| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
 |
|
Orthodox linguistic historians seem to maintain that the Normans brought a "French" language with them. Which then, in the time-honoured high-class ritual fashion, proceeded to percolate its way downwards into the lower-class English language.
Except:
What happens if the percolation went the other way?
| Language Made Visible: The Invention of French in England After the Norman Conquest |
A heretical article by David Georgi.
| French literature — the sustained use of French as a language for written narrative — we now know, began in England not in France. This book establishes that the transformation of Old French from an oral vernacular to a language of written literature was the result of the collision of languages and cultures in England after the Norman Conquest. |
We're told that Chaucer was not only multi-lingual but active on the mainland.
| During the decade of the 1370s, Chaucer was at various times on diplomatic missions in Flanders, France, and Italy. |
Did he help export this English French to France?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | I read all 75 pages of this monstrous thread ("monstrous" used lovingly) in the last two days. I admire the stamina (mine and all of yours). Halfway through I realized that all this discussion probably occurred at least a decade ago. |
When the AEL was being set up I had a big fight with others about not having anything dated. And moreover, moreover, not having internal clues about when a particular thread was last posted to.
My reasoning was that, having observed similar forums, it was obvious that topics get raised, there is a relative frenzy of activity, the interest dies down and the topic gets buried in a relatively unmarked grave. It takes a highly unusual newbie to get it going again.
I thought this was all wrong. I got my way partially.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | Where did the Chaucer family come from? Britannia Online claims this:
The name Chaucer is derived from the French word chaussier, meaning a maker of footwear. The family’s financial success derived from wine and leather. Or is that just a load of old cobblers? |
It was the slight, only slight, weirdness of the Chaucer backstory that first alerted to something being amiss. It seems, shall we say, 'careful'.
| Orthodox linguistic historians seem to maintain that the Normans brought a "French" language with them. |
I'm not sure why you are using the phrase 'seem to maintain'. I didn't think there was any doubt that they did.
| Which then, in the time-honoured high-class ritual fashion, proceeded to percolate its way downwards into the lower-class English language. |
This is the site of many pitched battles between us and them. We acknowledge that any change of regime at the top involving a new language being spoken by the new regime requires there to be new terms adopted from the alien language into the native one. But not one third of English having 'Romance' roots.
Except: What happens if the percolation went the other way?
Language Made Visible: The Invention of French in England After the Norman Conquest A heretical article by David Georgi. French literature — the sustained use of French as a language for written narrative — we now know, began in England not in France. |
There may be something to this. Neither English nor French (nor Norman French) were written languages. Everyone was using either Latin or Anglo-Saxon as scribal languages. 'Written demotics' started up roughly at the time when England and France were a cultural and political congeries.
| This book establishes that the transformation of Old French from an oral vernacular to a language of written literature was the result of the collision of languages and cultures in England after the Norman Conquest. |
More like after the troubadour movement reached England via Eleanor of Aquitaine.
| We're told that Chaucer was not only multi-lingual but active on the mainland. |
A curious word to use in the fourteenth century.
| During the decade of the 1370s, Chaucer was at various times on diplomatic missions in Flanders, France, and Italy. |
There may have been a genuine Chaucer who was awarded the authorship of Chaucerian poetry. They would presumably have chosen someone like this.
| Did he help export this English French to France? | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | it was obvious that topics get raised, there is a relative frenzy of activity, the interest dies down and the topic gets buried in a relatively unmarked grave. |
Learning quickly that I best not post literally anything without searching first, as all keywords I enter already appear 6 or 74 times. With my current searching skills, I can at most find the right graveyard
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | The name Chaucer is derived from the French word chaussier, meaning a maker of footwear. The family’s financial success derived from wine and leather.
Or is that just a load of old cobblers? |
How's this theory? Geoffrey Chaucer is an obvious pen-name? Geoffrey is the same as Gottfried ("God's peace") and Chaucer is a "shoemaker." The man who wrote about people walking to Canterbury is providing them with the shoes for their pilgrimage, at the end of which they hope to reach a peace with God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
We shall break in here to quote from Edwin Reed's Prefatory Address to the Folio: "In Grecian mythology," he writes, "Pallas Athena was the goddess of wisdom, philosophy, poetry, and the fine arts. Her original name simply Pallas...from pallein, signifying to brandish or shake. Athens, the home of the drama, was under the protection of this spear-shaker." It may be
added that the helmet she wore was supposed to convey invisibility. |
That looks to explain why Shakespeare was a pretty airtight pen-name. William (i.e., Wilhelm) = protective helmet which conveys invisibility (i.e., anonymity)
Shake-Speare = tribute to the goddess of poetry
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Brush up yer Shakespeare
William Shakespeare, as a person, is surprisingly elusive. People around him seem to have got wealthy and left a notable legacy behind them. For example: Edward Alleyn.
