A New Years Eve Tribute IF ONE COULD BUT PAINT HIS MIND Who is it?

A New Years Eve Tribute IF ONE COULD BUT PAINT HIS MIND Who is it?

These lines of praise are from those who knew him except Shelly and no word altered by me. ERL (2009)

If one but could paint his mind Hilliard his portrait painter (1576)

Thy bounty and the beauty of thy wit John Davies (1610)

But none who hath so astonished me and, as it were, ravished my senses, to see so many and so great parts which in other men were wont to be incompatible, united, and in that eminent degree in one sole person Toby Mathews (1617)

… a muse more rare than the nine Muses. Samuel Collins (1626) Eleg

And thy whole tongue is moist with celestial nectar!
How well combinest thou merry wit with silent gravity!
How firmly thy love stands by those once admitted to it Thomas Champon (1619)

Hail, happy genius of this ancient pile! How comes it all things so about thee smile? The fire, the wine, the men! and in the midst, Thou stand’st as if some mystery thou did’st! Ben Jonson, (1621)

The very nerve of genius, the marrow of persuasion, the golden stream of eloquence, the precious gem of concealed literature – R. C., T. C. (1626) Elegy

You have filled the world with your writings, and the ages with your fame C.D. (1626)

… extensive is art, how contracted is life, how everlasting fame; he who was in our sphere the brilliant Light-Bearer, and trod great paths of glory, passes, and fixed in his own orb shines refulgent Anon (1626) Elegy

The day-star of the Muses has set before his hour! Anon (1626) Elegy

But he dispelled also the darkness which murky antiquity and blear-eyed old age of former times had brought about; and his super-human sagacity instituted new methods and tore away the labyrinthine windings, but gave us his own Thomas Randolf (1626) Elegy

Break pens, tear up writings, if the dire goddesses may justly act so. Alas! what a tongue is mute! what eloquence ceases! Whither have departed the nectar and ambrosia of your genius John Williams (1626) Elegy

Ah, the tenth muse and glory of the choir has perished. Ah, never before has Apollo himself been truly unhappy! Anon (1626) Elegy

Supreme both in eloquence and writing, under every head renowned Anon (1626) Elegy

For if venerable Virtue and the wreaths of wisdom make an ancient, you were older than Nestor Gawen Nash (1626) Elegy

Think you, foolish traveller, that the leader of the choir of the muses and of Phoebus is interred in cold marble? Away, you are deceived. The Verulamium star now glitters in ruddy Olympus Anon (1626) Elegy

… but your fame adheres not to sculptured columns, nor is read on the tomb, ‘Stay, traveller, your steps’ Thomas Vincent (1626) Elegy

If any progeny recalls their sire, not of the body is it, but born, so to speak, of the brain, as Minerva’s from Jove’s Thomas Vincent (1626) Elegy

to true nobility, and tryde learning, beholden To no Mountaine for Eminence, nor supportment for height … Thomas Powell, Dedication, Attourney’s Academy (1630)

No man ever spake more neatly, more pressly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. His hearers could not cough or look aside from him without loss. He commanded where he spoke … No man had their affections more in his power.

In short, within his view, and about his times, were all the wits born that could honour a language, or help study. So that he may be named and stand as the mark and acme of our language…

But I have and do reverence him for the greatness that was only proper to himself, in that he seemed to me ever, by his work, one of the greatest men and most worthy of admiration that had been in many ages. … I ever prayed that God would give him strength: for greatness he could not want. Neither could I condole in a word or syllable for him, as knowing no accident could do harm to virtue, but rather help to make it manifest. Ben Jonson, Discoveries (1641), p 102.

… of many wise and worthy persons of our times; as Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Fra. Bacon, Cardinal Perron, the ablest of his countrymen, and the former Pope who, they say, instead of the triple crown wore sometimes the poet’s ivy as an ornament perhaps of lesser weight and trouble. But Madam, these Nightingales sung only in the Spring, it was the diversion of their youth. Preface to Waller’s Poems (164.5.

