James Shapiro -- " Happy birthday, whoever you were"
Terry Ross
William Shakespeare*, appeared in the Telegraph Sunday:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbard23.xml
Shapiro offers a pretty good brief history of antistratfordianism but
also makes this somewhat surprising assessment:
The past year has been a good one for the anti-Stratfordians:
The Oxfordian, the journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Society,
attracted attention with the publication of Mark Anderson's
*'Shakespeare' by Another Name*, while the British media
proclaimed the arrival of a fresh contender, Sir Henry Neville,
proposed by Brenda James and William Rubenstein in their
book *The Truth Will Out*. Across the Atlantic, William
Niederkorn of The New York Times concluded that each side
has its own story to tell, and - taking a page from Creationists
who argue that 'intelligent design' should be taught alongside
evolution - that those who teach Shakespeare's plays should make
the authorship controversy part of the curriculum.
I call Shapiro's judgment "somewhat surprising" because I don't think
last year was a good year for antistratfordians, particularly
Oxfordians. Of course there will always be a few people who (for
whatever reason) would love to remove Shakespeare's name from his
works, but the growing number of antistratfordian "contenders" makes
the case for each one even weaker, if such a thing is possible. When
Dave Kathman and I started the Shakespeare Authorship page ten years
ago, Oxfordianism seemed clearly to be the leading strain of
antistratfordianism, and Oxfordians surely hoped that anyone
antistratfordianly inclined would line up under their tiny banner. To
be sure, the Baconians had never gone away (as some Baconians believe
the great man himself never has), and there were Marlites in the world,
but they seemed like semi-pros compared to the bush-league Oxfordians.
Today Oxfordianism is more obviously just one of a number of
antistratfordian sects, even if it may still be primus inter pares.
Ten years ago, Diana Price, John Rollett, and Peter Dickson would have
agreed that Oxford was essentially the sole author of Shakespeare's
works. Ten years ago, the only antistratfordian show in the *Frontline*
archives was Oxfordian; they have recently added a Marlite version.
Can we expect a Neville or Countess of Pembroke or even a Sackville
show in the next ten years?
For any one of these sects to become a serious challenge to genuine
scholarship, it would have to dispose of its rivals, rather than
pretending (as the members of the various sects are wont to do) that it
is the sole alternative to genuine literary history; it would also have
to produce some actual scholarship. Of course the greater challenge
for Oxfordianism may be dealing with its own schisms.
As for Niederkorn, he has had nothing under his name in the Times since
the piece Shapiro mentions, and there have been a number of articles of
the sort that used to be written by him, and in which (had he been
allowed to write them), we would have expected his usual insertion of
Oxfordian propaganda. Niederkorn's suggestion that "authorship studies
[be] made part of the standard Shakespeare curriculum" has been
compared by a number of people to pleas by creationists that
"intelligent design" be taught alongside evolution, and one might hope
that the Times noticed the unfairness of Niederkorn's coverage. On the
other hand, Niederkorn had only one byline in the Times in 2005 and
only one in 2004, so perhaps we will yet see his annual Times puff for
the 17th Earl of Oxford.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kathman
I talked to Shapiro at the SAA a couple of weekends ago. It sounded
like he was going to write something about antistratfordians, focusing
on the 19th-century origins of the movement, and he said he would be in
touch to talk more about it. I assumed he was talking about something
longer than this Telegraph article.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Art Neuendorffer
<<An essay by James Shapiro, the author of *1599: A Year in the
Life of William Shakespeare*, appeared in the Telegraph Sunday:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbar...
