True, it's not an immortal line and doesn't scan, but with more time surely Oxford, or even one of william his followers, could have come up with a better one. After all, hamlet, in his mad scenes, could have gotten away with any line-even several different repetitions of the above. Once he's done as much as he can against Shakespeare with the arguments already discussed and sundry lesser ones I lack the space to respond to (but which, i assure you, have been well-answered elsewhere, particularly at this site michell turns his attention to the. There are five serious ones: Bacon, Oxford, derby, rutland and Marlowe. Each of them, according to michell, is better qualified than Shakespeare because of his college degree, continental travels, and-except for Marlowe-membership in the high aristocracy. There are all kinds of parallels between known details of their lives and details of the Shakespearean plays, too, as there aren't between the known details of Shakespeare's life and those of the plays. Michell, following Lefranc, found one such parallel between a story that was a favorite of a queen whose court Derby might have visited and the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia. In both cases a man acted coldly toward a woman he loved; in one the woman died of grief; in the other ( Hamlet ) the woman lost her mind and died.
Michell discusses the description in Hamlet of Ophelia's death. Gertrude speaks of Ophelia's having climbed into a willow tree when "an envious sliver broke." Michell finds this a strange way to describing a branch's breaking and depositing Ophelia into the water-but Shakespeare was a poet and therefore fond of metaphor. The tree envied Ophelia's beauty: such envy was standard in verse of the time. Oblivious to metaphor, Oxfordians find a near anagram in "envious sliver" of "Nil vero verius Oxford's family motto (although they cheat somewhat by changing one "s" to an "r. Ophelia, they claim, is Oxford's first wife, anne, and Oxford is speaking sadly of having let her down (184). An even daffier foray into anagram detection involves a title-page emblem to henry peacham's Minerva britanna of 1612. The phrase mente videbori is said to be an anagram of "nom tibi de vere a macaronic half-English half-Latin way of saying something like "Thy name is devere" (184). The antistratfordians are ever-ingenious in finding and creatively interpreting anagrams (which every long text must by chance have but they ignore the obvious question: if Oxford, or one of his supporters, wanted to use anagrams to show people he had written the works mba of Shakespeare. That is, why forge a flawed anagram like "nil vero verius" or a forced one like "nom tibi de vere" in a book that has nothing to do with the Shakespearean works when you could insert "i, devere, am sole writer of this play right.
consequently, like other antistratfordians such as Ogburn, who also incompletely"d this passage, he is able to take "though" to mean "even." he states that g)rammarians have pointed out that Jonson's lines. Do not really impute any classical knowledge to Shakspere sic. The words, 'hadst' and 'would form a conditional construction" (76). Oddly, michell's interpretation differs from Ogburn's in one startling way: whereas Ogburn thinks the lines give shakespeare credit for more than "small Latin and less Greek michell thinks they give him credit for no latin or Greek. That's because Ogburn wants Jonson to be really speaking of Oxford, while michell wants him speaking of the Stratford man. No matter; in fact, "hadst" is not in the subjunctive but is merely the past tense of "has." Jonson is referring to Shakespeare in the past tense, as revealed by his use of "didst" two lines before (as Michell fails to show us). As for "would that is in the subjunctive because jonson had put the passage containing those words in the subjunctive with "if" five lines previously (as, again, michell fails to show us). The most reasonable paraphrase of the passage is thus, "If I thought I were judging the years (of your flourishing i'd tell how much better than the other playwrights of the time you were, and although you had little knowledge of Latin and Greek, and.
Review : Hamlet by william, shakespeare, novel Society
There was no reason for James to prohibit him from continuing the practice, and there's no evidence that James ever explicitly prohibited anyone from treating magic in plays, as Jonson around the same time did in The Alchemist. As for the glorification. Dee, if it existed, it was too surreptitious to have bothered anyone. When Michell finally gets to the documentary evidence, he interprets it rather loosely. Such is the case with the famous passage from Greene's Groats-worth of Wit about the untrustworthy "upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a pdf players hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse. E., the three playwrights Greene was addressing, and being an absolute johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie." Michell agrees with Shakespeare scholars that Greene was referring to the Stratford man as the Crow, and considered him.
