Discussion:
Let's talk about Hamlet -- To be, or not to be, that is the Question, of the illegitimate.
(too old to reply)
Jim F.
2016-02-27 04:09:46 UTC
Permalink
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."

Bodkin's definitions in OED around 1600:
1. A short pointed weapon ...
2. A small pointed instrument ...
*3. A long pin or pin-shaped ornament used by women to fasten up the hair.

A noble has an illegitimate. The pregnant woman is guarded by her family.
A midwife (bribed by the noble) with a bare bodkin kills the baby during
the birth. The bodkin must be bare to avoid hurting the woman.

"To be, or not to be" talks about the illegitimate. This solution can well
reason every word of Hamlet's lines:

To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether it's Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir too? It's a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the poor man's Contumely,
The pangs of disprized Love, the Law's delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his _Quietus_ make *=quite-us
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose Borne
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the *will*,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,
And thus the Native hew of Resolution
Is sicklied over, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turn away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair _Ophelia_? Nymph, in thy Orisons
*Be* all my sins remembered.

The last line shows that the kill is done.
"To be, or not to be ... Be ..."
g***@btinternet.com
2016-02-27 13:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."
1. A short pointed weapon ...
2. A small pointed instrument ...
*3. A long pin or pin-shaped ornament used by women to fasten up the hair.
A noble has an illegitimate. The pregnant woman is guarded by her family.
A midwife (bribed by the noble) with a bare bodkin kills the baby during
the birth. The bodkin must be bare to avoid hurting the woman.
"To be, or not to be" talks about the illegitimate. This solution can well
Whether it's Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir too? It's a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the poor man's Contumely,
The pangs of disprized Love, the Law's delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his _Quietus_ make *=quite-us
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose Borne
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the *will*,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,
And thus the Native hew of Resolution
Is sicklied over, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turn away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair _Ophelia_? Nymph, in thy Orisons
*Be* all my sins remembered.
The last line shows that the kill is done.
"To be, or not to be ... Be ..."
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or don't get the "point" of it.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-02-28 02:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."
1. A short pointed weapon ...
2. A small pointed instrument ...
*3. A long pin or pin-shaped ornament used by women to fasten up the hair.
A noble has an illegitimate. The pregnant woman is guarded by her family.
A midwife (bribed by the noble) with a bare bodkin kills the baby during
the birth. The bodkin must be bare to avoid hurting the woman.
"To be, or not to be" talks about the illegitimate. This solution can well
Whether it's Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir too? It's a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the poor man's Contumely,
The pangs of disprized Love, the Law's delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his _Quietus_ make *=quite-us
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose Borne
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the *will*,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,
And thus the Native hew of Resolution
Is sicklied over, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turn away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair _Ophelia_? Nymph, in thy Orisons
*Be* all my sins remembered.
The last line shows that the kill is done.
"To be, or not to be ... Be ..."
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or don't get the "point" of it.
.
Jim F.
2016-02-28 03:18:35 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or don't get the "point" of it.
.
Shakespeare's lewdness is "profound," never just few words.
You must be bawdy enough to read the hidden content.

OPHELIA.
He took me by the wrist, and held me hard; [1]
Then goes he to the length of all his arm;
And with his other hand thus over his brow, [3]
He falls to such perusal of my face,
As he would draw it. Long stayed he so, [5]
At last, a little shaking of mine Arm:
And thrice his head thus waving up and down; [7]
He raised a sigh, so piteous and *profound*,
That it did seem to shatter all his bulk, [9]
And end his being.

Here Ophelia describes how she was masturbating Hamlet.
Positions of their hands are critical to solve this riddle.

[2] An arm's length for Ophelia's free hand to move between them.
[5] "draw":
[6] "shaking of mine Arm": Ophelia's free hand working on Hamlet.
[7-8] Reactions of Hamlet's orgasm.
[9] "shatter": to disperse, ejaculate.
"bulk": cargo, semen.
[10] "end his being": to die, climax.

A test of your bawdy level, ArtNea, Jim KQKnave, marco, or James D Carroll:
What means "draw" in line 5?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-02-28 18:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or don't get the "point" of it.
.
Shakespeare's lewdness is "profound," never just few words.
You must be bawdy enough to read the hidden content.
OPHELIA.
He took me by the wrist, and held me hard; [1]
Then goes he to the length of all his arm;
And with his other hand thus over his brow, [3]
He falls to such perusal of my face,
As he would draw it. Long stayed he so, [5]
And thrice his head thus waving up and down; [7]
He raised a sigh, so piteous and *profound*,
That it did seem to shatter all his bulk, [9]
And end his being.
Here Ophelia describes how she was masturbating Hamlet.
Positions of their hands are critical to solve this riddle.
[2] An arm's length for Ophelia's free hand to move between them.
[6] "shaking of mine Arm": Ophelia's free hand working on Hamlet.
[7-8] Reactions of Hamlet's orgasm.
[9] "shatter": to disperse, ejaculate.
"bulk": cargo, semen.
[10] "end his being": to die, climax.
What means "draw" in line 5?
That's what you get when you use a prostitute actress to play the part of Ophelia!
John W Kennedy
2016-02-29 02:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:00:22 AM UTC+8,
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC-8,
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or
don't get the "point" of it.
.
Shakespeare's lewdness is "profound," never just few words.
You must be bawdy enough to read the hidden content.
OPHELIA.
He took me by the wrist, and held me hard; [1]
Then goes he to the length of all his arm;
And with his other hand thus over his brow, [3]
He falls to such perusal of my face,
As he would draw it. Long stayed he so, [5]
And thrice his head thus waving up and down; [7]
He raised a sigh, so piteous and *profound*,
That it did seem to shatter all his bulk, [9]
And end his being.
Here Ophelia describes how she was masturbating Hamlet.
Positions of their hands are critical to solve this riddle.
[2] An arm's length for Ophelia's free hand to move between them.
[6] "shaking of mine Arm": Ophelia's free hand working on Hamlet.
[7-8] Reactions of Hamlet's orgasm.
[9] "shatter": to disperse, ejaculate.
"bulk": cargo, semen.
[10] "end his being": to die, climax.
What means "draw" in line 5?
That's what you get when you use a prostitute actress to play the part of Ophelia!
Thank you for making it absolutely clear that you're a lunatic, and goodbye.
--
John W Kennedy
***@attglobal.net
"It is unfortunate that it is only in geometry that a scholar must
state his assumptions clearly before he begins his proof. . . ."
-- Alice Kober
g***@btinternet.com
2016-02-29 13:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John W Kennedy
Post by g***@btinternet.com
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 10:00:22 AM UTC+8,
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 5:30:10 AM UTC-8,
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or
don't get the "point" of it.
.
Shakespeare's lewdness is "profound," never just few words.
You must be bawdy enough to read the hidden content.
OPHELIA.
He took me by the wrist, and held me hard; [1]
Then goes he to the length of all his arm;
And with his other hand thus over his brow, [3]
He falls to such perusal of my face,
As he would draw it. Long stayed he so, [5]
And thrice his head thus waving up and down; [7]
He raised a sigh, so piteous and *profound*,
That it did seem to shatter all his bulk, [9]
And end his being.
Here Ophelia describes how she was masturbating Hamlet.
Positions of their hands are critical to solve this riddle.
[2] An arm's length for Ophelia's free hand to move between them.
[6] "shaking of mine Arm": Ophelia's free hand working on Hamlet.
[7-8] Reactions of Hamlet's orgasm.
[9] "shatter": to disperse, ejaculate.
"bulk": cargo, semen.
[10] "end his being": to die, climax.
What means "draw" in line 5?
That's what you get when you use a prostitute actress to play the part of Ophelia!
Thank you for making it absolutely clear that you're a lunatic, and goodbye.
--
John W Kennedy
"It is unfortunate that it is only in geometry that a scholar must
state his assumptions clearly before he begins his proof. . . ."
-- Alice Kober
HATE SCHOLARS TO DEATH
THEY ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ESPECIALLY ABOUT SHAKESPEARE

Now back to my point. Emilia Lanier was granted permission by Queen Elizabeth to act in the Queen's players. Shakespeare's company during the period 1581 to 1588. She was of course a slut in the modern sense of the word. When the parts for the plays were written they were written around the actors. The actors would ad-lib from time to time and these were added to the plays. All of the Shakespeare plays date to the period 1581 to 1588 the odd one to 1589.
There's is proof that Emilia was seen in the plays Simon Forman, pointed out that she had a mole (or something) just like someone in one of the plays! Furthermore she was painted playing the part of Anne Bolyn, the painting still survives as a picture of Anne Bolyn. The clue though is she is wearing an Elizabethan woman's collar! Something Anne would not have warn. Besides that who would want a "modern" painting of Anne Bolyn in Elizabethan times?
Jim F.
2016-02-29 10:55:36 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Jim F.
What means "draw" in line 5?
Figure out the meaning of "draw"? This is just one reason the true author of
Shakespeare would need a front man. Yes, Ben Jonson "knew Shakespeare personally,
so he couldn't be anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford,"
and he was a front man to be sacrificed any time like Marlowe when needed.

Remember I told you that "bare" is the key to solve this riddle? Killing it in
the birth canal with a "bare" hair-bodkin is hard to imagine but not impossible, after Hamlet's long monologue to persuade the world. It's like a secret
partial birth abortion today.

In the Real World

It's easy to find the mistress who had a still-birth that relieved a noble,
and can be confirmed with one-way anagram, a habit of Wilton House poets.

In the Play

_Hamlet_ is like a detective novel to entertain a special reader group.
After the illegitimate "to be, or not to be," Hamlet tells Ophelia *five* times
"to a Nunnery" for her pregnancy. (Nunnery would accept the unwed mother then.)
The challenge here is to find the father of the illegitimate from the context,
not by guessing.
c***@gmail.com
2016-04-11 04:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
You must be a complete PRICK if you don't know what he means by that or don't get the "point" of it.
.
Shakespeare's lewdness is "profound," never just few words.
You must be bawdy enough to read the hidden content.
OPHELIA.
He took me by the wrist, and held me hard; [1]
Then goes he to the length of all his arm;
And with his other hand thus over his brow, [3]
He falls to such perusal of my face,
As he would draw it. Long stayed he so, [5]
And thrice his head thus waving up and down; [7]
He raised a sigh, so piteous and *profound*,
That it did seem to shatter all his bulk, [9]
And end his being.
Here Ophelia describes how she was masturbating Hamlet.
Positions of their hands are critical to solve this riddle.
[2] An arm's length for Ophelia's free hand to move between them.
[6] "shaking of mine Arm": Ophelia's free hand working on Hamlet.
[7-8] Reactions of Hamlet's orgasm.
[9] "shatter": to disperse, ejaculate.
"bulk": cargo, semen.
[10] "end his being": to die, climax.
What means "draw" in line 5?
Hi,

When this post first showed up (many weeks ago?, and I have not been reading it since), I, for some reason, clicked on it and read it.

My first impression was as follows:
This "nut" is annoying in that now whenever I see the play, I will remember this post.

Whoever, it is uncanny that unlike Wildever or whatever his name is, this "nutty" post is possible. Remember, I believe in an all-encomposing experience of the play, not just one single view.

So, the next question is, if we assume that Shakespeare was speaking to us at this level (as well as the literal level, which in itself is not obvious to everyone), what are the implications as to our understanding of the play?

It is my belief that for this scene, Ophelia is not speaking the truth. Please see this post's "table of contents" for more info:

Here is a third draft of a time line and time gaps within the play, Hamlet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/Here$20is$20a$20third$20draft$20of$20a$20time$20line$20and$20time$20gaps$20within$20the$20play$2C$20Hamlet.$20/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/AwsqG7m4Xsc/A4CKv7xjAAAJ




Now, again, what are the implications of this interpretatation with respect to our understanding of the play?

It seems to me that there are two options:

(1) Ophelia had a sexual relationship with Hamlet.
(2) Ophelia did not have a sexual relationship with Hamlet.

We might note as an aside, that if Ophelia did have a sexual relationship with Hamlet, or if she did and she was pregnant, these one or two factors lead to stress which in addition to other stresses I have written about, could lead to her insanity.

So, I guess the very first question is this:

does the above post suggest Shakespeare's intent that Ophelia did or did not have a sexual relationship with Hamlet?

