178Marlowe Wasn't the Author of Shakespeare's Plays
Matt Brown
Despite the many candidates proposed as the "true" author
of Shakespeare's works by the tin foil hats on this newsgroup,
William Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate
supported by the historical evidence.
see also
The Droeshout portrait isn't unusual at all!
http://shakesandbacon.yolasite.com
mylear
works by the tin foil hats on this newsgroup, Christopher Marlowe of
Canterbury remains the only candidate supported by the historical
evidence.
lackpurity
MM:
How many works do you think he authored? He lived a short life. He
was really more of an orator than a writer, but he had the talent to
put his teachings on paper, also. This was done, IMO, as a favor to
William Shakespeare. Marlowe was the forerunner to Shakespeare. He
did a great service in paving the way for the Stratford Bard.
I suspect that you might be attributing to him more works than he
authored. How many works could he write in just a a few years?
"Historical evidence" indicates that he died in 1593, at the young age
of 29. He attended Cambridge, so there was just a tiny window of a
few years, in which he could have written his canon. When did he
foresee his own death? He mentioned, "That which nourishes me,
destroys me." It would be highly doubtful that he would have started
any play after that, IMO.
What Marlowe would have done, IMO, is to upgrade his successor, whom
Robert Greene called "an upstart crow." John the Baptist had to tell
the people about his successor, Jesus. Marlowe was in a similar
situation. He had exactly the same task to perform, not writing
plays. IMO, Marlowe made it clear to everyone that William
Shakespeare was his successor to be. He told the Wilton Cult and the
actors the same all-important message.
Michael Martin
mylear
Evidently you have failed to grasp that my paraphrasing was intended
as a send-up of Matt Brown's inane statement, headed by "Marlowe
Wasn't the Author of Shakespeare's Plays". Matt, along with many
other 'Stratfordians' within this forum, seems completely unaware of
the findings of modern scholarship - that a significant number of the
Shakespearean works are co-authored. It also exemplifies my
contention that many of those who style themselves as 'Stratfordian'
are intellectually lazy.
JH
ignoto
Really? What historical evidence would that be?
Ign.
>
>
>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
most of us, means the man who should be given credit for the
authorship of the First Folio plays (and, possibly, some others).
"authorship" being defined as the person responsible for all
or the great majority of the significant words in a given work. That
some others MAY have been responsible for a portion of the
words in some plays does not keep Shakespeare from being
the "True Author" of those plays, according to all the historical
evidence.
Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
someone else's having worked with him on a play. All
the records, most prominently the testimony of two men he
with for twenty years or so, indicate one author only.
I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in.
Standard anti-Stratfordian evasiveness.
--Bob G.
lackpurity
MM:
No, I had you pegged from the beginning, that's why I asked you how
many works did you think Marlowe authored.
Look, "modern scholarhship," sounds impressive, but the fact is that
the claims of co-authorship is as ambiguous as ever. I think most of
the claims can be pigeonholed as fantasies, just as easily as "modern
scholarship." Modern scholarship is just as ignorant as old
scholarship. LOL We need a mystic to explain mystic teachings, not
some scholar who doesn't even know what mysticism is.
It also exemplifies my
> contention that many of those who style themselves as 'Stratfordian'
> are intellectually lazy.
>
> JH
MM:
IOW, you're more inclined to believe fantasies than the historical
evidence? LOL Stratfordians have considered all points, and they
have concluded that Anti-Stratfordianism is by and large a bunch of
fantasies, especially the massive cover-up. Look at Knave's website.
It certainly doesn't look "lazy" to me.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
I concur with Bob Grumman. Calling a misguided theory "modern
scholarship," might sound nice and appealing, but that's about it.
Strats like the truth, whether it is appealing, or not. Could it be
that Strats are more mature?
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
The subtle pigeonholing of the Strat Man is amazing. Yes, let's see
some evidence, and not just lean on their latest crutch "modern
scholarship." Modern scholarship seems to be groping in the dark just
as much as ever. It will take something much more than these subtle
pigeonholings to overturn history.
Michael Martin
mylear
but.net> wrote:
> That some others MAY have been responsible for a portion of the
> words in some plays does not keep Shakespeare from being
> the "True Author" of those plays, according to all the historical
> evidence.
>
Shakespeare's contribution to Edward 3 amounts to no more than 40
percent. There are many other examples where what you disparagingly
refer to as "some words" amounts to a very sizeable fraction of the
entire work.
>
> Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
> any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
> someone else's having worked with him on a play. All
> the records, most prominently the testimony of two men he
> with for twenty years or so, indicate one author only.
>
of each play. There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
>
> I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in.
>
says as gospel truth. And I recognise that she is an Oxfordian.
>
> Standard anti-Stratfordian evasiveness.
>
Bob's customary mantra is duly noted. Anyone Bob disagrees with is
"anti-Stratfordian". The true signature of a crank.
>
John W Kennedy
> Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
> any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
> someone else's having worked with him on a play.
Not so. "Cardenio" (in legal paperwork) and "The Two Noble Kinsmen" (on
the Q1 title page) are specifically credited to Shakespeare and
Fletcher. Those are the only ones I can recall offhand.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On 12/23/09 9:14 AM, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> > Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
> > any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
> > someone else's having worked with him on a play.
>
> Not so. "Cardenio" (in legal paperwork) and "The Two Noble Kinsmen" (on
> the Q1 title page) are specifically credited to Shakespeare and
> Fletcher. Those are the only ones I can recall offhand.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
You %$!!#$! anti-Stratfordian. Go back to the Shakespeare
Fellowship!!
No, wait. Let me lie to who myself not a crank, and pretend
you're not an anti-Stratfordian for disagreeing with me, and reply:
Right. I was writing too fast. I meant the First Folio
Shakespeare plays. I consider these the only plays
indisputably Shakespeare's--i.e., he is their author
although perhaps not responsible for every word in them.
I believe he co-authored other plays and agree there
is evidence for this. But those plays I would not give
him credit as author for. I don't claim to be right beyond
reasonable doubt on this question.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > That some others MAY have been responsible for a portion of the
> > words in some plays does not keep Shakespeare from being
> > the "True Author" of those plays, according to all the historical
> > evidence.
Those plays being the First Folio ones, as I'm sure I mentioned in my
post.
>
> There is a developing consensus of modern stylometric researchers that
> Shakespeare's contribution to Edward 3 amounts to no more than 40
> percent. There are many other examples where what you disparagingly
> refer to as "some words" amounts to a very sizeable fraction of the
> entire work.
I used "portion of the words" so as not to have to say,
"lines, or passages, or scenes, or songs." It's a generalization,
not disparagement. Maybe it could have been better expressed.
> > Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
> > any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
> > someone else's having worked with him on a play. All
> > the records, most prominently the testimony of two men he
> > with for twenty years or so, indicate one author only.
Again, I'm assuming the first Folio plays. The plays certainly
by Shakespeare.
> The evidence and the "record" is revealed in the stylometric structure
> of each play. There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
> authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
> seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
Not unlikely, at all, to me. Probable. But there's no historical
evidence
for it. Styometric evidence is not historical evidence.
> > I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in.
>
> Wrong again. I have never indicated that I accept everything Price
> says as gospel truth. And I recognise that she is an Oxfordian.
You stated at the beginning of the thread that led to the later one
that, among other things you agree with Price on (around ten,
as I recall, all moronic nonsense that only an anti-Stratfordian
believe in), there was no literary paper trail for Shakespeare.
> > Standard anti-Stratfordian evasiveness.
>
> Bob's customary mantra is duly noted. Anyone Bob disagrees with is
> "anti-Stratfordian". The true signature of a crank.
Ah, you don't believe someone not an anti-Stratfordian can
have some anti-Stratfordian attributes? And that if I
call you an anti-Stratfordian after I've disagreed with you,
it follows that I would do the same with ANYone I disagreed
with, even though there are examples of my disagreement
with all kinds of people on all kinds of things that did not
result in my calling my opponents anti-Stratfordians, or
anything negative. Generalities like yours are a better
"signature of a crank" than my pointing how you evade.
And you're evading me again. I stated: "I note that you
weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in." The fact
that you claim not to believe in Price's sophistry is
irrelevant; forthrightly to answer my charge, you need
to show it was untrue. You didn't. You confirmed it by once
again evading it--the way anti-Stratfordians tend always
to evade arguments they can't handle.
--Bob
ignoto
But stylometric evidence is dependent on historical evidence: for any
stylometric study of authorship there needs to be an accepted group of
texts that can function as a control group. A control group consists of
those texts whose authorship is established by the historical record
less those texts or portions of texts which are rendered suspect by
appearing to be either 'unshakespeareian' or in which there is evidence
of the hand of another writer. One of the tasks of co-authorship studies
is to determine the validity of such 'suspect' texts. The other is to
determine the validity of authorship claims resting solely on stylometic
grounds:
"From a set of texts associated with the author on solid external
grounds we build up our sense of his distinctive way of writing, and
this sense either reinforces or undermines the original external
evidence so far as it concerns plays or scenes, and gives us some basis
for adjudicating on the authenticity of works for which external
evidence is weaker. From data concerning vocabulary, metre, imagery,
syntax, grammar, orthography, and so on, we construct whether
deliberately and systematically or through a largely unconscious
process, an authorial profile with which disputed works can be compared."
Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as test case By MacDonald Pairman
Jackson, p21
Ign.
mylear
but.net> wrote:
> > > That some others MAY have been responsible for a portion of the
> > > words in some plays does not keep Shakespeare from being
> > > the "True Author" of those plays, according to all the historical
> > > evidence.
>
> Those plays being the First Folio ones, as I'm sure I mentioned in my
> post.
>
use of the word "historical" begs several questions. Among which is
the nature and basis of historical analysis. The fact that there is
direct (what you would probably call "historical") evidence for
collaboration between William and John opens up the entire field for
consideration, including the FF plays. Collaboration and co-authorship
- of plays in particular - was very common at the time. Almost all
authors engaged in the practice. Why would one expect William to be an
exception to the rule? There are many detailed studies which arrive at
the conclusion that a significant number of FF plays and SF plays are
co-authored works. You are entitled to disagree with the conclusions
of the scholars who carried out these studies, but you cannot deny the
existence of a significant body of informed and scholarly opinion
which supports co-authorship of several FF plays, unless of course you
are completely irrational.
>
> > There is a developing consensus of modern stylometric researchers that
> > Shakespeare's contribution to Edward 3 amounts to no more than 40
> > percent. There are many other examples where what you disparagingly
> > refer to as "some words" amounts to a very sizeable fraction of the
> > entire work.
>
> I used "portion of the words" so as not to have to say,
> "lines, or passages, or scenes, or songs." It's a generalization,
> not disparagement. Maybe it could have been better expressed.
>
> > > Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
> > > any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
> > > someone else's having worked with him on a play. All
> > > the records, most prominently the testimony of two men he
> > > with for twenty years or so, indicate one author only.
>
> Again, I'm assuming the first Folio plays. The plays certainly
> by Shakespeare.
>
> > The evidence and the "record" is revealed in the stylometric structure
> > of each play. There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
> > authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
> > seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
>
> Not unlikely, at all, to me. Probable. But there's no historical
> evidence for it. Styometric evidence is not historical evidence.
>
ananlysis.
>
> > > I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in.
>
> > Wrong again. I have never indicated that I accept everything Price
> > says as gospel truth. And I recognise that she is an Oxfordian.
>
> You stated at the beginning of the thread that led to the later one
> that, among other things you agree with Price on (around ten,
> as I recall, all moronic nonsense that only an anti-Stratfordian
> believe in), there was no literary paper trail for Shakespeare.
>
scrawly signatures on his will might have been written by a solicitor.
I'm not saying that they were, just that it is not firmly established
they were William's. Why do you have a problem with that? The same is
not the case with other contemporary authors. For example we have
definite (ie, what you might describe as "historical") evidence of
Marlowe's signature, on a legal document to which his father and other
acquaintances also appended their signatures. It is very improbable
that these signatures were written by others.
In regard to the issue of the literacy of William's daughters, it is
widely believed (ie, by a clear majority of scholars) that Judith was
illiterate. And in my opinion the case you have made for the literacy
of Susanna is a weak case.
>
> > > Standard anti-Stratfordian evasiveness.
>
> > Bob's customary mantra is duly noted. Anyone Bob disagrees with is
> > "anti-Stratfordian". The true signature of a crank.
>
> Ah, you don't believe someone not an anti-Stratfordian can
> have some anti-Stratfordian attributes?
>
Now this statement is indeed an exercise in sophistry. The loaded
nature of it - signifying your obsession with labelling others - is
the true signature of a crank.
>
> And that if I
> call you an anti-Stratfordian after I've disagreed with you,
> it follows that I would do the same with ANYone I disagreed
> with, even though there are examples of my disagreement
> with all kinds of people on all kinds of things that did not
> result in my calling my opponents anti-Stratfordians, or
> anything negative.
>
Perhaps, then, you only reserve this tactic for those whose reasoning
you have difficulty countering?
>
> Generalities like yours are a better
> "signature of a crank" than my pointing how you evade.