(he)…was a creature of incomparable abilities of mind, of a sharp and catching apprehension, large and faithful memory, plentiful and sprouting invention, deep and solid judgement, for as such as might concern the understanding part. A man so rare in knowledge, of so many several kinds endued with the facility and felicity of expressing it in all so elegant, significant, so abundant, and yet so choice and ravishing a way of words, of metaphors and allusions as, perhaps, the world hath not seen, since it was a world. Tobie Matthew, Preface to his Collection of Letters (published 1660).

And those who have true skill in the works of the Lord Verulam, like great masters in painting, can tell by the design, the strength, the way of colouring, whether he was the author of this or the other piece, though his name be not to it. Archbishop Tenison Baconiana or Certaine Genuine Remains of Sir Francis Bacon (1679)

He carried himself with such sweetness comity and generosity that he was much revered and beloved by the readers and gentlemen of the house … Children he had none … yet he bade other issues to perpetrate his name, the issues in his brain … Neither did the want of children detract from his good usage of his consort during the intermarriage whom he prosecuted with much conjugical love and respect Rawley A Short History of Sir Francis Bacon.

His language has a sweet and majectic rythm, which satisfies ths sense, no less than the almost superhuman wisdome of his philophy satisfies the intelect Percy Byshe Shelly

The More They Talk the Better Bacon Looks

Book report for Bill Bryson's Shakespeare "When we reflect upon the works of William Shakespeare it is of course an amazement to consider that one man could have produced such a sumptuous, wise, varied, thrilling, ever delighting, body of work, but that is of course rhe hallmark of genius. Only one man had the circumstances and gifts to give us such incomparable works, and William Shakespeare was unquestionably that man --- whoever he was." As I read that last paragraph from Bill Bryson's "Shakespeare" I was prepared for anyone's name but William Shakespeare but there it was. In spite of that Bill Bryson's crisp, personal and descriptive style pacts information into few a pages better than anyone I know which makes him fun to read. BUT, Bill Bryson has put his fine talents on display for the benefit of Elizabethan life focusing on the Shagspur family. If he had included in his book all of the the historical and biographical information that is available "Shakespeare" would be a dynamite read. Why? Because in "Shakespeare" he restricts himself to a biography of someone who ranks with Santa Clause. I believe in Santa but I also understand he doesn't exist and I believe Bill Bryson is to honest and to much of a feet-on-the-ground kind of guy to believe in Santa, either (the Santa spirit not-with-standing). Rather than fill space with bits and pieces of information that Bill Bryson didn't bring up such as Shaqgspur's death before the plays were full and completed, I had rather focus of his attempt to write about a non existent person. Bill Bryson isn't alone in that error. Bill Bryson has a wonderful wit and doubtless enjoys writing and his style is light and fun except when he tries to drive home a point on one side of the Shakespeare Controversy. Then, he leaves his charming informative style and becomes a little mean spirited - like a mud slinging candidate running for office. I do not think he is a mean person and I don't think he enjoys betraying his own common sense to spout party line. Bill Bryson need only objectively read his own good commonsense observations. For example he says: "Facts are delible" and "For the rest, he is a kind of literary equivalent to an electron -- forever not there and not there," and "Others have simply surrendered themselves to imagination," and "The idea (of this book) is a simple one: to see how much of Shakespeare we really can know, really, from the record. Which is one reason, of course, it's so slender," and "Shakespeare it seems is not so much a historical figure as an academic obsession;" and "...his lost years , they are very lost indeed," etc. Well, one of his mistakes was assuming that an Italian town was too far from the sea to be a supplier of hemp for rope. Bryson's point was to weaken Bacon authorship. There is an abundance of information about the Shakespeare v Bacon on the internet - more than enough for us to make up our own minds and don't need campaign retoric. I say facts are indelible. Here is a point I enjoy making about Robert Green. "The Groats worth of Wit, Bought with a Million of Repentance." Can you recognize the schtick? He was the Don Rickles of the times. People weren't different from us. They enjoyed a good roast themselves. Read it and find out. Bill leaves out information in his Richard II story which goes like this. Some poor bloke copied the part of the play that challenged the divine right of kings and circulated it in a pamphlet and stupidly put his name on it though the playbill had no authors name. Well, The Queen was furious and wanted to torture the bloke before executing him. She also called Francis