Only here...

This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.

I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!

Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.




On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...<mailto:merriannmclain@...>> wrote:



This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.

I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!

Actually, London in particular, did get much dirtier under the Tudors! 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: Only here...

Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.




On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...<mailto:merriannmclain@...>> wrote:



This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.

I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Not really wanting to be fare, but one is only as good as one's sources,
and look at the sources he had, Hall and Holinshed, and More.
He was writing drama anyway, and I doubt the thought 'propaganda'
crossed his mind, even though it came to be used as such. Tudor
propaganda doesn't explain his attitude to Macbeth, Richard II, or the
Henrys IV & V, does it?
Paul
On 08/02/2013 16:20, merriannmclain wrote:
> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>
> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi
What were your thoughts?
Elaine

--- In , "merriannmclain" wrote:
>
> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>
> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>

Having done his bit for Tudor propaganda with his fictional Richard III, don't forget that he subsequently did his bit for Stuart propaganda with an equally fictional Macbeth.

The man of Stratford (who wrote the plays attributed to him, despite the snobbish view that they were beyond a grammar school boy from the Midlands) had the ability to create wonderful villains. It is just a shame that in doing so he ruined the reputation of two good kings.

Richard G

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" > wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>
> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed. It always amazes me how he, out of all the playwrights writing at the time, managed to avoid being thrown in the Clink or somewhere similar.
Elaine

--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Having done his bit for Tudor propaganda with his fictional Richard III, don't forget that he subsequently did his bit for Stuart propaganda with an equally fictional Macbeth.
>
> The man of Stratford (who wrote the plays attributed to him, despite the snobbish view that they were beyond a grammar school boy from the Midlands) had the ability to create wonderful villains. It is just a shame that in doing so he ruined the reputation of two good kings.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >
> > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Yep. Tell the truth, lose your head. Toe the party line, get rich and famous and stay in print for 400 years after your death.

Michael Wood spent some time in his Shakespeare series on the fascinating theory that Shakespeare successfully hid being an ardent Catholic from the agents of Elizabeth's police state. It's certainly one explanation of why the epitaph over his grave begs onlookers not to disinter him. (Scholars have long suspected that the reason for the epitaph is that W.S. was hiding something a disinterment would reveal.)

--- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Agreed. It always amazes me how he, out of all the playwrights writing at the time, managed to avoid being thrown in the Clink or somewhere similar.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Having done his bit for Tudor propaganda with his fictional Richard III, don't forget that he subsequently did his bit for Stuart propaganda with an equally fictional Macbeth.
> >
> > The man of Stratford (who wrote the plays attributed to him, despite the snobbish view that they were beyond a grammar school boy from the Midlands) had the ability to create wonderful villains. It is just a shame that in doing so he ruined the reputation of two good kings.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.

--- In , "merriannmclain" wrote:
>
> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>
> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>

[Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.

--- In , "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
>
> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
>
> --- In , "merriannmclain" wrote:
> >
> > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >
> > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >
>

Well, obviously with that one. But as far as Richard's concerned... well, there
wasn't a lot of dissent to work with to begin with.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, February 8, 2013 4:22:23 PM
Subject: Re: Only here...


[Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know
exactly what he was doing.

--- In , "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
>
> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he
>was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the
>fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
>
> --- In , "merriannmclain" wrote:
> >
> > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be
>appreciated.
> >
> > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship
>Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a
>question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a
>Tudor progaganda machine!
> >
>

I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays.  Must have a look at it after all



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
Subject: Re: Only here...

 
[Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
>
> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
> >
> > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >
> > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >
>

That's a good point, and one I've always wondered about. This was an age in which printing technology was in its infancy, and in the medieval/Renaissance/whatever the hell Shakespeare's time was called eras, a good memory was considered a valuable asset because there was no other reliable historical record.

This is one reason, by the way, why poetry was both more common then and considered extremely powerful: it made it easier to memorize vast amounts of material if it rhymed. Shakespeare's sonnets were considered in his time to be the true proof that he was a capable writer, his dramas being kind of enh, not quite so much. (That the plays were published at all, let alone with such care, is very unusual.) We do the same thing with pop music: most people end up being able to sing along with about four decades' worth of an astounding amount and variety of popular songs, with little apparent trouble in remembering either the tunes or the lyrics.

Just because things weren't written down, though, is no indicator that people didn't know them. I've often wondered whether Shakespeare availed himself of resources other than Hall and Holinshed for his histories; there have to have been people around in his time who remembered the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary, and Edward, and the desperate and dangerous succession of Elizabeth.