In any event, he is wrong. The"d line clearly indicates that Greene condemned the Crow for supposing that he was as good a writer of blank verse as Greene's three friends, and that he was chief theater-man in England. Worse is Michell's interpretation of the passage in Jonson's eulogy to Shakespeare having to do with Shakespeare's classical learning. If I thought my judgment were of years, i should commit thee surely with thy peers, And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine, or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line. And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek, from thence to honour thee, i would not seek for names; but call forth thund'ring AEschylus, euripides and Sophocles. Michell cheats here by leaving out the lines preceding "And though thou hadst.
Michell can't resist bringing up another of the stock antistratfordian arguments: that only an aristocrat could have written Shakespeare's works. His leans heavily on Abel Lefranc, who, using contemporary records, particularly a 1626 memoir by marguerite de valois "proved"-according to michell (198)-that no one who was an outsider to court life could have written loves Labours Lost. But if Valois could in 1626 have written enough about court life to make lefranc an expert in it, why couldn't someone else have written enough earlier, or simply told Shakespeare enough, to make him an expert in it (if, indeed, he was, which. In fact, a great deal was published (some of it by richard field) about Henri iii of France and the court of navarre, the nobles loves Labours Lost refers to, in the late 1580s and early 1590s, right about when most scholars believe that play. But, michell argues, if Shakespeare wasn't a noble, how can we explain his immunity to prosecution by the government, once in Elizabeth's reign, and once in James's?
In the first case, there is nothing in the records to indicate that he was ever arrested or questioned preceding the Essex trial, nor did he testify. This strikes Michell as "extraordinary for his Richard ii was acted as part of Essex's plot to overthrow Elizabeth (218). But Richard ii was published in 1597 and had been written years earlier; Essex was arrested in 1601. The play itself was not a problem for anyone, just the use of it at the wrong time, so the authorities intelligently concentrated on those who had had it performed, not on the man who wrote. There is nothing "highly mysterious as Michell puts it, about the affair (218). In the second case, shakespeare wrote favorably about magic in The tempest. For Michell, this made him "uniquely privileged all other authors having had to treat magic with disapproval. "Only Shakespeare could present at court a play which delighted in spirits and enchantments and glorified the late disgraced. But Shakespeare had written with impunity about magic in The merry wives of Windsor and a midsummer Night's Dream long before james came to power.
Shakespeare, the new Times Rwanda
Baldwin who-in his Shakspere's Petty School -showed just how easily Shakespeare could have gotten all the educational background he would have needed from his hometown's grammar school. If we grant Shakespeare a grammar school education, michell agrees he might have picked up the latin needed to read classical authors, "but it is still a mystery how he acquired the temperament and leisure for these studies, and where he found the necessary libraries". But temperament is innate, almost everyone would agree, and the leisure to read and otherwise master their field is something all achievers somehow find, regardless of their background. Shakespeare's contemporary ben Jonson was for seven years apprenticed to his stepfather as a bricklayer, yet still managed to become the most learned classical scholar in England. As for libraries, it has by now been well-established by scholars that there were adequate book-collections in his neighborhood. His Stratford neighbor writing Richard quiney, for instance, whose father was an associate of Shakespeare's father, had restaurant a library which he kept locked up, as he mentioned in one of his letters. Richard field, who was born in Stratford and then became a printer in London, had access to books from the time Shakespeare was twelve on, and might have brought him books when visiting Stratford. All this is speculative, of course; the point is, there were ways for Shakespeare to have gotten books-and to have gone on to accomplish great things, as so many others without noble blood or college have in Britain, like jonson, Shaw, dickens, keats, Blake and.