Shapiro offers a pretty good brief history of antistratfordianism
but also makes this somewhat surprising assessment:
The past year has been a good one for the anti-Stratfordians:
The Oxfordian, the journal of the Shakespeare Oxford Society,
attracted attention with the publication of Mark Anderson's
*'Shakespeare' by Another Name*, while the British media
proclaimed the arrival of a fresh contender, Sir Henry Neville,
proposed by Brenda James and William Rubenstein in their
book *The Truth Will Out*. Across the Atlantic, William
Niederkorn of The New York Times concluded that each side
has its own story to tell, and - taking a page from Creationists
who argue that 'intelligent design' should be taught alongside
evolution - that those who teach Shakespeare's plays should
make the authorship controversy part of the curriculum.
I call Shapiro's judgment "somewhat surprising" because I don't
think last year was a good year for antistratfordians, particularly
Oxfordians. Of course there will always be a few people who (for
whatever reason) would love to remove Shakespeare's name from his
works, but the growing number of antistratfordian "contenders" makes
the case for each one even weaker, if such a thing is possible.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
It is NOT possible...the case for Oxford is ALWAYS growing.
(Besides, Neville is not & never will be a serious contender.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
<<When Dave Kathman and I started the Shakespeare Authorship page
ten years ago, Oxfordianism seemed clearly to be the leading strain
of antistratfordianism, and Oxfordians surely hoped that anyone
antistratfordianly inclined would line up under their tiny banner.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
It only appears tiny because it is folded thusly:
-----------------------------------------------------
_ MINERVA BRITANNA Banner Folding
http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/title.jpg
.
___________ <= 8 =>
.
__ V I _ [V] _ I T U R I
_ N G _ [E] _ N I O C Æ
__ T E _ [R] _ A M O R T
___ I S _ [E] _ R U N T
-----------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
.
<<To be sure, the Baconians had never gone away (as some
Baconians believe the great man himself never has), and
there were Marlites in the world, but they seemed like
semi-pros compared to the bush-league Oxfordians.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
_____ *BOSke-intrigue Oxfordians*
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathman:
.
Strachey mentions "BOSke running along the ground" ;
.
in the masque in The Tempest,
___ Ceres mentions "my BOSky acres" ,
.
. Shakespeare's only use of this word.
-------------------------------------------------------
Stritmatter & Kositsky:
.
<<Once again Kathman's claim for this as "Shakespeare's only
use of this word" is erroneous, as a variant (see OED below)
occurs much earlier in Sh.:
.
How bloodily the sun begins to peer Above yon busky hill!
I Henry IV (5.1.1-2).
.
Busky a. (f. busk, var. of bush, sb. 1+y cf. bushy, BOSky.]
___ BOSky, bushy.>>
OED: BOSky [(f. BOSk not recorded between 14th and 19th
c., but preserved in dial.) + y: or alteration of busky,
after It. BOSCOSO] Consisting of or covered with bushes
or underwood; full of thickets, bushy.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
.
<<Ten years ago, Diana Price, John Rollett, and Peter Dickson
would have agreed that Oxford was essentially the sole author of
Shakespeare's works. Ten years ago, the only antistratfordian show
in the *Frontline* archives was Oxfordian; they have recently
added a Marlite version. Can we expect a Neville or Countess
of Pembroke or even a Sackville show in the next ten years?>>
.
Ten years ago I thought that Shakespeare's works were
the work of a group. Now that I know that Oxford lived
to around 1612 I am more willing to give him sole credit.
.
Terry Ross wrote:
.
<<For any one of these sects to become a serious challenge to genuine
scholarship, it would have to dispose of its rivals, rather than
pretending (as the members of the various sects are wont to do) that
it is the sole alternative to genuine literary history; it would
also have to produce some actual scholarship. Of course the greater
challenge for Oxfordianism may be dealing with its own schisms.
.
Today Oxfordianism is more obviously just one of a number of
antistratfordian sects, even if it may still be primus inter pares.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
1) Cousin Bacon was editor & publisher of the First Folio
2) MAR-L.O. was an early Oxfordian pseudonym.
3) Derby was Oxford's son-in-law
.
Only a sophisticated form of Oxfordianism
can explain all the anti-Strat evidence.
.