| Edward "Ned" Alleyn ... was an English actor who was a major figure of the Elizabethan theatre and founder of Dulwich College and Alleyn's School ... It is said that Dulwich was built as a gesture of thanksgiving to God for Alleyn's acting ability and success in business dealings. |
Ref : Edward Alleyn (Wikipedia)
Business? What business?
| Alleyn went into business with his father-in-law Philip Henslowe and became wealthy. He was part-owner in Henslowe's ventures, and in the end sole proprietor of several profitable playhouses, bear-pits and brothels. |
Aha, my kind of business! Although, I'm not so keen on the bear-pits. Can we substitute a brewery please?
But what's this?
| Alleyn is unusual among figures in 16th-century drama because a large selection of his private papers have survived. They were published in 1843 as The Alleyn Papers, edited by scholar-forger John Payne Collier. He also developed professional relationships with religious and political figures such as Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Julius Caesar. |
See the AEL alarm bells.
I'm not sure whether the "professional relationship with Francis Bacon" is a fabrication (courtesy of the scholar-forger John Payne Collier). Or whether Alleyn & Bacon & Co were busy getting rich by inventing one of the greatest pieces of stagecraft in British History. i.e. the fictional Shakespeare as a front (and firebreak) in case they attracted even more right royal wrath.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
How so?
Being a playwright in Elizabethan England could be a rewarding business; it could also be a very dangerous one. We're used to modern-day politics being a dirty game. In Elizabeth's time, it was also a very deadly one.
Against a background of Mary Queen of Scots, the 16 assassination attempts against Elizabeth, the Spanish Armada, the Spanish Inquisition...
| It was a period of fraction, intrigue, plot, counter-plot and sudden death, and every man who entered public life realised that he walked in the shadows of the Tower or the block. Very few escaped one or the other. What greater reason could Bacon have for secrecy? He was working out his vast project of educating the people to which the Queen had repeatedly registered her disapproval. Had the truth been known, his chance of any judicial appointment, essential in many ways to the working of his scheme, would have been irretrievably lost, apart from the fact that many had gone to execution for far less disobedience. Concealed and feigned authorship was not an unheard of thing in those days by any means. There were many ever watchful for heresies and many more for treason. |
Like what?
| The incident with the Queen concerning the play Richard II bears out that fact ... The play, Richard II, was performed —anonymously— the afternoon before Essex broke into rebellion. It was denounced by the Queen as an act of treason. Bacon, as Solicitor-Extraordinary, was commanded to seek out the author of the play that he might be put on the rack. This alone proves that the authorship was not generally known. |
What a situation!
London is in uproar over Essex's attempt at an armed coup d'état. The Queen has just commanded you to find the author of a play deemed to be an act of treason. Presumably so the author could be hung, drawn and quartered as a traitor.
And you are the author?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
And then there's the accounting, and the classic advise : follow the money...
| Philip Henslowe, the greatest theatrical manager and producer of his day, kept a diary (which is preserved) in which he set down the sums of money paid to authors for their work. We find in this diary the names of practically all the dramatic writers of that day excepting Shakespeare, his name being entirely ignored. Neither does Shaksper, Shaxspur, or Shagsper figure anywhere in this historic list of Henslowe's. |
Maybe Henslowe never employed Shakespeare?
But what about the plays and their registration?
| After 1594, all plays were required to be registered before publication. Nothing was ever registered in Shakespeare's name, nor is there any trace of the actual writer with the various people who effected the registrations at Stationer's Hall. Bacon had his reasons for secrecy. Shakespeare none. |
As a member of the Stationer's Company, I have had the opportunity to make discrete inquiries, in an orderly direction, with the librarians of the Company. They confirm this to be the case.
Also, Shake-speare's Intellectual Copyright was a very valuable commodity. Why was nothing registered to maintain ownership of that copyright?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
And then there are the espionage and intelligence connections.
| ... on the afternoon of August 11, 1582 there was an entry in Dee's journal that they met at Mortlake. Bacon was 21 years old at the time and was accompanied by a Mr. Phillipes, a top cryptographer in the employ of Sir Francis Walsingham who headed up the early days of England's secret service. |
Why so secret? The proto-intelligence services were involved in a deadly game of cat & mouse. Much mentioned in the BBC series on Elizabeth 1st's Secret Agents. But sadly without mentioning Francis Bacon and John Dee. Would it have complicated the story too much?
