair Youth is Jane’s husband Guildford Dudley, brother of Robert Dudley (Elizabeth’s favorite). Jane’s sister married Henry Herbert, father of the First Folio dedicatees.

William Shakespeare of Stratford was clearly told by a member of the Royal Household, if not the Queen herself, that Guildford Dudley wasn't the first choice by a long shot. In fact Catherine Parr, who Jane shared a house with and Elizabeth, wanted Jane to marry King Edward.
Since there is not a shred of evidence that Jane even got pregnant, your story falls to pieces. However Shakespeare's own plays reveal the true story of Jane, Catherine and Mary and Elizabeth.
Guildford is Leonatus in Cymbeline. Imogen is Jane and she falls into the hands of the Roman (catholic) army of Lucius (Mary Tudor).

Post by Morten St. George
Like men, women can be either good or bad. Unfortunately, it’s mostly the bad ones who decide to go into politics, of which your Iron Lady is a classic example.

In the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy it says nothing makes a great politician as irreversible Brain damage. And I would say they ALL have that.
None for example as worked out that sending kids to schools after the age of 13 causes more social problems than anything else on this planet. Simply because kids of over 13 were meant to mix with a wide age range of people to develop properly. And of course they spend nearly 5 days a week in classes of people of the same age. So they never learn any common sense. For what does another 14 year old kid know about life?
You can't teach life in schools. You can teach all the rest in a mixed age range. But you can only learn life skills from other people. If they are the same age as you, then you will think that to disrespect your elders is right. Since puberty encourages you to reject parental control, you can't blame the parents. One teacher to 40 kids all aged 15! The teacher about 25, probably spent most of their time in education. Do we really think that 40 kids will develop the morals of the single teacher? Some might, but all 40! Say five do. Then were do the other 35 get their morals from? As I said parents are not a source. Most teenage kids will hang around with their friends from school.
I look at like this. Take the young man in the song Free Electric Band.

My father is a doctor, he's a family man,
My mother works for charity whenever she can,
They're both good clean Americans who abide by the law,
They both stick up for liberty, they both support the law,
My happiness was paid for when they laid their money down,
For Summers in a Summer camp, and Winters in the town,
My future in the system was talked about and planned,
But I gave it up for... Now here you assert anything you like.. Terrorism if you want. Fascism, Communism. Free love... Anything rebellious...

He goes further...
I went to school in hand-washed shirts with neatly oiled hair,
The school was big and newly built and filled with light and air,
And the teacher taught his values that we had to learn to keep,
And he clipped the ear of many idle kid who went to sleep,
My father organized for me a college in the East,
But I went to California, the sun-shine and the beach,
My parents and my lecturers could never understand,
Why I gave it up for... again insert rebellious behaviours...

He can't even form relationships...

My father sent me money and I spent it very fast,
On a girl I met in Berkeley in a social science class,
Yes, and we learned about her body, but her mind we didn't know,
Until the brutal attitudes and morals began to show,
She wanted to get married, even though she never said,
But I knew her well enough by now to see inside her head,
She'd settle for suburbia and a little patch of land,
So I gave her up for...

And that's why the world is a mess. Because like him we all went to school after the age of 13.
Blame it on bent politicians if you like, but what do they want to spend money on education to solve the worlds problems. When doing so creates more problems.

Lecture over...
Hey I went to school after 13!!!... I'm as bad as the rest...

[Morten St. George]

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Since there is not a shred of evidence that Jane even got pregnant, your story falls to pieces.

There is likewise no evidence that she didn’t get pregnant, such as someone (other than her immediate family) having sight of her during the nine months prior to giving birth.

Looking at two biographies of Jane, I am unable to find any occasion where she was seen in public between July 1552 (when she visited Oxford) and April 1553 (when she gave birth to Shakespeare). I get April from Sonnet 21: "Making a couplement of proud compare … With April's first-born … As any mother's child".

Jane was mysteriously moved into a haunted house far from all of her childhood residences in the autumn of 1552 and historians, while recording the attendees of royal gala for Princess Mary in February 1553, make no mention of Jane’s presence at that event.

Jane married Guildford in May 1553 and was proclaimed queen of England in July 1553. Wikipedia notes that, just before her imprisonment, Jane took an unusual interest in babies:

"On 19 July, a few hours before Queen Mary I's proclamation in London, the baptism of one of the Gentlemen Pensioners' children took place. Jane had agreed to be the godmother and wished the child's name to be Guildford."

Shakespeare’s Italian-language book about Jane,(printed in the Netherlands but falsely attributed to a Venetian printer), just like his plays, contains unambiguous Nostradamus encoding, and legends tell us that the parents of the Rosicrucian founder were killed when he was an infant and that he was carried off to another land by a monk. In the real setting, the monk took the infant to Heinrich Bullinger, a Swiss cleric with whom Jane carried on regular correspondence.

I suspect it was Jane’s wish that her son be kept a secret and out of politics, so Shakespeare, at five years old, was not brought back to England (where he would have been an assassination target) to take the throne in 1558 and instead it was turned over to Elizabeth. Nor, apparently, did he want the throne when Elizabeth died.

[marco]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by g***@btinternet.com
Since there is not a shred of evidence that Jane even got pregnant, your story falls to pieces.