Oxfordianism is the center of anti-Stratfordiansim.
-----------------------------------------------------
13 people were burned at the stake on June 27, 1556
at STRATFORD atte Bowe [in London]. One of them:
.
_ "John Routh said, that he was convented
_ before the [16th] earle of Oxford,
_ and by him sent to the Castle of Colchester:"
____________________________________________
.
_____ STRATFORD atte Bowe
___ hand-WASHING GREAT
____ CHAMBERLAIN
_____ EALDORMAN/Bailiff
_______ John ----------- MARgerY
________ |
________ |
___ /-----------\ ___ m. OPALIA [Sonneteer]
. MARY Oxford --------------- Anne
________________ | [b. 1556]
- [BROOKE House] | [only son dies]
______- [Oxford's Boys] |
______ [Oxford Gloves] |
____- [Thomas Trussell] |
___ [Sweet Oxford/Ned] |
______- [bent Spear crest] |
_______ [Golding's 'OVID'] |
__ [Golding's 'pregnancy of wit'] |
______ [Qu. of Scots Trial] |
__- [Yorke's Scounces] |
___ ["Gentleman" poet] |
- [NESTOR reference] |
|||||||||||||| [MERMAID grand-dam] |
___ ['For TRUTH is Truth'] |
______ [Paul's 'I am that I am'] |
- [Hamlet's 'være eller ikke være'] |
__ [TINner of VEREland] |
_ [1604 deer park warden] |
__- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
__- [- Item, £10 unto a Beggar ] |
|| [(how)ARD plot/tower/exec.] |
____- [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
|| [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9] |
|||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?] ||| |
|| [Richard Field recognized 1589] ||| |
||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] ||| |
||||| [Baroness Elizabeth of Abingdon] || |
__________________ |
||||||||| [lion w./broken lance in dexter PAW]|| |
______+ [ Henry Evans > |
_- 1583 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
- Church Burial Record "X"ed |
__________________ |
______ Herbert (Philip) ----- SVSAN
|||||||| [b. St. LONGINUS day] [b. May 26]
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
.
_____STRATFORD upon Avon
_______ white-WASHING
_______ CHAMBERLAIN
________ ALDERMAN/Bailiff
_________________________ /----------------------\
______________ John ----- MARY MARgerY Webbe
_____ [wrote his 'marke'] | [wrote her 'marke']__[d. St.Adrian's]
__[bur. St.Adrian's Day]- | [d. St.Adrian's Day]
_________________ |
_______ /---------------\ ___________ [illiterate]
. MARgerY Shakspere ------------ Anne
_______________ | [b. 1556]
_ [BROOK House] | [only son
____ [Shaxpere's Boys] | -- dies]
___- [Shaxpere Gloves] |
____ [Thomas Trussell] |
_ [Sweet Swan of Avon] |
____- [Bend Spear crest] |
_______- [Golding's 'OVID'] |
__ [Camden's: 'pregnant witt'] |
______ [Qu. of Scots Trial] |
___ [Yoricke's Scounce] |
_____ ["Gentleman" poet] |
_- [NESTOR reference] |
|||||||||| [MERMAID tAVERn] |
____ ['For TRUTH is Truth'] |
_____- [Paul's 'I am that I am'] |
|||||| [Hamlet's 'To Be or not To Be'] |
__ [TINer of AVERland] |
- [1586 deer park poacher] |
_-- [£1,000/year for 18 years] |
_ [- Item, £10 unto the poore ] |
| [ARD(en) plot/tower/exec.] |
------___ [7 Year exile for indiscretion] |
||||||| [Hothead Gastrell: Esdras 6:9] |
||||||||||||||||||| [Anne Cornwaleys book 1588?] |
|||||||||| [Richard Field recognized 1593] |
||||||||||||||||| [Meres' Top 10 in comedy 1598] |
||||||||||||||||| [Baroness Elizabeth of Abbingdon] |
________________ |
||||||||||||||||| [falcon w./spear in dexter CLAW] |
_____ [ Henry Evans > |
|||| 1608 Lessor of Blackfriars Th.] |
||||| Church Burial Record "X"ed |
________________ |
_ Hall M.D. -------- SVSANna
|||||||| [d. on Lope de Vega's 73rd birthday [b. May 26]
_ 3 mo. after Lope dies] [could write name]
___________________________________________________
"I admit that some of them are not VERy important . . .
