If you could go back in history

[dkbaseball]

In the spirit of dukemomLA's survey questions, let me throw out the following, since it's a matter of some curiosity to me. If you could go back in history, and assuming you could understand the language being spoken, what would be your top five choices? My candidates, in order of preference:

(1) Follow Jesus of Nazareth around. Catch the sermon on the mount.

(2) Watch the Buddha training his monks.

(3) Catch Ralph Waldo Emerson on the lecture circuit.

(4) Go to New York in 1927. Watch Lindbergh take off, catch a few Yankees games, Cotton Club in the evening (was it open then?).

(5) Catch the Beatles in Hamburg or Liverpool in the early '60s before they hit it big.

[sportsgirl4]

Is it bad that all of the moments that popped right into my head are sports-related???

[hurleyfor3]

Is it bad that all of the moments that popped right into my head are sports-related???

only to the extent that we did this question for sports a few weeks ago

[365Duke]

Is it bad that all of the moments that popped right into my head are sports-related???

not compared to mine. my 1st though was to go back just to last night, and to be waiting in the bathroom when Bin Laden took his middle of the night wee.:D
The today I would be collecting my $50 million bounty:p

[hurleyfor3]

Would we be allowed to participate in the event to which we choose to go back, thus possibly changing the course of history or profiting from an attractive investment opportunity? Or would we have to just watch?

[TillyGalore]

my 1st though was to go back just to last night, and to be waiting in the bathroom when Bin Laden took his middle of the night wee.:D
The today I would be collecting my $50 million bounty:p

Great idea!!!!

[Windsor]

In no particular order:

1. Shoot some pool with Jackie Gleason

2. Have a few drinks with Winston Churchill (FDR can join us)

3. Take a spin around a ballroom with Fred Astaire

4. See Sinatra in his prime

5. Hear Farinelli or Carestini sing

6. Attend the premier of Beethoven's 9th in Vienna

7. Spend a few days with da Vinci

I deliberately left off sports and went with personal things, also omitting stuff like 'make sure Hitler gets into art school' etc.

Looking over it, that's quite the odd collection...Gleason and da Vinci? Makes you wonder!

[dkbaseball]

Would we be allowed to participate in the event to which we choose to go back, thus possibly changing the course of history or profiting from an attractive investment opportunity? Or would we have to just watch?

Participation is fine, financial profit out. No kissing up to Bill Gates in 1980.

[snowdenscold]

I
6. Attend the premier of Beethoven's 9th in Vienna


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.

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

Opening night of Star Wars (wasn't quite born in 1977...) would have been cool too.

It's too bad we're not allowed to get involved, or I'd knock that apple out of Eve's hand so fast...

[greybeard]

"Time and Again," a novel by Jack Finnery, set in NY at the turn of the last century, or was it the one before the last; rich in its description of NY at that time, and a plot that tingles with an attempt to alter history. Worthy of a summertime fling.

[rthomas]

I'd go back to last Wednesday, borrow as many $$ as possible and invest in a Dow index.

[EarlJam]

I'd like to be at Pearl Harbor (from a safe distance) and watch it happen - and watch the fallout over the next few months, and years of WWII.

That may sound morbid, but it would be facinating watching the "9/11" of the 20th century happen live.

I would also like to go back to the morning of April 14, 1865, to approach Abraham Lincoln. I'd tell him, "Hey man, you're wife's gonna ask you to go to the theatre tonight. I dare you to tell her you'd rather have your head blown off."

-EarlJam

[tombrady]

I'd like to be at Pearl Harbor (from a safe distance) and watch it happen - and watch the fallout over the next few months, and years of WWII.

That may sound morbid, but it would be facinating watching the "9/11" of the 20th century happen live.

I would also like to go back to the morning of April 14, 1865, to approach Abraham Lincoln. I'd tell him, "Hey man, you're wife's gonna ask you to go to the theatre tonight. I dare you to tell her you'd rather have your head blown off."

-EarlJam

Grow a pair and go to Hiroshima then.

You'd even get a quick replay if you jetted over to Nagasaki a few days later.


I would not want to be anywhere near Pearl Harbor or those sites when stuff happened...I wouldn't really find it fascinating. Its not like it was a good battle or anything -- it was just tons of one-sided death and destruction.

[EarlJam]

Grow a pair and go to Hiroshima then.

You'd even get a quick replay if you jetted over to Nagasaki a few days later.

I would not want to be anywhere near Pearl Harbor or those sites when stuff happened...I wouldn't really find it fascinating. Its not like it was a good battle or anything -- it was just tons of one-sided death and destruction.