>
ho hum ... (yawn)
>
> And you're evading me again.
>
nonsense
>
I stated: "I note that you
> weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in." The fact
> that you claim not to believe in Price's sophistry is
> irrelevant; forthrightly to answer my charge, you need
> to show it was untrue. You didn't. You confirmed it by once
> again evading it--the way anti-Stratfordians tend always
> to evade arguments they can't handle.
>
What can I say? You argue using generalisations, in order to suit your
purpose. Many of your statements are intentionally loaded, or abusive,
or both. I will leave it to others to judge the value and relevance of
your comments.
JH
mylear
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> The evidence and the "record" is revealed in the stylometric structure
> >> of each play. There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
> >> authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
> >> seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
>
> > Not unlikely, at all, to me. Probable. But there's no historical
> > evidence for it. Stylometric evidence is not historical evidence.
>
> But stylometric evidence is dependent on historical evidence: for any
> stylometric study of authorship there needs to be an accepted group of
> texts that can function as a control group. A control group consists of
> those texts whose authorship is established by the historical record
> less those texts or portions of texts which are rendered suspect by
> appearing to be either 'unshakespeareian' or in which there is evidence
> of the hand of another writer. One of the tasks of co-authorship studies
> is to determine the validity of such 'suspect' texts. The other is to
> determine the validity of authorship claims resting solely on stylometic
> grounds:
>
One also has the problem of choosing which works should be taken as a
"control group". And this is where the issue becomes somewhat
cyclical, because it is largely stylometric and other textual
considerations which form the basis for doing so. These are recognised
limitations, but they do not render the methodology invalid or
useless.
>
> "From a set of texts associated with the author on solid external
> grounds we build up our sense of his distinctive way of writing, and
> this sense either reinforces or undermines the original external
> evidence so far as it concerns plays or scenes, and gives us some basis
> for adjudicating on the authenticity of works for which external
> evidence is weaker. From data concerning vocabulary, metre, imagery,
> syntax, grammar, orthography, and so on, we construct whether
> deliberately and systematically or through a largely unconscious
> process, an authorial profile with which disputed works can be compared."
> Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as test case By MacDonald Pairman
> Jackson, p21
>
Well stated.
JH
Willedever
> On Dec 25, 4:13 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> .
> > Those plays being the First Folio ones, as I'm sure I mentioned in my
> > post.
>
> .
Bob had to scramble because his ignorance was pointed out. Bob is
almost totally ignorant of everything having to do with Shakespeare.
> .
> ... The fact that there is
> direct (what you would probably call "historical") evidence for
> collaboration between William and John opens up the entire field for
> consideration, including the FF plays. Collaboration and co-authorship
> - of plays in particular - was very common at the time. Almost all
> authors engaged in the practice. ...
> .
That is certainly correct.
> .
> ... You are entitled to disagree with the conclusions
> of the scholars who carried out these studies, but you cannot deny the
> existence of a significant body of informed and scholarly opinion
> which supports co-authorship of several FF plays, unless of course you
> are completely irrational.
> .
One notices how Bob keeps coming back to the subject of sanity. It's
very much on his mind. He can't get away from it. In every
discussion where he becomes involved at any length, he inevitably will
write about sanity. He can't help it.
> .
> Nothing definitely established to be in William's hand. Even the
> scrawly signatures on his will might have been written by a solicitor.
> .
Exactly right, of course. In particular, the so-called signatures
which appear on seal tabs were almost certainly the notations of
scribes.
> .
> ... Why do you [Bob] have a problem with that?
> .
Bob has a problem with what you mentioned, because he has a sanity
problem, i.e. he has trouble dealing with reality.
And, as you mention, Bob is a crank. He knows hardly anything of
Shakespeare, and he has stated in this group that he has no respect
for Shakespeare as a writer, but yet, he will argue endlessly (to an
insane degree) that any publication which ever had the name
'Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond any question whatsoever,
conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody who
even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
All of which means, Bob is a casebook illustration of a crank.
Woefully ignorant, while endlessly insistent, Bob Grumman is an
eccentric loony.
> .
> I stated: "I note that you> weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in." The fact
> > that you claim not to believe in Price's sophistry is
> > irrelevant; forthrightly to answer my charge, you need
> > to show it was untrue. You didn't. You confirmed it by once
> > again evading it--the way anti-Stratfordians tend always
> > to evade arguments they can't handle.
> .
And observe how Bob's whining, above, is exactly like Paul Crowley's
constant complaint that his exegeses of the Sonnets constantly go
unaddressed. So, as we see, Bob imitates Paul, whom Bob undoubtedly
considers to be "insane." And what does that say about Bob?
Good ol' hlas. It's quite something.
---
Now then, and not to terrify the willfully ignorant, such as Bob,
here's something actually about Shakespeare.
The 1st Quarto of 'Hamlet' was printed as a book for a continental
tour of Europe. The Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men had no
objection to that, since a continental tour was no competition to
their London performances. However, Shakespeare did not assist with
the 1st Quarto, so the actors, themselves, had to reconstruct and
abridge the play as they required. Contrary to a sometimes-expressed
opinion, the 'Hamlet' 1st Quarto was not one of the "stolen, and
surreptitious copies" by which the public was abused. Its publication
was authorized, and legitimate, but not intended for wide distribution
in England. The name Polonius was changed, since it was deemed
unsuitable for that character if the tour went as far as Poland, and
the other changes were made, that we find, according to what the tour
indicated.
The 1st and 2nd Quartos of 'Hamlet' have their correspondence in the
first Scene because the 1st Quarto began with type Roberts had already
set in anticipation of printing the play. He had originally been
given the go-ahead at the time he registered 'Hamlet,' in 1602.
However, the Lord Chamberlain's Men changed their minds, and decided
to keep 'Hamlet' in their performance schedule for another season.
Either 'Hamlet' had better legs than they thought, or they found no
adequate replacement. They therefore told Roberts to hold the
printing. Roberts kept the printing setup he had already done, in the
expectation he would need it, soon enough. The L.C.M. "hold" on
'Hamlet' became two seasons long, however. In the meantime, until
Roberts got his final permission to print, when the King's Men made
their firm decision they were done with the play on stage, (after the
1604 season,) the 1st Quarto was printed, beginning with that partial
setup. This is why we find such similarity between the 1st and 2nd
Quarto in the first Scene.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Because those are the plays considered by almost
all the scholars to be indispuatbley the canonical plays.
> And use of the word "historical" begs several questions. Among which is
> the nature and basis of historical analysis. The fact that there is
> direct (what you would probably call "historical") evidence for
> collaboration between William and John opens up the entire field for
> consideration, including the FF plays. Collaboration and co-authorship
> - of plays in particular - was very common at the time. Almost all
> authors engaged in the practice. Why would one expect William to be an
> exception to the rule? There are many detailed studies which arrive at
> the conclusion that a significant number of FF plays and SF plays are
> co-authored works. You are entitled to disagree with the conclusions
> of the scholars who carried out these studies, but you cannot deny the
> existence of a significant body of informed and scholarly opinion
> which supports co-authorship of several FF plays, unless of course you
> are completely irrational.
In any kind of discussion like this, the problem of terms incompletely
defined always comes up. I doubt there's any absolute definition
of historical evidence. I use it, as you seem to perceive, to mean
documentary evidence from the time that can objectively be shown
explicitly to support a thesis being advanced. Stylometrical evidence
uses historical evidence, but is not historical evidence by my
definition.
It can never be as objective as a name on a title page.
I'm not going to argue about co-authoship any longer (except maybe
later in this post). Interesting subject I don't have time for. My
only aim
in my attacks on you has been and is to show that you use the
reasoning
(and tactics, like evasion) of bogus anti-Stratfordian "scholars" like
Price,
I agree with you that it's up to outside observers now to decide
whether
I have or not. In any case, I'm too worn out to keep at it.
> > > There is a developing consensus of modern stylometric researchers that
> > > Shakespeare's contribution to Edward 3 amounts to no more than 40
> > > percent. There are many other examples where what you disparagingly
> > > refer to as "some words" amounts to a very sizeable fraction of the
> > > entire work.
>
> > I used "portion of the words" so as not to have to say,
> > "lines, or passages, or scenes, or songs." It's a generalization,
> > not disparagement. Maybe it could have been better expressed.
>
> > > > Actually, there is no historical evidence of a co-author of
> > > > any Shakespearean play. That is, there is no record of
> > > > someone else's having worked with him on a play. All
> > > > the records, most prominently the testimony of two men he
> > > > with for twenty years or so, indicate one author only.
>
> > Again, I'm assuming the first Folio plays. The plays certainly
> > by Shakespeare.
>
> > > The evidence and the "record" is revealed in the stylometric structure
> > > of each play. There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
> > > authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
> > > seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
>
> > Not unlikely, at all, to me. Probable. But there's no historical
> > evidence for it. Styometric evidence is not historical evidence.
>
> But stylometric evidence, it may be argued, is relevant to historical
> analysis.
Sure.
> > > > I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > > > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > > > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in.
>
> > > Wrong again. I have never indicated that I accept everything Price
> > > says as gospel truth. And I recognise that she is an Oxfordian.
>
> > You stated at the beginning of the thread that led to the later one
> > that, among other things you agree with Price on (around ten,
> > as I recall, all moronic nonsense that only an anti-Stratfordian can
> > believe in), there was no literary paper trail for Shakespeare.
>
> Nothing definitely established to be in William's hand. Even the
> scrawly signatures on his will might have been written by a solicitor.
> I'm not saying that they were, just that it is not firmly established
> they were William's. Why do you have a problem with that? The same is
> not the case with other contemporary authors. For example we have
> definite (ie, what you might describe as "historical") evidence of
> Marlowe's signature, on a legal document to which his father and other
> acquaintances also appended their signatures. It is very improbable
> that these signatures were written by others.
If you want to call the preceding an argument that there was no
literary
paper trail for Shakeseare, so be it.
Yes, any signature by WS could have been written by someone else. But
why couldn't Marlowe's have also been written by someone else. The
Blackfriars signatures of WS are present next to (between?) signatures
by two others that are accepted. You're just denying his signatures
were his, which isn't much of a refutation, but more than you've
previously
come up with. And if they aren't his, it has nothing to do with his
"paper
trail," for which there is all kinds of evidence, like his name on
title-pages,
that you won't deal with.
> In regard to the issue of the literacy of William's daughters, it is
> widely believed (ie, by a clear majority of scholars) that Judith was
> illiterate. And in my opinion the case you have made for the literacy
> of Susanna is a weak case.
Can you name a scholar who says Judith was definitely illiterate? You
simply
deny the strong evidence that Susanna was literate--two signatures,
enough
to establish just about anyone as literate except a Shakespeare for a
wack.
And there's NO direct evidence against her literacy--the visiting
doctor didn't
say that he showed her husaband's book to his illiterate wife. I
won't deny
that his testimony can be used to suggest she could not read, but only
very weakly, and the signatures completely over-rule the suggestion,
as
far as I'm concerned, not to mention the circumstantial evidence that
she
could read and write. (Wise above her sex and able to write her name
but
too stupid to bother learning to read, as other women of her time and
town
did?)
> > > > Standard anti-Stratfordian evasiveness.
>
> > > Bob's customary mantra is duly noted. Anyone Bob disagrees with is
> > > "anti-Stratfordian". The true signature of a crank.
>
> > Ah, you don't believe someone not an anti-Stratfordian can
> > have some anti-Stratfordian attributes?
>
> Now this statement is indeed an exercise in sophistry. The loaded
> nature of it - signifying your obsession with labelling others - is
> the true signature of a crank.
John, my whole object has been to show that you are a poor
scholar--because you use and/or accept (clearly bad)
anti-Stratfordian reasoning.
> > And that if I
> > call you an anti-Stratfordian after I've disagreed with you,
> > it follows that I would do the same with ANYone I disagreed
> > with, even though there are examples of my disagreement
> > with all kinds of people on all kinds of things that did not
> > result in my calling my opponents anti-Stratfordians, or
> > anything negative.
>
> Perhaps, then, you only reserve this tactic for those whose reasoning
> you have difficulty countering?
It's possible. By why is there so little of your reasoning available
to me? I claim you accept as much as ten nonsensical claims
of the propagandistic halfwit, Price, and you deny that two of
those claims are nonsesensical, after I taunt you from evasiveness
for well over a week.
> > Generalities like yours are a better
> > "signature of a crank" than my pointing how you evade.
>
> ho hum ... (yawn)
>
> > And you're evading me again.
>
> nonsense
>
> I stated: "I note that you> weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in." The fact
> > that you claim not to believe in Price's sophistry is
> > irrelevant; forthrightly to answer my charge, you need
> > to show it was untrue. You didn't. You confirmed it by once
> > again evading it--the way anti-Stratfordians tend always
> > to evade arguments they can't handle.
You hadn't, as you implictly agree by finally posting two
trivial attempts to reftue details of my claim.
> What can I say? You argue using generalisations, in order to suit your
> purpose.
If so, why not show where?
> Many of your statements are intentionally loaded, or abusive,
> or both.