This, however, is true only in the narrowest sense, since we have the record of his date of burial from his church. Moreover, william Basse noted the month and year of death in his elegy to Shakespeare-something Michell never lets wallpaper us know, although he elsewhere cites Basse, when it suits his purposes (56). Furthermore, since most tombstone inscriptions are anonymous, why should Michell have said that this one also was except to hint of skullduggery? Michell is also concerned with what he considers to be the absence of contemporary references to the Stratford man as a great poet, a "unanimity of silence that has never been explained" (112). Michell misrepresents the evidence: There were references to Shakespeare in the writings of his contemporaries, but Michell doesn't want to count them because they do not explicitly identify him as "William Shakespeare of Stratford." Aside from the fact that this standard would invalidate at least. That there weren't even more references to Shakespeare might only have been because he was too quiet offstage to have had a wide circle of London acquaintances, or to have been the object of much gossip. Consider that his contemporary, the distinguished playwright John Webster, left so few clues about himself that he was not identified until 350 years after his death. And, finally, there wasn't the lust for scraps about celebrities' personal lives there is now, and to most people at that time Shakespeare was not a celebrity but a mildly well-known poet and an actor who wrote material for his company. Like just about all his fellow antistratfordians, michell questions Shakespeare's very literacy, ignoring, among much else, the formidable scholarship.
flaws in the Stratfordian (or pro-Shakespeare) case but for being overtolerant of the claims of those championing Francis Bacon; nor did he accuse it of not. He gave michell's book as a whole a thumbs-up. Revealingly, michell opens his campaign not with hard evidence, but with the standard antistratfordian attack on the paucity of references to Shakespeare in the official records of his time, and in the memoirs, letters, and other writings of his contemporaries. Surely, michell contends, the author of King lear, The tempest, and Hamlet ought to have been much more visible than he was. From our twentieth-century perspective, the number of contemporary official records that refer to Shakespeare is disappointingly small, but it's absurd to contend that they have "mysteriously vanished as Michell does (109). There is no reason to expect that there would be many references to any commoner of Shakespeare's times in those records that have withstood the ravages of time, inasmuch as they are concerned largely with legal matters. To his credit, michell mentions many of the extant public records concerning Shakespeare, but he nearly always does so in a manner calculated to undermine the Stratfordian position. For instance, he says that the "date of Shakespeare's death is known only from the anonymous inscription on his Stratford monument" (78).
Immanuel Velikovsky are among the truth-seekers Michell favorably mentions in his book; self-levitation, numerology, geomancy, and communication with the dead and with beings from other dimensions are among the subjects whose probability he takes for granted. It is thus unsurprising that he has also recently written a book of what one might call "alternative literary history. Michell strains in his new book to establish a philosophical climate of "anything goes." way he constantly emphasizes the uncertainty of historical knowledge, the unreliability of experts, and the subjectivity of any answer to any phase of the authorship question. He doesn't want to have to contend with common sense or any other form of rationality when, near the end of his book, he finally reveals who he thinks wrote Shakespeare: everybody who has ever been proposed as having done so (including William Shakespeare. To be fair, it should be stated that he withdraws his theory almost as soon as he offers it as "just one story" among many, a number of them "very attractive, by first-rate scholars and mythmakers but none conclusively right-or wrong (page 261 but this. Michell spends most of his book trying to discredit Shakespeare's claim to exclusive authorship of his works, and to build up the claims of his rivals. He marshals all the arguments, pseudo-arguments, and pure propaganda against the Stratford man that he can while neglecting or misrepresenting almost all of the best evidence for him-such as his name and picture in the first Folio and the monument erected to him in his.
Book review, hamlet, by william, shakespeare
Here comes everybody: a review of Who Wrote Shakespeare? Reviewed by bob Grumman, who Wrote Shakespeare? By john Michell (New York: Thames and. Hudson, 1996) John Michell is no stranger to the suspect side of Orthodoxy. In what seems to be his major work, the new view over Atlantis (1988 a revised edition of a book first published in 1969, he discusses the world-wide system of "vast astronomical instruments, circles of erect pillars, pyramids, underground tunnels, cyclopean stone platforms, all linked. He contends mom that this system, which he tentatively associates with ancient Atlantis, was used by our forebears to control and exploit the force later rediscovered. Wilhelm reich and given the name, "orgone energy." Edgar cayce, ignatius Donnelly, and.