There is likewise no evidence that she didn’t get pregnant, such as someone (other than her immediate family) having sight of her during the nine months prior to giving birth.
Looking at two biographies of Jane, I am unable to find any occasion where she was seen in public between July 1552 (when she visited Oxford) and April 1553 (when she gave birth to Shakespeare). I get April from Sonnet 21: "Making a couplement of proud compare … With April's first-born … As any mother's child".
Jane was mysteriously moved into a haunted house far from all of her childhood residences in the autumn of 1552 and historians, while recording the attendees of royal gala for Princess Mary in February 1553, make no mention of Jane’s presence at that event.
"On 19 July, a few hours before Queen Mary I's proclamation in London, the baptism of one of the Gentlemen Pensioners' children took place. Jane had agreed to be the godmother and wished the child's name to be Guildford."
Shakespeare’s Italian-language book about Jane,(printed in the Netherlands but falsely attributed to a Venetian printer), just like his plays, contains unambiguous Nostradamus encoding, and legends tell us that the parents of the Rosicrucian founder were killed when he was an infant and that he was carried off to another land by a monk. In the real setting, the monk took the infant to Heinrich Bullinger, a Swiss cleric with whom Jane carried on regular correspondence.
I suspect it was Jane’s wish that her son be kept a secret and out of politics, so Shakespeare, at five years old, was not brought back to England (where he would have been an assassination target) to take the throne in 1558 and instead it was turned over to Elizabeth. Nor, apparently, did he want the throne when Elizabeth died.

.

[marco]

authors

Yet their own authors faithfully affirm King Henry V: I, ii

That were the authors. King Henry VIII: II, i

Or for men's sake, the authors of these women, Love's Labour's Lost: IV, iii

Open. I will be proud, I will read politic authors, Twelfth Night: II, v

But when we know the grounds and authors of it, Twelfth Night: V, i


William Shakespeare, author

[A***@germanymail.com]

Post by marco
authors
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm King Henry V: I, ii
That were the authors. King Henry VIII: II, i
Or for men's sake, the authors of these women, Love's Labour's Lost: IV, iii
Open. I will be proud, I will read politic authors, Twelfth Night: II, v
But when we know the grounds and authors of it, Twelfth Night: V, i
William Shakespeare, author

Art N

[marco]

Post by marco
authors
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm King Henry V: I, ii
That were the authors. King Henry VIII: II, i
Or for men's sake, the authors of these women, Love's Labour's Lost: IV, iii
Open. I will be proud, I will read politic authors, Twelfth Night: II, v
But when we know the grounds and authors of it, Twelfth Night: V, i
William Shakespeare, author

Art N

.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
What did the Elizabethans mean by “astrology”?

A more pertinent question would be: What did Shakespeare mean by "astrology"? That is, assuming that you can find a single instance of the words "astrology" or "astrologer" somewhere in the vast Shakespearean canon because I couldn’t.
How do explain that the largest literary vocabulary ever seen fails to include astrology or astrologer? Didn’t Shakespeare write lots of history plays and didn’t English kings and queens, including Elizabeth, have astrologers? Don’t you think that a little astrology could have added some intrigue to the plays? Yet, nothing. Why?
I think it was because Shakespeare got scared: Merlin placed a curse on astrologers!

Shakespeare would not have used an astrologer in the modern sense of the word simply because he did not know the date he was born. And you can't do a chart without knowing the day an time of any event.
Look Mutton you are thinking like a modern person. In Elizabethan times they didn't think like you. You only have to look at some paintings of the Queen to see they don't think like a modern person. In some pictures of the Queen, we see her plus four or five Gods. But they saw ONE person the Queen and the Gods were the embodiment of her.
Superstition and Science are NOT separate in that period, they are together. Medicines that would cure someone were the product of GOD.

Shakespeare simply calls astrology and astronomy - the "Stars". There WAS no difference to him or anyone else. It wasn't till scientists with a Christian background split the two into the forms we see today. The church did not like Astrology as it opens up the debate about free will.
Today NO astrology predicts anything. They only see trends and circumstances that could lead to things. Back then they even predicted when people would die!
One said Astrology prediction is like jumping up in front of wall and trying to see who is winning the football match on the other side.
All prediction is like that. It helps that people interpret things AFTER the events.
So take a bunch of Astrologers - the three wise men, who tell Herod - a nutcase of King, placed there by the Romans, hated by his own people and killing his own relations if he thinks they are a threat to his throne - that a new king will be born in Bethlehem. So he has all the kids slaughtered. Surprise Surprise!
Or at least that is what the planetary formations looked like to a bunch of people obsessed with Kings etc. However to a modern Astrology what they would see with hindsight to the events, is the birth of a new religion.
No need to kill any child - no messiah at all. However the astrologer's story of a messiah, a new King, was perfect for a people fed up with Roman rule. And so the story grows. A man called Jesus goes out in search from the messiah and gains that much knowledge that he is mistaken for the same man.
And all because some clever dicks thought they knew what the stars meant!

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine
If you find something Copernican, let us know.

I find the following lines to be interesting:

FAUSTUS: ...
Who knows not the double motion of the planets?
The first is finish'd in a natural day;
The second thus; as Saturn in thirty years; Jupiter in twelve;
Mars in four; the Sun, Venus, and Mercury in a year; the Moon in
twenty-eight days. Tush, these are freshmen's suppositions.

In ancient times, people believed that the Earth was flat and stationary, and that the Sun, Moon, planets and stars all orbited around us, rising in the east and setting in the west. In Faustic theory, the Earth is round and rotating, producing the illusion that the celestial objects are orbiting around us. Meanwhile, the "second" motion is the orbital rotation, measured by the amount of time it takes a planet to return to same zodiacal backdrop.