If so, why not show where (the loaded ones only; absuvieness is
irrelevant)
> I will leave it to others to judge the value and relevance of
> your comments.
>
Right, you'll evade those comments. No problem. I expect to
retire from the field myself.
--Bob
lackpurity
>
> - Show quoted text -
MM:
Mylear replied to Bob Grumman in this thread:
There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
>> authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
>> seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
MM:
John Fletcher was likely another disciple of Shakespeare. That does
not mean that he was qualified to be a co-author of Shakespeare's
works. A disciple often emulates and strives to be like his Master,
so the stylometric studies need to consider this. This is a point,
which is rather obvious to me, but Anti-Strats came seem to learn it.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> On Dec 25, 4:13�am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > > > That some others MAY have been responsible for a portion of the
> > > > words in some plays does not keep Shakespeare from being
> > > > the "True Author" of those plays, according to all the historical
> > > > evidence.
>
> > Those plays being the First Folio ones, as I'm sure I mentioned in my
> > post.
>
> Why do you insist on restricting the discussion to the FF plays? And
> use of the word "historical" begs several questions.
MM:
Maybe he believes in keeping the wheat separate from the chaff?
Among which is
> the nature and basis of historical analysis. The fact that there is
> direct (what you would probably call "historical") evidence for
> collaboration between William and John opens up the entire field for
> consideration, including the FF plays. Collaboration and co-authorship
> - of plays in particular - was very common at the time. Almost all
> authors engaged in the practice. Why would one expect William to be an
> exception to the rule?
MM:
William was an exception because he was a Perfect Mystic Adept.
Nobody else was qualified to write the canon. John Fletcher was
simply emulating Shakespeare's style.
There are many detailed studies which arrive at
> the conclusion that a significant number of FF plays and SF plays are
> co-authored works.
MM:
The so-called "detailed studies," are flawed. Those doing the
studying didn't know anything about mysticism.
You are entitled to disagree with the conclusions
> of the scholars who carried out these studies, but you cannot deny the
> existence of a significant body of informed and scholarly opinion
> which supports co-authorship of several FF plays, unless of course you
> are completely irrational.
MM:
It's rather obvious that Shakespeare critics have not understood
mysticism. They are unqualified to "study" him. They would need to
go to a contemporary mystic to learn mysticism first, then they could
begin to understand Shakespeare.
> > > There is a developing consensus of modern stylometric researchers that
> > > Shakespeare's contribution to Edward 3 amounts to no more than 40
> > > percent. There are many other examples where what you disparagingly
> > > refer to as "some words" amounts to a very sizeable fraction of the
> > > entire work.
>
> > I used "portion of the words" so as not to have to say,
> > "lines, or passages, or scenes, or songs." �It's a generalization,
> > not disparagement. �Maybe it could have been better expressed.
>
> > > > Actually, there is no hisotrical evidence of a co-author of
> > > > any Shakespearean play. �That is, there is no record of
> > > > someone else's having worked with him on a play. �All
> > > > the records, most prominently the testimony of two men he
> > > > with for twenty years or so, indicate one author only.
>
> > Again, I'm assuming the first Folio plays. �The plays certainly
> > by Shakespeare.
>
> > > The evidence and the "record" is revealed in the stylometric structure
> > > of each play. There is evidence, for example, that John Fletcher co-
> > > authored several works with William Shakespeare. And why would this
> > > seem unlikely to you, given their close association?
>
> > Not unlikely, at all, to me. �Probable. �But there's no historical
> > evidence for it. �Styometric evidence is not historical evidence.
>
> But stylometric evidence, it may be argued, is relevant to historical
> ananlysis.
MM:
Fletcher was copying Shakespeare, which makes any styometric study
questionable.
> > > > I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > > > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > > > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in.
>
> > > Wrong again. I have never indicated that I accept everything Price
> > > says as gospel truth. And I recognise that she is an Oxfordian.
>
> > You stated at the beginning of the thread that led to the later one
> > that, among other things you agree with Price on (around ten,
> > as I recall, all moronic nonsense that only an anti-Stratfordian
> > believe in), there was no literary paper trail for Shakespeare.
>
> Nothing definitely established to be in William's hand. Even the
> scrawly signatures on his will might have been written by a solicitor.
> I'm not saying that they were, just that it is not firmly established
> they were William's. Why do you have a problem with that? The same is
> not the case with other contemporary authors. For example we have
> definite (ie, what you might describe as "historical") evidence of
> Marlowe's signature, on a legal document to which his father and other
> acquaintances also appended their signatures. It is very improbable
> that these signatures were written by others.
MM:
Shakespeare made all the painstaking preparations for the sonnets and
plays to get to the Herbert Bros. Nothing was really lacking.
Everybody knew Shakespeare, and everybody knew the Herbert Bros.
> In regard to the issue of the literacy of William's daughters, it is
> widely believed (ie, by a clear majority of scholars) that Judith was
> illiterate. �And in my opinion the case you have made for the literacy
> of Susanna is a weak case.
MM:
Well, the scholars haven't a clue. This is out tiptoeing through the
tulips anyway.
Michael Martin
mylear
works were published during William's lifetime with the name 'William
Shakespeare' on the title page. These works were rejected from the
canon by scholars on the grounds of stylometric and other textual
considerations. A name on a title page is not a definite indication of
true authorship. Otherwise the title page of the play Henry VIII (All
is True) would have borne the name of its co-author, John Fletcher.
Fletcher was a prolific author, who collaborated regularly and widely.
Today a majority of scholars accept the proposition that Fletcher was
a co-author of this work. It is also commonly assumed that Fletcher
collaborated with Shakespeare on The Two Noble Kinsmen, and the lost
play Cardenio. It has been suggested by Thomas Merriam in one of his
articles that the exclusion of The Two Noble Kinsmen and the inclusion
of HenryVIII in the First Folio may have been determined on political
(as well as commercial), not textual, grounds. I can elaborate on this
if anyone is interested.
Benchkin are - in order - John Marley (his father), Thomas Arthur (his
uncle), Christopher Marley, and John Moore (his brother-in-law). The
probability that the signature was written by another person (given
that at the time he was a Cambridge scholar with an arts degree) is
extremely remote.
>
> The
> Blackfriars signatures of WS are present next to (between?) signatures
> by two others that are accepted. You're just denying his signatures
> were his,
>
a high degree of probability that the signatures are his.
>
which isn't much of a refutation, but more than you've
> previously come up with. And if they aren't his, it has
> nothing to do with his "paper trail," for which there is all
> kinds of evidence, like his name on title-pages,
> that you won't deal with.
>
> > In regard to the issue of the literacy of William's daughters, it is
> > widely believed (ie, by a clear majority of scholars) that Judith was
> > illiterate. And in my opinion the case you have made for the literacy
> > of Susanna is a weak case.
>
> Can you name a scholar who says Judith was definitely illiterate?
> You simply deny the strong evidence that Susanna was literate--
> two signatures, enough to establish just about anyone as literate
> except a Shakespeare for a wack. And there's NO direct evidence
> against her literacy--the visiting doctor didn't say that he showed
> her husaband's book to his illiterate wife. I won't deny that his
> testimony can be used to suggest she could not read, but only
> very weakly, and the signatures completely over-rule the suggestion,
> as far as I'm concerned, not to mention the circumstantial evidence
> that she could read and write. (Wise above her sex and able to write
> her name but too stupid to bother learning to read, as other women
> of her time and town did?)
>
and write later in life, perhaps with the assistance of her literate
husband. The issue is whether she acquired any literary skills during
her early life.
From the William Shakespeare information web site: "Neither of
Hamnet's sisters had an education and neither of them were able to
read or write." .. http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-children-and-grandchildren.htm
For a reference to the probable illiteracy of Judith: Chambrun, Clara
Longworth. 'Shakespeare, actor-poet: As seen by his associates,
explained by himself and remembered by the succeeding generation', D.
Appleton and Co (1927). pg. 223
See also:
Schoenbaum, Samuel (1970). 'Shakespeare's Lives'. Oxford: Clarendon
Press. pp. 28. "In 1611 she twice made her mark as witness to a deed
for the sale of a house belonging to Elizabeth Quiney and her eldest
son Adrian."
Schoenbaum, Samuel (1977). 'William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary
Life', Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 318. "[Judith] was even less of a
scholar, if we may judge from the fact that when in 1611 she witnessed
a deed of Elizabeth Quiney and her son Adrian, she twice signed by
mark."
>
> > > > > Standard anti-Stratfordian evasiveness.
>
> > > > Bob's customary mantra is duly noted. Anyone Bob disagrees with is
> > > > "anti-Stratfordian". The true signature of a crank.
>
> > > Ah, you don't believe someone not an anti-Stratfordian can
> > > have some anti-Stratfordian attributes?
>
> > Now this statement is indeed an exercise in sophistry. The loaded
> > nature of it - signifying your obsession with labelling others - is
> > the true signature of a crank.
>
> John, my whole object has been to show that you are a poor
> scholar--because you use and/or accept (clearly bad)
> anti-Stratfordian reasoning.
>
Smiles. My reasoning skills (by whatever label you choose to attach
to them) are far from poor.
>
> > > And that if I
> > > call you an anti-Stratfordian after I've disagreed with you,
> > > it follows that I would do the same with ANYone I disagreed
> > > with, even though there are examples of my disagreement
> > > with all kinds of people on all kinds of things that did not
> > > result in my calling my opponents anti-Stratfordians, or
> > > anything negative.
>
> > Perhaps, then, you only reserve this tactic for those whose reasoning
> > you have difficulty countering?
>
> It's possible. By why is there so little of your reasoning available
> to me?
>
Another deliberate distortion.
>
I claim you accept as much as ten nonsensical claims
> of the propagandistic halfwit, Price, and you deny that two of
> those claims are nonsesensical, after I taunt you from evasiveness
> for well over a week.
>
My 'evasiveness' is one of your fabrications. This is an obfuscatory
tactic designed to draw attention from the exposure of your
ignorance.
>
>
>
>
> > > Generalities like yours are a better
> > > "signature of a crank" than my pointing how you evade.
>
> > ho hum ... (yawn)
>
> > > And you're evading me again.
>
> > nonsense
>
> > I stated: "I note that you weren't able to refute anything I said in the thread
> > > I continue from the other site--nor said anything against my
> > > analysis of the sophistry of Price you believe in." The fact
> > > that you claim not to believe in Price's sophistry is
> > > irrelevant; forthrightly to answer my charge, you need
> > > to show it was untrue. You didn't. You confirmed it by once
> > > again evading it--the way anti-Stratfordians tend always
> > > to evade arguments they can't handle.
>
> You hadn't, as you implictly agree by finally posting two
> trivial attempts to reftue details of my claim.
>
> > What can I say? You argue using generalisations, in order to suit your
> > purpose.
>
> If so, why not show where?
>
Two - amongst many examples - of generalisations designed to distort,
mislead and obfuscate:
" .. you weren't able to refute anything I said .. "
" .. nor said anything against my analysis of the sophistry of Price
you believe in .. "
>
> > Many of your statements are intentionally loaded, or abusive,
> > or both.
>
> If so, why not show where (the loaded ones only; absuvieness is
> irrelevant)
>
" .. nor said anything against my analysis of the sophistry of Price
you believe in .. "
Do you deny this is a loaded statement? By the way Bob, have you
stopped beating your wife?
>
> > I will leave it to others to judge the value and relevance of
> > your comments.
>
> Right, you'll evade those comments. No problem. I expect to
> retire from the field myself.
>
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JH
mylear
> And, as you mention, Bob is a crank. He knows hardly anything of
> Shakespeare, and he has stated in this group that he has no respect
> for Shakespeare as a writer, but yet, he will argue endlessly (to an
> insane degree) that any publication which ever had the name
> 'Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond any question whatsoever,
> conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody who
> even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
>
which reasonable scholars agree on, he can achieve nothing other than
to hand ammunition to his anti-Stratfordian opponents. He also does
not seem to understand (and neither does Diana Price apparently) that
the literacy of William's daughters has almost no real bearing on
authorship. Only fruitloops within the wings of anti-Stratfordism,
together with reactionary fanatics within the wings of Stratfordism -
like Bob - would view this issue as being really important. Otherwise
they would not take so much trouble to debate it. I suspect there were
many other great authors, as well as distinguished people in other
fields, who were far from being ideal spouses and parents, and who
neglected the education of their children in particular. But that
failing does not detract from their professional achievments.
>
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Dec 25, 12:51 pm, Willedever <blagsnat...@gmail.com> wrote:> And, as you mention, Bob is a crank. He knows hardly anything of
> > Shakespeare, and he has stated in this group that he has no respect
> > for Shakespeare as a writer, but yet, he will argue endlessly (to an
> > insane degree) that any publication which ever had the name
> > 'Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond any question whatsoever,
> > conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody who
> > even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
>
> What Bob
I see you make no effort to tell the True Psychotic above that every
word in his diatribe is a lie. Do you believe what he says? Do you
notice how he provides
NO evidence whatever to support his lies? Do you notice the
resemblance
of that practice to many of your misrepresentations of me?
> does not seem to appreciate is that by arguing against things
> which reasonable scholars agree on,
Such as?