but look at the number of them"
- Sam Spade ( Maltese FALCON)
--------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
<<As for Niederkorn, he has had nothing under his name in the Times
since the piece Shapiro mentions, and there have been a number of
articles of the sort that used to be written by him, and in which
(had he been allowed to write them), we would have expected his usual
insertion of Oxfordian propaganda. Niederkorn's suggestion that
"authorship studies [be] made part of the standard Shakespeare
curriculum" has been compared by a number of people to pleas by
creationists that "intelligent design" be taught alongside evolution,
and one might hope that the Times noticed the unfairness of
Niederkorn's coverage. On the other hand, Niederkorn had only one
byline in the Times in 2005 and only one in 2004, so perhaps we
will yet see his annual Times puff for the 17th Earl of Oxford.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
*PUFF* [Akin to G. & Sw. puff a blow, Dan. puf, D. pof; of imitative
origin.] 1. A sudden and single emission of breath from the mouth;
hence, any sudden or short blast of wind; a slight gust; a whiff. "
To EVERy *PUFF* of wind a slave." --Flatman.
2. Anything light and filled with air.
3. An exaggerated or empty expression of praise,
especially one in a public journal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Coriolanus Act 2, Scene 1
BRUTUS: seld-shown flamens
*Do PRESS among the popular throngs and PUFF*
To win a vulgar station: or veil'd dames
Commit the war of white and damask in
Their nicely-gawded cheeks to the wanton spoil
Of Phoebus' burning kisses:
Act 3, Scene 2
CORIOLANUS: Let them *PUFF* all about mine ears, present me
Death on the wheel or at wild horses' heels,
Or pile ten hills on the Tarpeian rock,
That the precipitation might down stretch
Below the beam of sight, yet will I still
Be thus to them.
----------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 5, Scene 3
SILENCE: By'r lady, I think a' be, but goodman *PUFF* of Barson.
PISTOL: *PUFF*!
*PUFF* in thy teeth, most recreant coward base!
Sir John, I am thy Pistol and thy friend,
And helter-skelter have I rode to thee,
And tidings do I bring and lucky joys
And golden times and *happy news* of price.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> I talked to Shapiro at the SAA a couple of weekends ago. It sounded
> like he was going to write something about antistratfordians, focusing
> on the 19th-century origins of the movement, and he said he would
> be in touch to talk more about it.
Does he report to you or vice versa?
> I assumed he was talking about something
> longer than this Telegraph article.
Someone should tell him that Western Union stopped Telegraphing.
Art Neuendorffer
David Kathman
> David Kathman wrote:
>
> > I talked to Shapiro at the SAA a couple of weekends ago. It sounded
> > like he was going to write something about antistratfordians, focusing
> > on the 19th-century origins of the movement, and he said he would
> > be in touch to talk more about it.
>
> Does he report to you or vice versa?
We both report to the Grand Master. You should know that, Art.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>I talked to Shapiro at the SAA a couple of weekends ago. It sounded
>>>like he was going to write something about antistratfordians, focusing
>>>on the 19th-century origins of the movement, and he said he would
>>> be in touch to talk more about it.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> Does he report to you or vice versa?
David Kathman wrote:
> We both report to the Grand Master. You should know that, Art.
Oh, yeah! I forgot. (And who's that again?)
Art N.
David Kathman
Elizabeth
> I call Shapiro's judgment "somewhat surprising" because I don't think
> last year was a good year for antistratfordians, particularly
> Oxfordians.