Yes, but it was one of the most historic and pivitol events in American history. I didn't say I'd jump up and down and celebrate it. It would just be interesting to see it unfold.

And yes, from a lonnnnnnnnnnng distance away I wouldn't mind seeing the Hiroshima event (good suggestion). Again, it was awful, yes. I would not wear face paint, cheer and wave pom poms. It would just be facinating to see.

-EarlJam, who sincerely embraces the concept of and longs for world peace.

[FreezingDevil]

Hiroshima jokes: Too soon?

[EarlJam]

Hiroshima jokes: Too soon?

No one's joking about Hiroshima....or Nagasaki. Arguments can be made for both sides - and I've read some on both sides. My only point here is that the events changed the world, and therefore they would be interesting to see happen.

Nothing funny about it.......nothing to be happy about or to celebrate.......in fact, quite the opposite. Just answering the thread poster's question.

-EarlJam

[Windsor]

Nothing funny about it.......nothing to be happy about or to celebrate.......in fact, quite the opposite. Just answering the thread poster's question.

-EarlJam


I can't say I would want to witness any of those events, but they are monumental points in history and I can understand why you might want to observe them.

[EarlJam]

I can't say I would want to witness any of those events, but they are monumental points in history and I can understand why you might want to observe them.

Yeah. Really important to communicate here that a desire to see them does not equate to a celebration of them or a thankfulness that they happened.

It's why movies like Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Alamo or JFK and so on and so on are popular. We are facinated by these events. Anyone who's ever watched a documentary or a movie, Saving Private Ryan (Normandy) is another one, has basically shown a desire to want to SEE it happen or to better understand it.

-EarlJam

[FreezingDevil]

A prime benefit of time travel is that I would not have to sit through horrible movies like Pearl Harbor or The Alamo. I would just go back to those moments in time and see what really happened. Granted, there would probably be no background music to set the tone but I could bring my iPod.

But in all seriousness, many of history's greatest debates, such as the one surrounding Hiroshima, would never be resolved even if we all could go back to witness the events. People simply have different points of view and will thus interpret the same exact thing a hundred different ways. The true benefit of witnessing an event such as Hiroshima is that those present would have a better appreciation for the horrors mankind is capable of and be inspired to never forget it.

[DevilAlumna]

I think I would have like to either join Lewis & Clark on their trip Westward; or to be a pioneer on the Oregon trail.

The expansion of the American West, the excitement and the newness of it all, I think would have been nearly a religious experience. The first time I saw the Rocky Mountains in person was amazing, driving into Colorado from the flat prairie of Nebraska, and I'd seen pictures. I can't imagine what it would be like to feel like you were one of the first (non-Native Americans) to ever see the splendor.

I also would have liked to have been member of the court in Russia at the times of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.

[captmojo]

Rather than my own time travel, I've often wondered what it might be like to stay here and use said time machine to bring forth interesting figures from history to see if he/she could fathom the fascinations of the present day.

[Windsor]

Rather than my own time travel, I've often wondered what it might be like to stay here and use said time machine to bring forth interesting figures from history to see if he/she could fathom the fascinations of the present day.


I would put H.G. Wells on the top of my list for that trip.

[rthomas]

Rather than my own time travel, I've often wondered what it might be like to stay here and use said time machine to bring forth interesting figures from history to see if he/she could fathom the fascinations of the present day.

Einstein, Newton, Hawking and an interpretor for dinner with a lot of wine.

[mapei]

I would like an opportunity to do high school and college again, knowing what I know now. Not to mention about four key relationships over the years.

If that doesn't count, I'd like to hang out with Henry Miller and Anais Nin, in Paris and later in Big Sur. And then fast-forward a couple of decades to hang with Warhol's crowd.

I wouldn't mind spending time in Laurel Canyon with Graham, Joni, Stills, Crosby (at a safe distance in his case), James, Jackson, Judy and so forth.

And I'd like to be there the night they drove old Dixie down. Like EJ, not because it would be fun, but because it would be momentous.

[dukemomLA]

But if I have to pick five:

Hang out with Jesus of Nazareth during his "lost years."

Land on the moon with Neil Armstrong.

Climb Everest with Edmund Hillary

Watch Shakespeare write Hamlet -- and see L. Olivier perform it on stage.

Jam with Duke Ellington & Count Basie.

...and oh, yeah -- watch Mozart compose just about anything.

