Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: August ::
Roses
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1330  Friday, 12 August 2005

[1]     From:   V. K. Inman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 13:43:12 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1323 Roses

[2]     From:   Stephen C. Rose <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 18:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1323 Roses

[3]     From:   David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 22:15:33 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1310 Roses

[4]     From:   Dan Decker <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 12 Aug 2005 10:29:27 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.1305 Roses


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           V. K. Inman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 13:43:12 -0400
Subject: 16.1323 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1323 Roses

 >Am I the only one who finds Richard Kennedy's response to John W.
 >Kennedy either puerile, offensive, or both?

No!

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephen C. Rose <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 18:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.1323 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1323 Roses

Mari Bonomi<
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > wrote:

 >Am I the only one who finds Richard Kennedy's
 >response to John W.
 >Kennedy either puerile, offensive, or both?

I only read it after you wrote this, out of curiosity. Actually about
half of it, as I had no curiosity as to what it was about or why he
seemed compelled to write thus in the first place. I am mainly
interested in Hamlet and Falstaff and when related topics are present I
pay more attention. Cheers, S

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Aug 2005 22:15:33 -0400
Subject: 16.1310 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1310 Roses

I have read with interest the discussion on the pronunciation of
Wriothesley, which some have alleged was pronounced "Risley." I did note
that Professor Leslie Hotson of Yale thought that it was pronounced
"Riley." Not that I have a solution to this question, but I do note that
both the names "Riley" and "Risley" can be seen to be transliterated in
the dedication.

This occurs in the following configurations:

                  BY
          OVR EVERLIVING POET
                WISHITH

                   Y             Y
                 RL      and   RL
                 I             IS

In the first, the name is read downward from the R to the I below and
then upward diagonally from the L to the Y above (R-I-L-Y).  In the
second, the name is read downward from the R to the IS below and then
diagonally upward from the L to the Y above (R-IS-L-Y).  Therefore,
between the pronunciation of the two names, the dedication is not
definitive, though ROSELY does not seem to be a good bet.

I would note that Shakespeare's name can be read in the dedication in a
vertical column, with the letters S-H-G and S-P-R aligned head on as
follows, the first part read upward and the second part read downward
toward each other:

                         Sonnets
                      hapPinesse
                      eteRnitie

                    livinG.poet
                  wishitH.
                      wiShing

"Shagspere" happens to be one of the versions of the poet's name and
would indicate that he arranged the dedication. I would also remind
readers of the list that the full name of Henry Wriothesley, as I have
shown, is to be found in the dedication in skip letter code at a skip of
18 (for Wriothesley) and a skip of 15 (for Henry). These should confirm
that the poet was given to creating such vertical and diagonal
arrangements of letters in his sonnets that present representations of
words and names.

David Basch

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dan Decker <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 12 Aug 2005 10:29:27 EDT
Subject: 16.1305 Roses
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.1305 Roses

 >Puzzling about with the Sonnets is something of an academic parlor game.

Does Mr. Kennedy stand up at a football match and yell "People! It's
only a game!" Whom does he attempt to enlighten with such pronouncements?

I do wish he would spare us the sophomoric lecturing, the passive voice
pronouncements, the faulty if-then logic, the puerile attacks on others
and make a point if he has one. Worst of all is dismissing any action on
Shakespeare's part (that belie his thesis), as something someone in that
time period simply would never do. It's absurd to build your argument
that way; it's a boxer making a rule that the other boxer is simply not
allowed to hit him.

Please proceed directly to your point, Mr. Kennedy, and skip the rest.
We eagerly await.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.