Surely, if the intent is that she did, Ophelia is "speaking" unconsiously. For surely Ophelia knows her father well enough that he would never interpret her speach in this manner (nor would I have nor thousands of other viewers, which is not to say that this post should be ignored, for surely Shakespeare has the skill to map out such a level of communication).

And, if she did have a sexual relationship with Hamlet, her speach, as interpreted by the above post, suggests here "wanting to hold on" to this relationship.

But, equally likely, the "sexual imagery" could equally suggest that she would like to in the future be sexually united with Hamlet.

I don't pretend to know the answer. Fortunately, the success of the play does not rest on the answer, for the primary stressor on Ophelia going mad was her guilt over her father's death.

Yet, I pose my question or questions out of curiosity. But, not just curiosity alone, for I found it "annoying" that the posted message could, once one exposed it to me, actually be one path of interpretation.

Thanks,
Craig
Jim F.
2016-03-02 03:29:07 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Jim F.
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir too? It's a consummation
...
Mixing the First Folio and Quarto of _Hamlet_ is improper.
Minor details may help the reading.

1604 Quarto: That flesh is heir to;
1623 Folio: That Flesh is heir too?

The Folio questions the illegitimate to be heir.
Flesh here can mean both one's descendant and a body.
A "bare" bodkin is a needle used to kill a "naked" body.
marco
2016-04-03 18:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by Jim F.
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir too? It's a consummation
...
Mixing the First Folio and Quarto of _Hamlet_ is improper.
Minor details may help the reading.
1604 Quarto: That flesh is heir to;
1623 Folio: That Flesh is heir too?
The Folio questions the illegitimate to be heir.
Flesh here can mean both one's descendant and a body.
A "bare" bodkin is a needle used to kill a "naked" body.
.
poor tom
2016-04-03 18:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."
================================================
What riddle?
===========================================
Post by Jim F.
1. A short pointed weapon ...
2. A small pointed instrument ...
*3. A long pin or pin-shaped ornament used by women to fasten up the hair.
A noble has an illegitimate. The pregnant woman is guarded by her family.
A midwife (bribed by the noble) with a bare bodkin kills the baby during
the birth. The bodkin must be bare to avoid hurting the woman.
"To be, or not to be" talks about the illegitimate. This solution can well
Whether it's Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir too? It's a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the poor man's Contumely,
The pangs of disprized Love, the Law's delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his _Quietus_ make *=quite-us
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose Borne
No Traveler returns, Puzzles the *will*,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,
And thus the Native hew of Resolution
Is sicklied over, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turn away,
And loose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair _Ophelia_? Nymph, in thy Orisons
*Be* all my sins remembered.
The last line shows that the kill is done.
"To be, or not to be ... Be ..."
Jim F.
2016-04-04 04:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by poor tom
Post by Jim F.
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."
================================================
What riddle?
===========================================
Answer of this riddle is why and how to Quite the illegitimate.
If you miss this one, try the next.
What means the "Remembrances" Hamlet denies and Ophelia insists?

OPHELIA.
My Lord, I have Remembrances of yours,
That I have longed long to re-deliver.
I pray you now, receive them.

HAMLET.
No, no, I never gave you ought.

OPHELIA.
My honoured Lord, I know right well you did,
And with them words of so sweet breath composed,
As made the things more rich, than perfume left:
Take these again, for to the Noble mind
Rich gifts wax poor, when givers prove unkind.
There my Lord.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-04 10:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by poor tom
Post by Jim F.
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."
================================================
What riddle?
===========================================
Answer of this riddle is why and how to Quite the illegitimate.
If you miss this one, try the next.
What means the "Remembrances" Hamlet denies and Ophelia insists?
Thomas Seymour.
My Lady, I have Remembrances of yours,
That I have longed long to re-deliver.
I pray you now, receive them.
Princess Elizabeth.
No, no, I never gave you ought.
Thomas Seymour.
My honoured Lady, I know right well you did,
And with them words of so sweet breath composed,
Take these again, for to the Noble mind
Rich gifts wax poor, when givers prove unkind.
There my Lady.
Try changing the sex of the characters and it becomes clear. You then see it becomes what Thomas Seymour did, when he got the idea from Kate Ashley that Elizabeth wanted to marry him. He's trying propose marriage to the young Elizabeth. It was part of what I call the "gossip plot" that involved Kate Ashley, who personally I think fancied Seymour herself! But it was all Ashley's doing.

Clever isn't he - Mr Shakespeare!!!
Jim F.
2016-04-05 06:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by poor tom
Post by Jim F.
The key to solve this riddle is "a bare Bodkin."
================================================
What riddle?
===========================================
Answer of this riddle is why and how to Quite the illegitimate.
If you miss this one, try the next.
What means the "Remembrances" Hamlet denies and Ophelia insists?
Thomas Seymour.
My Lady, I have Remembrances of yours,
That I have longed long to re-deliver.
I pray you now, receive them.
Princess Elizabeth.
No, no, I never gave you ought.
Thomas Seymour.
My honoured Lady, I know right well you did,
And with them words of so sweet breath composed,
Take these again, for to the Noble mind
Rich gifts wax poor, when givers prove unkind.
There my Lady.
Try changing the sex of the characters and it becomes clear. You then see it becomes what Thomas Seymour did, when he got the idea from Kate Ashley that Elizabeth wanted to marry him. He's trying propose marriage to the young Elizabeth. It was part of what I call the "gossip plot" that involved Kate Ashley, who personally I think fancied Seymour herself! But it was all Ashley's doing.
Clever isn't he - Mr Shakespeare!!!
A hint for "Remembrances." The key is in the last line: "There my Lord."
Try the next. What means "the Owl was a Baker's daughter"?

CLAUDIUS.
How do ye, pretty Lady?

OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.

CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon her Father.

No. Don't trust the legend Christ will change a human to owl.
Jim F.
2016-04-07 08:10:44 UTC
Permalink
_Plutarch's Lives_:
The inscription on the tomb was:
"Here, after snapping the thread of a wretched life, I lie.
Ye shall not learn my name, but my curses shall follow you."
This inscription he is said to have composed himself,
but that in general circulation is by Callimachus:
"Timon, hater of men, dwells here; so pass along;
Heap many curses on me, if thou wilt, only pass along."

Shakespeare's _The Life of Timon of Athens_:
[Alcibiades reads the Epitaph.]
ALCIBIADES.
"Here lies a wretched Coarse, of wretched Soul bereft,"
"Seek not my name: A Plague consume you, wicked Caitiffs left:"
"Here lie I Timon, who alive, all living men did hate,"
"Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait."
These well express in thee thy latter spirits:

"Seek not my name" with "Here lie I Timon" is suspicious.
It suggests Timon is a part of "my name," or
Timon isn't the true name of the body in grave (like Richard du Champ).
Timon could fake a grave and disappear, which fits his "latter spirits,"
a guarantee that no one "moves my bones."

Good friend for Jesus sake forbear,
to dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be ye man that spares these stones,
and cursed be he that moves my bones.

Why use the word "moves"?
It's the key to solve this riddle (like a "bare" Bodkin).

Divert Reading to Divert Authorship, Monument Shakespeare
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/gTN9DgOSmWg
poor tom
2016-04-07 10:40:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:10:45 AM UTC+1, Jim F. wrote:


"Why use the word "moves"? "

Why not Jim?
poor tom
2016-04-07 10:44:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:10:45 AM UTC+1, Jim F. wrote:
"Seek not my name" with "Here lie I Timon" is suspicious.
It suggests Timon is a part of "my name,"
You may be onto something interesting there Jim, but don't expect much feedback on this site:
"Why use the word "moves"?" Why not?
Jim F.
2016-04-09 03:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Riddles like "the Owl was a Baker's daughter" and "Remembrances"
and "To be, or not to be" demonstrate that Shakespeare's works are
complex but solvable, for they are all based on word's logic, the same
for Shakespeare's epitaph. We need some background first.

Adam appears first in Genesis 2:20 Geneva Bible (but in 2:19 King James);
"my bones" appears first in 2:23. A woman (Eve) was "first created" here.

(GEN 2:20) The man therefore gaue names vnto all cattell, and to
the foule of the heauen, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for
*Adam* founde he not an helpe meete for him.
...
(GEN 2:23) Then the man said, This now is bone of
*my bones*, and flesh of my flesh. She shalbe called woman,
because she was taken out of man.


Sonnet 20 describes how a man (...) is "first created":

A Woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
Hast thou the *Master Mistress* of my passion,
A woman's gentle heart but not acquainted
With *shifting* change as is false women's fashion,

An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling:
Gilding the object where-upon it gazes,
A man in *hew* all _Hews_ in his controlling,
Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.

And for a woman were thou *first created*, [A link to Bible.]
Till nature as she wrought thee fell adoting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.

But since she *pricked* thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy loves use their treasure.

Sonnet _20_ (Master Mistress ... hew ... pricked) is based on Genesis 2:_20_.
poor tom
2016-04-09 16:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Riddles like "the Owl was a Baker's daughter" and "Remembrances"
and "To be, or not to be" demonstrate that Shakespeare's works are
complex but solvable, for they are all based on word's logic, the same
for Shakespeare's epitaph. We need some background first.
=============================

How is 'To be or not to be?' a riddle? I would have thought the passage was a contemplation on existence: esse.

==================================
Post by Jim F.
Adam appears first in Genesis 2:20 Geneva Bible (but in 2:19 King James);
"my bones" appears first in 2:23. A woman (Eve) was "first created" here.
(GEN 2:20) The man therefore gaue names vnto all cattell, and to
the foule of the heauen, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for
*Adam* founde he not an helpe meete for him.
...
(GEN 2:23) Then the man said, This now is bone of
*my bones*, and flesh of my flesh. She shalbe called woman,
because she was taken out of man.
=====================================
Where will I find "my bones" on "Shakespeare's epitaph"?
====================================
Post by Jim F.
A Woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
Hast thou the *Master Mistress* of my passion,
A woman's gentle heart but not acquainted
With *shifting* change as is false women's fashion,
Gilding the object where-upon it gazes,
A man in *hew* all _Hews_ in his controlling,
Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
And for a woman were thou *first created*, [A link to Bible.]
Till nature as she wrought thee fell adoting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she *pricked* thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy loves use their treasure.
Sonnet _20_ (Master Mistress ... hew ... pricked) is based on Genesis 2:_20_.
=============================


20 was the alphabet place value of the letter U:

Line 7, first 6 words: A man in hew all Hews :

Matt HEW is a man: Perhaps it refers to Matt 7:6?

"A man in hew" : 9 letters: skip the first 9 words in the verse:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,||||....

... neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

(U was 29th letter) 20th word is "you" : as in 'U'.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Note: word 7: SWINE: WS IN E, where E = 5:

The letter U according to the *ancient Romans* was V: it represented 5: Therefore U has two values: 20 and 5:

The 5th word in sonnet 20 is NATURE'S: the first 5 letters are NATUR: they make TURN A:

Line 5 says: "An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling:"

*** Note the last word: "rolling": ***

The first 5 letters of line 5 are: AN EYE:

Now take the first letter of the sonnet: A, (as in Anthony) and turn it:

You should (with a little imagination) see Cleopatra's eye.


Note: AN EYE makes A EYNE:

"Blessed are clouds, to doe as such clouds do.
Vouchsafe bright Moone, and these thy stars to shine,
(Those clouds remooued) vpon our waterie eyne" **

(Loves Labour's lost)

Lastly: the first 5 letter in NATURE, when read in reverse are: TRUE A:

The remaining N, was the thirteenth in the English alphabet, and also in the Greek table: according to the Greeks, small N looks like: ν which is remarkably like the 20th English v: Now, who was it said "To draw no envy on thy name"?

Pick the bones out of that if you can.

=================================
Jim F.
2016-04-09 17:10:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 12:21:49 AM UTC+8, poor tom wrote:
...