BTY -- GREAT Thread

[dkbaseball]

Watch Shakespeare write Hamlet

Ah yes, and get the great question answered. I'll lay odds that you'll be watching Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, at work.

[dukemomLA]

Ah, yes.... would be interested to see. Shakespeare, Marlowe, Edward, etc. That's what I'd like to discover.

[Bob Green]

No one's joking about Hiroshima....or Nagasaki. Arguments can be made for both sides - and I've read some on both sides. My only point here is that the events changed the world, and therefore they would be interesting to see happen.

Nothing funny about it.......nothing to be happy about or to celebrate.......in fact, quite the opposite. Just answering the thread poster's question.

-EarlJam

I too would desire to observe the beginning and end of WWII. Like EarlJam, I'm not talking about cheering or waving pom poms, just observing significant historic events.

I lived in Pearl Harbor for three years (79-82) aboard a ship and I've visited Nagasaki twice and Hiroshima once. I've also visited war museums and memorials in Okinawa, Guam, Singapore, etc...the big one I've missed out on is Corregidor Island in the Philippines (too busy drinking beer). The starting point of the Bataan (don't even get my wife started on how Americans cannot pronounce this word) Death March. It would be interesting to see these historic events live.

As far as morbid events, on the night of March 22/23, 1945, 333 B-29 bombers fire bombed Tokyo and killed in the vicinity of 100,000 people. Ten square miles of the city was burnt to the ground and witnesses stated that the water in the Tokyo river boiled.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

p.s. It is pronounced with three syllables Ba-ta-an, not two Ba-tan.

[dbb03]

I would like an opportunity to do... college again, knowing what I know now.

Ditto. A million opportunities, no real-life obligations. Sigh.;)

[gus]

That may sound morbid, but it would be facinating watching the "9/11" of the 20th century happen live.


I witnessed the 9/11 of this century, and cannot fathom actually *wanting* to do something like that. I doesn't just sound morbid, but masochistic too.

[Windsor]

I witnessed the 9/11 of this century, and cannot fathom actually *wanting* to do something like that. I doesn't just sound morbid, but masochistic too.


9/11 hasn't yet faded into 'history' it is still too recent -someday in the future historians will wish they could actually witness the events as the unfolded. Really.

How many civil war buffs would love to actually witness some of the great (and bloody) battles of that conflict (no cheering no pom poms)? Ditto the american revolution and on through history ... Trafalgar ... Agincort ... Hastings...and so on. WWII isn't any different, just more recent.

[EarlJam]

I witnessed the 9/11 of this century, and cannot fathom actually *wanting* to do something like that. I doesn't just sound morbid, but masochistic too.

So you've never seen a war movie? Or desired to see a war movie?

Again, I wouldn't want to see it to enjoy watching people die (just refer to my earlier posts).

-EarlJam

[hurleyfor3]

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

[lmb]

I'd want to be behind the fence on the grassy knoll to see what, if anything, really happened there.

Roswell would be interesting too - or any other place where I could know the truth behind a conspiracy theory.

[gus]

So you've never seen a war movie? Or desired to see a war movie?

Again, I wouldn't want to see it to enjoy watching people die (just refer to my earlier posts).

-EarlJam

Seeing a fictionalized account of a war is quite a bit different than being present while thousands die. Even seeing a documentary is different than being there. Believe me.

I was close enough. I have friends who were even closer. I've never heard anyone say they were glad to be there to witness it. Even in 50 years, it will be a day that I will wish had never happened, and that I had not been a part of.

I can understand people wanting to see movies about the day. I've even seen a movie about that day (Stone's... and it probably will be the last one I see). But being there? No thanks. I'd happily give witnessing that historic event away to you if I could. One of my friends literally dodged falling bodies. I'm sure he'd happily give away that day too. You can have both.

[Windsor]

Even in 50 years, it will be a day that I will wish had never happened, and that I had not been a part of.


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?

[EarlJam]

Seeing a fictionalized account of a war is quite a bit different than being present while thousands die. Even seeing a documentary is different than being there. Believe me.

I was close enough. I have friends who were even closer. I've never heard anyone say they were glad to be there to witness it. Even in 50 years, it will be a day that I will wish had never happened, and that I had not been a part of.

I can understand people wanting to see movies about the day. I've even seen a movie about that day (Stone's... and it probably will be the last one I see). But being there? No thanks. I'd happily give witnessing that historic event away to you if I could. One of my friends literally dodged falling bodies. I'm sure he'd happily give away that day too. You can have both.