Faust’s figures come close to reflecting the true orbital time around the Sun for all the planets except Mercury and Venus. I have a question for you: What explanation does your classical astronomy provide as to why the tiny planets Mercury and Venus orbit around us at exactly the same speed that the giant planet Sun orbits around us, in sharp contrast to all the other planets that orbit at greatly differing speeds?

If, for the sake of consistency, we were to assume that all the planets should orbit at divergent speeds, then we must conclude that everything, including the Earth, orbits around the Sun and that the Earth is the third planet distant from the Sun. That is the only way that Mercury and Venus (both closer to the Sun than us) could have an illusory orbital period of one year, that is, Mercury and Venus (and the Sun) cannot be orbiting around the Earth; to the contrary, we have to be orbiting around them as a group and that’s why they all (wrongly) appear to have the same orbital time.

In the 16th century, the vast majority of people were religious zombies incapable of comprehending anything beyond what the Bible told them, but great minds like Marlowe and Shakespeare were able to see that Copernican theory had to be correct though they resisted openly saying so out of fear of persecution. Some, like Bruno and Galileo, did express themselves, and we all know what happened to them.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
If you find something Copernican, let us know.

FAUSTUS: ...
Who knows not the double motion of the planets?
The first is finish'd in a natural day;
The second thus; as Saturn in thirty years; Jupiter in twelve;
Mars in four; the Sun, Venus, and Mercury in a year; the Moon in
twenty-eight days. Tush, these are freshmen's suppositions.
In ancient times, people believed that the Earth was flat and stationary, and that the Sun, Moon, planets and stars all orbited around us, rising in the east and setting in the west. In Faustic theory, the Earth is round and rotating, producing the illusion that the celestial objects are orbiting around us. Meanwhile, the "second" motion is the orbital rotation, measured by the amount of time it takes a planet to return to same zodiacal backdrop.

Garbage. Sheer ignorant garbage. Just shut up!

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
Garbage. Sheer ignorant garbage. Just shut up!

Long live freedom of speech!

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Garbage. Sheer ignorant garbage. Just shut up!

Long live freedom of speech!

He's right! Nobody ever believed that the Earth was flat in ancient times. Christopher Columbus never thought he would sail of the edge of the Earth. The flat Earth thing was a much more recent invention. Some nutcases still state that the Earth is flat. Like many myths it has stuck in the human conscious, taken as a fact. Myths like Eskimos live in igloos. A newspaper invented that story. The nursery rhyme Ring A Ring of Roses dates to the Black Death. It's actually less than 200 years old.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by g***@btinternet.com

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Garbage. Sheer ignorant garbage. Just shut up!

Long live freedom of speech!

He's right! Nobody ever believed that the Earth was flat in ancient
times. Christopher Columbus never thought he would sail of the edge
of the Earth. The flat Earth thing was a much more recent invention.
Some nutcases still state that the Earth is flat. Like many myths it
has stuck in the human conscious, taken as a fact. Myths like Eskimos
live in igloos. A newspaper invented that story. The nursery rhyme
Ring A Ring of Roses dates to the Black Death. It's actually less
than 200 years old.

Well, they thought it was flat if you go back to the Bronze Age or so,
but the fact that the Earth is round was well established at least by
the time of classical Greece; they even had a pretty good idea of the size.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
Well, they thought it was flat if you go back to the Bronze Age or so,
but the fact that the Earth is round was well established at least by
the time of classical Greece; they even had a pretty good idea of the size.

Humankind doesn’t always make continuous progress. As late as the 15th century A. D., there were sailors who believed that if they sailed out to sea too far, they would fall off. Why else wouldn't they sail over to the Orient for valuable silk and other goodies throughout medieval times?

I was only half teasing with my comments on the planetary orbits. The dull citation of well-known orbital times seems rather unappealing for a theatrical play, so I suspect Marlowe was up to something. It would be nice if a professional astronomer could take a look at Marlowe’s data to agree or disagree that heliocentric theory can be inferred from it.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Well, they thought it was flat if you go back to the Bronze Age or
so, but the fact that the Earth is round was well established at
least by the time of classical Greece; they even had a pretty good
idea of the size.

Humankind doesn’t always make continuous progress. As late as the
15th century A. D., there were sailors who believed that if they
sailed out to sea too far, they would fall off. Why else wouldn't
they sail over to the Orient for valuable silk and other goodies
throughout medieval times?

Stop learning history out of comic books. They didn’t sail west because
the Atlantic is much harder to sail than the Mediterranean, and because
they didn’t have ships capable of carrying enough provisions to make the
journey. Indeed, Columbus only made the attempt because he insisted that
the Earth had to be much smaller than it actually is, and if he had not
bumped into the New World, he and all his men would have died of
starvation or of salt-water poisoning. The Vikings made it to America,
but only by stages, and only where the ocean is at its narrowest.

Post by Morten St. George
I was only half teasing with my comments on the planetary orbits. The
dull citation of well-known orbital times seems rather unappealing
for a theatrical play, so I suspect Marlowe was up to something. It
would be nice if a professional astronomer could take a look at
Marlowe’s data to agree or disagree that heliocentric theory can be
inferred from it.