Tom, you use King James or Geneva Bible?
poor tom
2016-04-09 17:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Tom, you use King James or Geneva Bible?
========================

Both, depending on whether the date I work with is before, or after 1611. But in the main much of the text matches quite well. You are perhaps going to make a comment on my use of counting letters/words?
Jim F.
2016-04-09 18:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by poor tom
Post by Jim F.
...
Tom, you use King James or Geneva Bible?
========================
Both, depending on whether the date I work with is before, or after 1611. But in the main much of the text matches quite well. You are perhaps going to make a comment on my use of counting letters/words?
Tom, "counting letters/words" needs precise printing materials.
Your "much of the text matches quite well" won't work. You know that.
It fails easily by printer's error or different editions.

It's hard to make. For any coding, you should try it yourself first.

In this case, you use 1611 King James. It fits not 1609 _Sonnets_.
Jim F.
2016-05-04 01:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
"Here, after snapping the thread of a wretched life, I lie.
Ye shall not learn my name, but my curses shall follow you."
This inscription he is said to have composed himself,
"Timon, hater of men, dwells here; so pass along;
Heap many curses on me, if thou wilt, only pass along."
[Alcibiades reads the Epitaph.]
ALCIBIADES.
"Here lies a wretched Coarse, of wretched Soul bereft,"
"Seek not my name: A Plague consume you, wicked Caitiffs left:"
"Here lie I Timon, who alive, all living men did hate,"
"Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait."
"Seek not my name" with "Here lie I Timon" is suspicious.
It suggests Timon is a part of "my name," or
Timon isn't the true name of the body in grave (like Richard du Champ).
Timon could fake a grave and disappear, which fits his "latter spirits,"
a guarantee that no one "moves my bones."
Good friend for Jesus sake forbear,
to dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be ye man that spares these stones,
and cursed be he that moves my bones.
Stones and Bones, Shakespeare's Epitaph and John Milton

What need my Shakespeare for his honoured *bones*, [1]
The labour of an Age, in piled *stones*
Or that his hallowed Reliques should be hid
Under a starre-ypointing Pyramid?

Dear Son of Memory, great Heir of Fame, [5]
What need'st thou such dull witness of thy Name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thyself a *lasting Monument*: [8]

[1] For "Shakespeare" to spell Mary Sidney, we need letter n d m y;
"need my" provides the missing letters.

The beginning of line one, "need my Shakespeare," contains the
one-way anagram of Mary Sidney, who is Milton's Shakespeare.

[5] "Memory" needs letter a to spell Mary.
"Dear Son" needs letter y to spell Sidney.
"Dear" has the missing a, and "Memory" the missing y.

The beginning of line five, "Dear Son of Memory," contains the
one-way anagram of Mary Sidney, who is the son of Mnemosyne after
the nine Muses, or the tenth Muse in sonnet 38.

[8] The "lasting Monument" (1632) was originally "live-long Monument" (1630).
Both are close to the "living Monument" for Ophelia.
A***@germanymail.com
2016-05-09 19:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by Jim F.
"Here, after snapping the thread of a wretched life, I lie.
Ye shall not learn my name, but my curses shall follow you."
This inscription he is said to have composed himself,
"Timon, hater of men, dwells here; so pass along;
Heap many curses on me, if thou wilt, only pass along."
[Alcibiades reads the Epitaph.]
ALCIBIADES.
"Here lies a wretched Coarse, of wretched Soul bereft,"
"Seek not my name: A Plague consume you, wicked Caitiffs left:"
"Here lie I Timon, who alive, all living men did hate,"
"Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait."
"Seek not my name" with "Here lie I Timon" is suspicious.
It suggests Timon is a part of "my name," or
Timon isn't the true name of the body in grave (like Richard du Champ).
Timon could fake a grave and disappear, which fits his "latter spirits,"
a guarantee that no one "moves my bones."
Good friend for Jesus sake forbear,
to dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be ye man that spares these stones,
and cursed be he that moves my bones.
Stones and Bones, Shakespeare's Epitaph and John Milton
What need my Shakespeare for his honoured *bones*, [1]
The labour of an Age, in piled *stones*
Or that his hallowed Reliques should be hid
Under a starre-ypointing Pyramid?
Dear Son of Memory, great Heir of Fame, [5]
What need'st thou such dull witness of thy Name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thyself a *lasting Monument*: [8]
[1] For "Shakespeare" to spell Mary Sidney, we need letter n d m y;
"need my" provides the missing letters.
The beginning of line one, "need my Shakespeare," contains the
one-way anagram of Mary Sidney, who is Milton's Shakespeare.
[5] "Memory" needs letter a to spell Mary.
"Dear Son" needs letter y to spell Sidney.
"Dear" has the missing a, and "Memory" the missing y.
The beginning of line five, "Dear Son of Memory," contains the
one-way anagram of Mary Sidney, who is the son of Mnemosyne after
the nine Muses, or the tenth Muse in sonnet 38.
[8] The "lasting Monument" (1632) was originally "live-long Monument" (1630).
Both are close to the "living Monument" for Ophelia.
reoffender

Art N
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-09 12:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Sonnet 20 is about Queen Elizabeth. She was of course meant to have a NOB, Dick, Penis, call it what you want- as she was meant to be the son of Henry VIII.

But nature - screwed up and she was born without a winkle! Cricky even the nurse in the fictional Black Adder has more knowledge about history than big Jim.

Then Elizabeth then says that William does indeed have a winkle and that she wanted to use it!
However at this point in the Sonnets, William was too young and in not experienced and so didn't let her!

Big Jim was a worm..... famous song...

The Sweet - you can't push willy were willy shouldn't go. Clearly a bible reference in that song too..
Jim F.
2016-04-09 14:03:05 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 8:45:19 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...

Graham, you miss this one:
What means "the Owl was a Baker's daughter"?

"Clever isn't he - Mr Shakespeare!!!"
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-09 16:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
What means "the Owl was a Baker's daughter"?
"Clever isn't he - Mr Shakespeare!!!"
Hamlet was Elizabeth at one point and is later in the play, but now that a female character is there, Shakespeare could switch Elizabeth to being Ophelia. The "King" Claudius in this part of the play his actually her brother King Edward.
But Edward is not the character that we have seen in the Prince and the Pauper films. He's crude and nasty, with a mouth like an old sailor! He also likes to gamble. Historians have spotted that he did not acknowledge Elizabeth as an actually daughter of Henry VIII, for he makes it clear in his own will. She is not named as his heir. If they can see it so can Edward and as any red-blooded male would fancy Elizabeth, he is no exception. He was very young, but young lads back then were not the sloppy idiots of modern times.
So when he asks Elizabeth in those terms how she is, he is saying he fancies her! Now of course Elizabeth does see him as her true brother and is disgusted by this. But at this point she's more inflamed by what he has said to her. She does not see herself as even "pretty". Remember when I told you that NOBODY could convince her how beautiful she was! Well her reply to Edward is just about that. Pointing out to him that God lied to Edward. She then mentions the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop and the baker gave him a loaf, but his daughter scolded him and she was turned into an owl. Implying that was a lie too. Her next line is still in response to the "pretty" reference of Edward. Again implying that she "knows" she's not pretty. But questions if the King knows the truth?
So Elizabeth starts singing to him. In the "To be" speech she has decided to go along appearing daft as a brush, so singing goes along with this idea. The King thinks she's nuts, and tells someone to keep an eye on Elizabeth.
Jim F.
2016-04-09 16:58:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 12:02:16 AM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...

Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?

Does this "story" exist before 1784?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-10 01:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html

It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Jim F.
2016-04-10 02:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html
It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Graham, no such legend exists before the 18th century.
The clever Shakespeare used Ovid's Metamorphoses:

But what use was that to me if _Nyctimene_,
*who was turned into an Owl* for her dreadful sins,
has usurped my place of honour?
Or have you not heard the story all _Lesbos_ knows well,
how _Nyctimene_ desecrated *her father's bed*?

With this, every word in the dialogue can be reasoned, especially
ye (Ophelia and her baby), dil'd, Baker, what we are, Conceit, father.

CLAUDIUS.
How do *ye*, pretty Lady?

OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.

CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon *her Father*.

It then explains the next riddle, a tricky one:
why no one saves the slow drowning Ophelia?
marco
2016-04-10 14:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html
It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Graham, no such legend exists before the 18th century.
But what use was that to me if _Nyctimene_,
*who was turned into an Owl* for her dreadful sins,
has usurped my place of honour?
Or have you not heard the story all _Lesbos_ knows well,
how _Nyctimene_ desecrated *her father's bed*?
With this, every word in the dialogue can be reasoned, especially
ye (Ophelia and her baby), dil'd, Baker, what we are, Conceit, father.
CLAUDIUS.
How do *ye*, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon *her Father*.
why no one saves the slow drowning Ophelia?
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-10 20:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html
It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Graham, no such legend exists before the 18th century.
But what use was that to me if _Nyctimene_,
*who was turned into an Owl* for her dreadful sins,
has usurped my place of honour?
Or have you not heard the story all _Lesbos_ knows well,
how _Nyctimene_ desecrated *her father's bed*?
With this, every word in the dialogue can be reasoned, especially
ye (Ophelia and her baby), dil'd, Baker, what we are, Conceit, father.
CLAUDIUS.
How do *ye*, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon *her Father*.
why no one saves the slow drowning Ophelia?
"Ye" doesn't mean that! It simply means "thee".

Shakespeare hated Ovid. Elizabeth liked it, but the legend was around in the 16th Century cause that is what Elizabeth means. Ophelia is a fictional character. She drowns because Katherine Hamelet drowned. I know for a fact she thought she had killed Anna Whately, William's first wife as she was jealous of her. She drowned herself because she couldn't take the guilt.
You seem to get wrapped up in the story too much Jim F. Take a step back from it and you will see the truth.
Jim F.
2016-04-11 00:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html
It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Graham, no such legend exists before the 18th century.
But what use was that to me if _Nyctimene_,
*who was turned into an Owl* for her dreadful sins,
has usurped my place of honour?
Or have you not heard the story all _Lesbos_ knows well,
how _Nyctimene_ desecrated *her father's bed*?
With this, every word in the dialogue can be reasoned, especially
ye (Ophelia and her baby), dil'd, Baker, what we are, Conceit, father.
CLAUDIUS.
How do *ye*, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon *her Father*.
why no one saves the slow drowning Ophelia?
"Ye" doesn't mean that! It simply means "thee".
Shakespeare hated Ovid. Elizabeth liked it, but the legend was around in the 16th Century cause that is what Elizabeth means. Ophelia is a fictional character. She drowns because Katherine Hamelet drowned. I know for a fact she thought she had killed Anna Whately, William's first wife as she was jealous of her. She drowned herself because she couldn't take the guilt.
You seem to get wrapped up in the story too much Jim F. Take a step back from it and you will see the truth.
Baker "simply means" one who makes bread?
This simplifies Shakespeare. It's from Hosea 7:4.

They are all *adulterers*, and as a very ouen heated by ye [the]
*baker*, which ceaseth from raysing vp, and from kneading ye dough
vntill it be leauened.

Ophelia and Claudius are both adulterers.

You miss the question. Why they don't _save_ the slow drowning Ophelia?
In what case people won't support a drowning person?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-11 12:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html
It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Graham, no such legend exists before the 18th century.
But what use was that to me if _Nyctimene_,
*who was turned into an Owl* for her dreadful sins,
has usurped my place of honour?
Or have you not heard the story all _Lesbos_ knows well,
how _Nyctimene_ desecrated *her father's bed*?
With this, every word in the dialogue can be reasoned, especially
ye (Ophelia and her baby), dil'd, Baker, what we are, Conceit, father.
CLAUDIUS.
How do *ye*, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon *her Father*.
why no one saves the slow drowning Ophelia?
"Ye" doesn't mean that! It simply means "thee".
Shakespeare hated Ovid. Elizabeth liked it, but the legend was around in the 16th Century cause that is what Elizabeth means. Ophelia is a fictional character. She drowns because Katherine Hamelet drowned. I know for a fact she thought she had killed Anna Whately, William's first wife as she was jealous of her. She drowned herself because she couldn't take the guilt.
You seem to get wrapped up in the story too much Jim F. Take a step back from it and you will see the truth.
Baker "simply means" one who makes bread?
This simplifies Shakespeare. It's from Hosea 7:4.
They are all *adulterers*, and as a very ouen heated by ye [the]
*baker*, which ceaseth from raysing vp, and from kneading ye dough
vntill it be leauened.
Ophelia and Claudius are both adulterers.
You miss the question. Why they don't _save_ the slow drowning Ophelia?
In what case people won't support a drowning person?
Jim you are missing what I said about the play. Tiss not a play but real history. What we are seeing is Elizabeth's words to her brother the King. If you go back to the story of Thomas Seymour, then rumours went around that he made Elizabeth pregnant. The King would have known this and that's is what you are picking up on.
But the Baker and the Owl story must have been around in the 16th Century as it is used in the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother.
Personally I can't see anyone inventing a religious as late as you say it was. Unless you can show that the person who first wrote it was placed in prison or executed for writing religious material that would actually show Jesus in a bad light. For if you read most of the new testament it's not about punishing "sinners" especially when it comes to Jesus and certainly not about turning people into owls.
Therefore like many things connected with words, especially Shakespeare's his plays and writings become the first time they are recorded. Otherwise you come up with the implausible action that Shakespeare himself invented many thousands of words. But if you think about that then somebody going to see one of his plays wouldn't understand much of the play at all, if Shakespeare invented hundreds of words during the play.
The OED has the same problem back dating phrases and words. When they first came into use. They even made a TV show about it. Some of the words they had only dated back to say the 80's. But with the help of the public they dated back to the 1920's!