> he can achieve nothing other than
> to hand ammunition to his anti-Stratfordian opponents. He also does
> not seem to understand (and neither does Diana Price apparently) that
> the literacy of William's daughters has almost no real bearing on
> authorship.
Interesting. I guess I'm fantasizing when I seem to recall dozens of
times I made that point. That I also argue against wacks who state
that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate (a lie, by the way, by
my standards, since we can't know, finally, whether they were literate
or not) is merely because I prefer truth to falsehood.
Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
Shakespeare
as an author had merit.
I also bring the literacy of the duahgters up in my attack on Price
because
she brings it up, and because it is evidence of her propagandistic
campaign
to make Shakespeare look bad in every way she can. My attack on her,
and
you, is mainly an attempt to clarify exactly how the propagandistic
mind works.
That is also why I point out now that you are practicing the same kind
of
ridiculous misrepresentation of an opponent that anti-Stratfordians
like
Willedever use.
> Only fruitloops within the wings of anti-Stratfordism,
> together with reactionary fanatics within the wings of Stratfordism -
> like Bob - would view this issue as being really important. Otherwise
> they would not take so much trouble to debate it.
If you want to show that a person is irrational, it makes sense to
cite what the person believes in, regardless of how inconsequential,
then show how it is irrational. The claim that WS's daughters
were illiterate is irrational, although the claim that they may have
been, which you did not intially make, is.
> many other great authors, as well as distinguished people in other
> fields, who were far from being ideal spouses and parents, and who
> neglected the education of their children in particular. But that
> failing does not detract from their professional achievments.
>
> JH
Good point. Now cite my contrary claim, please.
--Bob G.
mylear
but.net> wrote:
>
Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of expressions
like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
unreality.
>
> > does not seem to appreciate is that by arguing against things
> > which reasonable scholars agree on,
>
> Such as?
>
examples.
>
> > he can achieve nothing other than
> > to hand ammunition to his anti-Stratfordian opponents. He also does
> > not seem to understand (and neither does Diana Price apparently) that
> > the literacy of William's daughters has almost no real bearing on
> > authorship.
>
> Interesting. I guess I'm fantasizing when I seem to recall dozens of
> times I made that point. That I also argue against wacks who state
> that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate (a lie, by the way, by
> my standards, since we can't know, finally, whether they were literate
> or not) is merely because I prefer truth to falsehood.
>
based on the avalable evidence) illiterate, at least during the early
stages of their lives.
>
> Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
examine why anti-Stratfordism exists. I have come to the conclusion
that one of those reasons - quite independent of any inconsistencies
between the personal, business and literary lives of William - lies
with the absurd level of bardolatry (in may ways similar to a
religion) possessed by people such as yourself. It colors and distorts
all of your judgements, destroys your ability to think objectively,
and provides ample ammunition for the anti-Stratfordians to attack you
with. You are your own worst enemy.
>
> I also bring the literacy of the duahgters up in my attack on Price
> because she brings it up, and because it is evidence of her
> propagandistic campaign to make Shakespeare look bad in
> every way she can. My attack on her, and you, is mainly an
> attempt to clarify exactly how the propagandistic mind works.
>
>
> That is also why I point out now that you are practicing the
> same kind of ridiculous misrepresentation of an opponent
> that anti-Stratfordians like Willedever use.
>
> > Only fruitloops within the wings of anti-Stratfordism,
> > together with reactionary fanatics within the wings of Stratfordism -
> > like Bob - would view this issue as being really important. Otherwise
> > they would not take so much trouble to debate it.
>
> If you want to show that a person is irrational, it makes sense to
> cite what the person believes in, regardless of how inconsequential,
> then show how it is irrational. The claim that WS's daughters
> were illiterate is irrational, although the claim that they may have
> been, which you did not intially make, is.
>
don' t make unqualified statements on matters not supported by direct
historical evidence.
>
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Dec 27, 6:16 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of expressions
> like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
> unreality.
Good, John, you have proven yourself indisputably irrational. You are
saying:
1. I know hardly anything of Shakespeare
2. I have stated in this group that I have no respect for Shakespeare
as a writer,
3. I will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that any publication
which ever had the name ''Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond
any question whatsoever,
conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody
who
even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
I like the "beyond any question conclusively." The true crank, always
assumes
his opponent position is 100% absolutist.
> > > does not seem to appreciate is that by arguing against things
> > > which reasonable scholars agree on,
>
> > Such as?
>
> That some of the FF plays are are co-authored, amongst many other
> examples.
Quote me. And define "co-authored." I am on record, in this thread I
believe, as
believing that the 36 FF plays are canonical and that Shakespeare was
their sole
significant author. Significant author. That allows for lines added
by actors that
got into the FF, or editing of Hemings and Condell, or for a few songs
or scenes
added by some playwright in the emply of the troupe. I am on record
as NOT
claiming to believe it is beyond reasonable doubt that some of the
plays were,
by my standards, co-authored--meaning that Shakespeare and some other
writer
worked together on an FF play but that there is no historical
evidence, by which I mean explicit documentrary evidence that this was
the case.
>
> > > he can achieve nothing other than
> > > to hand ammunition to his anti-Stratfordian opponents. He also does
> > > not seem to understand (and neither does Diana Price apparently) that
> > > the literacy of William's daughters has almost no real bearing on
> > > authorship.
>
> > Interesting. I guess I'm fantasizing when I seem to recall dozens of
> > times I made that point. That I also argue against wacks who state
> > that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate (a lie, by the way, by
> > my standards, since we can't know, finally, whether they were literate
> > or not) is merely because I prefer truth to falsehood.
>
> I have argued, as have others, that they were both PROBABLY (i.e.,
> based on the avalable evidence) illiterate, at least during the early
> stages of their lives.
Ah, but I am fairly sure one of your reasons for claiming the
authorship
question was an open one was that Shakespeare had illiterate
daughters.
>
> > Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> > bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> > they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> > you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> > Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
> I have never argued a case against Shakespeare as an author. The
> previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
> examine why anti-Stratfordism exists.
It sounded as I described it. I now can't find it. You said
something like,
"the reason some don't believe in WS is that . . . his daughters were
illiterate." I feel fairly certain you ended saying authorship was
therefore
worth debating.
> I have come to the conclusion
> that one of those reasons - quite independent of any inconsistencies
> between the personal, business and literary lives of William - lies
> with the absurd level of bardolatry (in may ways similar to a
> religion) possessed by people such as yourself. It colors and distorts
> all of your judgements, destroys your ability to think objectively,
> and provides ample ammunition for the anti-Stratfordians to attack you
> with. You are your own worst enemy.
You haven gotten less than ten percent of my arguments right so far,
As for the charge of bardolatry, read your friend Willedever again:
according to him I have contempt for Shakespeare as a writer. I'm
actually pretty much with Shaw about Shakespeare. As my writings
at HLAS show.
> > I also bring the literacy of the duahgters up in my attack on Price
> > because she brings it up, and because it is evidence of her
> > propagandistic campaign to make Shakespeare look bad in
> > every way she can. My attack on her, and you, is mainly an
> > attempt to clarify exactly how the propagandistic mind works.
>
> You are no psychologist Bob.
Nice assertion, but--as a matter of fact, I very much am. Oh, unless
you can advance evidence that I am not.
> > That is also why I point out now that you are practicing the
> > same kind of ridiculous misrepresentation of an opponent
> > that anti-Stratfordians like Willedever use.
>
> > > Only fruitloops within the wings of anti-Stratfordism,
> > > together with reactionary fanatics within the wings of Stratfordism -
> > > like Bob - would view this issue as being really important. Otherwise
> > > they would not take so much trouble to debate it.
>
> > If you want to show that a person is irrational, it makes sense to
> > cite what the person believes in, regardless of how inconsequential,
> > then show how it is irrational. The claim that WS's daughters
> > were illiterate is irrational, although the claim that they may have
> > been, which you did not intially make, is.
>
> I will check exactly what I did say, it was all so long ago. Usually I
> don' t make unqualified statements on matters not supported by direct
> historical evidence.
>
> JH- Hide quoted text -
If you can show that you did not in this case, I will apologize. It
is
possible that I saw your list and it annoyed me so much, being a
kind of quick summary of the idiocy of Price, that I missed some
statement of yours indicating that it did not represent your views.
But
I also remember that I and someone else, Ignoto? argued your
particular statement that there was no paper trail for Shakespeare.
I believe you partially gave in on the validity of that statement.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
can't find it there. Crank that I am, I think the little girl in
charge
may have removed it because of impolite arguing in it. I definitely
decided to come here to answer a post of yours to it.
--Bob
ignoto
"I don't accept as a "fact" that he was an author. And before you
start screaming at me again, let me explain what this means. I
believe that he was at least reasonably literate (otherwise how could
he have been an actor), and that a good case has been made for his
being highly literate and well educated. However none of this is
certain, as we have no educational records to go on, no evidence of
books belonging to him, no extant manuscripts (putting aside the
debate about Sir Thomas More for a moment), two daughters who were
demonstrably either illiterate or possessed at best very rudimentary
education, and - despite all your claims to the contrary - the few
hard records we possess do portray him as being relatively insular and
isolated from his literary contemporaries. Moreover the records in
regard to his personal behaviour and demeanour do not seem consistent
with the behaviour of a great writer who expressed lofty thoughts with
eloquence. For these and many other reasons, it is not difficult to
understand why anti-Stratfordianism exists. My position is that in the
absence of adequate historical records we are obliged, at least
provisionally, to accept Will as the author of most of the works
attributed to him. And I am willing to change my own assessment if and
when confronted with persuasive and compelling evidence to the
contrary. However I don't expect this to happen within my lifetime."
('mylear', Re: Why does the authorship issue persist?, 17/11/2009 5:04 PM)
Ign.
mylear
are obliged, at least provisionally, to accept Will as the author of
most of the works attributed to him."
Yes, that sums it up for me. Thanks for reminding me what I said
Nigel.
JH
mylear
evidence of my making a case against Shakespeare's authorship (of the
works which bear his name). It is nothing other than a set of reasons
which help to explain why anti-Stratfordism exists.
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> "I don't accept as a "fact" that he was an author. And before you
> start screaming at me again, let me explain what this means. I
> believe that he was at least reasonably literate (otherwise how could
> he have been an actor), and that a good case has been made for his
> being highly literate and well educated. However none of this is
> certain, as we have no educational records to go on, no evidence of
> books belonging to him, no extant manuscripts (putting aside the
> debate about Sir Thomas More for a moment), two daughters who were
> demonstrably either illiterate or possessed at best very rudimentary
> education, and - despite all your claims to the contrary - the few
> hard records we possess do portray him as being relatively insular and
> isolated from his literary contemporaries. Moreover the records in
> regard to his personal behaviour and demeanour do not seem consistent
> with the behaviour of a great writer who expressed lofty thoughts with
> eloquence. For these and many other reasons, it is not difficult to
> understand why anti-Stratfordianism exists. My position is that in the
> absence of adequate historical records we are obliged, at least
> provisionally, to accept Will as the author of most of the works
> attributed to him. And I am willing to change my own assessment if and
> when confronted with persuasive and compelling evidence to the
> contrary. However I don't expect this to happen within my lifetime."
> ('mylear', Re: Why does the authorship issue persist?, 17/11/2009 5:04 PM)
>
> Ign.
I believe his opening paragraph in the thread the above is, I believe,
from
explicitly states that his daughters were illiterate, and other
Pricisms. I
think what's at the heart of my dispute with John is his
"position . . . that
in the absense of ADEQUATE historical records we are obliged, at
leat provisionally, to accept Will as the author . . ." We have more
than
adequate records to accept him beyond reasonable doubt as the author.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I never, that I know of, argued that it did. Only that it took a
number
of Pricisms as true that were obbiously either untrue or not
necessarily true. The excerpt Ignoto quoted is not the one that
I attacked, but a defense of my attack on it.
I note that you ignore all my other points. Like other wacks, you
merely address points you think you can handle. True, not everyone
has time to argue EVERYthing. Still, if you were philosophically
responsible you would defend your stand on matters like whether
you believe what Willedever said about me is true or not since that
is central to your rationality, which is really what this argument is
all about.
You should, it seems to me, defend other assertions you made,
such as the one about my not being a psychologist. If you are
not prepared to defend such remarks, you shouldn't make them. I
rarely fail to provide arguments to support any insult (of substance)
I make--at least, if challenged on them.
--Bob
Gary
SNIP
> But stylometric evidence is dependent on historical evidence: for any
> stylometric study of authorship there needs to be an accepted group of
> texts that can function as a control group. A control group consists of
> those texts whose authorship is established by the historical record
> less those texts or portions of texts which are rendered suspect by
> appearing to be either 'unshakespeareian' or in which there is evidence
> of the hand of another writer. One of the tasks of co-authorship studies
> is to determine the validity of such 'suspect' texts. The other is to
> determine the validity of authorship claims resting solely on stylometic
> grounds:
>
> "From a set of texts associated with the author on solid external
> grounds we build up our sense of his distinctive way of writing, and
> this sense either reinforces or undermines the original external
> evidence so far as it concerns plays or scenes, and gives us some basis
> for adjudicating on the authenticity of works for which external
> evidence is weaker. From data concerning vocabulary, metre, imagery,
> syntax, grammar, orthography, and so on, we construct whether
> deliberately and systematically or through a largely unconscious
> process, an authorial profile with which disputed works can be compared."
> Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as test case By MacDonald Pairman
> Jackson, p21
>
> Ign.
Any idea how large the control group has to be for these
tests?
Can *one* specific play be directly compared to *one* other
specific play in an effort to determine common authorship?
That is, could stylometricians run their tests on "Macbeth"
and then run them on "Julius Caesar" and legitimately
conclude that both were written by the same author? And
could they then introduce a third play, "Hamlet", and
compare it first to "Macbeth" to see if there is common
authorship and then compare it to "Julius Caesar" to see if
their tests also indicate common authorship?
- Gary
mylear
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe that would be a useful exercise Gary. Stylometry
operates on the basis of probability; there are no certainties. But
that is also true of historical analysis generally. I see stylometry
as a very useful tool and an adjunct to historical analysis, but it is
not a substitute for the latter.
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> start screaming at me again,
Wacks always take vigorous responses to their nonsense as "screaming"
by someone who feels "threatened."
--Bob G.
mylear
but.net> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 7:13 pm, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 6:16 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of expressions
> > like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
> > unreality.
>
> Good, John, you have proven yourself indisputably irrational. You are
> saying:
>
> 1. I know hardly anything of Shakespeare
>
> 2. I have stated in this group that I have no respect for Shakespeare
> as a writer,
>
> 3. I will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that any publication
> which ever had the name ''Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond
> any question whatsoever,
> conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody
> who
> even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
>
things. They are Willdever's words.
>
> I like the "beyond any question conclusively." The true crank, always
> assumes
> his opponent position is 100% absolutist.
>
>
> > > > does not seem to appreciate is that by arguing against things
> > > > which reasonable scholars agree on,
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > That some of the FF plays are are co-authored, amongst many other
> > examples.
>
> Quote me. And define "co-authored." I am on record, in this thread I
> believe, as
> believing that the 36 FF plays are canonical and that Shakespeare was
> their sole
> significant author. Significant author. That allows for lines added
> by actors that
> got into the FF, or editing of Hemings and Condell, or for a few songs
> or scenes
> added by some playwright in the emply of the troupe. I am on record
> as NOT
> claiming to believe it is beyond reasonable doubt that some of the
> plays were,
> by my standards, co-authored--meaning that Shakespeare and some other
> writer
> worked together on an FF play but that there is no historical
> evidence, by which I mean explicit documentrary evidence that this was
> the case.
>
example, the very recently published book bu Craig and Kinney
'Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship' (CUP, 2009).
And while you are about it, go to your local library and get hold of a
copy of Brian Vickers' 'Shakespeare, Co-author'. All of Shakespeare's
co-authors were professional playwrights, not actors. You are so
ignorant of real Shakespearen scholarship that you dont even recognise
that. Will's co-authors include his prolific and worthy colleague John
Fletcher, not to mention Marlowe, Peele, Kyd, Wilkins, and Middleton.
Their contributions to the co-authored plays were far more than the
mere addition of a 'few lines'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > he can achieve nothing other than
> > > > to hand ammunition to his anti-Stratfordian opponents. He also does
> > > > not seem to understand (and neither does Diana Price apparently) that
> > > > the literacy of William's daughters has almost no real bearing on
> > > > authorship.
>
> > > Interesting. I guess I'm fantasizing when I seem to recall dozens of
> > > times I made that point. That I also argue against wacks who state
> > > that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate (a lie, by the way, by
> > > my standards, since we can't know, finally, whether they were literate
> > > or not) is merely because I prefer truth to falsehood.
>
overwhelmingly good case for Susanna's literacy. However in my
assessment it was always, at best, a weak case. Your previous
arguments on this point have been in vain.
>
> > I have argued, as have others, that they were both PROBABLY (i.e.,
> > based on the avalable evidence) illiterate, at least during the early
> > stages of their lives.
>
previously about Susanna's alleged literacy.
>
> Ah, but I am fairly sure one of your reasons for claiming the
> authorship
> question was an open one was that Shakespeare had illiterate
> daughters.
>
claim that Shakespeare was a co-author. That makes you a liar.
>
>
> > > Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> > > bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> > > they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> > > you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> > > Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
> > I have never argued a case against Shakespeare as an author. The
> > previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
> > examine why anti-Stratfordism exists.
>
> It sounded as I described it.
>
>
I now can't find it.
>
>
> You said something like,
> "the reason some don't believe in WS is that . . . his daughters were
> illiterate." I feel fairly certain you ended saying authorship was
> therefore worth debating.
>
> > I have come to the conclusion
> > that one of those reasons - quite independent of any inconsistencies
> > between the personal, business and literary lives of William - lies
> > with the absurd level of bardolatry (in may ways similar to a
> > religion) possessed by people such as yourself. It colors and distorts
> > all of your judgements, destroys your ability to think objectively,
> > and provides ample ammunition for the anti-Stratfordians to attack you
> > with. You are your own worst enemy.
>
> You haven gotten less than ten percent of my arguments right so far,
>
assertions.
>
> As for the charge of bardolatry, read your friend Willedever again:
>
"friend". He merely happens to agree with me on several points that I
made previously. Lumping him and I together is yet another indicator
of your paranoia and insecurity.
>
> according to him I have contempt for Shakespeare as a writer. I'm
> actually pretty much with Shaw about Shakespeare. As my writings
> at HLAS show.
>
> > > I also bring the literacy of the duahgters up in my attack on Price
> > > because she brings it up, and because it is evidence of her
> > > propagandistic campaign to make Shakespeare look bad in
> > > every way she can. My attack on her, and you, is mainly an
> > > attempt to clarify exactly how the propagandistic mind works.
>
> > You are no psychologist Bob.
>
> Nice assertion, but--as a matter of fact, I very much am. Oh, unless
> you can advance evidence that I am not.
>
investigations into the 'propagandistic mind'?
>
>
>
>
> > > That is also why I point out now that you are practicing the
> > > same kind of ridiculous misrepresentation of an opponent
> > > that anti-Stratfordians like Willedever use.
>
> > > > Only fruitloops within the wings of anti-Stratfordism,
> > > > together with reactionary fanatics within the wings of Stratfordism -
> > > > like Bob - would view this issue as being really important. Otherwise
> > > > they would not take so much trouble to debate it.
>
> > > If you want to show that a person is irrational, it makes sense to
> > > cite what the person believes in, regardless of how inconsequential,
> > > then show how it is irrational. The claim that WS's daughters
> > > were illiterate is irrational, although the claim that they may have
> > > been, which you did not intially make, is.
>
> > I will check exactly what I did say, it was all so long ago. Usually I
> > don' t make unqualified statements on matters not supported by direct
> > historical evidence.
>
> > JH- Hide quoted text -
>
> If you can show that you did not in this case, I will apologize. It
> is
> possible that I saw your list and it annoyed me so much, being a
> kind of quick summary of the idiocy of Price, that I missed some
> statement of yours indicating that it did not represent your views.
>
position?
>
> But
> I also remember that I and someone else, Ignoto? argued your
> particular statement that there was no paper trail for Shakespeare.
> I believe you partially gave in on the validity of that statement.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JH
Gary
From the little I know about stylometry, I think I agree
with you. But stylometry exercises are taking place. And
I'm still left to wonder about how large the control group
has to be in order to even give a *probable* stylometric
verdict.
- Gary
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Dec 27, 3:27 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
>
>
> but.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 7:13 pm, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 6:16 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of expressions
> > > like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
> > > unreality.
>
> > Good, John, you have proven yourself indisputably irrational. You are
> > saying:
>
> > 1. I know hardly anything of Shakespeare
>
> > 2. I have stated in this group that I have no respect for Shakespeare
> > as a writer,
>
> > 3. I will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that any publication
> > which ever had the name ''Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond
> > any question whatsoever,
> > conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody
> > who
> > even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
>
> You seem to be losing your grip Bob. I did not say any of those
> things. They are Willdever's words.
They were his assessment, which you said was correct.
Do all of them disagree with me, as you say?
Read, for
> example, the very recently published book bu Craig and Kinney
> 'Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship' (CUP, 2009).
> And while you are about it, go to your local library and get hold of a
> copy of Brian Vickers' 'Shakespeare, Co-author'. All of Shakespeare's
> co-authors were professional playwrights, not actors. You are so
> ignorant of real Shakespearen scholarship that you dont even recognise
> that.
I see. I mention that actors adding text to a play are, in effect, co-
authors, so am ignorant of any other possible co-authors, and can't
call actors co-authors because Vickers, whose book I have and have
half read but found incredibly slow-going, and his fellow revisionists
don't discuss them as such.
> Will's co-authors include his prolific and worthy colleague John
> Fletcher, not to mention Marlowe, Peele, Kyd, Wilkins, and Middleton.
> Their contributions to the co-authored plays were far more than the
> mere addition of a 'few lines'.
If they contributed anything. But I was clarifying my belief as to
what the FF plays were: i.e., plays with one significant author, so
not co-authored in the way
the revisionists say some were, but not without SOME text not by WS.
Like Willedever, you're too eager to fault me to read me even half-
intelligently.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > he can achieve nothing other than
> > > > > to hand ammunition to his anti-Stratfordian opponents. He also does
> > > > > not seem to understand (and neither does Diana Price apparently) that
> > > > > the literacy of William's daughters has almost no real bearing on
> > > > > authorship.
>
> > > > Interesting. I guess I'm fantasizing when I seem to recall dozens of
> > > > times I made that point. That I also argue against wacks who state
> > > > that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate (a lie, by the way, by
> > > > my standards, since we can't know, finally, whether they were literate
> > > > or not) is merely because I prefer truth to falsehood.
>
> You have shifted ground. Previously you maintained that there is an
> overwhelmingly good case for Susanna's literacy. However in my
> assessment it was always, at best, a weak case. Your previous
> arguments on this point have been in vain.
Here you are continuing this argument on a "minor" point. I have not
shifted ground. The direct historical evidence, her signatures, make
Susanna literate in the absence of any historic against. But I have
never maintained she was definitely ("finally") literate the way wacks
maintain she was not. There are degrees. I believe John Shakespeare
was literate, as well, but there is no historical evidence to support
and evidence, not explict, against--not explicit because literate men
of the time did sign with marks.
> > > I have argued, as have others, that they were both PROBABLY (i.e.,
> > > based on the avalable evidence) illiterate, at least during the early
> > > stages of their lives.
>
> You are now significantly distorting what you did, in fact, say
> previously about Susanna's alleged literacy.
The above is something you said, John, not I--or two lines of it are.
I think
I may have accidentally deleted part of it. Anyway, I have never
believed
Susanna was illiterate during the early stage of her life--that is, I
have always
assumed she learned her letters when other girls who became literate
learned theirs.
> > Ah, but I am fairly sure one of your reasons for claiming the
> > authorship
> > question was an open one was that Shakespeare had illiterate
> > daughters.
>
> I have made no authorship claims, as you well know, other than to
> claim that Shakespeare was a co-author. That makes you a liar.
You absolutely made such a claim. See the thread I just started with
your words in it declaring it valid to keep pursuing the authorship
question because Shakespeare left no literary paper trail, among other
things, such as his bad handwriting.
> > > > Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> > > > bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> > > > they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> > > > you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> > > > Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
> > > I have never argued a case against Shakespeare as an author. The
> > > previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
> > > examine why anti-Stratfordism exists.
>
> > It sounded as I described it.
>
> Your perception is faulty.
>
> I now can't find it.
>
>
>
>
>
> How convenient.
Haha, moron--I did find it. I do not fail to find things that I fear
will make me
look bad. If I say I couldn't find it, it's because of some other
reason.
> > You said something like,
> > "the reason some don't believe in WS is that . . . his daughters were
> > illiterate." I feel fairly certain you ended saying authorship was
> > therefore worth debating.
>
> > > I have come to the conclusion
> > > that one of those reasons - quite independent of any inconsistencies
> > > between the personal, business and literary lives of William - lies
> > > with the absurd level of bardolatry (in may ways similar to a
> > > religion) possessed by people such as yourself. It colors and distorts
> > > all of your judgements, destroys your ability to think objectively,
> > > and provides ample ammunition for the anti-Stratfordians to attack you
> > > with. You are your own worst enemy.
>
> > You haven gotten less than ten percent of my arguments right so far,
>
> Your "arguments" are often little more than wild and unsubstantiated
> assertions.
Well, you're a better wack than Crowley--you remember to say "often"
instead of "always."
> > As for the charge of bardolatry, read your friend Willedever again:
>
> I am not responsible for what others write, and Willdever is not my
> "friend". He merely happens to agree with me on several points that I
> made previously. Lumping him and I together is yet another indicator
> of your paranoia and insecurity.
You accepted his description--although you can weasel out of it
because
you did so in an oblique, evasive manner.