I don’t need to be a professional astronomer to know that. The ancient
Babylonians, quite possibly even the neolithic gentlemen who built
Stonehenge I, were entirely aware that the Ecliptic is considerably
tilted from the Equator, and that planets exhibit regular periods of
retrograde motion. We explain the latter as the result of the Earth and
the other planets orbiting the Sun at different rates, so that Mercury
and Venus pass us and we pass Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; they explained
it as a matter of deferents and epicycles. (Copernicus and Galileo
required epicycles, too, because they believed just as strongly as
Ptolemy that the perfect heavenly motions had to be explained in terms
of perfect circles. It took Kepler and his Three Laws to explode that
particular superstition.)

The “Faustus” passage is unequivocally geocentric, and says nothing
Dante or Chaucer couldn’t have found in their almanacs.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
Stop learning history out of comic books. They didn’t sail west because
the Atlantic is much harder to sail than the Mediterranean, and because
they didn’t have ships capable of carrying enough provisions to make the
journey. Indeed, Columbus only made the attempt because he insisted that
the Earth had to be much smaller than it actually is, and if he had not
bumped into the New World, he and all his men would have died of
starvation or of salt-water poisoning. The Vikings made it to America,
but only by stages, and only where the ocean is at its narrowest.

If they didn’t know how far away the Orient was, how would they know that they couldn’t carry enough food and water to get there?

Moreover, how do you explain the Polynesians who, during medieval times, managed to populate islands all across the Pacific covering stretches of sea far more vast than the Atlantic?

And how do you explain Mortenian theory which stipulates that, during the 13th century, Europeans crossed the Atlantic and established a settlement in South America? Of course, there’s evidence to support that theory:

http://mortenstgeorge.info/the-voynich-manuscript.html

It’s relevant for this group because that article includes speculation on a Shakespearean connection.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Stop learning history out of comic books. They didn’t sail west
because the Atlantic is much harder to sail than the Mediterranean,
and because they didn’t have ships capable of carrying enough
provisions to make the journey. Indeed, Columbus only made the
attempt because he insisted that the Earth had to be much smaller
than it actually is, and if he had not bumped into the New World,
he and all his men would have died of starvation or of salt-water
poisoning. The Vikings made it to America, but only by stages, and
only where the ocean is at its narrowest.

If they didn’t know how far away the Orient was, how would they know
that they couldn’t carry enough food and water to get there?

They did know. Columbus was wrong, but lucky.

Post by Morten St. George
Moreover, how do you explain the Polynesians who, during medieval
times, managed to populate islands all across the Pacific covering
stretches of sea far more vast than the Atlantic?

They, unlike Europeans, were accustomed to deep-ocean sailing, and they
also had some technological advantages, such as the catamaran.

Post by Morten St. George
And how do you explain Mortenian theory which stipulates that, during
the 13th century, Europeans crossed the Atlantic and established a
settlement in South America? Of course, there’s evidence to support
http://mortenstgeorge.info/the-voynich-manuscript.html
It’s relevant for this group because that article includes
speculation on a Shakespearean connection.

Even if you were right about this, it would not be a case of Europeans
trading westward to the East Indies, which (in case you’ve forgotten) is
what you’re asking about.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
Garbage. Sheer ignorant garbage. Just shut up!

Long live freedom of speech!

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. No government is stopping
you from talking nonsense. People, on the other hand, have every right
to complain that you’re talking nonsense. You obviously know nothing
about history, nothing about Shakespeare, and nothing about the English
language. Yet somehow you feel you can lecture people who do. You don’t
even get the usual mistakes right. Fools believe that people thought the
world was flat before Columbus. But you have to take it further and
claim that people thought it was flat even after Magellan and Drake.

I beg of you, before you continue spewing nonsense, get the two
following books and read them:

C. S. Lewis: The Discarded Image
C. S. Lewis: Studies in Words

And while you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary, or, even better, get a subscription to the on-line edition.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
And while you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary, or, even better, get a subscription to the on-line edition.

Did I make another spelling mistake?

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
And while you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary, or, even better, get a subscription to the on-line edition.

Did I make another spelling mistake?

You are a mistake full stop!

You remind me of a "left wing looney" type that the Sun newspaper played tricks on. For example the left in the UK were going on about racism and having special measures taken in nursery schools to prevent it. So the Sun invented a story that one of the left wing councils in London had banned the nursery rhyme Ba Ba Black Sheep as being racist. In fact they had done no such thing. However it soon spread around the rhyme was racist, it's NOT actually, among left wing circles and nursery providers stopped using it.
However the London Council the Sun claimed had banned it, was still using it and got a letter from an Australian Sheep Farmer saying the Council were being racist to his BLACK sheep!
I did point out to a woman that the Sun would have called a "left-wing looney" that the story was false, plus the rhyme has a lot to do with the working man, fighting against the landlords, who were taking common land for sheep farming.
Boy did she look silly when I told her!!
Incidentally she now lives in a big mansion of a place, that few working class people could afford.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
And while you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary, or, even better, get a subscription to the on-line edition.

Did I make another spelling mistake?

Actually John, the OED is poor in several respects for Elizabethan study. The result of a hap-hazard method of initially collating words and all generated from texts, and earliest citations and examples were often missing, especially regional variants, not just on spelling but on meaning.

The main problem though is that the OED is absolutely no guide to the English language in terms of usage. 90+% of the OED contains non Anglo Saxon words, whereas we still use 85+% of A. Sax words in speech.

Even Americans use 75% A. Sax words, and some older than current English coin — thus certain 'Americanism' are simply unchanged words since Elizabethan times.