They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-11 12:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Graham, where do you get "the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop ...
she was turned into an owl"?
Does this "story" exist before 1784?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/opheliarhymes.html
It must have done if it's in Shakespeare's works.
I know there are some tales such as "Ring Ring Roses" that are modern in origin but are thought to go back to the plague years.
But the reading of the story and context all fits with the tale of Jesus and the baker. So what else can it be?
Graham, no such legend exists before the 18th century.
But what use was that to me if _Nyctimene_,
*who was turned into an Owl* for her dreadful sins,
has usurped my place of honour?
Or have you not heard the story all _Lesbos_ knows well,
how _Nyctimene_ desecrated *her father's bed*?
With this, every word in the dialogue can be reasoned, especially
ye (Ophelia and her baby), dil'd, Baker, what we are, Conceit, father.
CLAUDIUS.
How do *ye*, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon *her Father*.
why no one saves the slow drowning Ophelia?
"Ye" doesn't mean that! It simply means "thee".
Shakespeare hated Ovid. Elizabeth liked it, but the legend was around in the 16th Century cause that is what Elizabeth means. Ophelia is a fictional character. She drowns because Katherine Hamelet drowned. I know for a fact she thought she had killed Anna Whately, William's first wife as she was jealous of her. She drowned herself because she couldn't take the guilt.
You seem to get wrapped up in the story too much Jim F. Take a step back from it and you will see the truth.
Baker "simply means" one who makes bread?
This simplifies Shakespeare. It's from Hosea 7:4.
They are all *adulterers*, and as a very ouen heated by ye [the]
*baker*, which ceaseth from raysing vp, and from kneading ye dough
vntill it be leauened.
Ophelia and Claudius are both adulterers.
You miss the question. Why they don't _save_ the slow drowning Ophelia?
In what case people won't support a drowning person?
Jim you are missing what I said about the play. Tiss not a play but real history. What we are seeing is Elizabeth's words to her brother the King. If you go back to the story of Thomas Seymour, then rumours went around that he made Elizabeth pregnant. The King would have known this and that's is what you are picking up on.
But the Baker and the Owl story must have been around in the 16th Century as it is used in the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother.
Personally I can't see anyone inventing a religious tale as late as you say it was. Unless you can show that the person who first wrote it was placed in prison or executed for writing religious material that would actually show Jesus in a bad light. For if you read most of the new testament it's not about punishing "sinners" especially when it comes to Jesus and certainly not about turning people into owls, well in the context of Jesus anyway.
Therefore like many things connected with words, especially Shakespeare's his plays and writings become the first time they are recorded. Otherwise you come up with the implausible action that Shakespeare himself invented many thousands of words. But if you think about that then somebody going to see one of his plays wouldn't understand much of the play at all, if Shakespeare invented hundreds of words during the play.
The OED has the same problem back dating phrases and words, finding out when they first came into use. They even made a TV show about it. Some of the words they had only dated back to say the 80's. But with the help of the public they dated back them to the 1920's etc!

They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
Jim F.
2016-04-11 15:25:27 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 8:06:49 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
But the Baker and the Owl story must have been around in the 16th Century as it is used in the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother.
...

Graham, can you show us "the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother"
about the Baker and the Owl story?
marco
2016-04-11 17:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
But the Baker and the Owl story must have been around in the 16th Century as it is used in the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother.
...
Graham, can you show us "the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother"
about the Baker and the Owl story?
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-11 23:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
But the Baker and the Owl story must have been around in the 16th Century as it is used in the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother.
...
Graham, can you show us "the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother"
about the Baker and the Owl story?
.
I thought I had when I did this...

"Hamlet was Elizabeth at one point and is later in the play, but now that a female character is there, Shakespeare could switch Elizabeth to being Ophelia. The "King" Claudius in this part of the play his actually her brother King Edward.
But Edward is not the character that we have seen in the Prince and the Pauper films. He's crude and nasty, with a mouth like an old sailor! He also likes to gamble. Historians have spotted that he did not acknowledge Elizabeth as an actually daughter of Henry VIII, for he makes it clear in his own will. She is not named as his heir. If they can see it so can Edward and as any red-blooded male would fancy Elizabeth, he is no exception. He was very young, but young lads back then were not the sloppy idiots of modern times.
So when he asks Elizabeth in those terms how she is, he is saying he fancies her! Now of course Elizabeth does see him as her true brother and is disgusted by this. But at this point she's more inflamed by what he has said to her. She does not see herself as even "pretty". Remember when I told you that NOBODY could convince her how beautiful she was! Well her reply to Edward is just about that. Pointing out to him that God lied to Edward. She then mentions the story that Jesus went into a baker's shop and the baker gave him a loaf, but his daughter scolded him and she was turned into an owl. Implying that was a lie too. Her next line is still in response to the "pretty" reference of Edward. Again implying that she "knows" she's not pretty. But questions if the King knows the truth?
So Elizabeth starts singing to him. In the "To be" speech she has decided to go along appearing daft as a brush, so singing goes along with this idea. The King thinks she's nuts, and tells someone to keep an eye on Elizabeth."

It's all about lies. The Owl and the Baker also being considered a lie, by Elizabeth.
If the play used Ovid as the source then Ovid would have known the Owl and the Baker story, if Ovid used the word "Baker". But the quote you should me from Ovid showed no Baker reference.
You are not thinking in terms of the baker thing and "bun in the oven"? Because that is very modern in origin.

I should point out that Edward and Mary Tudor crop clearly in other parts of the plays of Shakespeare. So does Thomas Seymour. He get's so mad at Elizabeth he says to her "the devil dam thee black thy cream faced loon".(1) Modern historians have barely scratched the surface of the story of Seymour and Elizabeth. They attach a lot of significance to a dress incident. But that is minor compared with what the story that comes out of the Shakespeare plays. Elizabeth had hardly anyone she could trust as most of Hamlet reveals. Even the character correctly identified as William Cecil in this play shows he's not friendly to her. For when Hamlet speaks to him, he's actually in the role of Elizabeth. This shows that at that time he was an "establishment" man and not a friend or supporter of Princess Elizabeth, regardless of her religion.

(1) black - bad deeds - cream faced - pale white colour of Elizabeth face.
The white skin effect of Elizabeth, was either down to heavy period bleeds, or some kind of blood disorder. But maybe purely natural. I do know a young woman who had the same white skin effect. And asking her why, if there was any medical reason, she said no.

Even though it doesn't resemble Elizabeth, as it was sent as a joke to Edward, this picture reminds of this line in the play - Enter Hamlet reading a book...
Loading Image...
Jim F.
2016-04-12 02:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Graham, can you show us "the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother"
about the Baker and the Owl story?
I thought I had when I did this...
...

The use of "baker's daughter" fits well the dialogue.
It can't be a baker's wife or smith's daughter.
Polonius works like a baker to seduce his daughter Ophelia.
This is the reason Polonius must die in the play.

Ophelia comes to Hamlet for her pregnancy, but Hamlet knows
he isn't the baby's father, which is the purpose of that
masturbating scene ("a little shaking of mine Arm"), and
that "to be, or not to be" scene about the illegitimate.

We can discuss this later when you find the "Elizabeth's reply
to her brother" about the baker and owl.

Watching someone drowning without any help is odd. Odder than this
is when Laertes "Leaps in the grave" of Ophelia, and Hamlet follows,
and the two fight above her coffin. Do you know why?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-12 11:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Graham, can you show us "the context of Elizabeth's reply to her brother"
about the Baker and the Owl story?
I thought I had when I did this...
...
The use of "baker's daughter" fits well the dialogue.
It can't be a baker's wife or smith's daughter.
Polonius works like a baker to seduce his daughter Ophelia.
This is the reason Polonius must die in the play.
Ophelia comes to Hamlet for her pregnancy, but Hamlet knows
he isn't the baby's father, which is the purpose of that
masturbating scene ("a little shaking of mine Arm"), and
that "to be, or not to be" scene about the illegitimate.
We can discuss this later when you find the "Elizabeth's reply
to her brother" about the baker and owl.
Watching someone drowning without any help is odd. Odder than this
is when Laertes "Leaps in the grave" of Ophelia, and Hamlet follows,
and the two fight above her coffin. Do you know why?
Do you have some kind of attention span problem Jim? Because you just ignore what I am telling you and invent what you think is happening in the play.

I repeat what you are seeing in this play is the REAL dialogue between Princess Elizabeth and her brother King Edward and other members of the court, just shortly after the death of Henry VIII. In fact the ghost is Henry VIII!
Shakespeare sometimes switches the gender of the people involved and the characters to fit the context of the words of the people unfolding in this drama. So for example when Hamlet talks to Ophelia, because Ophelia is female, her words become that of Elizabeth. And Hamlet's that of Thomas Seymour.
But at times Hamlet himself becomes Elizabeth talking with whoever the other character is supposed to be in the real life version of Elizabeth's life.
It might help if I show some of the cast list converted to who they are in real life.
Claudius - King Edward - Liz's brother.
Hamlet - Elizabeth - when not talking to Ophelia and Thomas Seymour when he is.
Horatio - Robert Dudley
Polonius - William Cecil
Gertrude - Katherine Parr - 6th wife of Henry
Ghost - King Henry VIII
Ophelia - Princess Elizabeth.

All the others would be members of the court at the time. WARNING later episodes from Elizabeth's life might be contained in the play, but nothing after 1589 when the play dates to.

Therefore when Claudius is addressing Ophelia - IT IS KING EDWARD talking to PRINCESS ELIZABETH.

Hamlet is not some play about Denmark. It's about the youth of Queen Elizabeth.

The "Two Be or Not to Be" speech is about the fact that Thomas Seymour and Katherine Parr, who couldn't give a SOD about Henry VIII, because as you can imagine Elizabeth does care about her father and reacts badly to it. Convince each other that she has gone Loony. Elizabeth finds this out and then has the two options of fighting against them, plus the establishment of the Court. Or play along and feign madness. She chooses to play along. The crudeness of Hamlet's speech to Ophelia is that Seymour is a vile man who doesn't give a shit about if he's married to a Queen or a King's daughter. He makes it quite clear that this virgin should be taken somewhere and sexually assaulted to rid of the madness caused by what he sees as her virginity. Of he doesn't get away with doing that.
The whole plot is further complicated by the fact that Elizabeth was extremely beautiful, but NOBODY could convince her of this fact. So when Edward says she is "pretty" she calls him a liar! And then cites the Baker and Owl story as being another lie. Saying "pretty" to Elizabeth was like showing a red flag to a bull. She comments later in a documented tale about her beauty when she's older. Saying she had that "reputation" earlier in her life, but not now.

The drowning story is based on Katherine Hamlet. Who drowned. She is remembered in this play. Because she did die - so does Ophelia. There is no stopping it. It's a tragedy - fate makes certain people die. The play does the same.
Jim F.
2016-04-12 13:03:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 7:26:38 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Watching someone drowning without any help is odd. Odder than this
is when Laertes "Leaps in the grave" of Ophelia, and Hamlet follows,
and the two fight above her coffin. Do you know why?
Do you have some kind of attention span problem Jim? Because you just ignore what I am telling you and invent what you think is happening in the play.
...