>
>
>
>
> > according to him I have contempt for Shakespeare as a writer. I'm
> > actually pretty much with Shaw about Shakespeare. As my writings
> > at HLAS show.
>
> > > > I also bring the literacy of the duahgters up in my attack on Price
> > > > because she brings it up, and because it is evidence of her
> > > > propagandistic campaign to make Shakespeare look bad in
> > > > every way she can. My attack on her, and you, is mainly an
> > > > attempt to clarify exactly how the propagandistic mind works.
>
> > > You are no psychologist Bob.
>
> > Nice assertion, but--as a matter of fact, I very much am. Oh, unless
> > you can advance evidence that I am not.
>
> So when do you plan to publish a book on the results flowing from your
> investigations into the 'propagandistic mind'?
Who knows? I've spent about a month on the thread about Price and
gotten through 25% of her book, so may in three more months, have what
I would consider my notes toward such a book at hand. I suspect I'll
be too exhausted quickly to make a rough draft of them, but maybe
you'll taunt me enough to make me do so before 2011. Once I have a
rough draft done, I should be able to make a finished draft fairly
quickly as I don't expect the book to be ambitious. So, a guess would
be late 2011 for publication--self-publication, of course. As a
crank, I can't expect the kind of publishers responsibly for Price's
book to publish mine.
I already have, but the way, covered some of the subject in my
Shakespeare and the Rigidniks. Although, strictly speaking, it's on
the rigidnikal mind mainly, the kind of mind that just about forces
one having it to become Williphobic. But the thought processes
described in it are the same in many cases as those I'll be describing
in my book about Price's book.
> > > > That is also why I point out now that you are practicing the
> > > > same kind of ridiculous misrepresentation of an opponent
> > > > that anti-Stratfordians like Willedever use.
>
> > > > > Only fruitloops within the wings of anti-Stratfordism,
> > > > > together with reactionary fanatics within the wings of Stratfordism -
> > > > > like Bob - would view this issue as being really important. Otherwise
> > > > > they would not take so much trouble to debate it.
>
> > > > If you want to show that a person is irrational, it makes sense to
> > > > cite what the person believes in, regardless of how inconsequential,
> > > > then show how it is irrational. The claim that WS's daughters
> > > > were illiterate is irrational, although the claim that they may have
> > > > been, which you did not intially make, is.
>
> > > I will check exactly what I did say, it was all so long ago. Usually I
> > > don' t make unqualified statements on matters not supported by direct
> > > historical evidence.
>
> > > JH- Hide quoted text -
>
> > If you can show that you did not in this case, I will apologize. It
> > is
> > possible that I saw your list and it annoyed me so much, being a
> > kind of quick summary of the idiocy of Price, that I missed some
> > statement of yours indicating that it did not represent your views.
>
> Can this be yet another slippery shift in your previously stated
> position?
No, it is simply a statement that I may not be wholly right. Now that
I see again what you wrote, I find that I exaggerated its stupidity by
may ten percent, but did get its grossest errors right, such as your
interesting calling your list of Oxfordian beliefs, facts.
mylear
but.net> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:31 pm, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 3:27 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> > but.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 26, 7:13 pm, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 6:16 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of expressions
> > > > like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
> > > > unreality.
>
> > > Good, John, you have proven yourself indisputably irrational. You are
> > > saying:
>
> > > 1. I know hardly anything of Shakespeare
>
> > > 2. I have stated in this group that I have no respect for Shakespeare
> > > as a writer,
>
> > > 3. I will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that any publication
> > > which ever had the name ''Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond
> > > any question whatsoever,
> > > conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody
> > > who
> > > even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
>
> > You seem to be losing your grip Bob. I did not say any of those
> > things. They are Willdever's words.
>
> They were his assessment, which you said was correct.
>
>
> > Read, for
> > example, the very recently published book bu Craig and Kinney
> > 'Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship' (CUP, 2009).
> > And while you are about it, go to your local library and get hold of a
> > copy of Brian Vickers' 'Shakespeare, Co-author'. All of Shakespeare's
> > co-authors were professional playwrights, not actors. You are so
> > ignorant of real Shakespearen scholarship that you dont even recognise
> > that.
>
> I see. I mention that actors adding text to a play are, in effect, co-
> authors, so am ignorant of any other possible co-authors, and can't
> call actors co-authors because Vickers, whose book I have and have
> half read but found incredibly slow-going, and his fellow revisionists
> don't discuss them as such.
>
> > Will's co-authors include his prolific and worthy colleague John
> > Fletcher, not to mention Marlowe, Peele, Kyd, Wilkins, and Middleton.
> > Their contributions to the co-authored plays were far more than the
> > mere addition of a 'few lines'.
>
> If they contributed anything.
>
the face of informed scholarly opinion. That's crankish, by any
standards.
>
> But I was clarifying my belief as to
> what the FF plays were: i.e., plays with one significant author, so
> not co-authored in the way
> the revisionists say some were, but not without SOME text not by WS.
> Like Willedever, you're too eager to fault me to read me even half-
> intelligently.
>
care into your sentence construction. It would also help if you made
an effort not to use generalisations. For example, what on earth do
you mean by "the revisionists"? Is this some class of identifiable
individuals? If so, please define the term and identify some of the
individuals.
this to mean that Shakespeare was not an author. You are simply trying
to slide out of the difficulty you have gotten into.
>
> > > > > Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> > > > > bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> > > > > they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> > > > > you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> > > > > Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
> > > > I have never argued a case against Shakespeare as an author. The
> > > > previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
> > > > examine why anti-Stratfordism exists.
>
> > > It sounded as I described it.
>
> > Your perception is faulty.
>
> > I now can't find it.
>
> > How convenient.
>
> Haha, moron--I did find it. I do not fail to find things that I fear
> will make me
> look bad. If I say I couldn't find it, it's because of some other
> reason.
>
>
> > > You said something like,
> > > "the reason some don't believe in WS is that . . . his daughters were
> > > illiterate." I feel fairly certain you ended saying authorship was
> > > therefore worth debating.
>
> > > > I have come to the conclusion
> > > > that one of those reasons - quite independent of any inconsistencies
> > > > between the personal, business and literary lives of William - lies
> > > > with the absurd level of bardolatry (in may ways similar to a
> > > > religion) possessed by people such as yourself. It colors and distorts
> > > > all of your judgements, destroys your ability to think objectively,
> > > > and provides ample ammunition for the anti-Stratfordians to attack you
> > > > with. You are your own worst enemy.
>
> > > You haven gotten less than ten percent of my arguments right so far,
>
> > Your "arguments" are often little more than wild and unsubstantiated
> > assertions.
>
> Well, you're a better wack than Crowley--you remember to say "often"
> instead of "always."
>
>
> > > As for the charge of bardolatry, read your friend Willedever again:
>
> > I am not responsible for what others write, and Willdever is not my
> > "friend". He merely happens to agree with me on several points that I
> > made previously. Lumping him and I together is yet another indicator
> > of your paranoia and insecurity.
>
> You accepted his description--although you can weasel out of it
> because you did so in an oblique, evasive manner.
>
suit your convenience.
Oxfordian beliefs. Is this your real opinion Bob, or is it just
another example of Bob Grumman shooting off his big mouth? And if it
is so, I'm interested in knowing whether you think I believe that de
Vere was the secret author behind Shakespeare's works, along with
Marlowe's works, not to mention Don Quixote, and I'm not sure what
else.
> > > But
> > > I also remember that I and someone else, Ignoto? argued your
> > > particular statement that there was no paper trail for Shakespeare.
> > > I believe you partially gave in on the validity of that statement.
>
> > > --Bob- Hide quoted text -
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > > > > Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of expressions
> > > > > like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
> > > > > unreality.
>
> > > > Good, John, you have proven yourself indisputably irrational. You are
> > > > saying:
>
> > > > 1. I know hardly anything of Shakespeare
>
> > > > 2. I have stated in this group that I have no respect for Shakespeare
> > > > as a writer,
>
> > > > 3. I will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that any publication
> > > > which ever had the name ''Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond
> > > > any question whatsoever,
> > > > conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody
> > > > who
> > > > even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
>
> > > You seem to be losing your grip Bob. I did not say any of those
> > > things. They are Willdever's words.
> > They were his assessment, which you said was correct.
>
> You are taking my statement out of context. That's really slippery!
Out of context? He said:
"And, as you mention, Bob is a crank. He knows hardly anything of
Shakespeare, and he has stated in this group that he has no respect
for Shakespeare as a writer, but yet, he will argue endlessly (to an
insane degree) that any publication which ever had the name
'Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond any question whatsoever,
conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody
who
even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane.
"All of which means, Bob is a casebook illustration of a crank.
Woefully ignorant, while endlessly insistent, Bob Grumman is an
eccentric loony."
You replied, "Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of
expressions
like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed with sanity and
unreality." What are you talking about if not the moron's description
of me as
a "crank . . . knows hardly anything of Shakespeare, and . . . has
stated in
this group that he has no respect for Shakespeare as a writer, but
yet, . . .
will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that any publication which
ever
had the name 'Shakespeare' associated with it is, beyond any question
whatsoever, conclusively by William Shakespeare, and by him alone,
and
anybody who even attempts to argue otherwise is surely insane, and as
"a
casebook illustration of a crank . . . ignorant, while endlessly
insistent . . .
an eccentric loony?" If that is not WIlledever's assessment of me,
what is?
> > > Significant Shakespearean scholars disagree with you.
>
> > Do all of them disagree with me, as you say?
>
> Where did I say "all"?
You strongly implied that when you said what I do "not seem to
appreciate is that by arguing against things which reasonable
scholars agree on," If you really meant that I was a fool for
arguing against things SOME reasonable but not all
reasonable scholars agree on, I had you wrong: your description
of me was accurate, but preposterous, since there is clearly
nothing wrong with arguing against things some reasonable
scholars agree on and others do not.
>
> > > Read, for
> > > example, the very recently published book bu Craig and Kinney
> > > 'Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship' (CUP, 2009).
> > > And while you are about it, go to your local library and get hold of a
> > > copy of Brian Vickers' 'Shakespeare, Co-author'. All of Shakespeare's
> > > co-authors were professional playwrights, not actors. You are so
> > > ignorant of real Shakespearen scholarship that you dont even recognise
> > > that.
>
> > I see. I mention that actors adding text to a play are, in effect, co-
> > authors, so am ignorant of any other possible co-authors, and can't
> > call actors co-authors because Vickers, whose book I have and have
> > half read but found incredibly slow-going, and his fellow revisionists
> > don't discuss them as such.
>
> > > Will's co-authors include his prolific and worthy colleague John
> > > Fletcher, not to mention Marlowe, Peele, Kyd, Wilkins, and Middleton.
> > > Their contributions to the co-authored plays were far more than the
> > > mere addition of a 'few lines'.
>
> > If they contributed anything.
>
> You seem to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility, in
> the face of informed scholarly opinion. That's crankish, by any
> standards.
It would be if true. I merely corrected your crankishly dogmatic
statement
that "Will's co-authors include . . . Fletcher," etc. as a fact, which
it is not.
I have never denied the possibility, and accept a co-author for
Cardenio, and
believe he may have slightly co-authored one or two of the plays with
his name or initials on their title-pages. I believe that others
probably
contributed to some of the very early plays but not as co-authors. I
think
certain bad plays were given to Shakespeare to re-write. Or maybe
not.
Condell and Heminges provide the only direct historical evidence in
the matter.
>
> > But I was clarifying my belief as to
> > what the FF plays were: i.e., plays with one significant author, so
> > not co-authored in the way
> > the revisionists say some were, but not without SOME text not by WS.
> > Like Willedever, you're too eager to fault me to read me even half-
> > intelligently.
>
> Can't make much sense of this sloppy jumble of words. Please put more
> care into your sentence construction. It would also help if you made
> an effort not to use generalisations. For example, what on earth do
> you mean by "the revisionists"? Is this some class of identifiable
> individuals? If so, please define the term and identify some of the
> individuals.
Not worth the effort.
Nice, you almost caught me. I said you claimed the authorship
question was an open one." See above. You then declared that you
had not made an authorship claim. I responded that you declared
"it valid to keep pursuing the authorship question because
Shakespeare
left no literary paper trail, among other things, such as his bad
handwriting."
Nothing there should suggest that Shakespeare was not an author. It
has to do with whether the authorship question was valid or not. You
absolutely claimed it was.
But thanks for illustrating the tactic of simply changing an
opponent's argument
and demolishing the new argument.
> > > > > > Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> > > > > > bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> > > > > > they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> > > > > > you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> > > > > > Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
> > > > > I have never argued a case against Shakespeare as an author. The
> > > > > previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
> > > > > examine why anti-Stratfordism exists.
>
> > > > It sounded as I described it.
>
> > > Your perception is faulty.
>
> > > I now can't find it.
>
> > > How convenient.
>
> > Haha, moron--I did find it. I do not fail to find things that I fear
> > will make me
> > look bad. If I say I couldn't find it, it's because of some other
> > reason.
>
> hmmmmm ... I see
I posted it, didn't I? And I was absolutely right about what it said.