Of course, just because people know what really happened doesn't make it safe to tell the most capable dramatist in England; Elizabeth's realm was a carefully controlled police state, and they kept dirt on everybody for troublemaker control purposes. Shakespeare's troupe ran into trouble with the regime on only one occasion that we know of, when Essex asked them to revive "Richard II" when he was planning to depose Elizabeth; they agreed, but did try to argue him out of it on the grounds that "People aren't interested in an older play." (That they didn't say, "Milord, you are utterly godforsaken insane and need to cool your head in a horse trough for about three weeks before somebody removes it with an axe" is only one example of Shakespeare navigating the minefield that was public entertainment in Elizabeth's England. A soft answer turneth away wrath; he learned the lesson well, and it made him rich and lauded.)

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Well, obviously with that one. But as far as Richard's concerned... well, there
> wasn't a lot of dissent to work with to begin with.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Fri, February 8, 2013 4:22:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Only here...
>
>
> [Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know
> exactly what he was doing.
>
> --- In , "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
> >
> > I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he
> >was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the
> >fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
> >
> > --- In , "merriannmclain" wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be
> >appreciated.
> > >
> > > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship
> >Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a
> >question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a
> >Tudor progaganda machine!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Not really wanting to be fare, but one is only as good as one's sources, and look at the sources he had, Hall and Holinshed, and More.
> He was writing drama anyway, and I doubt the thought 'propaganda'
> crossed his mind, even though it came to be used as such. Tudor
> propaganda doesn't explain his attitude to Macbeth, Richard II, or the Henrys IV & V, does it?

Carol responds:

Paul, have you seen the literary critic Harold bloom's discussion of Shakespeare's Richard III in Newsweek? It's been overshadowed by Simon Schama's "ruthless Richard" in the same magazine. Admittedly, it doesn't say much about the historical Richard, but I think you may find it interesting as a partial explanation as to why Shakespeare's Richard is so far from the real king:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html

Carol

Not too sure how much of that he actually wrote. Towards the end of his writing career, he was working with collaborators as is claimed he did at the beginning. The Tempest is often considered his sign off work and the others are contentiously disputed. However, Henry VIII (1613 attributed to Shakespeare with John Fletcher) was not written until long after Elizabeth was dead although her successor's, (James I) censorship laws were as draconian as Elizabeth's had been. Both were descended from H7 so no change of regime really just a continuation of Tudor albeit under a different name. None of the plays were published in Shakespeare's lifetime though; it was in 1623 the first folio was published.
Elaine

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays.  Must have a look at it after all
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
> Subject: Re: Only here...
>
>  
> [Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
> >
> > I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

If you watched the Ray Winstone portrayal a few years ago, it was based on Shakespeare's Fat Henry.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Only here...



I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays. Must have a look at it after all

________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
Subject: Re: Only here...


[Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
>
> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
> >
> > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >
> > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >
>

Weren't the quartos published in his lifetime? Pray forgive the haziness, it's been eons since I last studied anything Shakespearean.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Not too sure how much of that he actually wrote. Towards the end of his writing career, he was working with collaborators as is claimed he did at the beginning. The Tempest is often considered his sign off work and the others are contentiously disputed. However, Henry VIII (1613 attributed to Shakespeare with John Fletcher) was not written until long after Elizabeth was dead although her successor's, (James I) censorship laws were as draconian as Elizabeth's had been. Both were descended from H7 so no change of regime really just a continuation of Tudor albeit under a different name. None of the plays were published in Shakespeare's lifetime though; it was in 1623 the first folio was published.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays.  Must have a look at it after all
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
> > Subject: Re: Only here...
> >
> >  
> > [Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
> > >
> > > I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Carol said:

Paul, have you seen the literary critic Harold bloom's discussion of Shakespeare's Richard III in Newsweek? It's been overshadowed by Simon Schama's "ruthless Richard" in the same magazine. Admittedly, it doesn't say much about the historical Richard, but I think you may find it interesting as a partial explanation as to why Shakespeare's Richard is so far from the real king:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html


 
Liz replied:
 
I like Bloom's article. Shama's I couldn't finish  because I thought it was badly written.  That "long paragraph let's not pause for breath" style might work on his tv programmes but not in print.   From what I skimmed I have to say I am not impressed.
 
I also note this quote from Schama
 
"It has brought him back to life (a source of macabre satisfaction to the dead king)"
 
Is he claiming to know what Richard is thinking from the afterlife?
.