Oxfordians are on a roll because the Strat claim
is too unbelievable.
Strats have sandwiched a literary genius with a
29,066-word vocabulary between illiterate parents
and illiterate children.
Do you want fries with that?
John
Gee, so you KNOW that Will Shakespeare's father was illiterate, despite
the fact that he held a post of considerable importance (that would
have typically required *some* degree of literacy); you KNOW that
Susana was illiterate despite the fact that she SIGNED HER OWN NAME;
you KNOW that Judith was illiterate because she signed with a mark,
DESPITE the FACT that it was NOT unknown for LITERATE persons to sign
WITH A MARK.
Gee, well, that's amazing; or rather it's an amazingly perfect example
of WHY the typical anti-strat is UNSCHOLARLY.
Peter Farey
> Terry Ross wrote:
> >
> > An essay by James Shapiro, the author of *1599: A Year in
> > the Life of William Shakespeare*, appeared in the Telegraph
> > Sunday:
It was part of an overall 'Shakespeare weekend' on the paper's
part. Saturday's Daily Telegraph also had a giveaway DVD of
Trevor Nunn's RSC production of *Macbeth* (McKellen/Dench) and
the Sunday Telegraph one with Patrick Magee as King Lear. There
was a rather fiendish Shakespeare quiz on Sunday too, set by
Michael Dobson, and accessible from the page with Shapiro's
article.
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbard23.xml
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Mark Cipra
>> Terry Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> An essay by James Shapiro, the author of *1599: A Year in
>>> the Life of William Shakespeare*, appeared in the Telegraph
>>> Sunday:
>
> It was part of an overall 'Shakespeare weekend' on the paper's
> part. Saturday's Daily Telegraph also had a giveaway DVD of
> Trevor Nunn's RSC production of *Macbeth* (McKellen/Dench) and
> the Sunday Telegraph one with Patrick Magee as King Lear. There
> was a rather fiendish Shakespeare quiz on Sunday too, set by
> Michael Dobson, and accessible from the page with Shapiro's
> article.
>
>>>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbard23.xml
>
That's a pretty tough one, all right.
Along the same lines, I'm constantly amazed by the level of literacy
expected of their audience by the (US) Daily Show and Colbert Report. Their
headlines are often literary puns, and recently, Colbert did an edition of
his regular segment "The Word" (where a graphic of "talking points" makes a
commentary on his commentary) called "Bard: Teaching kids Shakespeare will
just make them more violent". When he observed "What are the Capulets and
Montagues but Crips and Bloods in tights?" the talking point was "- Drive-by
Thumb-biting" (it got a laugh). He then recited the first dozen lines or so
from "To be or not to be", with appropriate "glosses". It's certainly not
high literary criticism, but again I was surprised they would go with a
segment like that at all.
It's featured right now at
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml
--
Mark Cipra
"The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass
through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival,
Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where
phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question
'How can we eat?', the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the
third by the question, 'Where shall we have lunch?'" - Douglas Adams
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.
Mark Cipra
and by the way, Peter, in case you're entering:
7 Which does not exist?
a) An American soft-porn film Live Nude Shakespeare (1997), during which
strippers recite Shakespearean soliloquies
I actually own a copy of this, and sadly, it's not good Shakespeare, it's
not good comedy, and it's not good porn.
David Kathman
I know one of the writers for the Colbert Report, Peter Gwinn. I was
in some improv classes with him, and I used to work with his wife
before they moved to New York a couple of years ago. They're both
pretty smart and well-read.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > Strats have sandwiched a literary genius with a
> > 29,066-word vocabulary between illiterate parents
> > and illiterate children.
>
> Gee, so you KNOW that Will Shakespeare's father was illiterate, despite
> the fact that he held a post of considerable importance
Illiteracy was no obstacle to being a baliff because the
bailiff heard only trivial crimes like public cursing or charges like
those brought against the Stratford broker's daughters; lewd behavior
and public drunkeness. Complaints
of dung heaps on the street in front of the butcher shop,
etc..