> > > > You said something like,
> > > > "the reason some don't believe in WS is that . . . his daughters were
> > > > illiterate." I feel fairly certain you ended saying authorship was
> > > > therefore worth debating.
>
> > > > > I have come to the conclusion
> > > > > that one of those reasons - quite independent of any inconsistencies
> > > > > between the personal, business and literary lives of William - lies
> > > > > with the absurd level of bardolatry (in may ways similar to a
> > > > > religion) possessed by people such as yourself. It colors and distorts
> > > > > all of your judgements, destroys your ability to think objectively,
> > > > > and provides ample ammunition for the anti-Stratfordians to attack you
> > > > > with. You are your own worst enemy.
>
> > > > You haven gotten less than ten percent of my arguments right so far,
>
> > > Your "arguments" are often little more than wild and unsubstantiated
> > > assertions.
>
> > Well, you're a better wack than Crowley--you remember to say "often"
> > instead of "always."
>
> What a delightful back-handed complement.
>
> > > > As for the charge of bardolatry, read your friend Willedever again:
>
> > > I am not responsible for what others write, and Willdever is not my
> > > "friend". He merely happens to agree with me on several points that I
> > > made previously. Lumping him and I together is yet another indicator
> > > of your paranoia and insecurity.
Yes, yes, you two are in league to destroy me! But you won't!
> > You accepted his description--although you can weasel out of it
> > because you did so in an oblique, evasive manner.
>
> You are a master of taking things out of context and twisting them to
> suit your convenience.
I wrote the above without referring to what your friend said. Now
that I
have, I retract my opinion that "you did so in an oblique, evasive
manner." To
the contrary, you directly agreed with your friend's assessment of
me.
I don't think you are an Oxfordian. I think, as I've said, that you
were
effectively (unconsciously) an Oxfordian when you wrote what you did.
Having now had a full serving of your thought processes, I would guess
you weren't thinking clearly, just wanted to make a point about the
possibility of co-authorship, perhaps hoping to make friends with some
of the brighter anti-Stratfordians like Egan has and get them on your
side because some of their thinking might be useful I think you were
too
hasty to avoid admitting fault, or too annoyed by my revealing it the
way I
did (and I AM intemperate in my dislike of the belief that Shakespeare
left no literary paper trail). Consequently, you went on to say other
stupid things like what you said about Willedever's assessment of me.
You clearly are more of a relativist than I, but I can't tell how much
more.
Until you clarified the matter, it looked like you believed (as you
stated in
the post I finally re-posted) that Shakespeare had not been shown
beyond
reasonable doubt to have been the True Author (as I defined it in this
thread),
Anyone who believes the authorship question an open one seems to me
a total relativist, or someone who believes knowing what's true is
impossible,
which I take to be a less rational position than Oxfordianism.
I think, finally, that you feel you're in a skirmish with a wing of
Shakespeare people
who refuse to accept any kind of co-authorship, so over-react to
people like me
who are skeptical of many of the claims of co-authorship, don't
worship St. Brian,
and will take a long time to accept any claim of co-authorship as
conclusive. I
perhaps over-react the opposite way to people who are promoting the co-
authorship
view of Shakespeare (I react the same way to the people promoting him
as a
secret Catholic). And, of course, I'm excessively argumentative--
which is part of
being excessively thorough-going, which is better than being too
unthorough-going.
--Bob G.
mylear
and unreality. That much is obvious to almost any observer. I am not
sure about all of his other views about you, for example his view that
you have no respect for Shakespeare as a writer (however it is up to
you to demonstrate that you have respect Shakespeare as an author
before I accept it).
>
>What are you talking about if not the moron's description of me as
> a "crank . . . knows hardly anything of Shakespeare, and . . . has
> stated in this group that he has no respect for Shakespeare as a
> writer, but yet, . . . will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that
> any publication which ever had the name 'Shakespeare' associated
> with it is, beyond any question whatsoever, conclusively by William
> Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody who even attempts
> to argue otherwise is surely insane, and as "a casebook illustration
> of a crank . . . ignorant, while endlessly insistent . . . an eccentric
> loony?" If that is not WIlledever's assessment of me, what is?
>
> > > > Significant Shakespearean scholars disagree with you.
>
> > > Do all of them disagree with me, as you say?
>
> > Where did I say "all"?
>
> You strongly implied that when you said what I do "not seem to
> appreciate is that by arguing against things which reasonable
> scholars agree on,"
>
>
> If you really meant that I was a fool for arguing against things
> SOME reasonable but not all reasonable scholars agree on,
> I had you wrong: your description of me was accurate, but
> preposterous, since there is clearly nothing wrong with
> arguing against things some reasonable scholars agree on
> and others do not.
>
position. It is your absolute right in a pluralist society to believe
anything you wish, and to freely state what you believe in, providing
you do not break the law.
>
> > > > Read, for
> > > > example, the very recently published book bu Craig and Kinney
> > > > 'Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship' (CUP, 2009).
> > > > And while you are about it, go to your local library and get hold of a
> > > > copy of Brian Vickers' 'Shakespeare, Co-author'. All of Shakespeare's
> > > > co-authors were professional playwrights, not actors. You are so
> > > > ignorant of real Shakespearen scholarship that you dont even recognise
> > > > that.
>
> > > I see. I mention that actors adding text to a play are, in effect, co-
> > > authors, so am ignorant of any other possible co-authors, and can't
> > > call actors co-authors because Vickers, whose book I have and have
> > > half read but found incredibly slow-going, and his fellow revisionists
> > > don't discuss them as such.
>
> > > > Will's co-authors include his prolific and worthy colleague John
> > > > Fletcher, not to mention Marlowe, Peele, Kyd, Wilkins, and Middleton.
> > > > Their contributions to the co-authored plays were far more than the
> > > > mere addition of a 'few lines'.
>
> > > If they contributed anything.
>
> > You seem to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility, in
> > the face of informed scholarly opinion. That's crankish, by any
> > standards.
>
> It would be if true. I merely corrected your crankishly dogmatic
> statement that "Will's co-authors include . . . Fletcher," etc. as
> a fact, which it is not.
>
clear and obvious implication is that they have been established as
probably co-authors on the basis of scholarly analysis, not that there
is certainty. Perhaps it would be helpful to discourse if we try to
avoid using the word "fact".
>
I have never denied the possibility, and
> accept a co-author for Cardenio, and believe he may have slightly
>
>
> co-authored one or two of the plays with his name or initials on
> their title-pages. I believe that others probably contributed to
> some of the very early plays but not as co-authors.
>
versions of those very early plays, which William subsequently
revised.
>
> I think certain bad plays were given to Shakespeare to
> re-write. Or maybe not. Condell and Heminges provide
> the only direct historical evidence in the matter.
>
>
> > > But I was clarifying my belief as to
> > > what the FF plays were: i.e., plays with one significant author, so
> > > not co-authored in the way
> > > the revisionists say some were, but not without SOME text not by WS.
> > > Like Willedever, you're too eager to fault me to read me even half-
> > > intelligently.
>
> > Can't make much sense of this sloppy jumble of words. Please put more
> > care into your sentence construction. It would also help if you made
> > an effort not to use generalisations. For example, what on earth do
> > you mean by "the revisionists"? Is this some class of identifiable
> > individuals? If so, please define the term and identify some of the
> > individuals.
>
> Not worth the effort.
>
rules of language and sentence construction, and a proper mode of
discourse, then your attempts to communicate will end in failure.
>
> > > You accepted his description--although you can weasel out of it
> > > because you did so in an oblique, evasive manner.
>
> > You are a master of taking things out of context and twisting them to
> > suit your convenience.
>
> I wrote the above without referring to what your friend said.
>
>
> Now that I have, I retract my opinion that "you did so in an oblique,
> evasive manner." To the contrary, you directly agreed with your
> friend's assessment of me.
>
destroy me! But you won't!" as an expression of your ironical sense
of humour. Your insistence that he is my "friend" reveals that you are
indeed paranoid.
>
> I think, as I've said, that you were
> effectively (unconsciously) an Oxfordian when you wrote what you did.
>
'propagandists'?
>
> Having now had a full serving of your thought processes, I would guess
> you weren't thinking clearly, just wanted to make a point about the
> possibility of co-authorship, perhaps hoping to make friends with some
> of the brighter anti-Stratfordians like Egan has and get them on your
> side because some of their thinking might be useful I think you were
> too hasty to avoid admitting fault,
>
believe I have made a mistake. And I have changed my mind on several
authorship issues during the past few years, so I don't believe you
cannot legitimately claim that my mind is rigid and inflexible.
>
> or too annoyed by my revealing it the way I did (and I AM intemperate
> in my dislike of the belief that Shakespeare left no literary paper trail).
>
>
> Consequently, you went on to say other stupid things like what you
> said about Willedever's assessment of me.
>
>
> You clearly are more of
> a relativist than I, but I can't tell how much more. Until you clarified
> the matter, it looked like you believed (as you stated in the post I
> finally re-posted) that Shakespeare had not been shown beyond
> reasonable doubt to have been the True Author (as I defined it in this
> thread),
>
especially as a capitalized word. The word "truth" and "facts" are
highly misused and abused words. In this type of debate it serves no
useful purpose to use either of them. "Truth" is a very subtle and
elusive beast. Actually it is a useful concept, and science exists
because there is a common acceptance that objective truth exists,
however it is also accepted that there is no royal road allowing human
beings access to truth. Aristotle was totally wrong on this matter. It
was a tragedy for human progress that the chuch clung to all of that
Aristotelian nonsense for so long. The best one can do is to use
scientific methodolgy in the hope of approximating it, and all
theories must be regarded as provisional.
>
> Anyone who believes the authorship question an open one
> seems to me a total relativist, or someone who believes knowing
> what's true is impossible, which I take to be a less rational position
> than Oxfordianism.
>
open. There are things that we can know (and do know) with a high
degree of probability.
However I have observed that you have an ingrained bias against a
probabilistic interpretation of how the world operates. To you,
uncertainty threatens your world view and makes you feel insecure.
However others do not hold such an extreme view. Voltaire said
"uncertainty is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is absurd".
Moreover modern physics (particularly quantum theory) has demonstrated
that uncertainty seems to be ingrained in the physical world and in
the nature of things. It is the nature of the process of measurement.
Thus for example if one tries to determine the position of a particle
with absolute certainty, then one loses all certainty about its
momentum (and vice versa). This is the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle.
>
> I think, finally, that you feel you're in a skirmish with a wing of
> Shakespeare people
> who refuse to accept any kind of co-authorship, so over-react to
> people like me
> who are skeptical of many of the claims of co-authorship, don't
> worship St. Brian,
> and will take a long time to accept any claim of co-authorship as
> conclusive. I
> perhaps over-react the opposite way to people who are promoting the co-
> authorship
> view of Shakespeare (I react the same way to the people promoting him
> as a
> secret Catholic). And, of course, I'm excessively argumentative--
> which is part of
> being excessively thorough-going, which is better than being too
> unthorough-going.
>
Yes, I agree with most of these statements. And I think you should
recognise that I have acquired considerable knowledge of, and have put
a lot of effort into trying to understand, the issue of Shakespearean
co-authorship.
>
> --Bob G.
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > Woefully ignorant, while endlessly insistent, Bob Grumman is an
> > eccentric loony."
>
> > You replied, "Willdever's assessment of you is correct; your use of
> > expressions like "True Psychotic" reveal you as a person obssessed
> > with sanity and unreality."
>
> Yes, I agree with his assessment that you are obssessed with sanity
> and unreality.
You said you agreed with his assessment, period. As for my
"obsession,"
seems to me unlikely anyone not intellectually lazy and irresponsible
would
attribute it to me on the basis of certain expressions used in a forum
like this, with a central subject which attracts a good deal of nuts.
Such
a person might use the Internet to find out how broad my interests are
and
how little time I devote to the study of sanity and unreality. I've
never used
the term, "True Psychotic," by the way. Were I to "debate" like you
mostly
do, I would have used my denial of having used it as my complete
response
to you here, even though it's obvious the real point is whether I have
the
obsession you and Willedever claim I do. I have no obsessions, in
actual fact.
> That much is obvious to almost any observer. I am not
> sure about all of his other views about you, for example his view that
> you have no respect for Shakespeare as a writer (however it is up to
> you to demonstrate that you have respect Shakespeare as an author
> before I accept it).
Right, I have to demonstrate it, you needn't research the matter, even
though a simple search of the little girls' Shakespeare site would
clear the matter up (for anyone sane).
>
> >What are you talking about if not the moron's description of me as
> > a "crank . . . knows hardly anything of Shakespeare, and . . . has
> > stated in this group that he has no respect for Shakespeare as a
> > writer, but yet, . . . will argue endlessly (to an insane degree) that
> > any publication which ever had the name 'Shakespeare' associated
> > with it is, beyond any question whatsoever, conclusively by William
> > Shakespeare, and by him alone, and anybody who even attempts
> > to argue otherwise is surely insane, and as "a casebook illustration
> > of a crank . . . ignorant, while endlessly insistent . . . an eccentric
> > loony?" If that is not WIlledever's assessment of me, what is?
