Rime royal vs. blank verse

On HLAS (the Shakespeare Authorship) newsgroup, I asserted that is easier to write blank verse than "rime royal" but was challenged by Tom Reedy to write some blank verse, which I did,

My Lord of Reedy asks that i write verse
that's blank, containing no end-rimes:
quite difficult for me, since rimes spring up
in mind (like leaves upon the maple bough
outside my house this fecund time of year)
but which i must reject, or play the fool,
as if I wasn't taught to write in class,
or Frosty school of poetry, no less.
No near-rime like the one above will count,
Nor echoes in these five-beat iamb lines:
(Like end-time prophets calling on the past
To motivate the listening audience)
Full twenty lines, Tom Reedy asked me for,
So that he might not toil on "rime royal"
(As Shakespeare did in his long narrative
About Lucrece). I challenged him to prove
How difficult it is to write -- much more
Than unrimed lines of five-beat iamb meter:
Da-DAH, da-DAH, five times. Not four.
The line above falls short, and this one's one-beat long.
Just five is all that's needed or required.
And that should do it, don't you think? I'll stop.
Now is Tom Reedy ready to write back?
Two stanzas ought do, since it's so easy:
A-B-A-B, another B, two C's
C'mon then, Tom, place fingers on the keys
And rime us royally, if it's a breeze.

which proves nothing, but leaves the questions unanswered as to why the author William Shakespeare chose to write a lengthy narrative poem in this very demanding form (rime royal) about a very demanding classical topic (the expulsion of Roman tyrants and the installation of a Republican form of government, which was more democratic) and dedicate it to a very demanding young nobleman (Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton). I'll put in some links later. Too much going on in the world outside today.

Marlowespeare

Things are really heating up in my town, and at the HLAS newsgroup as well. Both Art N. and a virulent Verean named Toby Petzold reject our hero out of hand, and another "contributor" Spam Scone (Neil Brennan), a true-blue Strat who appears to "have it in" for mild-mannered Peter Farey, the darling of the Marlovians. Although I'm extremely busy with more demanding (though not more important) projects, I'll try to take time to respond, even though I've long ago learned that some people in the group have closed minds on the subject of who wrote the poems and plays of (the concealed author) Shakespeare, and Marlowe is on the outside of the door of possibility for them. Since few of them have literature training or PR background, why waste time? I'm content to agree to disagree, but when untrue claims are made, I'm obligated to speak up, as time permits, since I am "the keeper of the Marlovian flame." (ref: blog #1)

16th Theater exhibit

Here.

Hunter, Heminge & Condell

Posted Hunter's essay on Heminge & Condell as editors of the First Folio . . . here, and his "new readings of Midsummer Night's Dream" . . . here.

Wrote to the author with query about alleged 1594 performance of MSND.

Posted to Clark Holloway

Apparently Hunter's thesis hasn't had much examination, so I wouldn't go to far in accepting its conclusion: i.e. that the Heminge & Condell, the retired actors, edited selected plays in the Folio. But anything's possible, i guess. In a recent post to Hardy Cook's listserve, he offers to send copies of his articles to anyone who asks (which i did). But for the sake of argument, assuming H&C edited those plays...who edited the rest? Not Jonson? Not Bacon? Who? Informed speculation is encouraged.

Who edited the First Folio?

Clark Holloway posted a helpful message on this topic attempting to support the claim that Heminge and Condell edited the First Folio . . . here. He referrred me to a post of his from June 3, which didn't really add anything, but it got me to searching for other discussions on the topic, including my own.

The author of the article Clark is referring to, William B. Hunter, posted a message to Hardy Cook's Shaksper listserve . . . here, but didn't get much response, so

Hunter posted a follow-up message, offering to email copies of his articles on request, provided the requester indicates how he or she views the thesis (positively, negatively, or indifferently).

I'd have to say I view it skeptically, but look forward to reading it.

Grum watch

My old nemesis Bob Grumman has reared his ugly head, metaphorically speaking. You can read his post . . . here.

Darby does HLAS

Darby Mitchell's corker of a theory was introduced to the gang at HLAS today . . . here. The big problem I have with it is that Boyle's prose is so crude. I wonder if anyone else will point this out...I suppose a writer as great as Shakespeare (i.e. Marlowe) could fabricate the diary of crude man of affairs, though, but why?

Other evidence that should keep the cork in Darby's champaign is the portrait of Boyle. Roberta Ballantine mentions a big difference between Boyle's portrait while he was at King's School Canterbury, and the one pictured here. Perhaps Darby has some thoughts on these matters. I'll ask her.