Bacon on the carpet about it. Francis had to think fast and talked her into reducing the charge to a felony. In the next production of Richard II William Shakespeare's name was right there but did the Queen drag William Shakespeare to the tower? No because he was no where to be found. She called Francis Bacon on the carpet again. Francis cleverly explained that William Shakespeare was guilty only of plagiarizing the anti-monarch material. She bought it though content wasn't plagiarized at all but the Queen didn't know that. It is likely that there was a wink wink understanding because she knew there was no such thing as a William Shakespeare. I have trouble with Bill Bryson concerning the sonnets for promoting the "knock-her-up-handsome-for-the child absurdity. This, I believe, is an example of how little real interest the public has in Shakespeare. I do not believe the author was a pedophile but that is the students get stuck with. My son's teacher said to work the meaning out for himself. What else is she going to say? First, no poet at any time was that squirrely. Second, people then were like us - except for King James who fondled boys while conducting business. One only need read the sonnets closely to know they were very specific about someone and a situation. Some are about the poet talking about himself in the third person. Many are about the poets mother, the Queen who would not publically acknowledge his existence. Some refer to his concealed father, Robert Dudley. Some refer to Robert Essex, his brother, who the poet thought mom liked best. I gotta tell you this story that Bill Bryson couldn't. Essex was half Elizabeth's age because he was her second born. Francis Bacon was her first born. It's in the British Record plus was discovered in Spanish archives in a letter from Dudley to King Philip asking him to pressure Elizabeth into going public for him. It was a tragedy waiting to happen. When Essex put on that little tantrum of a rebellion the Queen was so furious (she had a temper) she ordered him charged with treason and ordered Francis to prosecute. I wonder if Elizabeth thought Francis wouldn't do a good job. Francis couldn't not do a good job at anything and Essex was found guilty and his mother wouldn't prevent his beheading. It is said she wasn't the same afterward. Both her sons were constantly pressuring her to go public but if she did that Spain and France might have united and invaded. Tough times, those. Bill Bryson was smart enough not to mention the Northumberland Manuscript owned by Francis Bacon unlike Greenbratt who did did and who mentioned that Shakespeare's name was on it. He forgot to mention that both the names Shakespeare and Bacon are all over it - epecially the name Francis William Shakespeare. There are many more juicy stories that Bill Bryson could have told to make the Shakespeare story explode for decades but he was stuck with another repetitious political tract. Now, he even has an illustrated version of "Shakespeare." The attachment to an impossible-way-of-existing Shakespeare has deep and powerful roots and must have begun when the Virgin Queen had children and the people around her were forced to deny it. Long live the Queen. Greenblatt was quoted by the New York times as saying "... the process of writing the book (Will in the World) has made me respect that preposterous fantasy." The reporter had more to say: Can proponents of "intelligent design," or Holocaust denial, compile a list of supporters including the likes of Charles Dickens, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, and all of the other outstanding doubters named in the Declaration?(for debunking the traditional Shakespeare). Can Professor Greenblatt compile such a list of supporters for his position that there is no room for doubt? We think not. I am afraid that Bill Bryson has taken that position.

Shake-speares Women

Francis Bacon needed an author for the plays other than himself. Shake-speare was a good name because the shaker-of-the-spear is associated with Pallus Athenea the muse and protector of poets. Francis thus became a "Spear-Shaker", and the head of the little band of "Spear-Shakers" was "Shake-Speare" himself, Athena's visible representative on earth.

The first row of images are portraits of Sir Francis Bacon

...................................................................................................................................................................................................

The first woman in Francis Tudor's (Francis Bacon's) life was his mother, Elizabeth Tudor, Queen Elizabeth I. She was very well educated and complicated - never fully negecting him. She made sure he was well educated by fostering him to Anthony and Anne Bacon. She he ignored him for periods of time once he was grown. To the public she remained a virgin possibly believing that was a source of her political strength though was secretely married to Robert Dudly. She evenually rejected Dudly who died in ... Even in her final years she wouldn't open the way to the throne for Francis. She may have been protective of her eldest son because aspiring noble men didn't live long in those days. .

