If you could go back in history

[Windsor]

I love Windsor's suggestion about the being there for the premiere of Beethoven's 9th ... not just because its a immortal piece of music, but because of the moment afterwards, when the crowd is cheering the composer, then gets angry because he's ignoring them ... then realizes that he's standing there with his back to them because he's deaf and can't hear the cheers ... which touches off an even greater demonstration as the audience realizes that what they've just heard was composed by a man who had lost his hearing.

PS I just thought of another one ... I'd love to visit the Sistine Chapel soon after Michaelangelo completed his ceiling so I could settle the debate that arose over the last decade over the original coloration of the paintings. .

I picked the premier of the 9th for exactly that reason...to not only hear the work as first performed but for the audience reaction.

Wish I had thought of the Sistine Chapel...excellent choice!

[gus]

Of course you will. It will NEVER be history to those who were personally touched by the events. But in 50 years if your great grandchildren want to know how it was that day...what it was really like beyond the accounts in their history class...will you tell them? Or will you label their curiosity as morbid?

I shouldn't have use the word "morbid", especially since I understand the desire to know more about an event like that. It's the desire to place oneself there that I don't understand. I realize we're discussing a fantastic notion (time machines?) - but the being there is to become "personally touched".

If my grandchildren (At 32, without children, I don't think I'll be around to have meaningful conversations with great-grand children) ask me about that day, I'll likely defer them to their grandmother, who has more and better stories to tell than I do. Part of her work involved collecting and conducting oral histories of people involved (some victims, first responders and many people who have helped them).

[gus]

First of all, wow, you were that close to 9/11? I can see why the subject is a very personal one for you. Horrific for sure. I can't even imagine witnessing all of that first hand.

But I do hope you understand by now that my fascination or interest has NOTHING to do with wanting to see people die. It's just to witness benchmark historical events.

I do understand that. I didn't mean to imply you are some sort of tragedy fan, or that you want to witness death. I should have stuck with just "masochistic" and not "morbid", because I don't think it's possible to separate witnessing a human tragedy and being part of it.

So what event WOULD you like to go back and witness?

I'd like to witness a big celebration, like Times Square on VJ day.
I'd like to see the construction of some of the world's marvels (eg the great pyramid)
I'd like to hear some inspirational, but unrecorded, speeches, like the Gettysburg address, or Frederick Douglass's famouse 4th of July speech.
I would love to be in the Spectrum on March 28, 1992.

[EarlJam]

I'd like to see the construction of some of the world's marvels (eg the great pyramid)

You DO realize that the pyramids were constructed by aliens from another planet don't you?

-EarlJam

[dkbaseball]

I'll take that bet ... any sum, any odds.

Well, put it this way ... there may be a 1 percent chance that somebody other than the actor from Stratford wrote the plays of Shakespeare, but even if that's the case, it's zero chance that the real author was that scumbag de Vere (whose case is based on gross ignorance about Elizabethan era and more than a little dishonesty when it comes to presenting the facts).

Care to elaborate on the salient aspects of Elizabethan history that would enable one to settle the authorship question with finality? I'd think one thing all of history has taught us is that the most literate figure in the history of the English language -- someone who used more than twice as many different words as any other writer in English -- is unlikely to be someone who never demonstrated any evidence of literacy at all in his private life, as is the case with the actor from Stratford. Not one book owned, not a single letter written. Just a household budget -- that's all we know he ever wrote.

The fact that de Vere -- hyper-educated and well-traveled in all the places Shakespeare wrote about -- is a "scumbag," i.e., pederast, buttresses the case for him. It's the reason he could not put his name on the plays.

I was persuaded to the de Vere case by a friend of mine, Joe Sobran, who wrote a book on the subject. I don't know that I'd accuse him of "gross ignorance," and certainly not "dishonesty" (he comes to the subject purely out of interest, not professional ambition), but as a long-time right-wing pundit he definitely can display a certain tunnel vision and obliviousness to information. But people should know it's not all crackpots in the de Vere camp. Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud thought he wrote the plays, and I believe Emerson did as well, despite his early paean to Shakespeare as the great, shining democrat.