I didn't see it.  I do remember people complaining about his cockney accent and that he portrayed Henry as a thug.  I thought "never mind the accent but yes  Henry was a thug!"



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 22:22
Subject: Re: Re: Only here...

 
If you watched the Ray Winstone portrayal a few years ago, it was based on Shakespeare's Fat Henry.

----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Only here...

I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays. Must have a look at it after all

________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
Subject: Re: Only here...

[Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
>
> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
> >
> > This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >
> > I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >
>

Hi Both
There is a theory, that Shakespeare based his RIII character on Robert Cecil and that the hunchback refers to Cecil's physical appearaance together with the machiavellian character. It fits nicely with what is known of Robert Cecil and his career in which he masterminded and destroyed careers and lives. I think I've read that the metaphor of the toad or spider which Shakespeare uses to describe the main character was the motif of Cecil.

I also think the "poisonous bunch-backed toad" and "bottled spider" metaphors describe the preening Starkey to a tee!
Elaine


--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol said:
>
> Paul, have you seen the literary critic Harold bloom's discussion of Shakespeare's Richard III in Newsweek? It's been overshadowed by Simon Schama's "ruthless Richard" in the same magazine. Admittedly, it doesn't say much about the historical Richard, but I think you may find it interesting as a partial explanation as to why Shakespeare's Richard is so far from the real king:
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html
>
>
>  
> Liz replied:
>  
> I like Bloom's article. Shama's I couldn't finish  because I thought it was badly written.  That "long paragraph let's not pause for breath" style might work on his tv programmes but not in print.   From what I skimmed I have to say I am not impressed.
>  
> I also note this quote from Schama
>  
> "It has brought him back to life (a source of macabre satisfaction to the dead king)"
>  
> Is he claiming to know what Richard is thinking from the afterlife?
> .
>
>
>
>

We have to admit that we know precious little about the man called
William Shakespeare and his life. Documentation is particularly scarce.
His works are clearly from the mind of one man, but apart from being
born and dying in Stratford upon Avon, and at some time being an actor,
we know SFA about this poetic and dramatic genius. Hence the room for
these, to me idiotic, theories about other people writing his plays.
I particularly loved the recent movie that had Oxford writing them.
Someone forgot to mention that Oxford died before the great later works
were ever seen. So did Oxford leave a cupboard full of manuscripts for
later, including The Tempest and King Lear?
Course not as he didn't write a word of any of them!
Paul


On 08/02/2013 21:03, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
> Yep. Tell the truth, lose your head. Toe the party line, get rich and famous and stay in print for 400 years after your death.
>
> Michael Wood spent some time in his Shakespeare series on the fascinating theory that Shakespeare successfully hid being an ardent Catholic from the agents of Elizabeth's police state. It's certainly one explanation of why the epitaph over his grave begs onlookers not to disinter him. (Scholars have long suspected that the reason for the epitaph is that W.S. was hiding something a disinterment would reveal.)
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> Agreed. It always amazes me how he, out of all the playwrights writing at the time, managed to avoid being thrown in the Clink or somewhere similar.
>> Elaine
>>
>> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
>>> Having done his bit for Tudor propaganda with his fictional Richard III, don't forget that he subsequently did his bit for Stuart propaganda with an equally fictional Macbeth.
>>>
>>> The man of Stratford (who wrote the plays attributed to him, despite the snobbish view that they were beyond a grammar school boy from the Midlands) had the ability to create wonderful villains. It is just a shame that in doing so he ruined the reputation of two good kings.
>>>
>>> Richard G
>>>
>>> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>>>> Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think it had to be Liz I wishing she was in a man's world - ONLY JOKING! Joking apart, Brailes very near Stratford was a famous place for recusants and near to the Throckmortons then so MW could have had a point. I never saw his programme though


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 February 2013, 9:04
Subject: Re: Re: Shakespeare (Only here...)OT


 

We have to admit that we know precious little about the man called
William Shakespeare and his life. Documentation is particularly scarce.
His works are clearly from the mind of one man, but apart from being
born and dying in Stratford upon Avon, and at some time being an actor,
we know SFA about this poetic and dramatic genius. Hence the room for
these, to me idiotic, theories about other people writing his plays.
I particularly loved the recent movie that had Oxford writing them.
Someone forgot to mention that Oxford died before the great later works
were ever seen. So did Oxford leave a cupboard full of manuscripts for
later, including The Tempest and King Lear?
Course not as he didn't write a word of any of them!
Paul