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The next woman in his life was his step mother Anne Cook Bacon. She and her sisters were famous as a family of accomplished classical scholars. She had a thorough knowledge of Greek and Latin. An Apologie . . . in defence of the Churche of England by Dr. Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, was translated by her from the Latin and published in 1564. Sir Anthony had been exiled during Mary's reign, for his adherence to the Protestant faith. His daughter, Anne, inherited, not only his classical accomplishments, but his strong Puritan faith and his hatred of Popery. Francis Bacon describes her as "A Saint of God." There is a portrait of her painted by Nathaniel Bacon, her stepson, in which she appears standing in her pantry habited as a cook.

..........................................................................................................................................................................

While in France young Francis fell head over heals in love with Marguerite of Valios a member of the french royal court

............................................................................................................................................................................

When he was 36, Bacon engaged in the courtship of Elizabeth Hatton, a young widow of 20. Reportedly, she broke off their relationship upon accepting marriage to a wealthier man—Edward Coke. Years later, Bacon still wrote of his regret that the marriage to Elizabeth had never taken place^.

After the death of William Hatton in 1597, and after a failed wooing by Francis Bacon, Elizabeth Hatton married Edward Coke. Elizabeth's often public disagreements with her second husband, together with her refusal to take his name, gave her a reputation as a troublesome woman. That reputation — along with a liberal dose of mistaken identity — led to the association of Elizabeth Hatton with the urban legend of Bleeding Heart Yard.

....................................................................

At the age of forty-five, Bacon married Alice Barnham, the fourteen-year-old daughter of a well-connected London alderman and M.P. Bacon wrote two sonnets proclaiming his love for Alice. The first sonnet was written during his courtship and the second sonnet on his wedding day, 10 May 1606.

...........................................................

.

Will in the World” Validates Bacon’s Authorship

11 12 2009

I have always been a tad suspicious of book reviews because in high school I had arbitrary motives for how I interwove the facts with my opinions. Like art arbitrariness is somewhat unavoidable but in this, my first book-review since high school, I aim to serve truth, common sense and credit accomplishment as well as mark errors.

Modern electronics has made this particular “Shakespeare to the Limit” possible because I don’t have time for library research. At my finger tips is information inaccessible by time and distance a few years ago. With the internet I can in single day separate truth from BS, have a day job and a family.

“Will in the World” by Stephen Greenblatt until a few years ago would not have been critiqued by the common man because the necessary information was stored in the libraries in rare collections. The Book of the Year and Pulitzer Prize finalist written by a Harvard professor would remain gospel without the internet.

Professor Greenblatt is unquestionably a good writer and scholar and thus when I read “Will in the World” I took it to be the last word on the subject. I thought he did an amazing job of squeezing the last drop of extrapolated data from the official record.

However, I was unable to rid myself of the feeling that William Shakespeare was the oddest duck I’ve ever known, a fellow who flew completely under the radar. That man, I said to my wife, was a superior ass who no one wanted to know or was an idiot savant who no one wanted to know.

I was also troubled about the ease in which Stephen Greenblatt assumed that Shagspur and Shake-speare was interchangeable with the name William Shakespeare. But, what-the-hell, Harvard professors must know what they are talking about.

Then, months later during a Mark Twain reading frenzy I happened upon “Shakespeare is Dead.” Mark Twain made good sense. I was intrigued by his logical conclusion that a man named Shakespeare could not have existed based on his knowledge of human nature. I began reading the plethora of material on the internet about the Shakespeare Conspiracy and guess what? Mark Twain – 1 and Stephen Greenblatt – 0

Stephen Greenblatt need not have tried so hard to create a William Shakespeare to make the point. That, though, isn’t so bad but he gets an F for leaving out easily accessible and relevant information the reader might want. For example, in the brief discussion of the Northumberland Manuscript a bundle of papers with important names found in 1867 in a musty box at Northumberland, Professor Greenblatt mentions only Shakespeare.

