This sort of explains how he could have spelled his own name, in its six known examples, six different ways -- three of them in the same document, his Last Will. Thus, Willm Shakp, William Shaksper, and Wm Shakspe; and William Shakspere, Willm Shakspere, and William Shakspeare. At least he knew how to spell 'William.' You'll hear the Oxfordians sneer at this. But, abbreviations are not misspellings, so we can discount Shakp -- and just trailing off, Shakspe, is my own habit -- Ja... Ha... instead of Jack Haytch, my true and full name. And Shakspere is spelled the same way twice. So, uh, there's a point there, that proves my point, whatever it is.
I too have been a horrific spellor, and remain a not-very-good one. (Spellchecker is a fantastic heuristic aid. I still miss sometimes on occurred, and consider. Hey, got both of them right, first try. Um, decision. Yep, that one too!) Likewise with handwriting. My own is functionally illegible, even to me, all too often. Needs to be remembered, as much as deciphered. It's a bother. As for Shakespeare's example, above, what a nightmare. Here follows the text.
MORE: Nay, certainly you are;
For to the king God hath his office lent
Of dread, of justice, power and command,
Hath bid him rule, and willed you to obey;
And, to add ampler majesty to this, 5
He hath not only lent the king his figure,
His throne and sword, but given him his own name,
Calls him a god on earth. What do you, then,
Rising ’gainst him that God himself installs,
But rise against God? What do you to your souls 10
In doing this? O, desperate as you are,
Wash your foul minds with tears, and those same hands,
That you like rebels lift against the peace,
Lift up for peace, and your unreverent knees,
Make them your feet to kneel to be forgiven! 15
Tell me but this. What rebel captain,
As mutinies are incident, by his name 19
Can still the rout? Who will obey a traitor? 20
Or how can well that proclamation sound,
When there is no addition but a rebel
To qualify a rebel? You’ll put down strangers,
Kill them, cut their throats, possess their houses,
And lead the majesty of law in line, 25
To slip him like a hound. Say now the king
(As he is clement, if th’ offender mourn)
Should so much come to short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whether would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error, 30
Should give you harbor? Go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, any where that not adheres to England,—
Why, you must needs be strangers. Would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper, 35
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the claimants 40
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? This is the strangers’ case;
And this your mountanish inhumanity. 44
The link is Sir Ian bringing life to the matter.
In any case, how, how, how could anyone read the manuscript, the holograph? Here's a start:
but chartered unto them, what would you think
to be thus used, this is the strangers case.
and this your mountanish inhumanity
I recognize a w, and an o. And his commas are really nice. The three crossed-out lines -- 16, 17 and 18 -- are resolved by editors into "Tell me but this. What rebel captain,". Punctuation and capitalization are almost entirely from the editors.
So many lessons here. About opinions and dogmas and evidence and humility and meaning. I mean lessons in the handwriting and trying to read it. As for the meaning of the speach, yeah, I suppose that's good too.
I'm thinking of writing The Autobiography of God. If you have bothered to look at my Jesus as Human Being, you'll have an idea. If you bothered. But The Kardashians! is on, so there's that, if they're still a thing. Is Huny Bubu still a thing?