To understand word usage it is necessary to (1) study speech, not texts — unless the texts are records of speech, to (2) permit wide variations of spelling, since speech has no spelling! and thereby obtain (3) a dialectical understanding of words in use at any one period, certain sounds having different meanings than each other, and from current usage. This means in this instance to also understand that certainly up to the pre-radio days, the idea of 'English language' is something of a fabrication since regional dialects before that time were to large degree incomprehensible, one to another.

'Radio,' or BBC English, or 'Oxford English' were epistemological products from texts and broadcasts.

Interestingly Orwell says in 1944 in London pubs that people often turned off the radio, (except for Churchill) not that they were merely bored with official propaganda but simple that they didn't understand it.

Cordially, Phil Innes

[John W Kennedy]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
And while you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary, or, even better, get a subscription to the on-line edition.

Did I make another spelling mistake?

Actually John, the OED is poor in several respects for Elizabethan
study. The result of a hap-hazard method of initially collating words
and all generated from texts, and earliest citations and examples
were often missing, especially regional variants, not just on
spelling but on meaning.
The main problem though is that the OED is absolutely no guide to the
English language in terms of usage. 90+% of the OED contains non
Anglo Saxon words, whereas we still use 85+% of A. Sax words in
speech.

That’s insane.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by John W Kennedy
That’s insane.

it is mighty strange — (1) the hundred most used words in English are ALL A. Sax [or if you wish, Germanic with bits of Norse] and (2) below is a newish study by Dave Wilton of what is represented in the OED

The thing to note is the 4x English origin words than Latin, the nearest competitor. AND of neologisms in the C20th 70% are STILL from A. Sax.

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/where_do_english_words_come_from/

The chart here represents the sources of English words as a percentage of the total new entries the OED has for that particular century. By using percentages, I correct for the bias the OED has for drawing upon sources from certain centuries. For example, since the OED was primarily compiled in the nineteenth century, the dictionary has far more new words from that period than any other—almost as many as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries combined, and more than twice as many as the twentieth. Using percentages allows comparisons across the centuries.

The most striking thing upon viewing the chart is the realization that by far, most English words are formed from already existing English roots. Four times as many words come from English roots as come from Latin, the closest competitor. For all its reputation for borrowing words, most English words are home grown. And most of the non-English words come from only a handful of sources: Latin, French, Old Norse, Greek, and non-language sources, such as acronyms, echoic and imitative words, personal and place names, etc. And the influence of these sources changes over time. The high point for English-rooted words was the Anglo-Saxon era, with over 80% of Old English words coming from native, Germanic roots. The low point was the fourteenth century, when the effects of the Norman Conquest were fully felt. Since then, the amount of borrowing has decreased, and by the twentieth century over 70% of new words were formed with English roots.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by John W Kennedy
That’s insane.

On another, new point, here is another factor, one not strictly addressing material in this thread but on the nature of dictionaries:—


Are 52% of words really not included in dictionaries?
In 2011, a remarkable article appeared in the journal Science

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/176

that argued, based on a computational analysis of five million books, that “52 percent of the English lexicon—the majority of the words used in English books—consists of lexical ‘dark matter’ undocumented in standard references”.

Taken at face value, this might seem like an astonishing claim. Fifty-two percent of words in English written usage don’t appear in dictionaries! Take that, prescriptivists and lexicographers! We are the 52 percent! In this post, I would like to contextualize the article’s findings by taking into account a factor that most of the journalistic coverage written when the article appeared did not: namely, the presence of derivatives in the ‘dark matter’ lexicon. First, however, I would like to underline the meaning of the 52 percent by discussing the article’s stress on the word lexicon, especially in the context of a phenomenon (which the authors cite) called Zipf’s Law. <extract>

Source: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/08/52-words-really-not-included-dictionaries/

Writer:
Elyse Graham

Elyse Graham is an assistant professor at SUNY Stony Brook. She is writing a book for Oxford University Press on the history of the English language in New York City.


Phil Innes

Post by John W Kennedy
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
Elyse Graham is an assistant professor at SUNY Stony Brook. She is writing a book for Oxford University Press on the history of the English language in New York City.

I have a question regarding ambiguity in the English language: Is she writing the book in New York City or is she writing a book about English as spoken in New York City?

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
Elyse Graham is an assistant professor at SUNY Stony Brook. She is writing a book for Oxford University Press on the history of the English language in New York City.

I have a question regarding ambiguity in the English language: Is she writing the book in New York City or is she writing a book about English as spoken in New York City?

The remedy instead of questions and ambiguities, it to look it up, OR suspect that a professor of English language can parse grammatically, and she is writing a history of the English language in New York City

Phil Innes

[A***@germanymail.com]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
Elyse Graham is an assistant professor at SUNY Stony Brook. She is writing a book for Oxford University Press on the history of the English language in New York City.

I have a question regarding ambiguity in the English language: Is she writing the book in New York City or is she writing a book about English as spoken in New York City?

The remedy instead of questions and ambiguities, it to look it up, OR suspect that a professor of English language can parse grammatically, and she is writing a history of the English language in New York City
Phil Innes

Art N

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
The remedy instead of questions and ambiguities, it to look it up, OR suspect that a professor of English language can parse grammatically, and she is writing a history of the English language in New York City

The whole point is that I should not have to look it up, but I did anyway, and I find that you are not the one who is responsible for that hodgepodge of confusion.