I need not describe the manuscript because one can easily find the original and detailed descriptions on the internet and read all about it. The Northumberland Manuscript is the only known document containing the names of both Shakespeare and Bacon.

Professor Greenblatt claims the transcriber Dyrmouth’s mind wandered and wrote “Shakespeare” several times to see what it was like to do it. No one knows for sure if Dyrmouth was the transcriber but I wonder if Professor Greenblatt’s mind wandered when he ignored the name Mr. Francis William Shakespeare clearly written on the Manuscript?

Stephen Greenblatt’s mind did not wander. It was imperative that he leave out any reference to Bacon concerning the Northumberland Manuscript because to proceed with the impossible way of existing Shakespeare would make the “Will in the World” a pointless excersize.

This omission by Stephen Greenblatt and his many Harvard advisers indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that they also believe Francis Bacon is the author of the plays which makes “Will in the World” a piece of political propaganda.

The only subject of substance in “Will in the World” is the Shagspur family history and a sociological snapshot of life in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. Stephen Greenblatt also describes segments of home life, education, entertainment, religious persecution, street life, and the generally day-to-day experience of anyone living in England. Also, there is a focus on theater life and certain professions.

Stephen Greenblatt’s main purpose in writing “Will in the World” was to find clues in the plays and the sonnets that would all together present a credible man who wrote the plays. His method which was simple association that left him with no more than a hologram man and no real story.

“Will in the World” has failed because the author had no coherent or organized way of finding subsurface stories he probably knows is there. He needs to absorb and comprehend the plays like learning a language or like a seaman comprehends the ocean and its currents. To find the gold. He must also understand the relationship of the plays to other works of the time.

I recommend Professor Greenblatt embrace Shakespeare like Orville Owens did in 1895. He memorized all of them. That opened to him him the subtle irregularities in certain lines compared to the others. Then carefully following Bacon’s advise Dr Owens found the incredibly riveting story of Queen Elizabeth’s family as well as important events of the time that come from the text itself.

“Will in the World” reinforces the illusion that the folks in Elizabethan times were different from today but I think that misunderstanding is common mainly because scholars try to picture the culture through the misinterpretion of the poetics.

For example, Stephen Greenblatt being a very intelligent fellow buys into the knock-her-up-pretty-boy absurdity which is a request to have asscess to a beautiful child – for what? Wierd. The poet of the sonnets was not wierd or a pedophile.

Please note:There are far easier and far more logical and relevant ways of understanding the sonnets.

I believe that a critic should not be allowed to critique s poetry unless the critic’s poetry is critiqued. In other words, you cannot know poetry unless you write it.

Stephen Greenblatt has more problems than other similar biographies separating truth from fiction in his “Will in the World.” He uses fewer maybe’s and could haves because he really wants substance. He can’t have substance because has chosen nothing to work with.

I also believe that Stephen Greenblatt would have won the Pulitzer Prize if he had either written a fictionalized story or had picked a playwright that actually existed.

Will in the World” Validates Bacon’s Authorship

Shakespeare to the Limit – “Will in the World” validates Bacon’s authorship

11 12 2009

I have always been a tad suspicious of book reviews because in high school I had arbitrary motives for how I interwove the facts with my opinions. Like art arbitrariness is somewhat unavoidable but in this, my first book-review since high school, I aim to serve truth, common sense and credit accomplishment as well as mark errors.

Modern electronics has made this particular “Shakespeare to the Limit” possible because I don’t have time for library research. At my finger tips is information inaccessible by time and distance a few years ago. With the internet I can in single day separate truth from BS, have a day job and a family.

“Will in the World” by Stephen Greenblatt until a few years ago would not have been critiqued by the common man because the necessary information was stored in the libraries in rare collections. The Book of the Year and Pulitzer Prize finalist written by a Harvard professor would remain gospel without the internet.

Professor Greenblatt is unquestionably a good writer and scholar and thus when I read “Will in the World” I took it to be the last word on the subject. I thought he did an amazing job of squeezing the last drop of extrapolated data from the official record.