My "attention span" will converge at the end. If you've such patience,
you'll see how "cursed be he that moves my bones" can be linked with
"the Owl was a Baker's daughter."

So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
marco
2016-04-12 17:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Watching someone drowning without any help is odd. Odder than this
is when Laertes "Leaps in the grave" of Ophelia, and Hamlet follows,
and the two fight above her coffin. Do you know why?
Do you have some kind of attention span problem Jim? Because you just ignore what I am telling you and invent what you think is happening in the play.
...
My "attention span" will converge at the end. If you've such patience,
you'll see how "cursed be he that moves my bones" can be linked with
"the Owl was a Baker's daughter."
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-12 18:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
Yes because Shakespeare was always getting into fights. When Katherine Hamlet drowned, she too was buried in none consecrated ground, because suicide was implied. Just like Ophelia. So when Shakespeare went to the funeral, members of her family would blame him and so somebody either her brother, or somebody she had rejected for the false love of Shakespeare, had a bone to pick with Shakespeare and he fought him!
Shortly before this play was written the actor Tarleton had died, hence to the reference to a jestor and Skull. Queen Elizabeth was watching this play and the Actor playing the part makes reference to the "Royal box" and tells her to paint white lead on this skull. Just like Elizabeth was fond of doing to her own face.
The story that Shakespeare was a school master in the country can also be linked with this. For the chap who told it was either pulling the bloke's leg, he told it to, or a bit dooally. The real story is that he beat up a school master in the country.

And if you think the grave stone inscription is anything to do with Hamlet then you might be a bit dooally too.
Jim F.
2016-04-13 01:40:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 2:43:46 AM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
Yes because Shakespeare was always getting into fights. When Katherine Hamlet
...

Graham, you miss the question.
Why the fight is in the grave?
Why above the coffin?
marco
2016-04-13 02:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
Yes because Shakespeare was always getting into fights. When Katherine Hamlet
...
Graham, you miss the question.
Why the fight is in the grave?
Why above the coffin?
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-13 10:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
Yes because Shakespeare was always getting into fights. When Katherine Hamlet
...
Graham, you miss the question.
Why the fight is in the grave?
Why above the coffin?
I didn't, you appear to be not grasping what I'm saying, when it comes to reading my posts. Katherine Hamlet was buried and Shakespeare fought with someone over her death.
Fights do happen at funerals, sometimes on top of the body itself. Is that clear enough! It's a case of drama imitating real life.
marco
2016-04-13 15:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
Yes because Shakespeare was always getting into fights. When Katherine Hamlet
...
Graham, you miss the question.
Why the fight is in the grave?
Why above the coffin?
I didn't, you appear to be not grasping what I'm saying, when it comes to reading my posts. Katherine Hamlet was buried and Shakespeare fought with someone over her death.
Fights do happen at funerals, sometimes on top of the body itself. Is that clear enough! It's a case of drama imitating real life.
.
poor tom
2016-04-13 21:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
So, do you know why Shakespeare arranged a fight above Ophelia's coffin?
Yes because Shakespeare was always getting into fights. When Katherine Hamlet
...
Graham, you miss the question.
Why the fight is in the grave?
Why above the coffin?
I didn't, you appear to be not grasping what I'm saying, when it comes to reading my posts. Katherine Hamlet was buried and Shakespeare fought with someone over her death.
Fights do happen at funerals, sometimes on top of the body itself. Is that clear enough! It's a case of drama imitating real life.
-----------------------------------------------------------


it was mad Laertes who leapt into the grave, not Hamlet:


---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim F.
2016-04-14 01:41:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 5:48:28 AM UTC+8, poor tom wrote:
...
Compare the three editions can see the author's intention.

1603
LEARTES.
Forbeare the earth a while: sister farewell:
[Leartes leapes into the graue.]
Now powre your earth on, _Olympus_ hie,
And make a hill to o're top olde Pellon:
[Hamlet leapes in after Leartes]
Whats he that coniures so?

HAMLET.
Beholde tis I, _Hamlet_ the Dane.

LEARTES.
The diuell take thy soule.

1604
LEARTES.
O treble woe
Fall tenne times double on that cursed head,
Whose wicked deede thy most ingenious sence
Depriued thee of, hold off the earth a while,
Till I haue caught her once more in mine armes;
Now pile your dust vpon the quicke and dead,
Till of this flat a mountaine you haue made
To'retop old _Pelion_, or the skyesh head
Of blew _Olympus_.

HAMLET.
What is he whose griefe
Beares such an emphesis, whose phrase of sorrow
Coniures the wandring starres, and makes them stand
Like wonder wounded hearers: this is I
_Hamlet_ the Dane.

LEARTES.
The deuill take thy soule.

1623
LEARTES.
Oh terrible woer,
Fall ten times trebble, on that cursed head
Whose wicked deed, thy most Ingenious sence
Depriu'd thee of. Hold off the earth a while,
Till I haue caught her once more in mine armes:
[Leaps in the graue.]
Now pile your dust, vpon the quicke, and dead,
Till of this flat a Mountaine you haue made,
To o're top old _Pelion_, or the skyish head
Of blew _Olympus_.

HAMLET.
What is he, whose griefes
Beares such an Emphasis? whose phrase of Sorrow
Coniure the wandring Starres, and makes them stand
Like wonder-wounded hearers? This is I,
_Hamlet_ the Dane.

LEARTES.
The deuill take thy soule.


1603: "Leartes leapes into the graue." ...
"Hamlet leapes in after Leartes."
1604: No stage direction.
1623: "Leaps in the graue."

The time they come out of the grave is not specified.
In any case, what can be the purpose for "Leaps in the grave"?
Jim F.
2016-04-16 04:37:42 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Fights do happen at funerals, sometimes on top of the body itself. Is that clear enough! It's a case of drama imitating real life.
...

Two men leap into a grave to fight is uncommon.
I didn't see a movie let Hamlet leap in the grave after Laertes.

Most modern editions follow 1603 quarto.
Cambridge says Laertes climb out first to fight with Hamlet.

Coffin appears in 1603 and 1623, but 1604 has only "the corse."
Some movies follow 1604, which is odd.

1603: [Enter King and Queene, Leartes, and other lordes, with a Priest after the coffin.]
1604: [Enter K. Q. Laertes and the corse.]
1623: [Enter King, Queen, Laertes, and a Coffin, with Lords attendant.]

Purpose of the fight is to break the ceremony,
so that Ophelia won't be buried by "the earth" alive.

LAERTES.
Lay her in the earth, ...
Hold off the earth a while,

Trace back the word "earth" we can see another hint.

HAMLET.
Alexander died:
Alexander was buried:
Alexander returns into dust; the dust is earth;

Laertes won't blame Gertrude for not saving Ophelia, because
he knew Gertrude's "Drowned, drowned" means "purified, drunk."
Ophelia's sin is purified, and drunk as dead to cheat the public.

Hamlet appears at the right time and place isn't coincidence.
Together they save Ophelia and her baby, which follows Hamlet's
"to the nunnery" plan.

The trick can be affirmed by comparing the lines of 1603 and 1623; e.g.
"maids" is added to support "they bore her up";
"to death" is replaced by "to muddy death."
Muddy death is a faked death here.
Jim F.
2016-04-20 16:15:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 2:43:46 AM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
And if you think the grave stone inscription is anything to do with Hamlet then you might be a bit dooally too.
I trace words. A hint:

Demosthenes: "O potent Guardian of the City, Athena, how, pray,
canst thou take delight in those three most intractable beasts,
the owl, the serpent, and the people?" (Plutarch's Lives)
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-20 17:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
And if you think the grave stone inscription is anything to do with Hamlet then you might be a bit dooally too.
Demosthenes: "O potent Guardian of the City, Athena, how, pray,
canst thou take delight in those three most intractable beasts,
the owl, the serpent, and the people?" (Plutarch's Lives)
In the Appleyard coat of Arms are three owls. Am I supposed to read into that that the Soul of William Shakespeare chose the name Appleyard to born into, just because of your obsession with owls?
Jim F.
2016-04-21 13:32:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 1:17:58 AM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
In the Appleyard coat of Arms are three owls. Am I supposed to read into that that the Soul of William Shakespeare chose the name Appleyard to born into, just because of your obsession with owls?
Switching focus? I told you my "attention span" will converge.
After the owl, what means "we know what we are"?

CLAUDIUS.
How do ye, pretty Lady?

OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, *we know what we are*, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.

CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon her Father.

A hint, Ophelia is talking to Claudius; "we" means Ophelia and Claudius.
"God be at your Table to judge you," not to ask for bread, which won't
fit to this dialogue.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-22 01:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
In the Appleyard coat of Arms are three owls. Am I supposed to read into that that the Soul of William Shakespeare chose the name Appleyard to born into, just because of your obsession with owls?
Switching focus? I told you my "attention span" will converge.
After the owl, what means "we know what we are"?
CLAUDIUS.
How do ye, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, *we know what we are*, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon her Father.
A hint, Ophelia is talking to Claudius; "we" means Ophelia and Claudius.
"God be at your Table to judge you," not to ask for bread, which won't
fit to this dialogue.
Hint Queen Elizabeth and the ROYAL "WE"
She uses it a lot!
Jim F.
2016-04-22 03:56:54 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Switching focus? I told you my "attention span" will converge.
After the owl, what means "we know what we are"?
CLAUDIUS.
How do ye, pretty Lady?
OPHELIA.
Well, God dil'd you.
They say the Owl was a Baker's daughter.
Lord, *we know what we are*, but know not what we may be.
God be at your Table.
CLAUDIUS.
Conceit upon her Father.
A hint, Ophelia is talking to Claudius; "we" means Ophelia and Claudius.
"God be at your Table to judge you," not to ask for bread, which won't
fit to this dialogue.
Hint Queen Elizabeth and the ROYAL "WE"
She uses it a lot!
The Ghost calls Claudius a beast with witchcraft and traitorous gifts.

GHOST.
I that incestuous, that adulterate *Beast*
With *witchcraft* of his wits, hath Traitorous gifts.
Oh wicked Wit, and Gifts, that have the power
So to *seduce*? Won to this shameful Lust
The will of my most seeming virtuous Queen:

Claudius is a wizard with the power to seduce, like the Serpent in Eden.

GHOST.
It's given out, that sleeping in mine *Orchard*,
A *Serpent* stung me:

Ophelia is the Owl, Claudius the Serpent.
They know what they are doing, but don't know the result yet.

Then the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not die at all, (GEN 3:4)
Jim F.
2016-04-24 04:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Claudius is a wizard with the power to seduce, like the Serpent in Eden.
GHOST.
It's given out, that sleeping in mine *Orchard*,
Ophelia is the Owl, Claudius the Serpent.
They know what they are doing, but don't know the result yet.
Then the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not die at all, (GEN 3:4)
Lucianus and Claudius

Claudius as a wizard can help some reading, e.g. the Mousetrap scene.
The scene has three interesting names, Gonzago, Baptista, and Lucianus.

Lucianus can be a perfect anagram of Claudius except letter d.
Lucianus equals to Lucian-us. Lucian is a witty scoffer (OED).
The Mousetrap scoffs the audience, somehow both on and off the stage.

Missing one letter is often used by Wilton House poets, first appeared in
Philip Sidney's "Philisides, a Shepherd good and true."
Philisides can spell Philip Sidney except letter n. The missing letter
can be found in nearby text.

Baptista equals to a-baptist, one who baptizes. The Queen is a
baptist for Ophelia, a hint that Ophelia isn't truly dead but being
purified and saved. This is Gertrude's first "drowned."
Jim F.
2016-04-26 02:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Dumb Show in Mousetrap

Enter a King and Queen, very lovingly; the Queen embracing him.
...
The Poisoner Woos the Queen with *Gifts*,
she seems loath and unwilling awhile, but in the end, accepts his love.

"Woos the Queen with Gifts" and wins her love is less persuasive here,
unless that Gifts have such irresistible power to let the Queen marry
again "within a month."