On 08/02/2013 21:03, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
> Yep. Tell the truth, lose your head. Toe the party line, get rich and famous and stay in print for 400 years after your death.
>
> Michael Wood spent some time in his Shakespeare series on the fascinating theory that Shakespeare successfully hid being an ardent Catholic from the agents of Elizabeth's police state. It's certainly one explanation of why the epitaph over his grave begs onlookers not to disinter him. (Scholars have long suspected that the reason for the epitaph is that W.S. was hiding something a disinterment would reveal.)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> Agreed. It always amazes me how he, out of all the playwrights writing at the time, managed to avoid being thrown in the Clink or somewhere similar.
>> Elaine
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Richard" wrote:
>>> Having done his bit for Tudor propaganda with his fictional Richard III, don't forget that he subsequently did his bit for Stuart propaganda with an equally fictional Macbeth.
>>>
>>> The man of Stratford (who wrote the plays attributed to him, despite the snobbish view that they were beyond a grammar school boy from the Midlands) had the ability to create wonderful villains. It is just a shame that in doing so he ruined the reputation of two good kings.
>>>
>>> Richard G
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
>>>> Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Co-written and nauseatingly ecstatic about Elizabeth.
Paul


On 08/02/2013 21:37, liz williams wrote:
> I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays. Must have a look at it after all
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
> Subject: Re: Only here...
>
>
> [Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
>> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
>>> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
>>>
>>> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Interesting Carol. What Bloom doesn't mention are the hints in the texts
that suggest Shakespeare knew something of the truth. One scene in
Particular always gets me Act 1 scIII.
"They do me wrong, and I will not endue it! etc
.......ere you were queen or your husband king,
I was a pack-horse in his great affairs.....
To royalize his blood I spent mine own"
Paul

On 08/02/2013 22:12, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Not really wanting to be fare, but one is only as good as one's sources, and look at the sources he had, Hall and Holinshed, and More.
>> He was writing drama anyway, and I doubt the thought 'propaganda'
>> crossed his mind, even though it came to be used as such. Tudor
>> propaganda doesn't explain his attitude to Macbeth, Richard II, or the Henrys IV & V, does it?
> Carol responds:
>
> Paul, have you seen the literary critic Harold bloom's discussion of Shakespeare's Richard III in Newsweek? It's been overshadowed by Simon Schama's "ruthless Richard" in the same magazine. Admittedly, it doesn't say much about the historical Richard, but I think you may find it interesting as a partial explanation as to why Shakespeare's Richard is so far from the real king:
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

[Laughing.] His mother/lover finished them after his death.

Man, one shot per generation at a Shakespeare bio, and they really whiffed that one. I was happy so many people stayed away in droves. Derek Jacobi ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself, but maybe he needed the money.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> We have to admit that we know precious little about the man called
> William Shakespeare and his life. Documentation is particularly scarce.
> His works are clearly from the mind of one man, but apart from being
> born and dying in Stratford upon Avon, and at some time being an actor,
> we know SFA about this poetic and dramatic genius. Hence the room for
> these, to me idiotic, theories about other people writing his plays.
> I particularly loved the recent movie that had Oxford writing them.
> Someone forgot to mention that Oxford died before the great later works
> were ever seen. So did Oxford leave a cupboard full of manuscripts for
> later, including The Tempest and King Lear?
> Course not as he didn't write a word of any of them!
> Paul
>
>
> On 08/02/2013 21:03, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
> > Yep. Tell the truth, lose your head. Toe the party line, get rich and famous and stay in print for 400 years after your death.
> >
> > Michael Wood spent some time in his Shakespeare series on the fascinating theory that Shakespeare successfully hid being an ardent Catholic from the agents of Elizabeth's police state. It's certainly one explanation of why the epitaph over his grave begs onlookers not to disinter him. (Scholars have long suspected that the reason for the epitaph is that W.S. was hiding something a disinterment would reveal.)
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
> >> Agreed. It always amazes me how he, out of all the playwrights writing at the time, managed to avoid being thrown in the Clink or somewhere similar.
> >> Elaine
> >>
> >> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >>> Having done his bit for Tudor propaganda with his fictional Richard III, don't forget that he subsequently did his bit for Stuart propaganda with an equally fictional Macbeth.
> >>>
> >>> The man of Stratford (who wrote the plays attributed to him, despite the snobbish view that they were beyond a grammar school boy from the Midlands) had the ability to create wonderful villains. It is just a shame that in doing so he ruined the reputation of two good kings.
> >>>
> >>> Richard G
> >>>
> >>> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >>>> Bravo.....my English professor did warn us to read Shakespeare as a product of his time, and not to take anything as gospel. My favorite memory was his pointers on hygiene at the time, not many baths, not much dental care, not many changes of cleanliness in the castles, etc. He said, were we to be whisked to England of that day, we would be overwhelmed by the smells, as people raised their arms and voices, to all hail. And this was the aristocracy.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "merriannmclain" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet. When they get to the part about the one who was going to come up AFTER her, and how utterly magnificent HE was going to be, it tips right over the edge into complete brown-nosing. Normally, Willie the S was a bit more subtle in his fawning; maybe he was just tired by then.

