humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 6, 11:16=A0am, "Paul Crowley"
wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" wrote in message
>
> news:2bba117b-eff2-4b4e-913b-ed581fd43331@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > PC: Are there ever any baths in the bathroom?
>
> > DH: Certainly.
>
> > PC: =A0Liar. =A0Strats seem to lie automatically.
> > We all know the nature of the rooms
> > which Americans pathetically call
> > 'bathrooms' -- and we all know how
> > often baths are present in them.
>
> > DH: =A0What a moron you are. =A0We have four bathrooms (and that is what=

> > we and
> > all other Americans call them) in my house -- there is a bath in every
> > single one of them.
>
> Has any poster to this newsgroup
> come across an ordinary house in an
> American city with FOUR bathtubs?
>
> Of the large houses I know, not one has
> more than one bathtub. =A0They have
> plenty of showers, etc., =A0Most people in
> most families take baths only occasionally,
> and can get by with one in the house.

My Father's house has two bathrooms -- each has a bathtub in it. My
previous house had three batrooms, two with bathtubs, one with a
shower (what American realtors call a half-bathroom). You know as
little about America as you do about poetry.

> My guess is that Dominic |Hughes is
> confusing 'bath' with 'lavatory' (or 'w.c.')
> -- the porcelain object into which you
> defecate.

Your guess would be wrong.

> Is that a common confusion in the USA?

You are the one who is confused.

> > I've asked Crowley, on a number of occasions, if he can provide any
> > evidence to support his claim that Queen Elizabeth was a huge fan of
> > bawdy humor? =A0He hasn't ever answered.
>
> I don't remember the request. =A0

Right.

> But the
> knowledge is so common that the
> question should not need to be asked..

Because you won't be able to adequately answer it?

> "Her loud, vehement swearing and soldierly boasting made
> a strange counterpoint to her elegant dress and coquettish
> adornments." =A0 (Erickson, *Elizabeth*, page 262)

"Swearing and soldierly boasting" arenot the same thing as loving
scatological double meanings in writing. Are you confused on this
point?

> "To hear the high laugh and the great oaths or, inexplicably,
> to watch Majesty soften and observe the intimate, close and
> personal attention she might bestow on one who had caught
> her attention and the dazed and foolishly happy individual
> she left behind in her wake-all this was the compelling figure
> of Majesty incarnate. Few who saw Elizabeth in action-in the
> court, at the Council table, on horseback, on progress or parade
> -ever forgot the autocratic, vain mien which might crumple at
> any moment into the bawdy and coarse, depending on her
> mood and whim."
> =A0 =A0 (Luke, *Gloriana*, page 387)

You're still not able to supply any evidence to back up your claims.
Are you aware of Elizabeth's relationship with Harrington (author of
Metamorphoses of Ajax)?
"Although he had intended to study law, Harington was attracted early
in life to the royal court, where his freespoken attitude and poetry
gained Elizabeth's attention. The Queen encouraged his writing, but
Harington was inclined to overstep the mark in his somewhat
Rabelaisian and occasionally risqu=E9 pieces. His attempt at a
translation of Ariosto's Orlando Furioso caused his banishment from
court for some years, but was completed in 1591 and received great
praise. Angered by the raciness of his translations the Queen told
Harington that he was to leave and not return until he had translated
the entire poem. She chose this punishment rather than actually
banishing him, but she considered the task so difficult that it was
assumed Harington would not bother to comply. Harington, however,
choose to follow through with the request, and eventually completed
translating the poem."

Queen Elizabeth was so "angered by the raciness of his translations"
that she banished Harrington from the Court. Evidence that your
theory is ridiculous -- see how it is done.

> >>> 3. =A0Would a concern about the tendency of the
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0barely-literate, and highly puritan 'middle
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0classes' of the day to grossly misunderstand
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0this kind of humour be a sufficient motivation
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0to go to some lengths to conceal the identity
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0of the poet, and the nature of his audience?
>
> > Crowley has never demonstrated that "the barely literate and highly
> > puritan 'middle' class" grossly misunderstood the bawdy humor in the
> > plays. =A0The fact is that they understood it just fine - they just
> > didn't like it.
>
> Hughes provides a good example of the
> Stratfordian mind (as thick as two short
> planks). =A0Read the 'Riding on the balls of
> mine' speech of the Merchant of Venice.
> Find ONE commentary on it -- in ANY of
> the published commentaries, or in ANY
> Stratfordian publication of ANY sort,
> that refers to the bawdy element.

You provide an excellent example of the delusional mind...what do the
commentaries on the Merchant of Venice have to do with your idiotic
assertion that "the barely literate and highly puritan 'middle' class"
grossly misunderstood the bawdy humor in the plays. Your confusion is
growing.

> BASSANIO =A0 =A0 What find I here?
> =A0 =A0[Opening the leaden casket]
> Fair Portia's counterfeit! What demi-god
> Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes?
> Or whether, riding on the balls of mine,
> Seem they in motion? Here are sever'd lips,
> Parted with sugar breath: so sweet a bar
> Should sunder such sweet friends. Here in her hairs
> The painter plays the spider and hath woven
> A golden mesh to entrap the hearts of men,
> Faster than gnats in cobwebs; but her eyes,--
> How could he see to do them? having made one,
> Methinks it should have power to steal both his
> And leave itself unfurnish'd. Yet look, how far
> The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow
> In underprizing it, so far this shadow
> Doth limp behind the substance. Here's the scroll,
> The continent and summary of my fortune. . . .
>
> If no modern Strat understands this
> speech, how were Elizabethan and
> Jacobean Puritans to make sense of it?

Now you're claiming that the Puritans didn't understand it at all, not
that they misunderstood it. So there would be no threat at all, no
need to plant references to W.S. of Stratford in obscure legal
documents that only a selct few would ever see. You argue all over
the map of your flat earth and often lumber off the edge.

> Bear in mind that Portia is a representation
> of Elizabeth (scarcely doubted, even by
> Strats). =A0Yet here we have the hero of
> the play almost explicitly describing her
> most intimate parts.
>
> What would Puritans have made of THAT?

You've already said that they didn't understand it -- how would they
have made anything of that?

> > There was certainly no significant threat to the
> > stability of the government, as only the delusional would believe.
>
> How ignorant is it possible to get? =A0

Keep posting and eventually you may show just how ignorant it is
possible to get.

> An
> event called the 'Civil War' took place
> a mere 40 years after Elizabeth's death.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not some plays that
were performed on the public stages back in 1590-1610 were written by
W.S. of Stratford or by the Earl of Oxenforde.

> During those years, England's armed
> forces were desperately weak, (since the
> monarch could not get money to finance
> them). =A0Luckily for England, all its
> potential enemies were riven with civil
> war -- invariably based on religion. Most
> educated Englishmen around that time
> believed that such wars were almost
> certain to come to England.
>
> In any case, it was not the actual threat
> (as seen in retrospect) that mattered.
> It was the PERCEIVED threat -- and fears
> were (in our eyes) absurdly high.

Queen Elizabeth, and, later, King James were constantly worried that
"the secret" would come out, and that the government would topple
because of the scandal. All of the many courtiers who were also in on
"the secret" were constantly vigilant to make sure no one leaked any
word of "the secret" -- why, if the barely literate middle and lower
classes, with minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works, ever
found out that an earl had written those plays they would suddenly
have been able to piece together all sorts of things hidden even from
modern scholars and they would have posed a threat to the government.
Right. Your "theory" should be written on toilet paper.

> Paul.

Dom