One correction. [Note to self: Don't quote from memory!] The respective quote about Le Sage reads as follows:
"As an example of this inherited art in a bourgeois Silesian family, let us cite the Kropfganss family. The eldest, Johann Kasper, was a student of Philipp Franz Le Sage de Richee, one of the French emigrants mentioned above." Emil Vogl, JOHANN ANTON LOSY: LUTENIST OF PRAGUE, Journal of the Lute Society of America, Vol. XIII, pp. 58-86 (1980), 2008 Sorry for confusion, Mathias -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Well, it does have to do a bit with lute music. There was a theory that the music published by Le Sage de Riche (Breslau, 1695) was not composed by him because the author of that theory couldn't find further evidence for the existence of Le Sage. I objected that according to a remark in Emil Vogl's article on the angélique (Die Angelika und ihre Musik, 1974), one of Falkenhagen's sons studied the lute with Le Sage in Breslau. But the conspiracy author dismissed my objection, saying that Vogl's remark was "not airtight" (nicht belastbar). The same pattern of thinking was applied to another lute composer, Jacques Bittner (Jakob Büttner), by the same conspiracy author. No evidence for Bittner's existence, so no Bittner at all. The true composer, he said, was the dedicatee of Bittner's lute book, Pierre de Treyenfels who purportedly hadn't wished to publish his compositions under his own name, as he belonged to the nobility. Mathias _______________________________________________________________________ Gesendet mit der [1]Telekom Mail App --- Original-Nachricht --- Von: T.J. Sellari Betreff: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Datum: 17.09.2018, 19:36 Uhr An: [email protected] I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking" people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See, for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking" behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why. Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case. The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of more reliable information when I got the chance. Tom On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico <[1][2][email protected]> wrote: I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question indeed. It is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from Stratford was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no matter what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to propose. A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a thinking person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). And a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would participate in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy Countess of Bedford. I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the evidence points to work produced by more than one author that retains a consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common goal. Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible. What does this have to do with lute music anyway? __________________________________________________________________ From: [2][3][email protected] <[3][4][email protected]> on behalf of T.J. Sellari <[4][5][email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:19 PM To: [5][6][email protected] Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Re: Shakespeare authorship question There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on Shakespeare's authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of English Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I suggest you take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of the book can be found here: [1][6][7]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-w ho-wro te-shakespeare On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ron Andrico <[2][7][8][email protected]> wrote: Absolument, Alain. Many forget that the English court was actually French until the upstart Henry Tudor slaughtered his way to the throne. Even then, French was spoken at court through much of the 16th century. As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just plain silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to his name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a professional musician. We can support various theories of who wrote the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare, but my informed belief is that they were written by committee, just like the King James Bible was a few years hence. I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the circle surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of John Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. There is also a theory that the very literate Countess of Pembroke, Sir Philip Sidney's sister, may have dipped her quill in. William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of propaganda that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public buys. It's really very easy for those in a position of power to promote an idea with PR and make the public believe it. Like A=415 was historical baroque pitch, for instance. __________________________________________________________________ From: [3][8][9][email protected] <[4][9][10][email protected]> on behalf of Alain Veylit <[5][10][11][email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:37 AM To: howard posner; Lute net Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language If you really want to have a blast at the awful English language, look for something called "law French", a language understood only by English lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It makes modern legaleeze sound simple, although still difficult to read because in very small letters. Many poor people sent to the gallows had no idea what was said at court... Joke aside, given the introduction of many French words into English (500 words from Montaigne's translator alone) and the still fairly strong presence of French as a an aristocratic language for the few and the famous still in the 16th century, I am wondering if Shakespearian English did not sound quite a bit more French than one might think. Which could mean that to study Elizabethan English, you might have to study Quebecois French, supposedly much closer to 17th century French than Paris French... Or also study modern English pronunciation of Latin, which to my ears sounds quite painful - specially the diphtongs... For example: modern English "Sir", from the French "sieur" (as in monsieur) might have sounded closer to the original French "sire" (lord/majesty : monsieur = mon sire = my lord); the word "court" might have sounded closer to the French "cour". I vaguely remember something about the great diphtong shift in English phonetics - that might account for the split from the French word "Sire" (same "i" as Apple's "Siri") to the modern "Sir" and "Sire". One diphtonguized the other not. But the French is ambiguous since we have both the word "sieur" (Pronounced pretty close to "sir" and meaning "lord" ) and "sire" (pronounced close to "Siri" and meaning Majesty). Americans might want to check this video to speak proper modern English: [1][6][11][12]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU and learn about diphtongs... It's quite scientific, you know... On 09/16/2018 01:27 PM, howard posner wrote: >> On Sep 16, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Matthew Daillie <[7][12][13][email protected]> wrote: >> >> You might be interested in this video which summarizes some of the research carried out by David Crystal et al on English pronunciation at the time of Shakespeare (and Dowland) and the productions of his plays at the Globe theatre using 'Original Pronunciation': >> [2][8][13][14]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s > Indeed, I was interested enough to have seen it already. It explores the differences between modern Received Pronunciation that London stage actors traditionally use, and the London stage accent of 400 years ago, which is in many ways similar to the way English sounds in Bristol now. Of course, it's all a little peripheral to the question of whether Shakespeare might have spelled differently in a letter to his wife in Stratford than he would in a play to be spoken in London, or whether anyone would have cared. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [3][9][14][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [10][15][16]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 2. [11][16][17]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 3. [12][17][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [1][18][19]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will - who-wro te-shakespeare 2. [2]mailto:[19][20][email protected] 3. [3]mailto:[20][21][email protected] 4. [4]mailto:[21][22][email protected] 5. [5]mailto:[22][23][email protected] 6. [6][23][24]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 7. [7]mailto:[24][25][email protected] 8. [8][25][26]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 9. [9][26][27]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 10. [10][27][28]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 11. [11][28][29]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 12. [12][29][30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [30][31]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-wh o -wrote-shakespeare 2. mailto:[31][32][email protected] 3. mailto:[32][33][email protected] 4. mailto:[33][34][email protected] 5. mailto:[34][35][email protected] 6. [35][36]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 7. mailto:[36][37][email protected] 8. [37][38]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 9. [38][39]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 10. [39][40]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 11. [40][41]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 12. [41][42]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[43][email protected] 2. mailto:[44][email protected] 3. mailto:[45][email protected] 4. mailto:[46][email protected] 5. mailto:[47][email protected] 6. [48]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wr o 7. mailto:[49][email protected] 8. mailto:[50][email protected] 9. mailto:[51][email protected] 10. mailto:[52][email protected] 11. [53]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 12. mailto:[54][email protected] 13. [55]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 14. [56]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 15. [57]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 16. [58]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 17. [59]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 18. [60]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wr o 19. mailto:[61][email protected] 20. mailto:[62][email protected] 21. mailto:[63][email protected] 22. mailto:[64][email protected] 23. [65]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 24. mailto:[66][email protected] 25. [67]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 26. [68]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 27. [69]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 28. [70]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 29. [71]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 30. [72]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wr ote-shakespeare 31. mailto:[73][email protected] 32. mailto:[74][email protected] 33. mailto:[75][email protected] 34. mailto:[76][email protected] 35. [77]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 36. mailto:[78][email protected] 37. [79]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 38. [80]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 39. [81]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 40. [82]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 41. [83]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. https://kommunikationsdienste.t-online.de/redirects/email_app_android_sendmail_footer 2. mailto:[email protected] 3. mailto:[email protected] 4. mailto:[email protected] 5. mailto:[email protected] 6. mailto:[email protected] 7. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-w 8. mailto:[email protected] 9. mailto:[email protected] 10. mailto:[email protected] 11. mailto:[email protected] 12. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 13. mailto:[email protected] 14. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 16. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 17. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 19. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will 20. mailto:[email protected] 21. mailto:[email protected] 22. mailto:[email protected] 23. mailto:[email protected] 24. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 25. mailto:[email protected] 26. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 27. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 28. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 29. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 31. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who 32. mailto:[email protected] 33. mailto:[email protected] 34. mailto:[email protected] 35. mailto:[email protected] 36. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 37. mailto:[email protected] 38. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 39. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 40. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 41. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 42. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 43. mailto:[email protected] 44. mailto:[email protected] 45. mailto:[email protected] 46. mailto:[email protected] 47. mailto:[email protected] 48. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro 49. mailto:[email protected] 50. mailto:[email protected] 51. mailto:[email protected] 52. mailto:[email protected] 53. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 54. mailto:[email protected] 55. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 56. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 57. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 58. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 59. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 60. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro 61. mailto:[email protected] 62. mailto:[email protected] 63. mailto:[email protected] 64. mailto:[email protected] 65. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 66. mailto:[email protected] 67. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 68. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 69. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 70. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 71. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 72. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wrote-shakespeare 73. mailto:[email protected] 74. mailto:[email protected] 75. mailto:[email protected] 76. mailto:[email protected] 77. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 78. mailto:[email protected] 79. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 80. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 81. https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU 82. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s 83. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