I've wondered if royals ever get tired of flattery. They must think that's just how people are. Ugh. No wonder Her Maj is so reserved. Her entire life is like being trapped at a tea party where no one is supposed to be more than three millimeters deep.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Co-written and nauseatingly ecstatic about Elizabeth.
> Paul
>
>
> On 08/02/2013 21:37, liz williams wrote:
> > I've never read it, I thought it was supposed to be one of his worst plays. Must have a look at it after all
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 21:22
> > Subject: Re: Only here...
> >
> >
> > [Grinning.] Re-read the last of "Henry VIII" and tell me the guy didn't know exactly what he was doing.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "meganphantomgirl" wrote:
> >> I've always found it a little unfair to call him a propaganda machine when he was working from it himself and might not have known any better, on top of the fact that he hardly had the freedom to write otherwise.
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "merriannmclain" wrote:
> >>> This is the only place to share this story and be assured it will be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> I began a new class this week, Shakespeare; my first paper is the 'Authorship Debate.' I have read some of the arguments but, to my way of thinking, not a question to ask students. It was very, very difficult to avoid calling him a Tudor progaganda machine!
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Interesting Carol. What Bloom doesn't mention are the hints in the texts that suggest Shakespeare knew something of the truth. One scene in Particular always gets me Act 1 scIII.
> "They do me wrong, and I will not endue it! etc
> .......ere you were queen or your husband king,
> I was a pack-horse in his great affairs.....
> To royalize his blood I spent mine own"

Carol responds:

Actually, he does mention those hints. Not that specific one, but he says, quite intriguingly but confusingly:

"Historically Shakespeare's Richard is more victim than monster. There is evidence enough that King Henry ordered the murder of the young princes in the Tower. If you or I had accosted Shakespeare in the tavern (and he trusted you), some hint of this could have been expressed. But Shakespeare, fortunately for all of us, was a cautious man."

It sounds to me as if he's saying that there are hints in the play itself not only that Richard is a victim (as hinted in the passage you quoted) but that Henry VII, not Richard, ordered the deaths of the "princes." If so, those hints are hard to find, IIRC--I haven't read the play for decades out of pure revulsion--but if Bloom says they're there, they probably are, and maybe you can find them.

Unfortunately, Harold Bloom is an old man, born in 1930, and we may never get to find out what he means in this enigmatic paragraph. Maybe you could send a letter to the editor of Newsweek and ask about it.

Carol

Very behind with posts and so coming late to this, but there's also an interesting - and utterly irrelevant, plot-wise - discursion about the nature of truth: "Is it upon record, or else reported
/ Successively from age to age..." and "But say, my lord, it were not register'd,
/ Methinks the truth should live from age to age..."

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 February 2013, 9:29
Subject: Re: Only here...


 
Interesting Carol. What Bloom doesn't mention are the hints in the texts
that suggest Shakespeare knew something of the truth. One scene in
Particular always gets me Act 1 scIII.
"They do me wrong, and I will not endue it! etc
.......ere you were queen or your husband king,
I was a pack-horse in his great affairs.....
To royalize his blood I spent mine own"
Paul

On 08/02/2013 22:12, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Not really wanting to be fare, but one is only as good as one's sources, and look at the sources he had, Hall and Holinshed, and More.
>> He was writing drama anyway, and I doubt the thought 'propaganda'
>> crossed his mind, even though it came to be used as such. Tudor
>> propaganda doesn't explain his attitude to Macbeth, Richard II, or the Henrys IV & V, does it?
> Carol responds:
>
> Paul, have you seen the literary critic Harold bloom's discussion of Shakespeare's Richard III in Newsweek? It's been overshadowed by Simon Schama's "ruthless Richard" in the same magazine. Admittedly, it doesn't say much about the historical Richard, but I think you may find it interesting as a partial explanation as to why Shakespeare's Richard is so far from the real king:
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/11/richard-iii-victim-or-monster-asks-harold-bloom.html
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!