The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0538 Wednesday, 28 October 2009
[1] From: Eric Johnson-DeBaufre <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 12:42:42 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
[2] From: David Schalkwyk <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 13:26:29 -0400
Subj: RE: SHK 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
[3] From: Steve Sohmer <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 21:04:14 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Johnson-DeBaufre <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 12:42:42 -0400
Subject: 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
In answer to Tony's question, I think this thought (or something like
it) has occurred to just about everyone who has taught the play. That
said, I think the substance of Tony's point is a good one and that this
reading is enriched (and somewhat ironized) if one considers -- as my
friend Peter Smith has argued -- that Shakespeare did in fact have a
meaning for MOAI in mind, namely Harrington's "The Metamorphosis of Ajax."
For those who are interested, see Peter J. Smith, "M.O.A.I. 'What Should
That Alphabetical Position Portend?' an Answer to the Metamorphic
Malvolio," Renaissance Quarterly 51 (1998): 1199-1224.
Cheers,
Eric Johnson-DeBaufre
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Schalkwyk <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 13:26:29 -0400
Subject: 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
Comment: RE: SHK 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
Despite the danger of invoking Hardy's censorious mouse, I'd like to
follow Tony Burton's excellent posting by observing that the main thrust
of Shakespeare's send-up is surely Malvolio's move when he finds that
the letters don't quite spell what he wants them to say: "M.O.A.I. This
simulation is not as the former, and yet to crush this a little, it
would bow to me..." (2.5.143). The key to Shakespeare's insight is
Malvolio's overwhelming desire to project himself into the text or
transform the text into his image: "If I could make that resemble
something in me" (123). As others have observed on this topic, the hunt
for anagrams involves a great deal of "making", "crushing" and "bowing".
David S
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Sohmer <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009 21:04:14 EDT
Subject: 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0524 Wriothesley Anagrams
Dear Friends,
I think Hardy is quite correct to ban messages regarding coding.
However, it might be prudent to allow further considerations anagrams,
which were a popular wordplay in Elizabeth's court. So it is not
surprising that they appear in Shakespeare's plays which have particular
relevance to the Queen.
Let me cite some examples from, say, "Twelfth Night." In 2.3 Andrew is
recalling a night of binge drinking when he says to Feste, "In sooth,
thou wast in very gracious fooling last night, when thou spok'st of
Pigrogromitus, of the Vapians passing the equinoctial of Queubus. 'Twas
very good, in faith."
If we bear in mind that Andrew is a simpleton trying to remember
unfamiliar names that he heard while he was drunk, we can decode this
crux and discover the drinkers were discussing the Gregorian calendar
reform.
First, the M in Pigrogromitus is either a dipso's garbled memory or a
typesetter's misprint. The M should be an N, and the name should be
PIGROGRONITUS ... which is an anagram for PONT. GRIGORIUS, the pope who
reformed the calendar in 1582..
Andrew's mysterious VAPIANS are a simple transposition of the P and V in
PAVIANS -- scholars of the university at PAVIA, the Oxford of Italy,
where mathematicians toiled over Gregory's reform.
THE EQUINOCTAL OF QUEUBUS is a pied reference to the (Vernal)
Equinoctial which was fixed on 21 March at the Council of Nicaea, whose
most illustrious attendee was Bishop EUSEBIUS.
What Andrew is trying to say is, "when thou spok'st of Pont. Grigorious,
of the Pavians passing (ratifying) the (Vernal) Equinoctial of Eusebius."
This is Shakespeare's jibe at the great flaw in Pope Gregory's calendar.
Because, as you'll remember, in 1582 Gregory corrected the calendar by
removing ten days. Which returned the calendar NOT to the way it was
when Jesus was born ... but to the way it was when Bishop Eusebius and
the church fathers settled the date of the Vernal Equinox on 21 March.
Toby and Andrew don't understand the illogic of the Gregorian reform any
better than most Elizabethans. But Queen Elizabeth did, as did many of
her courtiers - and they would have found this line hilarious.
One more instance from "Twelfth Night." In 1.5 Feste jokes, "What says
Quinapalus: `Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit."- QUINAPALUS is an
obvious anagram of AQUINAS and (SAINT) PAUL, who was a great advocate of
being a fool (for Christ).
I'm all for limiting specious speculation. But don't sell the bard's wit
(and wordplay) short.
Hope this helps.
Steve
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