Neat vignette on Beethoven. I hope someone in the orchestra eventually signalled him to turn around and receive his ovation.

I'd throw another premiere out there -- the Paris opening of the ballet Rites of Spring in 1913, which set off riots. Historian Modris Ecksteins thinks that it was the quintessential expression of the cultural nihilism that, in his view, was at the heart of WWI. And of so many of the problems that are still with us today.

[throatybeard]

There are so many premieres I would want to attend. That would definitely be one of them. The dual premiere (can you believe they did both on the same night?!) of his 5th and 6th would be up there as well.

Plus the Choral Fantasy, if I'm not mistaken.


I think mine involves either Hedy Lamarr in about 1937, and none of the rest of you.

[Windsor]

Neat vignette on Beethoven. I hope someone in the orchestra eventually signalled him to turn around and receive his ovation.

The contralto turned Beethoven around so he could see the response. The audienced wave hats, hands, hankerchiefs etc. in the air so he could see the ovation he couldn't hear.

[hc5duke]

You DO realize that the pyramids were constructed by aliens from another planet don't you?

-EarlJam

All the more reason to observe, no? Does the time machine double as a transporter in case the pyramids were constructed in another planet and moved here?

[TillyGalore]

I've thought about this most of the day. Many you have posted great ideas, events I wouldn't have even thought of myself, and learned a thing or two.

As one of my recent favorite movies is National Treasure, I think I'd like to see the signing of the Declaration of Independence (DOI) on July 4, 1776 (if memory serves it wasn't signed by everyone until 1781). Especially knowing that though the signers were signing their death warrant had we lost the war, we won and our country has survived for 231 years.

Someone mentioned bring a person of history to the present to get their perspective on life today, with that in mind I would like bring one of the signers or authors of the DOI to present day US to see what they think of our government now.

[dkbaseball]

I thought the 9/11 of the 20th century happened on 22 November 1963. That would be certainly worth going back to.

No fun at the time. An interesting factoid: About five of the top ten most watched TV shows of all time are episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies from early in 1964 -- as the nation apparently withdrew into mindlessness after the shock of the assassination. Then the Beatles laid waste to the folk music vogue, and social consciousness became the almost exclusive possession of the emerging counterculture. For the mainstream -- the "great silent majority" of Americans -- mindlessness has been the order of the day ever since.

[johnb]

Great picks.

Difficulties:

One is that to see some of them puts you in danger. Would you risk your life to participate in Pearl Harbor or to sign the declaration of independence? If you aren't willing to die to see it, then maybe it's not that important. And what if your wish were granted, and you found yourself, for example, as a pilot in the Japanese navy just after he had dropped his payload.

Another is that some of these were initially made fantastic because of their unexpected greatness. Seeing the Rockies or the Pyramids, hearing the 9th, seeing a pivotal sporting event involves not just the visual experience but decades prior to that in which such experiences were not simply distant but unfathomable. We have become jaded through our experiences. Would you be willing to wipe clean your own memories so that you could be surprised by one of these?

Another. I would love to have met Shakespeare (or whoever wrote the plays). But I have the opportunity now to hang out in pubs and drink with struggling actors and playwrights, some of whom may well be more entertaining than Shakespeare (anybody know if he was a good conversationalist?), but I choose to go to work, instead. Similarly, to take examples that I'd choose, you can't meet the Buddha or Jesus anymore, but there are plenty of Buddhist and Christian mystics whose company might mimic the Big Guys. But, as with the pubs/playwrights, I go to work. I guess that point is that if some of these are things you would Love to do, then maybe you/we should actualyy go do them...

[Stray Gator]

This is a fascinating premise for discussion, but it seems to me there are two distinct inquiries--one asks which point in history you would choose if you could be a participant, and perhaps alter the course of events; the other asks which point you would choose if you could merely be an observer, incapable of communicating with the people in that setting. I suppose there might even be a third option: Suppose you could go back in time and actually be someone else--i.e., occupy their physical body--for a day?

[captmojo]

This thread goes off so many directions it's fantastic. Great idea!

[mapei]

I would have loved to have been part of the US Constitutional Convention. Not so much to change what happened, but to have been part of such incredible creativity, negotiation, and idealism over such basic aspects of human society.