Mark Cipra
Clearly so. Last night on TDS "Read your Strunk and White!" was a
punchline.
And ... you perform? Who knew!
David Kathman
I used to do a lot of improv in the late 90s, but I haven't had time to
do that in the past few years. I did take part in "Do It Yourself Too
Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" (a non-improv evening of solo
performance pieces) last year at the Neo-Futurarium:
And last fall I took their advanced performance class, though that
didn't involve any performing except for the other people in the class.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Doc Smith
...
>
> I know one of the writers for the Colbert Report, Peter Gwinn. I was
> in some improv classes with him, and I used to work with his wife
> before they moved to New York a couple of years ago. They're both
> pretty smart and well-read.
>
They must be Oxfordians.
lackpurity
What is happening with this invented controversy, is nothing unusual.
It happens virtually every time a Saint appears on earth.
In the beginning, soon after the death of the Saint, there is not much
problem. After some time, however, Satan sees his chance and when he
sees opportunities to shake people's faith in the Mystic Teachings,
then he does that. He tempts people to think that the Master didn't
mean a basic teaching, for example, or that even someone else gave that
teaching. So, what is happening with the Shakespeare Canon is same
ol', same ol'. Satan is just up to his usual tricks.
So many Holy Scriptures have been corrupted and altered, due to the
influence of Satan. Generally speaking, the older the scripture is,
the more likely it will be corrupted. As the scripture ages, the
corruption generally increases.
I just replied to Willedever, that if we are going to be bold enough to
interpret Saints' writings, then we should be a Saint, ourselves.
For example, if someone is going to write a book about brain surgery,
then it would be most helpful if he were a brain surgeon, himself.
Just follow that logic with Mysticism.
Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
John W. Kennedy
> David Kathman wrote:
> ....
Hey, Blackie! Your mother did the entire Board of World Steel
Corporation for two bits!
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Ignoto
Why need I again say what has already been said?
Mr Reedy:
"It might be interesting to actually look at the evidence from the time
instead of just making things up, the way you do.
Adrian Quiney, who served with John Shakespeare as an alderman, also
signed
with a mark. However, we know he could read and write becuase letters
written by him have survived.
As early as 1559, John Shakespeare was witnessing minutes of the Leet.
Would
a complete illiterate be asked to certify that minutes taken of a
meeting
were correct? In 1566 John Shakespeare, as burgess, made up the
Stratford
accounts by himself. Previously he had compiled the audit with the help
of
John Taylor, who endorsed the audit with a cross.
And of course there's the Young-Perritt lawsuit of 1[5]96, in which
"one boke"
owned by "mr Shaxpere" is mentioned.
Now of course this is evidence of something, but don't let it influence
your
pet beliefs. You haven't yet let the evidence sway you, and we trust
you
won't disappoint us. "
Terry Ross
> unusual. It happens virtually every time a Saint appears on earth.
Oh dear -- another disciple of Monroe W. Cornish.
Paul Crowley
news:1146104043.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Elizabeth wrote:
>> Illiteracy was no obstacle to being a baliff because the
>> bailiff heard only trivial crimes like public cursing or charges like
>> those brought against the Stratford broker's daughters; lewd behavior
>> and public drunkeness. Complaints
>> of dung heaps on the street in front of the butcher shop,
>> etc..
> "It might be interesting to actually look at the evidence from the time
> instead of just making things up, the way you do.
>
> Adrian Quiney, who served with John Shakespeare as an alderman, also
> signed with a mark. However, we know he could read and write becuase letters
> written by him have survived.
The Quineys appear to have been a literate family.
In 1611 Adrian's grand-daughter Elizabeth (at least
I assume that's what she was) signed legal
documents which John's grand-daughter, Judith,
could only witness with a mark.