Gift can be a natural endowment, faculty, ability, or talent (OED).
Claudius has such Gifts, the power to seduce as the serpent of Eden:

GHOST.
I that incestuous, that adulterate Beast [Claudius]
With witchcraft of his wits, hath Traitorous *gifts*.
Oh wicked Wit, and *Gifts*, that have the power
So to seduce?

The word "Gifts" is repeated as a hint.
marco
2016-04-26 03:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Dumb Show in Mousetrap
Enter a King and Queen, very lovingly; the Queen embracing him.
...
The Poisoner Woos the Queen with *Gifts*,
she seems loath and unwilling awhile, but in the end, accepts his love.
"Woos the Queen with Gifts" and wins her love is less persuasive here,
unless that Gifts have such irresistible power to let the Queen marry
again "within a month."
Gift can be a natural endowment, faculty, ability, or talent (OED).
GHOST.
I that incestuous, that adulterate Beast [Claudius]
With witchcraft of his wits, hath Traitorous *gifts*.
Oh wicked Wit, and *Gifts*, that have the power
So to seduce?
The word "Gifts" is repeated as a hint.
.
Jim F.
2016-04-18 04:16:04 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 8:06:49 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
...

Shakespeare is greater than you think. Ophelia can live as it does in life.

Living Monument

Two men fighting on Ophelia's coffin is an odd scene. The director
should let the drunk as drowned Ophelia be waken a little, and
knock the coffin after the leaving of Claudius.

CLAUDIUS.
Good _Gertrude_ set some watch over your Son,
This Grave shall have a living Monument:
An hour of quiet shortly shall we see;
Till then, in patience our proceeding be. [Exeunt.]

These lines tell readers that Ophelia is still alive in the grave.
The grave shall have a monument for the "living" of Ophelia, that
she can start a new life shortly.

The ambiguity of "living monument" provides the hint for readers.
It doesn't mean Claudius has participated the set-up.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-18 11:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
...
Shakespeare is greater than you think. Ophelia can live as it does in life.
Living Monument
Two men fighting on Ophelia's coffin is an odd scene. The director
should let the drunk as drowned Ophelia be waken a little, and
knock the coffin after the leaving of Claudius.
CLAUDIUS.
Good _Gertrude_ set some watch over your Son,
An hour of quiet shortly shall we see;
Till then, in patience our proceeding be. [Exeunt.]
These lines tell readers that Ophelia is still alive in the grave.
The grave shall have a monument for the "living" of Ophelia, that
she can start a new life shortly.
The ambiguity of "living monument" provides the hint for readers.
It doesn't mean Claudius has participated the set-up.
Oh what a tangled web we have woven on what is a play. What you have spotted is what would be called in the movie trade today is an outtake. This is a play. Shakespeare as good as he was couldn't get a dead women to play the body in the grave. So what happened is the "woman" playing the dead body either moved or made a noise. The actor playing the part of the King, has detected this, perhaps because the audience might have also noticed it! Thus reacts to this in the form of add-lib lines appropriate to the situation. Hence the "living" reference.
It's very difficult to spot these errors, since clearly they would have been left out in modern setting. But Shakespeare plays are not "modern" productions and if it gets a laugh - even in a tragedy - it's added!
You can bet there are more lines such as this in other plays.
Jim F.
2016-04-19 03:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
...
Shakespeare is greater than you think. Ophelia can live as it does in life.
Living Monument
Two men fighting on Ophelia's coffin is an odd scene. The director
should let the drunk as drowned Ophelia be waken a little, and
knock the coffin after the leaving of Claudius.
CLAUDIUS.
Good _Gertrude_ set some watch over your Son,
An hour of quiet shortly shall we see;
Till then, in patience our proceeding be. [Exeunt.]
These lines tell readers that Ophelia is still alive in the grave.
The grave shall have a monument for the "living" of Ophelia, that
she can start a new life shortly.
The ambiguity of "living monument" provides the hint for readers.
It doesn't mean Claudius has participated the set-up.
Oh what a tangled web we have woven on what is a play. What you have spotted is what would be called in the movie trade today is an outtake. This is a play. Shakespeare as good as he was couldn't get a dead women to play the body in the grave. So what happened is the "woman" playing the dead body either moved or made a noise. The actor playing the part of the King, has detected this, perhaps because the audience might have also noticed it! Thus reacts to this in the form of add-lib lines appropriate to the situation. Hence the "living" reference.
It's very difficult to spot these errors, since clearly they would have been left out in modern setting. But Shakespeare plays are not "modern" productions and if it gets a laugh - even in a tragedy - it's added!
You can bet there are more lines such as this in other plays.
There is no "woman playing the dead body" but a coffin on the stage.
Check the stage direction:
"Enter King, Queen, Laertes, and a Coffin, with Lords attendant."

I'm talking about a _Hamlet_ movie (or comic book) to show the hidden stories
that can't be performed on the stage, e.g. the masturbation scene.

"He comes before me."

OPHELIA.
My Lord, as I was sowing in my Chamber, //[1]
Lord _Hamlet_ with his doublet all unbraced, //aroused by her
No hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, //wet (without hat)
Ungartered, and down gyved to his Ankle, //lower half naked
Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other, //holding
And with a look so piteous in purport, //pleading
As if he had been loosed out of hell, //another hidden story
To speak of horrors: he *comes* before me. //climaxes

[1] sow: to thrill or tingle with pain or exertion (OED v2, 2).
[1] chamber: a hollow space, cavity.

The masturbation scene purposes to deteriorate Ophelia's innocence.
She details that to Polonius provides the clue for their incest.

Is this masturbation scene "wrapped up" too much,
or being misread by the world for 400 years?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-19 12:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
...
Shakespeare is greater than you think. Ophelia can live as it does in life.
Living Monument
Two men fighting on Ophelia's coffin is an odd scene. The director
should let the drunk as drowned Ophelia be waken a little, and
knock the coffin after the leaving of Claudius.
CLAUDIUS.
Good _Gertrude_ set some watch over your Son,
An hour of quiet shortly shall we see;
Till then, in patience our proceeding be. [Exeunt.]
These lines tell readers that Ophelia is still alive in the grave.
The grave shall have a monument for the "living" of Ophelia, that
she can start a new life shortly.
The ambiguity of "living monument" provides the hint for readers.
It doesn't mean Claudius has participated the set-up.
Oh what a tangled web we have woven on what is a play. What you have spotted is what would be called in the movie trade today is an outtake. This is a play. Shakespeare as good as he was couldn't get a dead women to play the body in the grave. So what happened is the "woman" playing the dead body either moved or made a noise. The actor playing the part of the King, has detected this, perhaps because the audience might have also noticed it! Thus reacts to this in the form of add-lib lines appropriate to the situation. Hence the "living" reference.
It's very difficult to spot these errors, since clearly they would have been left out in modern setting. But Shakespeare plays are not "modern" productions and if it gets a laugh - even in a tragedy - it's added!
You can bet there are more lines such as this in other plays.
There is no "woman playing the dead body" but a coffin on the stage.
"Enter King, Queen, Laertes, and a Coffin, with Lords attendant."
I'm talking about a _Hamlet_ movie (or comic book) to show the hidden stories
that can't be performed on the stage, e.g. the masturbation scene.
"He comes before me."
OPHELIA.
My Lord, as I was sowing in my Chamber, //[1]
Lord _Hamlet_ with his doublet all unbraced, //aroused by her
No hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, //wet (without hat)
Ungartered, and down gyved to his Ankle, //lower half naked
Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other, //holding
And with a look so piteous in purport, //pleading
As if he had been loosed out of hell, //another hidden story
To speak of horrors: he *comes* before me. //climaxes
[1] sow: to thrill or tingle with pain or exertion (OED v2, 2).
[1] chamber: a hollow space, cavity.
The masturbation scene purposes to deteriorate Ophelia's innocence.
She details that to Polonius provides the clue for their incest.
Is this masturbation scene "wrapped up" too much,
or being misread by the world for 400 years?
The stage direction doesn't say there is not a body inside the coffin, because it's self explanatory there was!

As for the last piece I think you should read history a bit more.
Such as this from Wikipedia
"Upon their marriage, Thomas moved into his wife's house, at Chelsea Manor in London, where she lived with her step-daughter, the 14-year-old Elizabeth.[8] Thomas was the uncle of Elizabeth's half-brother, and the newly wed husband of her step-mother, and their family roles regarding each other, were, perhaps, unclear. Now, living under the same roof as Elizabeth, Thomas became more than a little familiar, if not intimate, with Elizabeth, indulging in daily romps with her, tickling her, and slapping her on her behind as she lay in her bed, or coming into her room in his nightclothes."

Ophelia - Elizabeth
Hamlet - Thomas Seymour
I don't think that's too difficult to grasp!
marco
2016-04-19 17:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
They don't save her because like I said she has to die. It's a Tragedy, the context being that fate plays a role in the play as it does in life.
...
Shakespeare is greater than you think. Ophelia can live as it does in life.
Living Monument
Two men fighting on Ophelia's coffin is an odd scene. The director
should let the drunk as drowned Ophelia be waken a little, and
knock the coffin after the leaving of Claudius.
CLAUDIUS.
Good _Gertrude_ set some watch over your Son,
An hour of quiet shortly shall we see;
Till then, in patience our proceeding be. [Exeunt.]
These lines tell readers that Ophelia is still alive in the grave.
The grave shall have a monument for the "living" of Ophelia, that
she can start a new life shortly.
The ambiguity of "living monument" provides the hint for readers.
It doesn't mean Claudius has participated the set-up.
Oh what a tangled web we have woven on what is a play. What you have spotted is what would be called in the movie trade today is an outtake. This is a play. Shakespeare as good as he was couldn't get a dead women to play the body in the grave. So what happened is the "woman" playing the dead body either moved or made a noise. The actor playing the part of the King, has detected this, perhaps because the audience might have also noticed it! Thus reacts to this in the form of add-lib lines appropriate to the situation. Hence the "living" reference.
It's very difficult to spot these errors, since clearly they would have been left out in modern setting. But Shakespeare plays are not "modern" productions and if it gets a laugh - even in a tragedy - it's added!
You can bet there are more lines such as this in other plays.
There is no "woman playing the dead body" but a coffin on the stage.
"Enter King, Queen, Laertes, and a Coffin, with Lords attendant."
I'm talking about a _Hamlet_ movie (or comic book) to show the hidden stories
that can't be performed on the stage, e.g. the masturbation scene.
"He comes before me."
OPHELIA.
My Lord, as I was sowing in my Chamber, //[1]
Lord _Hamlet_ with his doublet all unbraced, //aroused by her
No hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, //wet (without hat)
Ungartered, and down gyved to his Ankle, //lower half naked
Pale as his shirt, his knees knocking each other, //holding
And with a look so piteous in purport, //pleading
As if he had been loosed out of hell, //another hidden story
To speak of horrors: he *comes* before me. //climaxes
[1] sow: to thrill or tingle with pain or exertion (OED v2, 2).
[1] chamber: a hollow space, cavity.
The masturbation scene purposes to deteriorate Ophelia's innocence.
She details that to Polonius provides the clue for their incest.
Is this masturbation scene "wrapped up" too much,
or being misread by the world for 400 years?
The stage direction doesn't say there is not a body inside the coffin, because it's self explanatory there was!
As for the last piece I think you should read history a bit more.
Such as this from Wikipedia
"Upon their marriage, Thomas moved into his wife's house, at Chelsea Manor in London, where she lived with her step-daughter, the 14-year-old Elizabeth.[8] Thomas was the uncle of Elizabeth's half-brother, and the newly wed husband of her step-mother, and their family roles regarding each other, were, perhaps, unclear. Now, living under the same roof as Elizabeth, Thomas became more than a little familiar, if not intimate, with Elizabeth, indulging in daily romps with her, tickling her, and slapping her on her behind as she lay in her bed, or coming into her room in his nightclothes."
Ophelia - Elizabeth
Hamlet - Thomas Seymour
I don't think that's too difficult to grasp!
?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-04-12 18:53:00 UTC
Permalink
The obsession with death and winding sheets in many Shakespeare plays is entirely down to Queen Elizabeth. She of course had plenty of reasons for fearing death. Since there were plots and plans to kill her and she has some lucky escapes. If you read some of her written works she does mention winding sheets a lot!