If I had to pick a character to be, it would be either Hamilton or Franklin.

[dukemomLA]

Again, GREAT THREAD! I look forward to getting home each night in the wee hours and checking out anything new.

I few more thoughts for me -- (as this damn thread seems to have taken me over like an alien invading my body)

3 days in Tibet with the Dalai Lama
3 days in jail with Nelson Mandela
3 days in India with Gandhi
3 days at Givenchy with Monet

Fly the Atlantic with Charles Lindbergh
Land on Plymouth Rock on the Mayflower
Watch More invent his code

So many possibilities....

[dukemomLA]

I meant MORSE, not More. -- it's late. Fingers aren't working so well. Sorry

[MrBisonDevil]

--- This is an extremely truncated list ---

~2680 B.C.: Spend 1 year shadowing Imhotep (viser in 3rd Egyptian Dynasty)

1855 (ish): Spend some time on the Santa Fe & Oregon Trail with Wild Bill Hickok

1967: Yankee Stadium, June 3rd: Watch Josh Gibson (Homestead Grays) hit a homerun that reportedly hit the top of the center field bleachers

1967 (ish): Party with George W. Bush at Yale

1969 (ish): Play rugby with Bill Clinton at Oxford

1975: Spend a few months shadowing Stephen Biko in South Africa

[Olympic Fan]

Care to elaborate on the salient aspects of Elizabethan history that would enable one to settle the authorship question with finality? I'd think one thing all of history has taught us is that the most literate figure in the history of the English language -- someone who used more than twice as many different words as any other writer in English -- is unlikely to be someone who never demonstrated any evidence of literacy at all in his private life, as is the case with the actor from Stratford. Not one book owned, not a single letter written. Just a household budget -- that's all we know he ever wrote.

The fact that de Vere -- hyper-educated and well-traveled in all the places Shakespeare wrote about -- is a "scumbag," i.e., pederast, buttresses the case for him. It's the reason he could not put his name on the plays.

I was persuaded to the de Vere case by a friend of mine, Joe Sobran, who wrote a book on the subject. I don't know that I'd accuse him of "gross ignorance," and certainly not "dishonesty" (he comes to the subject purely out of interest, not professional ambition), but as a long-time right-wing pundit he definitely can display a certain tunnel vision and obliviousness to information. But people should know it's not all crackpots in the de Vere camp. Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud thought he wrote the plays, and I believe Emerson did as well, despite his early paean to Shakespeare as the great, shining democrat.

I think rather than hijacking this thread to debate the Shakespeare authorship question,we should start a new one and go at it. I will suggest that if you want at least some evidence that Joe Sobran didn't know what he's talking about, you should check this FAQ:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sobran.html

Just one example that jumped out at me when I read Sobran's book in 1997 (I collect books about the authorship debate) -- he seemed to think it most significant that Shakespearre had never sued anybody for pirated editions of his plays after 1604 (the year of Oxford's death). That sounds impressive unless you know:

-- There were plenty of pirated editions of Shakespeare's earlier work that weren't prosecuted for the simple reason ...
-- That there were no copywright protection for dramatic works in Elizabethean England. Plays could be registered at the Stationer's Office (and had to be so that the government could maintain censorship over all publications), but authors had no protection from unauthorized publication until the Statute of Queen Anne in 1710 -- a century too late to protect Shakespeare.
So contrary to Mr. Sobran's contention, the fact that Shakespeare didn't pursue unauthorized publication of his work is hardly surprising.

It's an example of the gross ignorance I was talking about -- it's not that many of the people writing about the issue are themselves ignorant, but they are ignorant of the era. Or just ignorant of the plays -- Shakespeare's use of Italian geography is often cited as evidence that the author must have visited Italy (as Oxford did and we have no evidence about the Stratford actor) ... the only problem is that the author of the play gets that geography wrong, so what does that prove?

Your statement about the lack of evidence in "the literacy in his private life" is typical of the distortions of the Oxfordians -- in fact, there's no evidence than any Elizabethean playwright other than William Bird, Samuel Rowley, and Arthur Wilson owned any books. Sir Francis Bacon, the great lawyer and the wealthy aristocrat first suggested as the true author of the Shakespeare plays, didn't leave any mention of any books in his will. Letters from the other playwrights of the period are just as rare as are the lack of authentic manuscripts from the period.