Since it was indicated that she works close to NYC (and thus may very well live there), it surely would have been better to phrase it differently.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
The remedy instead of questions and ambiguities, it to look it up, OR suspect that a professor of English language can parse grammatically, and she is writing a history of the English language in New York City

The whole point is that I should not have to look it up, but I did anyway, and I find that you are not the one who is responsible for that hodgepodge of confusion.

You don't have to look up the words of whom? True, you haven't read Shakespeare and see no need to do so, but this is another topic — grammar in current English language

a history of the American language in New York, is indistinguishable to you from a history of American language written from New York, or for some peculiar reason you think where the writer is has some significance which she includes in her research?

Post by Morten St. George
Since it was indicated that she works close to NYC (and thus may very well live there), it surely would have been better to phrase it differently.

for grammar challenged Americans and illiterates interested in American language in New York ? Better for them?


R

O


F



L



Phil Innes

[marco]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Morten St. George

Post by v***@gmail.com
The remedy instead of questions and ambiguities, it to look it up, OR suspect that a professor of English language can parse grammatically, and she is writing a history of the English language in New York City

The whole point is that I should not have to look it up, but I did anyway, and I find that you are not the one who is responsible for that hodgepodge of confusion.

You don't have to look up the words of whom? True, you haven't read Shakespeare and see no need to do so, but this is another topic — grammar in current English language
a history of the American language in New York, is indistinguishable to you from a history of American language written from New York, or for some peculiar reason you think where the writer is has some significance which she includes in her research?

Post by Morten St. George
Since it was indicated that she works close to NYC (and thus may very well live there), it surely would have been better to phrase it differently.

for grammar challenged Americans and illiterates interested in American language in New York ? Better for them?
R
O
F
L
Phil Innes

.

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
a history of the American language in New York, is indistinguishable to you from a history of American language written from New York, or for some peculiar reason you think where the writer is has some significance which she includes in her research?

Wikipedia has an article called "New York City English" which convinces me that Oxford University Press could be interested in publishing a book on this narrow theme, so let's drop the topic.

[Morten St. George]

Post by v***@gmail.com
Interestingly Orwell says in 1944 in London pubs that people often turned off the radio, (except for Churchill) not that they were merely bored with official propaganda but simple that they didn't understand it.

I too sometimes have trouble understanding the radio, not because my English is that bad, but because of static.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy
And while you’re at it, get yourself a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary, or, even better, get a subscription to the on-line edition.

Did I make another spelling mistake?

You keep making meaning-of-words mistakes.

[laraine]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
If you find something Copernican, let us know.

FAUSTUS: ...
Who knows not the double motion of the planets?
The first is finish'd in a natural day;
The second thus; as Saturn in thirty years; Jupiter in twelve;
Mars in four; the Sun, Venus, and Mercury in a year; the Moon in
twenty-eight days. Tush, these are freshmen's suppositions.
In ancient times, people believed that the Earth was flat and stationary,

Ok, so we should say that some believed the Earth was flat and stationary.

Post by Morten St. George
and that the Sun, Moon, planets and stars all orbited around us, rising in the east and setting in the west. In Faustic theory, the Earth is round and rotating,

(I'm wondering did they think a flat planet could rotate? Sorry,
I guess we are getting ahead of ourselves on the ancient astronomy.)

Post by Morten St. George
producing the illusion that the celestial objects are orbiting around us. Meanwhile, the "second" motion is the orbital rotation, measured by the amount of time it takes a planet to return to same zodiacal backdrop.
Faust’s figures come close to reflecting the true orbital time around the Sun for all the planets except Mercury and Venus. I have a question for you: What explanation does your classical astronomy provide as to why the tiny planets Mercury and Venus orbit around us at exactly the same speed that the giant planet Sun orbits around us, in sharp contrast to all the other planets that orbit at greatly differing speeds?

So, IIUC, the character Faust (who died about 1541) suggests
that Mercury, Venus, and the Sun take the same time to orbit the Earth,
about a year. I don't know exactly how they explained that. One might think
that those three 'planets' moved in increasing speed, and/or perhaps the size
of the epicycles of Mercury and Venus added some extra distance.

So maybe we are indeed getting ahead of ourselves on the ancient astronomy,
but I see some good animations on the web of some of the basic ideas to
help spatially challenged people such as myself.

C.

Post by Morten St. George
If, for the sake of consistency, we were to assume that all the planets should orbit at divergent speeds, then we must conclude that everything, including the Earth, orbits around the Sun and that the Earth is the third planet distant from the Sun. That is the only way that Mercury and Venus (both closer to the Sun than us) could have an illusory orbital period of one year, that is, Mercury and Venus (and the Sun) cannot be orbiting around the Earth; to the contrary, we have to be orbiting around them as a group and that’s why they all (wrongly) appear to have the same orbital time.
In the 16th century, the vast majority of people were religious zombies incapable of comprehending anything beyond what the Bible told them, but great minds like Marlowe and Shakespeare were able to see that Copernican theory had to be correct though they resisted openly saying so out of fear of persecution. Some, like Bruno and Galileo, did express themselves, and we all know what happened to them.

[Morten St. George]

Post by laraine
Ok, so we should say that some believed the Earth was flat and stationary.

Yes, that’s right. Don’t believe others in this forum who keep claiming that medieval peoples knew that the Earth was round. They didn’t. The vast majority of people only believed what could be construed from Bible; thus, the world was flat and if you sailed to the edges you would fall off.