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. Tragic? Yes. Absolutely. I don't need to be sold on that. And I'm not a "fan" of tragedy and I don't celebrate people falling to their deaths or being burned alive. It may seem honorable and noble to deny any interest in events where there was mass loss of life, suffering, etc. and it's done with good intention, but the truth is, such events do intrigue us humans. I think it's innate. For any of these events, if I went back in time and could prevent them from happening, I would.

-EarlJam

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

[EarlJam]

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?

Well, you made my point much more effectively than I did. Well put.

[Olympic Fan]

Ah yes, and get the great question answered. I'll lay odds that you'll be watching Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, at work.

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).

That said, I would love to visit Elizabethean England, catch a few premier performances of the Bard's plays, then track him down in a nearby alehouse and buy him a drink.

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.

You're also right that there are a ton of premieres that would be worth attending -- I'd choose those that evoke strong audience responses. I'd want to be at Carmen's Paris premiere to try and understand why most of the audience walked out at intermission ... I'd want to be in Dublin for the 1907 premiere of Synge's Playboy of the Western World to try and understand what provoked the audience to riot (and the riot to spill out and engulf much of the city). I'd like to see Rodin present his Balzac in 1898 to the members of the French academy and watch those well-educated clowns reject it. Did they really spit on it and throw garbage (where would they have gotten the garbage)?

If there's a heaven, my idea of my personal paradise would be the ability to travel any where, any place and observe history. I wouldn't want to change it ... I don't trust myself to make the right choices (even something as obvious as killing a young Hitler could actually lead to an even worse future) ... no, just to stand in the background and observe. I understand the fascination with military events, but my first choices would be pursue the great artists and their creations.

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. When the Chapel was cleaned a decade ago, the artist supervising the work convinced the Vatican that Michaelangelo had used the bright, cartoon-like colors of his contemporaries and that the unusual darkening of the Sistine paintings was due to the accumulation of smoke from thousands (millions?) of candles used in the Chapel over the centuries.

It's a good theory but I think it's wrong. My only evidence is Raphael's painting (done while Michaelangeo was doing the Sistine) "The School of Athens" ... All of the characters -- Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and the rest -- are done in the bright, cartoon-like colors of the period. But there's one exception ... down in front, seated in a pose not unlike like Rodin's The Thinker, is a curiously drawn figure -- in darkened and muted shades. That was Raphael's depiction of Michaelangelo. My belief is that he saw the Sistine work in progress and painted its artist in his own revolutionary style. I believe it was a mistake to restore the ceiling in bright, vibrant colors.

Anyway, if I could visit Rome in 1512 or 1513 and see the new work as Michaelangelo intended it, I could settle the debate.

[mapei]

Very, very cool thread.

>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.

Awesome.

[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).

[colchar]

Grow a pair and go to Hiroshima then.

You'd even get a quick replay if you jetted over to Nagasaki a few days later.



Personally, I would have absolutely no problem watching either of those events.

[colchar]

Einstein, Newton, Hawking and an interpretor for dinner with a lot of wine.

Just watch the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode and you can see that.

By the way...why the interpretor? They all spoke english.

[colchar]

Ah yes, and get the great question answered. I'll lay odds that you'll be watching Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, at work.

Hasn't that theory been thoroughly discounted? Or does the debate continue? My understanding was that most scholars rejected it (not that I have ever really looked into it).

[colchar]

9/11 hasn't yet faded into 'history' it is still too recent -someday in the future historians will wish they could actually witness the events as the unfolded. Really.

How many civil war buffs would love to actually witness some of the great (and bloody) battles of that conflict (no cheering no pom poms)? Ditto the american revolution and on through history ... Trafalgar ... Agincort ... Hastings...and so on. WWII isn't any different, just more recent.

Nope, we wouldn't want to witness them. While it might be interesting, it would put most of us out of work and force us to get real jobs.

[Olympic Fan]

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.

I know I said I'd quit hijacking this thread, but I can't let that pass without comment.

First, the idea that the Stratford actor was "never exposed" in any measure to "words, ideas [formal learning]" ... is as presumptious as anything I have read and again, a display of gross ignorance about the period. The only part that bears a little truth is the lack of formal training -- although from what we know of the Grammar school he almost certainly attended, he would have received a very solid educational foundation. We can guess this because of his Stratford friends and contemporaries.

Just two examples -- his neighbor, Richard Field, who was born and grew up four houses down from Shakespeare's dwelling. He was two years older to Shakespeare and was the son of a tanner; John Shakespeare, who probably used Henry Field's products to make his gloves, was essentially an executor to the elder Field's will, so I think it's safe to say they know each other. Richard Field was literate enough to go to London and become the most successful and properous publisher of his era. When you check the books he published, you find an amazing number of source materials for Shakespeare's plays.