The fact that the plays are about her mostly, will incorporate her fears of course.
u***@hotmail.es
2016-04-26 20:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Whitgift
Jim F.
2016-04-29 01:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Our Trick

LAERTES.
Alas then, is she drowned?

GERTRUDE.
Drowned, drowned.

LAERTES.
Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia,
And therefore I forbid my tears: but yet
*It is our trick*, ...

In Mousetrap, Baptista (=a-baptist) refers to Gertrude for she plays
the baptist for Ophelia. Gertrude's first "Drowned" means purified.

Gonzago equals to gon-o'zag (gone-of-sag). Sag is the action of sagging;
to sag is to decline to a lower level, through lack of strength or effort (OED).

Gertrude's second "drowned" means dead drunk.
Ophelia is drunk and lack of strength or effort in the coffin.
She will be gone to the nunnery to give birth, and declined to a lower level.
If their trick works, Hamlet could see her child playing.

Puppet's Dallying

HAMLET.
_Gonzago_ is the Duke's name, his wife _Baptista_: ...
This is one _Lucianus_, nephew to the King.

OPHELIA.
You are a good Chorus, my Lord. [1]

HAMLET.
I could interpret between you and your love: [2]
if I could see the Puppet's dallying. [3]

OPHELIA.
You are keen, my Lord, you are keen. [4]

HAMLET.
It would cost you a groaning, to take off my edge. [5]

OPHELIA.
Still better and worse. [6]

HAMLET.
So you mistake Husbands. [7]

[1] Chorus: "in the Attic tragedy, the chorus were interested spectators,
sympathizing with the fortunes of the characters" (OED 1a).
"a single personage, who speaks the prologue, and explains or comments
upon the course of events" (OED 1c).
[2] interpret: to tell Ophelia's fortunes via Baptista and Gonzago.
[2] your love: Ophelia's child.
[3] Puppet: the child.
[3] dallying: slow moving, playing.

[4] keen: wise, learned, clever; causing acute pain or deep distress (OED).
[5] groan: to suffer;
to be oppressed or overburdened to the point of groaning (OED 4).
[6] better and worse: (for Ophelia and her child) better to be alive and
worse to live in the dark, after her faked death.
[7] mistake Husbands: Ophelia's "better and worse" is caused by her mistake
in selecting Polonius as her husband.
After her pregnancy, she asks Hamlet to be her mistaking husband.
Jim F.
2016-05-02 15:55:21 UTC
Permalink
In the Mousetrap, the dumb show replays how Claudius murdered his brother.
It would be too obvious if Claudius rises immediately.

The timing of Claudius' rising makes the audience wonder, but Hamlet gets
his answer. Hamlet has no doubt that Claudius murdered old Hamlet. He is
not sure how Claudius won Gertrude's love ("false fire").

HAMLET.
His name is _Gonzago_: *the Story is extant* and
*writ in choice Italian*. You shall see anon
how the Murtherer gets the love of _Gonzago_'s wife.

OPHELIA.
The King rises.

HAMLET.
What, frighted with false fire.

The player (Lucianus) has no chance to detail the seducing scene.
(Author of _Hamlet_ arranged another scene to fulfill this part,
which completes the serpent riddle.)

"Extant" has the definition of existing so as to be publicly seen, found (OED).
"Italian" means italic letter here. In the First Folio, names are printed
in italic letters. The line says "the Story" can be found by checking the
choice of names.


Cadmus and Cain

_Hamlet_ is based on Saxo's _Gesta Danorum_, but names are changed,
from Amleth to Hamlet, Gurutha to Gertrude, and Feng to Claudius.

Amleth to Hamlet is a hint for the use of perfect anagram in the play;
Gurutha to Gertrude is for one-way anagram (missing ha in Hamlet);
Feng to Claudius (a Roman name) has a different reason.

Ophelia is the owl in _Metamorphoses_.
Claudius is the serpent of Eden.
Cadmus, king of Thebes, becomes a serpent in _Metamorphoses_.
Cadmus is a one-way anagram of Claudius (missing m in Denmark).

Lucianus is chosen for the same reason. The name contains
Cain (lu-CIAN-us), who murdered Abel his brother in Genesis.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-09 23:57:21 UTC
Permalink
I don't mind saying this but I have real problems with Timon of Athens having a strong connection to Shakespeare. I did watch a rather dull BBC version of it and I didn't see the connection with Shakespeare at all! Highly unusual for me not to see evidence, like I see with the other plays of his writing style and the use of Elizabeth's life story in them.

The only thing I feel certain about is that Shakespeare did a play about Timon, but it is not the one contained in the first folio! Someone seems to have mixed up another version with that of the Shakespeare original.
Jim F.
2016-05-10 04:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't mind saying this but I have real problems with Timon of Athens having a strong connection to Shakespeare. I did watch a rather dull BBC version of it and I didn't see the connection with Shakespeare at all! Highly unusual for me not to see evidence, like I see with the other plays of his writing style and the use of Elizabeth's life story in them.
The only thing I feel certain about is that Shakespeare did a play about Timon, but it is not the one contained in the first folio! Someone seems to have mixed up another version with that of the Shakespeare original.
You're right if we accept _William Shakespeare_ as the true author.
If we take _Shakespeare_ as the code name of Wilton House poets, then many
difficult lines and various styles of Shakespeare can be well reasoned.

_Timon_ was done mainly by Thomas Middleton, one of the Wilton poets.
You can find his name sealed in "Lord Timon of Athens" via one-way anagram,
and another in "a wretched Soul, Timon." In sonnet 129, Middleton did a rare
two-way anagram at the end as his signature, better by diagrams:
http://wordplay-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2016/05/shakespeare-sonnet-129.html

Shakespeare is great. I've analyzed over a thousand such anagrams,
not just a few.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-10 10:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
I don't mind saying this but I have real problems with Timon of Athens having a strong connection to Shakespeare. I did watch a rather dull BBC version of it and I didn't see the connection with Shakespeare at all! Highly unusual for me not to see evidence, like I see with the other plays of his writing style and the use of Elizabeth's life story in them.
The only thing I feel certain about is that Shakespeare did a play about Timon, but it is not the one contained in the first folio! Someone seems to have mixed up another version with that of the Shakespeare original.
You're right if we accept _William Shakespeare_ as the true author.
If we take _Shakespeare_ as the code name of Wilton House poets, then many
difficult lines and various styles of Shakespeare can be well reasoned.
_Timon_ was done mainly by Thomas Middleton, one of the Wilton poets.
You can find his name sealed in "Lord Timon of Athens" via one-way anagram,
and another in "a wretched Soul, Timon." In sonnet 129, Middleton did a rare
http://wordplay-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2016/05/shakespeare-sonnet-129.html
Shakespeare is great. I've analyzed over a thousand such anagrams,
not just a few.
Trust an Anti-Stratfordian to make something out of what I said for another person or group of them.
To prove that Middleton wrote that version of Timon you will have to compare it with works that carry Middleton's name only. Then find his motivation for writing what he does. I'm afraid I can't accept the Sonnets as they are two writer sonnets between William Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth. So if you have found any connection with anyone else, then your argument is flawed. And in the words of Shakespeare you are a "blinking idiot".
Nore do I think much of the Wilton House Poets idea. It seems like clutching at straws to me. Especially if it is in Arthur Nutcase style codes!!

129 is Elizabeth talking about how all the men would wank off to her. Plus how wasteful it all is.
Except the last two lines by William, who says true, but no-one is prepared to stop doing it!!
So I don't know how your anagrams stand up to that!!!

I will have to do a PDF file of the file I did showing who is writing what. I will put it on the blog when I have it sorted.
Jim F.
2016-05-10 11:36:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 6:22:58 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
129 is Elizabeth talking about how all the men would wank off to her. Plus how wasteful it all is.
Except the last two lines by William, who says true, but no-one is prepared to stop doing it!!
...

Graham,

Your weakness is to reason every word of a complete sonnet.
For sonnet 129 you've no chance but to follow my solution.

_Sonnets_ is the only non-fiction by Shakespeare. Solve all
154 sonnets can get the whole picture. Why don't you try to
reason one sonnet to every word in a new thread, e.g. sonnet 76
people talking about it now? Let's see what you can do.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-10 11:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
129 is Elizabeth talking about how all the men would wank off to her. Plus how wasteful it all is.
Except the last two lines by William, who says true, but no-one is prepared to stop doing it!!
...
Graham,
Your weakness is to reason every word of a complete sonnet.
For sonnet 129 you've no chance but to follow my solution.
_Sonnets_ is the only non-fiction by Shakespeare. Solve all
154 sonnets can get the whole picture. Why don't you try to
reason one sonnet to every word in a new thread, e.g. sonnet 76
people talking about it now? Let's see what you can do.
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
You can see the full explanation of the Sonnets here...
http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/chapter-1-real-shakespeare.html
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-10 12:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
129 is Elizabeth talking about how all the men would wank off to her. Plus how wasteful it all is.
Except the last two lines by William, who says true, but no-one is prepared to stop doing it!!
...
Graham,
Your weakness is to reason every word of a complete sonnet.
For sonnet 129 you've no chance but to follow my solution.
_Sonnets_ is the only non-fiction by Shakespeare. Solve all
154 sonnets can get the whole picture. Why don't you try to
reason one sonnet to every word in a new thread, e.g. sonnet 76
people talking about it now? Let's see what you can do.
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
You can see the full explanation of the Sonnets here...
http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/chapter-1-real-shakespeare.html
Have now added the PDF file at the bottom of the page containing all 154 Sonnets, showing who wrote what.
Jim F.
2016-05-11 11:48:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 7:52:38 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
poor tom
2016-05-11 12:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
---------------------------------

It may be that "sel" was meant to read "seal": seal my name ?

noted weed: NOT EDW(ard), DEE.

For Edward read Edward Kelly.

------------------------------------------
Jim F.
2016-05-12 00:24:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:37:35 PM UTC+8, poor tom wrote:
...
Post by poor tom
It may be that "sel" was meant to read "seal": seal my name ?
noted weed: NOT EDW(ard), DEE.
For Edward read Edward Kelly.
...

Tom, try to reason the whole sonnet, every word of it,
with your solution. You will see if you are right.
Start from the quatrain:

Why write I still all one, euer the same, [5]
And keepe inuention in a noted weed,
That euery word doth almost fel my name,
Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed

The original spelling is fel. Change if you like, if you
can reason that in the quatrain, and the sonnet later.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-11 17:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!

I have lots of problems making sense of the English, because Shakespeare did write in it. So when he sees the text, he's scratching his head! Thinking what's that?

Poor Tom you need to be OUTLAWED for that observation!
Ned Kelly indeed....

That line is what got those nutcase archaeologists going on about him smoking dope! Like I would EVER do that!
Marlowe had a go at me for not smoking and Not using boy actors for the female parts in the plays!
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-11 17:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!

I have lots of problems making sense of the modern English, because Shakespeare did not write in it. So when he sees the text, he's scratching his head! Thinking what's that?

Poor Tom you need to be OUTLAWED for that observation!
Ned Kelly indeed....

That line is what got those nutcase archaeologists going on about him smoking dope! Like I would EVER do that!
Marlowe had a go at me for not smoking and Not using boy actors for the female parts in the plays!
Jim F.
2016-05-11 23:55:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 1:02:33 AM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!
...

So you agree with scholars to change "fel" to tell, Graham?
If not, do you know how to fit "fel" into the whole sonnet 76?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-12 10:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!
...
So you agree with scholars to change "fel" to tell, Graham?
If not, do you know how to fit "fel" into the whole sonnet 76?
Yes I do! "f" becomes "s" and therefore the words sell her name. A flower seller selling Roses! Tudor ones at that. What's wrong with that?
Jim F.
2016-05-12 23:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!
...
So you agree with scholars to change "fel" to tell, Graham?
If not, do you know how to fit "fel" into the whole sonnet 76?
Yes I do! "f" becomes "s" and therefore the words sell her name. A flower seller selling Roses! Tudor ones at that. What's wrong with that?
Graham,

By using _tell_ the first time, you admitted you're "the uneducated" by
your own words. Changing to _sell_ you'll have problem to explain "invention"
and "their birth."