It is a common error of logic to assume, for example, that because some ancient Greek philosopher speculated that the Earth was round, then thereafter everyone knew the Earth was round. It doesn’t work like that.

Let me give you an analogy. For many months I have been asserting, with evidence, that Shakespeare was influenced by Nostradamus. Now, let’s suppose that in the 23rd century someone finds a transcript of this discussion group,concluding: Wow, back in the 21st century, people knew that Shakespeare was influence by Nostradamus! No, they didn’t know. I know, and a few people who read my posts know, but we will soon fade away. People in the 21st do not know that Shakespeare was influenced by Nostradamus and, granted that Stratfordians have absolute control of the world’s media, chances are good that they will never know. Similarly, medieval sailors did not know that they wouldn’t fall off.

Post by laraine
(I'm wondering did they think a flat planet could rotate? Sorry,
I guess we are getting ahead of ourselves on the ancient astronomy.)

I am unable to envision this. A rotating flat earth would only spin around the same stars, unless it flipped upside down, in which case everyone would fall off.

Post by laraine
So, IIUC, the character Faust (who died about 1541) suggests
that Mercury, Venus, and the Sun take the same time to orbit the Earth,
about a year. I don't know exactly how they explained that. One might think
that those three 'planets' moved in increasing speed, and/or perhaps the size
of the epicycles of Mercury and Venus added some extra distance.

Let’s not forget that another science is mentioned:

FAUSTUS. Nay, let me have one book more,--and then I have done,-- wherein I might see all plants, herbs, and trees, that grow upon the earth.

Do you recall my earlier posts regarding Shakespeare’s picture appearing on cover of a 1500-page encyclopedia of plants (to this day the largest botany book ever written in English ) published in 1597? I think Marlowe knew, ten years earlier, that such a book was being planned.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by laraine
Ok, so we should say that some believed the Earth was flat and
stationary..

Yes, that’s right. Don’t believe others in this forum who keep
claiming that medieval peoples knew that the Earth was round. They
didn’t. The vast majority of people only believed what could be
construed from Bible; thus, the world was flat and if you sailed to
the edges you would fall off.
It is a common error of logic to assume, for example, that because
some ancient Greek philosopher speculated that the Earth was round,
then thereafter everyone knew the Earth was round. It doesn’t work
like that.

Oh for God’s sake, read Dante.

[Morten St. George]

Post by John W Kennedy
Oh for God’s sake, read Dante.

How many medieval sailors do you think there were who had read Dante, or who could read at all?

The superstitions of the medieval uneducated were not widely recorded but that does not mean they didn’t exist. Even more than falling off the earth, the sailors feared being eaten alive by giant sea monsters believed to be waiting for them out at sea. It was by no means easy for an educated captain to gather together a willing crew.

Far-fetched superstitions still exist in our modern world. For example, an American VP candidate believes that there is no such thing as evolution and wants the teaching of it in the schools to be outlawed.

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?
In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

Oh for cat’s sake, before you start mucking about with stylometry, try
to acquire more than an elementary smattering of English grammar.

My English grammar is so bad that I can’t even figure out what I did wrong. But it doesn’t matter much: everyone here already knows that English isn’t my strong point.
My sarcastic remarks allude to alleged literary scholars who claim that an author who uses "thou" is distinguishable from an author who uses "you". They seem to think that every writer has an exclusive preference for one or the other. Pure nonsense.
In the real world, Shakespeare is far and away the easiest author of his epoch to identify. No other author (except Marlowe not really Marlowe) can match his talent for being irrational yet not really irrational.
The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Sonnets: XXXIII
I know what a "region cloud" is. Do you?
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?
It’s a real shame: if you literary scholars had half a brain, Shakspere would be down and out in a flash.

Post by John W Kennedy
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Mr St George,
One of the things you learn that people who spend a lot of time monitoring "alternative theories" is they generally suffer from an inferiority complex. They believe they have failed to succeed themselves and so compensate it by exhibiting anger and scorn towards people even further down the academic Great Chain of Being than themselves. This works to bolster their sagging self-esteem.

I am not an English scholar myself, but my understanding is that there was a time when thou/you was the equivalent of tu/vous and du/Sie. One form was more informal and/or used towards a social inferior.

So the Fool will address Lear as "You" and Lear will address the Fool as "Thou" - or was it vice-versa?

Of course, I may be completely wrong, that was just my assumption.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by f***@gmail.com

Post by Morten St. George

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Morten St. George
In my own writings, I often use the word "shall" when writing about Nostradamus and the word "will" when writing about everything else. Does that mean I have a split personality?
In Shakespeare’s canon, I count around five thousand "thou" and around ten thousand "you". Does this mean that Shakespeare himself wrote no more than two-thirds of his canon?

Oh for cat’s sake, before you start mucking about with stylometry, try
to acquire more than an elementary smattering of English grammar.

My English grammar is so bad that I can’t even figure out what I did wrong. But it doesn’t matter much: everyone here already knows that English isn’t my strong point.
My sarcastic remarks allude to alleged literary scholars who claim that an author who uses "thou" is distinguishable from an author who uses "you". They seem to think that every writer has an exclusive preference for one or the other. Pure nonsense.
In the real world, Shakespeare is far and away the easiest author of his epoch to identify. No other author (except Marlowe not really Marlowe) can match his talent for being irrational yet not really irrational.
The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Sonnets: XXXIII
I know what a "region cloud" is. Do you?
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.
Believe it or not, these lines are clear, unambiguous and fully comprehensible for someone who has certain knowledge, but I would be willing to bet that you have no idea what Shakespeare is talking about. Or perhaps you simply find nothing odd about it?
It’s a real shame: if you literary scholars had half a brain, Shakspere would be down and out in a flash.