> As early as 1559, John Shakespeare was witnessing minutes of the Leet.
> Would a complete illiterate be asked to certify that minutes taken of a
> meeting were correct? In 1566 John Shakespeare, as burgess, made up
> the Stratford accounts by himself. Previously he had compiled the audit
> with the help of John Taylor, who endorsed the audit with a cross.
Yes. It was routine in rural England at the time
for illiterate 'burghers' to certify such minutes.
This is Schoenbaum in a *Compact Documentary
Life (page 38):
" . . To sum up: John Shakespeare may have mastered reading and
writing -- there is some force to the arguments supporting that
conclusion. But not a single autograph by him is extant, his civic
responsibilities did not absolutely require such knowledge
(a professional scrivener always stood at the ready, pen in hand),
and raised as he was, a tenant farmer's son in a country village
without a school, his educational opportunities were strictly
limited. . . "
Schoenbaum (and other such biographers) would
love to be able to pretend that the Stratman came
from a literate family (like the Quineys) -- but they
can't.
> Now of course this is evidence of something, but don't let it influence
> your pet beliefs. You haven't yet let the evidence sway you, and we
> trust you won't disappoint us
The evidence is clear and indisputable. The
Stratman's parents AND his daughters were
illiterate. Only a total fool could accept him as
a possible candidate for the authorship of the
canonical works.
Paul.
lackpurity
Have you got it backwards and upside down? I'm not inventing any
conspiracy. The Anti-Stratfordians are.
Michael Martins
Tom Veal
> > What is happening with this invented controversy, is nothing
> > unusual. It happens virtually every time a Saint appears on earth.
>
>
> Oh dear -- another disciple of Monroe W. Cornish.
>
he is a perennial political candidate in your area. I take it that he
is interesting, if only in a Streitzian sense.
BTW, thanks very much for the links on the Shakespeare Authorship page,
and congratulations on maintaining it for a full decade.
lackpurity
What I found by a Google Search was that Monroe W. Cornish thought he
had a conspiracy regarding the Hinckley assassination attempt on Ronald
Reagan.
Either, I don't understand Terry Ross, or maybe he doesn't understand
me? I was thinking that we are on the same page, that is the
Pro-Stratfordian page. Oh well
Michael Martin
Terry Ross
My favorite perennial candidate in Maryland was Monroe Cornish, whose
one issue was a great conspiracy that he had uncovered behind John W.
Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan. Because there were "equal time"
rules in effect 20 years ago, the local TV stations had to invite all
candidates to participate in debates. Cornish's response to every
question was "That's a bunch of junk! The only issue in this campaign
is John W. Hinckley Jr.," and then he'd go into his paranoid rant. He
was probably certifiable (and as I recall, one of the people he thought
was part of the Hinckley conspiracy was a judge who had had him
committed for observation).
That said, Monroe Cornish was essentially harmless, unlike another set
of perennial candidates, the Larouchites, who really might have been
dangerous if they had ever won office. These clowns wanted to build
floating nuclear reactors downtown in Baltimore's Inner Harbor -- the
city would not only have a new source of power but also a wonderful
tourist attraction. The Larouchites also tried to play dirty;
campaigning against an unmarried incumbent the Larouche candidate's
slogan was "Vote for the Straight Democrat."
Here are the Democratic primary results for the mayoral election in
1983:
165,986 William Donald Schaefer
.60,353 William H. Murphy Jr.
..4,033 Monroe Cornish
....866 Lawrence Freeman
Schaefer was the long-time mayor, later the governor, and now the state
comptroller. Murphy was a notable local lawyer; Baltimore has long had
a large Black majority but had not yet had a Black mayor -- Murphy was
hoping to position himself for the post-Schaefer era (Baltimore has
since had two Black mayors, both of whom probably did more for the city
than Murphy would have done). Cornish was the crazy "Hinckley
conspiracy" guy, and Freeman was the Larouchite. The order of finish
speaks very well for the Baltimore electorate of the early 1980s.
