The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0506  Wednesday, 14 October 2009

From:       Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:       Wednesday, 7 Oct 2009 13:40:10 -0700
Subject:    Wriothesley Anagrams in the Sonnets?

I would be very interested to hear the opinions of other list members on 
R. H. Winnick's new piece in _Literary Imagination_, on anagrams for 
"Wriothesley" in the sonnets. Oxford has published this article ungated:


Winnick makes what strikes me as a very strong case for, and gives many 
examples of, the widespread and quite explicit use and discussion of 
such anagrams by poets in Shakespeare's day (including by S., obviously 
including instances like Twelfth Night's "M.O.A.I."). I don't have the 
breadth of knowledge to evaluate his survey, would love to hear thoughts 
from those who do.

He also acknowledges the slipperiness of such examples -- how easy it is 
to manufacture spurious anagrams, especially given the fast-and-loose 
approach many poets took: fudging with extra, dropped, or repeated 
letters, substituting i for j, f for s, a double U or a U and a V for W, 
and etc. But still, on a first read through his piece, I find it 
reasonably convincing.

This also led me to look at one line from (surprise) Hamlet, an odd 
comment by H. in the mousetrap that I've puzzled over. I notice that the 
"po[e]sie of a ring" yields both "poisoner" and "poison ear" -- if you 
drop a couple of letters.

Profound? Spurious? Curious?


S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.