>
> > > > > Significant Shakespearean scholars disagree with you.
>
> > > > Do all of them disagree with me, as you say?
>
> > > Where did I say "all"?
>
> > You strongly implied that when you said what I do "not seem to
> > appreciate is that by arguing against things which reasonable
> > scholars agree on,"
>
> There is no implication of universality in this statement.
Sure there is. You can't reasonably be thought to be saying I'm
a crank for arguing against things SOME reasonable scholars
agree on.
You are evading my answer to your charge the I refuse to acknowledge
the possibility,
etc. when I quibbled. You clearly took me to be saying "They
contributed nothing,"
instead of suggesting with, "if they contributed anything," that we
can't be sure if those
you mentioned were co-authors or not. You do this kind of thing a
lot.
> Where I have referred to "Will's co-authors", the
> clear and obvious implication is that they have been established as
> probably co-authors on the basis of scholarly analysis, not that there
> is certainty. Perhaps it would be helpful to discourse if we try to
> avoid using the word "fact".
>
> I have never denied the possibility, and> accept a co-author for Cardenio,
and believe he may have slightly
>
> slightly?
Yes.
>
> > co-authored one or two of the plays with his name or initials on
> > their title-pages. I believe that others probably contributed to
> > some of the very early plays but not as co-authors.
>
> Perhaps you are right. They might have been the sole authors of early
> versions of those very early plays, which William subsequently
> revised.
>
> > I think certain bad plays were given to Shakespeare to
> > re-write. Or maybe not. Condell and Heminges provide
> > the only direct historical evidence in the matter.
>
> > Why would they need to be bad plays? They might simply have been incomplete. But in any case, I regard your acknowledement that the very early plays might have involved authors other than William as a welcome breakthrough in this dialogue. Well done!
>
> > > > But I was clarifying my belief as to
> > > > what the FF plays were: i.e., plays with one significant author, so
> > > > not co-authored in the way
> > > > the revisionists say some were, but not without SOME text not by WS.
> > > > Like Willedever, you're too eager to fault me to read me even half-
> > > > intelligently.
>
> > > Can't make much sense of this sloppy jumble of words.
Must be my fault, then.
> > > Please put more
> > > care into your sentence construction. It would also help if you made
> > > an effort not to use generalisations. For example, what on earth do
> > > you mean by "the revisionists"? Is this some class of identifiable
> > > individuals? If so, please define the term and identify some of the
> > > individuals.
>
> > Not worth the effort.
The definition of historical revisionists has been standard for years.
Look it up.
Another standard wack technique is to disappear at certain times
from an argument.
> > > > > > > > Oddly enough, for one who claims the daughters' literacy has little
> > > > > > > > bearing on the authorship question, it is interesting that you claimed
> > > > > > > > they were illiterate on the post that started our long exchange--and
> > > > > > > > you claimed it as evidence indicating that the case against
> > > > > > > > Shakespeare as an author had merit.
>
> > > > > > > I have never argued a case against Shakespeare as an author. The
> > > > > > > previous thread, in which you appeared so prominently, set out to
> > > > > > > examine why anti-Stratfordism exists.
>
> > > > > > It sounded as I described it.
>
> > > > > Your perception is faulty.
>
> > > > > I now can't find it.
>
> > > > > How convenient.
>
> > > > Haha, moron--I did find it. I do not fail to find things that I fear
> > > > will make me look bad. If I say I couldn't find it, it's because
> > > > of some other reason.
>
> > > hmmmmm ... I see
>
> > I posted it, didn't I? And I was absolutely right about what it said.
Disappear after an insinuation is proven totaly false.
I also insist that you are a moron. Is that paranoid, too?
You repeated Price close to verbatim. What that means, I'm still not
sure,
except gullibility, for sure.
> > Having now had a full serving of your thought processes, I would guess
> > you weren't thinking clearly, just wanted to make a point about the
> > possibility of co-authorship, perhaps hoping to make friends with some
> > of the brighter anti-Stratfordians like Egan has and get them on your
> > side because some of their thinking might be useful I think you were
> > too hasty to avoid admitting fault,
>
> Umm .. I think you will find that I am very willing to admit it if I
> believe I have made a mistake. And I have changed my mind on several
> authorship issues during the past few years, so I don't believe you
> cannot legitimately claim that my mind is rigid and inflexible.
So tell me why you wrote what you did.
>
> > or too annoyed by my revealing it the way I did (and I AM intemperate
> > in my dislike of the belief that Shakespeare left no literary paper trail).
>
> So I have noticed.
>
> > Consequently, you went on to say other stupid things like what you
> > said about Willedever's assessment of me.
>
> Umm ... part of his assessment
No, you said you agreed with his assessment, you did not say you
agreed with part of his assessment.
Was he certain? I am biased against relativism but do not feel
"threatened" by
it. Nor by anti-Stratfordianism though just about everyone I've
argued
with about that claims that. I really can't understand why so many
weakminds feel in necessary to inist that any opposing them with
vigor must feel threatened by their views.
> Moreover modern physics (particularly quantum theory) has demonstrated
> that uncertainty seems to be ingrained in the physical world and in
> the nature of things. It is the nature of the process of measurement.
> Thus for example if one tries to determine the position of a particle
> with absolute certainty, then one loses all certainty about its
> momentum (and vice versa). This is the Heisenberg uncertainty
> principle.
Believe it or not none of that is new to me. Certainties still exist.
> > I think, finally, that you feel you're in a skirmish with a wing of
> > Shakespeare people
> > who refuse to accept any kind of co-authorship, so over-react to
> > people like me
> > who are skeptical of many of the claims of co-authorship, don't
> > worship St. Brian,
> > and will take a long time to accept any claim of co-authorship as
> > conclusive. I
> > perhaps over-react the opposite way to people who are promoting the co-
> > authorship
> > view of Shakespeare (I react the same way to the people promoting him
> > as a
> > secret Catholic). And, of course, I'm excessively argumentative--
> > which is part of
> > being excessively thorough-going, which is better than being too
> > unthorough-going.
>
> Yes, I agree with most of these statements. And I think you should
> recognise that I have acquired considerable knowledge of, and have put
> a lot of effort into trying to understand, the issue of Shakespearean
> co-authorship.
>
I would agree that you have, however wrong I also feel you
are on some points. I would also never think of accusing you
for having little regard for Shakespeare as an author although
I don't think you've written much (if anything) at HLAS or the Forest
that
indicates you do.
--Bob
mylear
> I think certain bad plays were given to Shakespeare to
> re-write. Or maybe not. Condell and Heminges provide
> the only direct historical evidence in the matter.
Why would they need to be bad plays? They might simply have been
incomplete. But in any case, I regard your acknowledement that the
very early plays could have involved authors other than William as a
welcome breakthrough in this dialogue. Well done!
JH
lackpurity
MM:
Shakespeare had to do it, himself. He, and only he, knew what he
could do with an old play. He had a certain message to get across.
No other possible collaborator could have participated in the canon.
The closest possibility would have been one of Shakespeare's
disciples. He might have had some mystic knowledge and could have
contributed something to Shakespeare, possibly. Even then, the text
would have beed edited and approved by the Strat Man.
The idea that Anti-Strats might have, that Shakespeare was an
illiterate boob from Stratford is preposterous. Robert Greene tried
to tell us in Groatsworth of Wit, that he was no ordinary writer.
You're always harping on collaboration, trying to justify it by saying
scholars now believe that. Let's see some evidence. Scholars have
been wrong on Shakespeare for 400 years, and they are crying "wolf,"
too many times.
Michael Martin
mylear
Poor Michael is so ignorant that he doesn't know 'The Two Noble
Kinsmen', written and first performed around 1613, exhibits the names
of both John Fletcher and William Shakespeare on the title page of the
first published version. Moreover, researchers have identified the
parts written by John and William, which display quite different
styles. This work is unquestionably co-authored, and William
Shakespeare is one of the authors. I suspect Michael is also unaware
that reasons for the non-appearance of this play within the first
folio alongside Henry VIII were political and commercial, not textual.
Pericles, also missing from the first folio, is now recognised as a co-
authored work of Wilkins and Shakespeare.
JH
lackpurity
MM:
Poor ignorant John has decided to ignore my exception of a disciple of
Shakespeare. Shakespeare still would have approved it, even while
giving his disciple some credit.
Moreover, researchers have identified the
> parts written by John and William, which display quite different
> styles.
MM:
Immaterial and irrelevant. The issue is that William would have
approved of the text. You are out tiptoeing through the tulips, as
usual. Fletcher would not have made himself equal or superior to the
Great Bard from Stratford.
This work is unquestionably co-authored, and William
> Shakespeare is one of the authors. I suspect Michael is also unaware
> that reasons for the non-appearance of this play within the first
> folio alongside Henry VIII were political and commercial, not textual.
MM:
I'm sure Shakespeare had his reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of
certain plays in the FF. I'm not going to comment on your
allegation.
> Pericles, also missing from the first folio, is now recognised as a co-
> authored work of Wilkins and Shakespeare.
>
> JH
MM:
Was Wilkins a disciple of Shakespeare? That would make a big
difference. Recognition doesn't imply veracity, anyway. You are
still leaning on your favorite crutch, the so-called modern scholars.
Even if Wilkins had contributed some material to Pericles, Shakespeare
would have given it his stamp of approval. Pericles could have only
been written by a Great Master, IMO. This is not to say, that Wilkins
couldn't have made some suggestions or contributions to Shakespeare.
You're going in circles, John. I still would like to see some
evidence to back up your allegations.
Michael Martin
mylear
> This work is unquestionably co-authored, and William Shakespeare
> > is one of the authors. I suspect Michael is also unaware
> > that reasons for the non-appearance of this play within the first
> > folio alongside Henry VIII were political and commercial, not textual.
>
> MM:
> I'm sure Shakespeare had his reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of
> certain plays in the FF.
You are a silly billy, aren't you? Shakespeare was dead seven years
before the FF appeared. He played no role in what appeared within it.
JH
lackpurity
MM:
I don't see any proof that he had no role in it. It appears to be
guesswork on your part. Can you offer something besides guesswork?
Great Masters know the future. Nostradamus has indicated that they
can know even centuries in advance. Marlowe prophesied his death,
also. Where have you been?
Shakespeare wanted the Herbert Bros., Aemelia Lanyer, Bacon, etc., to
stabilize their positions as successors. He had his priorities,
whether you have a clue about them, or not.
Michael Martin
mylear
> On Dec 31, 8:16 pm, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:02 am, lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This work is unquestionably co-authored, and William Shakespeare
> > > > is one of the authors. I suspect Michael is also unaware
> > > > that reasons for the non-appearance of this play within the first
> > > > folio alongside Henry VIII were political and commercial, not textual.
>
> > > MM:
> > > I'm sure Shakespeare had his reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of
> > > certain plays in the FF.
>
> > You are a silly billy, aren't you? Shakespeare was dead seven years
> > before the FF appeared. He played no role in what appeared within it.
>
> > JH
>
> MM:
> I don't see any proof that he had no role in it. It appears to be
> guesswork on your part. Can you offer something besides guesswork?
>
My mistake for trying to conduct a rational discussion with a
fruitcake.
JH
lackpurity
MM:
That's the best response you can come up with? LOL You have failed
to meet my challenge, so it appears that this is your way to raise the
white flag. Okay. Whatever.
The problem with most Anti-Strats is that they never consider the
Strat Man a superior human being. If they could be open-minded to his
superiority, then they might have a chance to grasp the truth.
You, for example, apparently thought that Shakespeare had no clue
about his coming death, and therefore made no plans for that
contingency. Another major problem with Anti-Stratfordianism is that
it refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Wilton Mystic Cult.
That was Shakespeare's Alma Mater, and Marlowe's as well.
When Anti-Strats refuse to acknowledge so many facts, then they go
back to their crutches, such as modern scholarship, etc.. How can
anybody give modern scholarship much credit, when it refuses to deal
with certain facts? The Wilton Cult and the fact that Shakespeare was
a child prodigy seem to be swept under the rug by Anti-Strats and
modern scholars, although they are quite willing to offer us
preposterous theories, such as the front-man-massive-coverup theory.
Incredible.
What is your point about your collaboration theory? Even if there
were some minor collaboration by some of the Bard's disciples, so
what? What difference would it make? Anti-Strats often seem to be
grasping at straws.
I think you should try to be brave and tell us why you think the Strat
Man made no arrangements for the FF. Strats, most of them, figure
that he was the greatest intellect ever seen in this world. Anti-
Strats will not recognize his superiority, perhaps because there would
be no need for any other authorship candidates.
Michael Martin
Robin G.
Michael - Who are you these days? Are you Shakespeare? Are you
Jesus? Are you God? It's so difficult to keep up with the crazies
like you. You suffer from the delusion of adequacy.
Sinbad
>
> - Show quoted text -
He just does his God given duty. What are you doing?
lackpurity
MM:
I saw your reply to Elizabeth. At least you're a Strat, so you get
credit for that. I'm just a conduit for the MUSES.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Yes, I just try to discuss truth. Many falsehoods are discussed, so I
try to balance them with some truth.
Michael Martin