Marlowe in the news

Sarasota Herald Tribune newspaper editor Mike Pollick left a message to say that he was still working on the feature story about Roberta Ballantine and the Marlovian theory and had a few more questions.

When Berta met Darby, 2

Roberta Ballantine purchased Darby Mitchell's novel, Miranda's Litel Booke and just started reading it--and loves it. "Deserves to be a best seller," she says. From what I've read of it, I agree. Roberta wonders if Darby knows that Kit was acting as an agent for Essex in Ireland in 1598. I didn't know that myself.

Somethin' for Grumman

I told my buddy Bob Grumman that I would write a blog about him because he responded to one of my queries with a query of his own. . . Bob and I have bit of a history together. . .It got to the point where I had to ask him--rather rudely--to stay out of my threads, because he would always muck them up (it seemed). But to give the devil his due, Bob is an inventive thinker and indefatigable poster, and he's learned a few things since those days. I even videotaped an interview with him for a documentary I was making a couple years ago. In it, he discusses his interest in Shakespeare authorship, and admits to being the bete noir of his mental construct, a "rigidnik"! I should make a little .mpeg of it and post it--if he keeps calling other people in the HLAS newsgroup "insane." ;-)

Cryptogrammaton

Somebody named "Daryll Walker" from England (possibly a pseudonym for Paul Crowley) writes to HLAS about a book he read recently Cryptogrammaton the eBook by SeanAlonzo, in which, says Walker, the author gives a strong argument that [the First Folio] was written by a collective edited by Francis Bacon, and contributed to by various members, most notably Edward De Vere, Edmund Spenser, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Phillip Sydney, John Lyly, Robert Greene, Thomas Kyd, George Peele, Francis Beaumont, William John Donne, John Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe and Francis Bacon, because (says Walker):

1. All of the above poets were Rosicrucians
2. They collaborated on other works together
3. All of their lives criss-crossed the same 100 year span. [in fact, they flourished IN THE SAME FIVE DECADES: 80's, 90's, 00's, 10's, 20's]
4. Plus, ...many of them had not only totally similar writing styles, but they seemed to all share the same philosophical view points. With this many poets and thinkers (concludes Walker) there was sure to be philosophical disagreements, but in their collective works you find very little disagreement.

Indeed, it is likely that a group of writers was involved in the writing and publication of the First Folio, but NOT in the authorship of the two narrative poems by which "William Shakespeare" made his name during the years 1593-1598, when his name appeared in print as a playwright.

Does Darryl Walker think a group of poets wrote Rape of Lucrece? I asked him by reply post this morning.

Meanwhile, if you're feeling a blossoming interest in the subject, there are interesting essays to read about Bacon, the Rosicrucian and "Shakespeare and the Rosicrucians".

Open Directory

I sent the Marlowe Lives! site URL to the OD for listing. I trust they will find it worthy of inclusion.

When Berta met Darby

Two women touched by genius and an elegant writing touch are meeting each other for the first time via the internet. I mean Roberta Ballantine, whose knowledge of the Elizabethan underworld rivals Charles Nicholls', and Darby Mitchell, who believes that Kit was not a spy at all. Another issue that comes up is the portrait of Boyle used by Ms. Mitchell. Ballantine points to one used in Ingram's book that gives an entirely different picture. I'll try to obtain photos of the different portraits.

Bacon beckons

Although Elizabeth Weir, appears to be busy researching her hero's claim to fame as the author of Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece (see this post)...Christian Lancia gamely tried to to offer reasons why the greatest scientific mind of his generation could not also be the greatest poet ...in answer to my query . . . here.

Meanwhile, Art Neuendorffer at HLAS has been posting up a storm about Francis Bacon, lately. Art is a master of gathering sifting and collating esoteric facts and trivia about historical figures, especially in the 16th-17th centuries from the internet and shaping them (i use the term loosely) into lengthy posts such as this one.one about Sir Francis.

Silence is Golden

No takers on my Bacon query, which doesn't surprise me. Elizabeth Weir and company have no real evidence that their hero, the great Francis Bacon wrote (could--or would--have written) Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece, "Shakespeare's" two masterpieces of narrative poetry, the works that "made his name," so to speak.

Meanwhile...there are

Tales from Darby

I heard from Roberta Ballantine about Darby Mitchell's claims about Marlowe and Richard Boyle (whom Berta calls "Rick" and includes in her own novel about Marlowe), so I've hooked them up electronically, which should be interesting because Darby at first reminded me of Mrs. B, one of the true originals in Marlowe scholarship.

Back to Bacon

I wrote to Chris Lancia to inform him of changes made this morning, and asked him (or a Baconian) to come up with some sizzling evidence that Francis wrote "Venus & Adonis" and "Rape of Lucrece," two masterpieces of narrative poetry, for which Shakespeare was principally known in the public mind for about 5 years (1593-98).