The fact is that Shakespeare's legacy -- his education, his obscure life outside the playhouse, his lack of letters and manuscripts is matched almost exactly by his contemporaries.

And just to correct one of your factual errors, neither Twain nor Emerson ever thought Oxford was Shakespeare. Both were both courted by a lady named Delia Bacon, who suggested to them that the author was not de Vere, but Sir Francis Bacon. Actually, Nathaniel Hawthorne met Bacon in England, helped her get published there and wrote a preface to her book in which he testified that she was a lovely, cultured woman ... however, he stopped short of endorsing her thesis that Bacon wrote Shakespeare.

Delia Bacon (no relation to Sir Francis) inspired a Boston cryptographer named Ignatius Donnelly to examine the plays for coded messages. He found plenty, proving that Bacon wrote Shakespeare. But his findings were lated challenged by Col. William Friedman, who co-authored a book with his wife Elizabeth debunking Donnelly's claims.

To me, this is the prize of my collection of anti-Shakespeare books -- because it links two of the great conspiracy theories in history. Friedman was, of course, the head of the U.S. Army cryptography team that cracked the Japanese Purple Code before Pearl Harbor and provided all those diplomatic messages that failed to warn the government about the impending attack on Dec. 7, 1941.

Then there's Calvin Hoffman's The Murder of the Man Who Was Shakespeare. His theory is that Christopher Marlowe was not really killed in 1593 ... instead, to save him from arrest on charges of heresy, his murder was faked by the British secret service (his gay lover was the brother of the head of the secret service) and Marlowe fled to France, where he continued to write ... and that the non-descript actor from Stratford was hired to front for him.

Since then, there have been serious claims for the Earl of Rutland, a syndicate of writers headed by Oxford and lately, for Oxford himself.

Of course, the big problem with the case for Oxford (aside from the mountain of evidence that the actor from Stratford was accepted as the author by contemporaries) is the little fact that Oxford died in 1604, well before several of the plays were written. If you want a laugh, visit an Oxford site and watch them tie themselves in knots to prove that the accepted dating (and order) or the plays is all wrong.

Along those lines, Sobran briefly mentions, then shunts aside without comment the fact that in 1612, William Jaggard published an apology to Shakespeare for publishing two poems under his name that had in fact been written by Thomas Heywood ... the problem is that Haggard clearly states that Shakespeare was very offended by the act ... the problem for Sobran is that in 1612, Oxford had been dead for eight years and might have found it hard to protest.

You might also want to check out Gary Wills' book Witches and Jesuits. While not directed at the authorship question per se, Wills builds a pretty convincing case that MacBeth was written in response to the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 and contains literally dozens of references to the plot and the subsequent trials -- all of which took place long after Oxford's death.

Anyway, I won't hijack this thread with this stuff any longer ... if you want to carry on the debate, start a new thread and I'll be glad to join in.

[dkbaseball]

The fact is that Shakespeare's legacy -- his education, his obscure life outside the playhouse, his lack of letters and manuscripts is matched almost exactly by his contemporaries.

I don't have enough ammo to start a new thread and debate, and will defer to your obvious expertise on the subject. Without, however, necessarily conceding the question of authorship on the basis of what you've written, which are small points that don't go to the heart of Sobran's argument.

The crux of the matter is contained in your statement above. The fundamental point of those who question authorship is that whoever wrote the plays wasn't typical. He was the most atypical writer in the history of the English language.

To me it's always been an interesting question: Can literary brilliance emerge full-blown from a tabula rasa -- someone who has apparently never been exposed in any great measure to words, ideas, formal learning? Or must it necessarily arise out of an aristocracy that has the leisure to cultivate the mind? Offensive though it may be to our democratic mythology, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

[colchar]

Also, apparently the opening night of Death of a Salesman had the audience in complete silence at the end for a long time.

They were probably stunned by the fact that they had just paid money to see it and thus, had been ripped off.

Sorry, no idea why, but I simply hate Death of a Salesman (and really hated The Glass Menagerie as well).