Then there is Shakespeare's Stratford neighbor Richard Quiney, who stayed in Stratford and ended up as the town's Baliff. Again, he grew up at the same time as Shakespeare and received the same education. By a miracle, many of his letters survive-- including a famous one to Shakespeare. His letters are literate -- many in Latin -- and evidence of a well-rounded education. His oldest son married Shakespeare's daughter Judith.

I mention these to suggest the best evidence is that Shakespeare received a very solid public education growing up in Stratford. That's as much or more than most of his contemporary playwrights received. It's enough to enable a man of genius to take his education to the level where the author of the plays obviously did.

As for needing to "arise out of an aristocracy that has the leisure to cultivate the mind?" -- Marlowe was the son of a shoemaker ... Ben Jonson was the stepson of a bricklayer and worked at that trade for seven years before becoming a playwright.

And pardon me for being a democrat (small D in this case), but the idea that only the aristocratic classes have the "leisure to cultivate the mind" is patently absurd ... when you look at the most brilliant and accomplished minds in history, it's amazing how many come from non-aristocratic roots.

Samuel Clemens was grubbing his way as a poor newspaper reporter when he created Mark Twain and made himself rich ... Charles Dickens was working as a boot black after his father was thrown in debtor's prison ...Thomas Mann, the son of a not very successful grain merchant (one of John Shakespeare's professions) was training as a journalist ... Balzac was working as a notary clerk (for that matter Einstein had to support himself as a patent clerk) ... what about George Washington Carver, born into slavery? Ben Franklin, apprenticed as a printer ... Thomas Paine, left school when he was 12 and was apprenticed as a corsetmaker ... I could give you hundreds of these ... What kind of aristocratic background did Abraham Lincoln have? What kind of formal education? Yet, he became arguably the most brilliant man to ever occupy the presidency.

Now, you might wonder if this "democracy of the mind" applies to Shakespeare's time ... as I mentioned, it certainly applied to Marlowe (shoemaker) and Jonson (bricklayer), Shakespeare's two greatest contemporaries. Check out the next rank of successful playwrights -- John Ford, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Thomas Kyd, Thomas Middleton, John Webster ... you'll be surprised how many came from backgrounds every bit as humble as Shakespeare. Outside the literary community you can find just as many middle and lower class success stories -- for instance the great sailor Francis Drake was the son of a small farmer/preacher. And just for those who find the lack of details about Shakespeare's life suspicious, you do know that we have no idea exactly when Drake was born ... more conspiracy?

Shakespeare -- the Stratford actor -- was recognized in his time as the most popular and successful playwright then working. It's a shame that his contemporaries didn't deify him as we have come to do. Maybe they would have treated him differently and left us more information than they in fact did (which was, it turns out, more than for most of his contemporaries). Instead, he was the Elizabethan equivilent to Adam Sorkin -- the successful (and much honored) writer of a popular low-brow entertainment.

There is a reason that serious Shakespeare scholars rarely participate in these debates ... because the evidence against the Stratford actor is so shallow and so often displays an ignorance of the subject that it's not worth debating -- for the same reason you don't get professional geographers arguing with the Flat Earth people.

I guess if you believe that genius can only be displayed by aristocrats, then the Oxfordian argument must exert a great appeal. But genius is where you find it -- in a log cabin with a dirt floor in Kentucky, in a printer's shop in Philadelphia, in a San Francisco newsroom ... or in a thach-roofed house in a rural English town on the Avon River.

[killerleft]

The discovery and opening of King Tut's tomb would be very exciting.

[colchar]

The discovery and opening of King Tut's tomb would be very exciting.

Except for the whole curse thing.

[captmojo]

1) I've gotta go to Jerusalem at the time of Christ's execution
2) Gotta know what happened to the "Lost Colony"
3) Witness John meeting Paul
4) Hobknob at the "Algonquin round table"
5) Witness the final week up to signing of the Declaration of Independence

These are in no order of importance.

Turning it around, I would enjoy escorting Benjamin Franklin in a tour of the present day. What a cool guy to just hang around with.

[snowdenscold]

Turning it around, I would enjoy escorting Benjamin Franklin in a tour of the present day. What a cool guy to just hang around with.

Just hire that guy from The Office, haha.


Oh, and whoever mentioned the Rite of Spring premiere above - I agree, that would have been interesting to be in attendance for.