However, I was unable to rid myself of the feeling that William Shakespeare was the oddest duck I’ve ever known, a fellow who flew completely under the radar. That man, I said to my wife, was a superior ass who no one wanted to know or was an idiot savant who no one wanted to know.

I was also troubled about the ease in which Stephen Greenblatt assumed that Shagspur and Shake-speare was interchangeable with the name William Shakespeare. But, what-the-hell, Harvard professors must know what they are talking about.

Then, months later during a Mark Twain reading frenzy I happened upon “Shakespeare is Dead.” Mark Twain made good sense. I was intrigued by his logical conclusion that a man named Shakespeare could not have existed based on his knowledge of human nature. I began reading the plethora of material on the internet about the Shakespeare Conspiracy and guess what? Mark Twain – 1 and Stephen Greenblatt – 0

Stephen Greenblatt need not have tried so hard to create a William Shakespeare to make the point. That, though, isn’t so bad but he gets an F for leaving out easily accessible and relevant information the reader might want. For example, in the brief discussion of the Northumberland Manuscript a bundle of papers with important names found in 1867 in a musty box at Northumberland, Professor Greenblatt mentions only Shakespeare.

I need not describe the manuscript because one can easily find the original and detailed descriptions on the internet and read all about it. The Northumberland Manuscript is the only known document containing the names of both Shakespeare and Bacon.

Professor Greenblatt claims the transcriber Dyrmouth’s mind wandered and wrote “Shakespeare” several times to see what it was like to do it. No one knows for sure if Dyrmouth was the transcriber but I wonder if Professor Greenblatt’s mind wandered when he ignored the name Mr. Francis William Shakespeare clearly written on the Manuscript?

Stephen Greenblatt’s mind did not wander. It was imperative that he leave out any reference to Bacon concerning the Northumberland Manuscript because to proceed with the impossible way of existing Shakespeare would make the “Will in the World” a pointless excersize.

This omission by Stephen Greenblatt and his many Harvard advisers indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that they also believe Francis Bacon is the author of the plays which makes “Will in the World” a piece of political propaganda.

The only subject of substance in “Will in the World” is the Shagspur family history and a sociological snapshot of life in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. Stephen Greenblatt also describes segments of home life, education, entertainment, religious persecution, street life, and the generally day-to-day experience of anyone living in England. Also, there is a focus on theater life and certain professions.

Stephen Greenblatt’s main purpose in writing “Will in the World” was to find clues in the plays and the sonnets that would all together present a credible man who wrote the plays. His method which was simple association that left him with no more than a hologram man and no real story.

“Will in the World” has failed because the author had no coherent or organized way of finding subsurface stories he probably knows is there. He needs to absorb and comprehend the plays like learning a language or like a seaman comprehends the ocean and its currents. To find the gold. He must also understand the relationship of the plays to other works of the time.

I recommend Professor Greenblatt embrace Shakespeare like Orville Owens did in 18— He memorized all of them. That opened to him him the subtle irregularities in certain lines compared to the others. Then carefully following Bacon’s advise Dr Owens found the incredibly riveting story of Queen Elizabeth’s family as well as important events of the time that come from the text itself.

“Will in the World” reinforces the illusion that the folks in Elizabethan times were different from today but I think that misunderstanding is common mainly because scholars try to picture the culture through the misinterpretion of the poetics.

For example, Stephen Greenblatt being a very intelligent fellow buys into the knock-her-up-pretty-boy absurdity which is a request to have asscess to a beautiful child – for what? Wierd. The poet of the sonnets was not wierd or a pedophile.

Please note:There are far easier and far more logical and relevant ways of understanding the sonnets.

I believe that a critic should not be allowed to critique s poetry unless the critic’s poetry is critiqued. In other words, you cannot know poetry unless you write it.

Stephen Greenblatt has more problems than other similar biographies separating truth from fiction in his “Will in the World.” He uses fewer maybe’s and could haves because he really wants substance. He can’t have substance because has chosen nothing to work with.

I also believe that Stephen Greenblatt would have won the Pulitzer Prize if he had either written a fictionalized story or had picked a playwright that actually existed.