Denmark is wrong; So is Bacon

Christian Lancia wrote to inform me he is not from Denmark, but an Italian citizen living in Sweden, so I fixed it and added a link to his HLAS profile . . . . here. He also alludes to a previous newsgroup exchange concerning Bacon vs. Marlowe in which Francis got fried, and wanted me to know where all his (Lancia's) relatives lived as well. You can read his post. . . . here.

Austin's power

St. Augustine of Canterbury, his feast day was yesterday, today, or tomorrow, depending on your source--in this case Catholic Saints online

I was thinking he might be a candidate for Art N's Magical Connection Machine. I guess i'll find out.

Like a version

No comment or response to my HLAS post, so I guess no one has found fault or error, because, if there are any, the gang at HLAS will tell you. Meanwhile, my new friend, Darby Mitchell, just posted her very first message to HLAS -- her version of how Marlowe came to write Venus and Adonis, which stalwart Stratfordian, Jim (kqknave) finds fault with ... here. Shall I get involved and set Jim straight? or let Darby fight her own battle? Yes. I'll simply report it from my lofty journalistic perch, fishing (oh!) for copy.

Miranda her litel booke ain't so little

The author sent me a copy of this novel, so I can read and review it for the Marlovian newsletter. 380 pages, including copious footnotes, revealing that Marlowe assumed the identity of Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Cork. For more, click ... here.

All Quiet on the Marlowe Front

After a series of stunning victories, HLAS Marlowe-guru Peter Farey (click on his photo at left) has temporarily retreated, undoubtedly doing further research to shore up the already formidable case he makes on his website.

When last heard from, Elizabeth Weir was "working on" the case for Bacon as author of Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece. If anyone can do it, Elizabeth can, but I doubt it's possible, because she has to include the possibility of collaboration with Marlowe (who's Hero and Leander contains demonstrable echoes of the earlier poems. It's a complicated argument, presented ... here.)
If they collaborated once, they might collaborate again.

Lyra is drifting along on his/her bonnie boat.

Meanwhile, Terry Ross (click on his picture) is ignoring the obvious need to clarify the reference to the name Shakespeare in 1593 on his website (along lines suggested by Farey), since it implies that the name was included in the registration and people have been confused by it (see below).

David Webb (and the rest of the Stratford-minded posters) ignored my query/statement about Bacon and Jonson, and possibly Florio, editing the First Folio of Shakespeare Plays in 1622-23--either because they think it is a ridiculous question (which it isn't), or they don't want to admit for publication that the Folio was edited by anyone other than the actors, Heminge and Condell. Or maybe they just don't like me.

This blogging commentary is new to HLAS, as far as I know. Through it, I'm hoping to weave the evidence gathered and evaluated by that learned body over the years into a convincing argument for Marlowe in these pages, and thereby demonstrate to the world at-large the legitimacy of his claim to fame as (the concealed author) Shakespeare.

And that's how I plan to spend my summer vacation.

Venus & Adonis is upon us

Although Peter Farey disagrees, Terry Ross claims that no one has (been confused by, or) misread the following list item on his website

> > > > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > > > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > > > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)

Which implies that the name WS was in print on April 18, 1593.

In fact, it was Bookburn's confusion earlier in the thread that spawned the discussion:

"VA, which was registered 18 April 1593, has no author's name
on the title page, but on the next page has "William Shakespeare" following the dedication. This was six weeks BEFORE M's death on May 30th of that year."

Bookburn apparently believed that the name appeared six weeks before CM's alleged death. Who knows how many more have thought so because of the crafty way the information is presented (including possibly Prof. Jonathan Bate, who got it wrong in Mike Rubbo's documentary).

Will Terry change the listing, so it's not misleading? Peter's suggestion sounds good,

> > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> > > was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> > > first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)

Maybe Bob Grumman could offer an improvement. Or Terry. Or Elizabeth Weir ... speaking of whom...

Yo Liz, What Gives?

One of my favorite posters at HLAS disappeared from view when I asked her to produce evidence that her man, Francis Bacon, wrote Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece She's working on it, she says . . . here.

Ross claims reference is clear

And refuses to make the change suggested by Peter F. ... here.

Farey clarifies a confusing point

Peter Farey points out some confusion on the Shakespeare Authorship website as to the date when the name "William Shakespeare" first appeared in print. Answer: sometime AFTER April 18, 1593, and BEFORE June 12. This is important for the Marlovian case for authorship because it was exactly the time period when the author would need to invent a new persona, if he was going to continue writing in exile. You can read Peter's post ... here.