Why write I still all one, euer the same, [5]
And keepe inuention in a noted weed,
That euery word doth almost *fel* my name,
Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed

Actually _fel_ can be reasoned well, why you resist the original?
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-13 00:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!
...
So you agree with scholars to change "fel" to tell, Graham?
If not, do you know how to fit "fel" into the whole sonnet 76?
Yes I do! "f" becomes "s" and therefore the words sell her name. A flower seller selling Roses! Tudor ones at that. What's wrong with that?
Graham,
By using _tell_ the first time, you admitted you're "the uneducated" by
your own words. Changing to _sell_ you'll have problem to explain "invention"
and "their birth."
Why write I still all one, euer the same, [5]
And keepe inuention in a noted weed,
That euery word doth almost *fel* my name,
Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed
Actually _fel_ can be reasoned well, why you resist the original?
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.

Why would she say "Fell my name"?

The sonnets do not rhyme if you use RP too, they do if you use OP. That would change some of the words in the rhyme also, if they were spelled how they sounded. For example "invention" would look like this: invensien. And "noted" becomes notid.
Birth - becomes barf
Interestingly a "weede" can also be clothing, as well as a plant. Again pointing at the Queen.

A good example of the sonnets not working using the current spelling of them, is in Sonnet 53, which has this line: And you, but one, can every shadow lend.
But in OP it becomes: And you, but own, can every shadow lend.
Jim F.
2016-05-13 03:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!
...
So you agree with scholars to change "fel" to tell, Graham?
If not, do you know how to fit "fel" into the whole sonnet 76?
Yes I do! "f" becomes "s" and therefore the words sell her name. A flower seller selling Roses! Tudor ones at that. What's wrong with that?
Graham,
By using _tell_ the first time, you admitted you're "the uneducated" by
your own words. Changing to _sell_ you'll have problem to explain "invention"
and "their birth."
Why write I still all one, euer the same, [5]
And keepe inuention in a noted weed,
That euery word doth almost *fel* my name,
Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed
Actually _fel_ can be reasoned well, why you resist the original?
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
Why would she say "Fell my name"?
The sonnets do not rhyme if you use RP too, they do if you use OP. That would change some of the words in the rhyme also, if they were spelled how they sounded. For example "invention" would look like this: invensien. And "noted" becomes notid.
Birth - becomes barf
Interestingly a "weede" can also be clothing, as well as a plant. Again pointing at the Queen.
A good example of the sonnets not working using the current spelling of them, is in Sonnet 53, which has this line: And you, but one, can every shadow lend.
But in OP it becomes: And you, but own, can every shadow lend.
Graham,

Your statement,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
can you show us where you get it from?
marco
2016-05-13 13:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
76 is again by Elizabeth. It's her doing what she does best, putting herself down. The "noted weed" - Tudor rose!
Ever the Same - her Latin Motto.
Tell my name - Tudor - Rose! Buds, pricks and numerous others...
Graham,
"Tell my name" should be "fel my name."
You misread it.
The Alexander Text says "Tell My Name". Can't help it if thick scholars correct the words, for the benefit of the uneducated to read!!!
...
So you agree with scholars to change "fel" to tell, Graham?
If not, do you know how to fit "fel" into the whole sonnet 76?
Yes I do! "f" becomes "s" and therefore the words sell her name. A flower seller selling Roses! Tudor ones at that. What's wrong with that?
Graham,
By using _tell_ the first time, you admitted you're "the uneducated" by
your own words. Changing to _sell_ you'll have problem to explain "invention"
and "their birth."
Why write I still all one, euer the same, [5]
And keepe inuention in a noted weed,
That euery word doth almost *fel* my name,
Shewing their birth, and where they did proceed
Actually _fel_ can be reasoned well, why you resist the original?
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
Why would she say "Fell my name"?
The sonnets do not rhyme if you use RP too, they do if you use OP. That would change some of the words in the rhyme also, if they were spelled how they sounded. For example "invention" would look like this: invensien. And "noted" becomes notid.
Birth - becomes barf
Interestingly a "weede" can also be clothing, as well as a plant. Again pointing at the Queen.
A good example of the sonnets not working using the current spelling of them, is in Sonnet 53, which has this line: And you, but one, can every shadow lend.
But in OP it becomes: And you, but own, can every shadow lend.
Graham,
Your statement,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
can you show us where you get it from?
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-13 16:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Graham,
Your statement,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
can you show us where you get it from?
Common knowledge! It is also used in manuscripts of the period.
Sort of thing you need to know if you read historical manuscripts. Letter forms do vary from document to document.
Jim F.
2016-05-14 01:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Graham,
Your statement,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
can you show us where you get it from?
Common knowledge! It is also used in manuscripts of the period.
Sort of thing you need to know if you read historical manuscripts. Letter forms do vary from document to document.
Graham,
The long s and f are not allowed to "change in typesetting randomly."
You mistake your common knowledge of s/f for u/v.
marco
2016-05-16 15:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
Graham,
Your statement,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
can you show us where you get it from?
Common knowledge! It is also used in manuscripts of the period.
Sort of thing you need to know if you read historical manuscripts. Letter forms do vary from document to document.
Graham,
The long s and f are not allowed to "change in typesetting randomly."
You mistake your common knowledge of s/f for u/v.
.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-22 17:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Ben Crystal has some interesting insights in this video to the grave scene in Hamlet.
First he shows us how it's normally done. Then what I think is the correct way. See what you think...


I think without doubt that this proves that Hamlet was NOT written by some Lord such as De Vere. For he would have to have a working knowledge of actors and how they performed the lines.
For to me it sounds like someone has copied the text down in the way the actors spoke the lines and did the lines. Not someone who has written the parts for everyone to play. The writers of that play (and all the rest if you ask me) was present and known to all the people who worked on the play. There is NO WAY they could have kept themselves secret, hidden writing secret tales of anyone's life.
Jim F.
2016-05-24 01:41:13 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 1:43:37 AM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
... There is NO WAY they could have kept themselves secret, hidden writing secret tales of anyone's life.
Graham,

To read the "secret tales of anyone's life" in Shakespeare,
you need one-way anagram, e.g. Thomas Sackville in _Hamlet_:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/CVPRhguVzIc

There are many lines in Shakespeare can only be solved by one-way anagram,
e.g. Costard broken in a shin:
http://wordplay-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2015/11/costard-broken-in-shin-how-one-way.html

If you mistake something, just admit.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-24 11:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
... There is NO WAY they could have kept themselves secret, hidden writing secret tales of anyone's life.
Graham,
To read the "secret tales of anyone's life" in Shakespeare,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/CVPRhguVzIc
There are many lines in Shakespeare can only be solved by one-way anagram,
http://wordplay-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2015/11/costard-broken-in-shin-how-one-way.html
If you mistake something, just admit.
As usual Jim you are talking round objects multiplied.
I think the less send about the coding of names into plays, as my friend who keeps attacking Mr Nutcase points out, is so full of errors just has to be ignored.
Mr Nutcase's dire tribes each day get worse and worse with no connection to what the f*** he's is trying to say. They incorporate modern text and passages, with no connection whatsoever to anything that could have existed back then.

Just because you don't understand a line in the play, doesn't mean that an anagram is being used.

Jim! You have heard of something called Wilton House Poets, but you have no understanding of what it was or what they did. You haven't got a clue about the personality of any of the people involved and why they did the things they did.
All you are doing is making stuff up and assign it to them. Rightly or wrongly.

When William Shakespeare tells you something believe it and F*** Thomas Aston Vila. He's a f***** nobody.
And f*** you Jim lad!

If you want to understand something try this:
Ben Jonson's birthday - 11 June
Graham Appleyard's birthday 11 June
Friend of mine Philip Greville
School mate William Smith
People I know personally. Teresa Stanley (Green), Rachel Herbert.
Could list more... But you get the picture?

What does that tell you?
marco
2016-05-24 22:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Post by Jim F.
...
... There is NO WAY they could have kept themselves secret, hidden writing secret tales of anyone's life.
Graham,
To read the "secret tales of anyone's life" in Shakespeare,
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/CVPRhguVzIc
There are many lines in Shakespeare can only be solved by one-way anagram,
http://wordplay-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2015/11/costard-broken-in-shin-how-one-way.html
If you mistake something, just admit.
As usual Jim you are talking round objects multiplied.
I think the less send about the coding of names into plays, as my friend who keeps attacking Mr Nutcase points out, is so full of errors just has to be ignored.
Mr Nutcase's dire tribes each day get worse and worse with no connection to what the f*** he's is trying to say. They incorporate modern text and passages, with no connection whatsoever to anything that could have existed back then.
Just because you don't understand a line in the play, doesn't mean that an anagram is being used.
Jim! You have heard of something called Wilton House Poets, but you have no understanding of what it was or what they did. You haven't got a clue about the personality of any of the people involved and why they did the things they did.
All you are doing is making stuff up and assign it to them. Rightly or wrongly.
When William Shakespeare tells you something believe it and F*** Thomas Aston Vila. He's a f***** nobody.
And f*** you Jim lad!
Ben Jonson's birthday - 11 June
Graham Appleyard's birthday 11 June
Friend of mine Philip Greville
School mate William Smith
People I know personally. Teresa Stanley (Green), Rachel Herbert.
Could list more... But you get the picture?
What does that tell you?
.
Jim F.
2016-05-24 23:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:30:10 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
What does that tell you?
Graham,

Your 1st mistake, saying Marlowe is a modern spelling, sloppy but forgivable.
Your 2nd mistake, anagram related to OP and RP, bad reasoning and wrong.
Your 3rd mistake, "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly,
lack of common knowledge.

If you make some absolute mistakes, just admit.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-25 00:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
What does that tell you?
Graham,
Your 1st mistake, saying Marlowe is a modern spelling, sloppy but forgivable.
Your 2nd mistake, anagram related to OP and RP, bad reasoning and wrong.
Your 3rd mistake, "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly,
lack of common knowledge.
If you make some absolute mistakes, just admit.
FUCK OFF CUNT
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-25 08:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim F.
...
Post by g***@btinternet.com
What does that tell you?
Graham,
Your 1st mistake, saying Marlowe is a modern spelling, sloppy but forgivable.
Your 2nd mistake, anagram related to OP and RP, bad reasoning and wrong.
Your 3rd mistake, "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly,
lack of common knowledge.
If you make some absolute mistakes, just admit.
I made no mistakes at all. Some of the comments were evaluations of your posts, which are so full of errors anyway, since you don't believe that William Shakespeare had anything to do with the plays. Of course you will not admit that.
When I posted the video of the grave scene it clearly shows that the performance was worked out during the construction of the play as they all were, something you have failed to grasp. Meaning also the Lords and Earls would have to be present at the playhouse during the construction of the play. Mucking in with the complete company. That seems highly unlikely to me to happen!
If there are any anagrams in Shakespeare, which I think unlikely, they will be obvious and clear to the audience of the play and clearly meant to be funny. But the only way you would spot them is seeing the play performed in O.P. and not reading the text, which is laid out in a way that resembles the way the play was originally acted. If the anagram works in O.P. the same way it does in the text, then you have found one. But I bet you don't know O.P. at all so that rules any argument you say out!
Jim F.
2016-05-25 12:31:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:54:15 PM UTC+8, ***@btinternet.com wrote:
...
Post by Jim F.
Graham,
Your 1st mistake, saying Marlowe is a modern spelling, sloppy but forgivable.
Your 2nd mistake, anagram related to OP and RP, bad reasoning and wrong.
Your 3rd mistake, "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly,
lack of common knowledge.
If you make some absolute mistakes, just admit.
I made no mistakes at all. ...
Graham,

Isn't your '"F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly'
an absolute mistake?
Post by Jim F.
Graham,
Your statement,
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Because "F" and "S" are letters that change in typesetting randomly.
can you show us where you get it from?
Common knowledge! It is also used in manuscripts of the period.
Sort of thing you need to know if you read historical manuscripts. Letter forms do vary from document to document.
g***@btinternet.com
2016-05-25 18:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Jimmy
You would make an excellent politician, for you nEVER answer a question.

So you can Suck for the answer to your question.
marco
2016-06-03 13:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@btinternet.com
Jimmy
You would make an excellent politician, for you nEVER answer a question.
So you can Suck for the answer to your question.
.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...