Post by John W Kennedy
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Mr St George,
One of the things you learn that people who spend a lot of time monitoring "alternative theories" is they generally suffer from an inferiority complex. They believe they have failed to succeed themselves and so compensate it by exhibiting anger and scorn towards people even further down the academic Great Chain of Being than themselves. This works to bolster their sagging self-esteem.
I am not an English scholar myself, but my understanding is that there was a time when thou/you was the equivalent of tu/vous and du/Sie. One form was more informal and/or used towards a social inferior.
So the Fool will address Lear as "You" and Lear will address the Fool as "Thou" - or was it vice-versa?
Of course, I may be completely wrong, that was just my assumption.

That was the general situation—“thou” applied to “someone you could kiss
or someone you could kick”. However, the old use was becoming wobbly in
Shakespeare’s time. (A further note: “Thou” also applied to God, which
has left many people with the false impression that it’s a special
religious word. But there’s nothing all that unusual about it; in
Hungarian, the “thou” word is used not only for God, but also for the king.)

[Morten St. George]

Post by f***@gmail.com
Mr St George,
One of the things you learn that people who spend a lot of time monitoring "alternative theories" is they generally suffer from an inferiority complex. They believe they have failed to succeed themselves and so compensate it by exhibiting anger and scorn towards people even further down the academic Great Chain of Being than themselves. This works to bolster their sagging self-esteem.

In an ideal world, in a forum like this, people can post new theories and expect them to get fair consideration, negative criticism too if that is what it deserves. But here I get mostly thoughtless ad hominen attacks to anything I post, and this occasionally elicits some sarcastic push back on my part. I wouldn’t read more into it than that.

Post by f***@gmail.com
I am not an English scholar myself, but my understanding is that there was a time when thou/you was the equivalent of tu/vous and du/Sie. One form was more informal and/or used towards a social inferior.
So the Fool will address Lear as "You" and Lear will address the Fool as "Thou" - or was it vice-versa?
Of course, I may be completely wrong, that was just my assumption.

In the 16th century one or the other may have been preferred in certain geographical regions or at certain social levels, and Shakespeare rightly uses both. Today, "you" has come to dominate nearly everywhere.

[g***@btinternet.com]

Post by Morten St. George

Post by f***@gmail.com
Mr St George,
One of the things you learn that people who spend a lot of time monitoring "alternative theories" is they generally suffer from an inferiority complex. They believe they have failed to succeed themselves and so compensate it by exhibiting anger and scorn towards people even further down the academic Great Chain of Being than themselves. This works to bolster their sagging self-esteem.

In an ideal world, in a forum like this, people can post new theories and expect them to get fair consideration, negative criticism too if that is what it deserves. But here I get mostly thoughtless ad hominen attacks to anything I post, and this occasionally elicits some sarcastic push back on my part. I wouldn’t read more into it than that.

It's all well and good to post a theory, but if you have not based it using the rules of those who study history then you will NOT be treated and the theory will be dismissed as cobblers by ALL on the place you post it.
It goes without saying that developing a theory on Shakespeare needs one fundamental rule to be applied. That you have read the vast majority of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. And you openly admit that you have not done this.
Now if you had read say 75% of Shakespeare works and then come up with a theory that there was a connection with Nostradamus. Then people will have said right that's interesting. But you didn't. Then you came up with a separate theory that even the works of Nostradamus were not by him. So you start rubbing shit in the faces of those you want to convince. You don't stop there and resolve that Shakespeare plays were done by William Stanley. An easy option as there are no plays at all with the actual name of William Stanley on. So nothing to compare any writing styles. But your shit rubbing gets worse. You then say UK national institutions that hold archives of historical documents are somehow supporters of the William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and poems that carry the name of Shakespeare camp.
And YOU wonder why people call you a NUTCASE!!

[laraine]

Post by marco
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote William Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part II—or was it Christopher Marlowe?

Or did a follower of Jack Cade first say it?

In Njal's Saga, they did indeed kill the lawyer.

C.

[laraine]

Post by laraine

Post by marco
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote William Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part II—or was it Christopher Marlowe?

Or did a follower of Jack Cade first say it?
In Njal's Saga, they did indeed kill the lawyer.
C.

From Wikipedia:

Njáls saga ..., Brennu-Njáls saga ... or "The Story of Burnt Njáll") is a
thirteenth-century Icelandic saga that describes events between 960 and 1020. The principal characters are the friends Njáll Þorgeirsson,[1] a lawyer and a sage, and Gunnar Hámundarson, a formidable warrior. Gunnar's wife instigates a feud that leads to the death of many characters over several decades including the killing by fire of the eponymous "Burnt Njáll".

The saga deals with this process of blood feuds in the Icelandic Commonwealth, showing how the requirements of honor could lead to minor slights spiralling into destructive and prolonged bloodshed. Insults where a character's manhood is called into question are especially prominent and may reflect an author critical of an overly restrictive ideal of masculinity.[2]

Another characteristic of the narrative is the presence of omens and prophetic dreams. It is disputed whether this reflects a fatalistic outlook on the part of the author."


--Note the mention of blood feuds as well as omens and prophetic dreams.

Now, of course, this was written in a language that I don't think
S understood.

C.