While Elizabeth was Queen, with sympathy for the likes of John Dee (the Royal Astrologer), some of Bacon's works might have been tolerated. But Eliz.1 passed the crown to James. Then there was James' Regal Attitude to deal with.
| "Kings are little Gods, they exercise a manner of divine power". |
Bacon well knew the dangers of publishing anything that expressed an opposing attitude or attracted Royal sanction.
No surprise then that Bacon's Rosicrucian utopia The New Atlantis was not published until after his death. It portrayed a future world in which man could co-exist with his fellow man without the divine right of kings. An idea as explosive, in it's own way, as The Gunpowder Plot.
In conclusion, as many have noted in their own ways:
| Either Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare were the same man, at least so far as the writings are concerned, or else for once in the history of mankind, two men absolutely dissimilar in birth, in education and in upbringing, had the same thoughts, used the same words, piled up the same ideas, wrote upon the same subjects, and thought, wrote, talked and dreamed absolutely alike. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Pallas Athena (Minerva) seated on a small stage;the stage of the Mysteries, over which she and her male counterpart, Apollo, preside. In her right hand she holds her famous spear (her name means literally ‘Spear Shaker’ or ‘Shake-Spear’) | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
There was no intellectual property in the seventeenth century.
Maybe Burbage didn't pay fees to Shakespeare because he was a shareholder in the company and sharing directly in the profits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | There was no intellectual property in the seventeenth century. |
You really believe that? Such a surprisingly dogmatic statement for an AEL member. 
In any case, the registration of plays is a proxy for such an index.
| After 1594, all plays were required to be registered before publication. Nothing was ever registered in Shakespeare's name, nor is there any trace of the actual writer with the various people who effected the registrations at Stationer's Hall. Bacon had his reasons for secrecy. Shakespeare none. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Peter Jones wrote: | | How's this theory? Geoffrey Chaucer is an obvious pen-name? Geoffrey is the same as Gottfried ("God's peace") and Chaucer is a "shoemaker." The man who wrote about people walking to Canterbury is providing them with the shoes for their pilgrimage, at the end of which they hope to reach a peace with God. |
This is quite good. If an academic had said it, it would be considered self-evidently true by now. I may drop it into something without attribution.
| That looks to explain why Shakespeare was a pretty airtight pen-name. William (i.e., Wilhelm) = protective helmet which conveys invisibility (i.e., anonymity) Shake-Speare = tribute to the goddess of poetry |
If a conspiracy theorist had said this, they would consider it airtight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | Edward "Ned" Alleyn ... was an English actor who was a major figure of the Elizabethan theatre and founder of Dulwich College and Alleyn's School ... It is said that Dulwich was built as a gesture of thanksgiving to God for Alleyn's acting ability and success in business dealings. |
We have posted up quite a lot about this gentleman, Borry. Probably during your absence but none the worse for that. And not just because I would have gone to Dulwich College if I hadn't failed the interview and wanted to go to Alleyns because they played football, but my mum insisted on posher rugby-playing Colfe's.
| Alleyn is unusual among figures in 16th-century drama because a large selection of his private papers have survived. They were published in 1843 as The Alleyn Papers, edited by scholar-forger John Payne Collier. He also developed professional relationships with religious and political figures such as Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Julius Caesar. See the AEL alarm bells. |
And so it did.
| Philip Henslowe, the greatest theatrical manager and producer of his day, kept a diary (which is preserved) in which he set down the sums of money paid to authors for their work. We find in this diary the names of practically all the dramatic writers of that day excepting Shakespeare, his name being entirely ignored. |
If I may translate (albeit speculatively). The diary was forged to give a provenance for plays that, whether for political or financial reasons, were best presented as coming from the golden age.
After 1594, all plays were required to be registered before publication. Nothing was ever registered in Shakespeare's name, nor is there any trace of the actual writer with the various people who effected the registrations at Stationer's Hall.
As a member of the Stationer's Company, I have had the opportunity to make discrete inquiries, in an orderly direction, with the librarians of the Company. They confirm this to be the case. |
We regard Stationer's Hall to be the epicentre of the forgery industry so let's have some less discreet enquiries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