Anyone not sure whether monomaniacal Michael "lackpurity" Martins acts
like a disciple of monomaniacal Monroe Cornish need merely read a few
of his posts. For Martins, everything except his mania is (to use
Monroe Cornish's language) a bunch of junk. By their fruitcakes ye
shall know them.
Art Neuendorffer
> Reply to Terry Ross:
> Have you got it backwards and upside down?
> I'm not inventing any conspiracy. The Anti-Stratfordians are.
The Strats are either stupid or conspiratorial.
I would hate to think that they are stupid.
Art Neuendorffer
Ignoto
And above we see another perfect example of the typical anti-strats
inability to reason objectively.
For instance Schoenbaum says there is some FORCE to the arguments that
John Shakespeare could read and write. This is interpreted by Crowley
to mean that he MOST DEFINITELY could not READ OR WRITE.
Again, the Quiney's are a 'literate family' because "In 1611 Adrian's
grand-daughter Elizabeth ... signed legal documents which John's
grand-daughter, Judith, could only witness with a mark." Which wholly
ignores the FACT that Shakespeare's daughter Susana DID SIGN HER OWN
NAME. Furthermore it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude (with absolute
certainty) that because Judith signed with a mark she could not WRITE
her own name, more so, one cannot possibly conclude from a signature on
the page that she could not READ.
Crowley's claim that the evidence on this matter is CLEAR and
INDIPUTABLE, is of course pure nonsense. The evidence is INCOMPLETE.
One cannot draw CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE conclusions from incomplete
evidence.
>
> Paul.
Tom Veal
1. Whatever cannot be conclusively proven about the Stratford Man is
false.
2. Whatever cannot be conclusively disproven about [fill in name of
candidate] is true.
Read any Oxenfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, Nevillite, etc. tract with
those premises in mind, and its reasoning will become crystal clear.
Art Neuendorffer
> You neglect the keys to anti-Stratfordian logic, to wit,
>
> 1. Whatever cannot be conclusively proven about the Stratford Man is
> false.
>
> 2. Whatever cannot be conclusively disproven about [fill in name of
> candidate] is true.
The key to anti-Stratfordian logic is:
Everything that cannot be conclusively proven or
disproven beyond a reasonable doubt is debatable.
The key to Stratfordian logic (as demonstrated
clearly by SHAKSPER & professional journals) is:
Nothing involving Shakespeare authorship is debatable.
-------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
gangleri
What can be conclusively proven about the Stratford Man?
Might he have been the Elizabethan equivalent of, say, Dorian Gray?
How might Jorge Luis Borges's 1930s comments (in translation) -
"All men, in the climactic instant of coitus, are the same man. All
men who repeat one line of Shakespeare are William Shakespeare"?
- have applied to him?
How might David Garrick's choice of a slight variation on a line from
Hamlet -
Take him for all in all etc.
- for the lead-off inscription on the statue of William Shakespeare
which he and others donated to Stratford in 1769 have applied to him?
In what sense could David Garrick possibly have thought of William
Shakespeare as "all in all"?
It seems to me that the key to Stratfordian logic is to make-believe
that these are not germane questions - nor could they possibly be IF
the record on the Stratfordian is construed as gospel truth albeit in
the form of COPIES in the case of choice bits of his alleged biography.
Peter Farey
Mark Cipra wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > There was a rather fiendish Shakespeare quiz on Sunday
> > too, set by Michael Dobson, and accessible from the page
> > with Shapiro's article.
> >
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbard23.xml
> >
>
> That's a pretty tough one, all right.
Sure is. In fact I'm really stuck on one of the questions,
I think I have got the seven female characters in Shake-
speare who appear onstage in male clothing, but there is
also apparently "one female character who is reported to
have dressed offstage in in male clothing". Any thoughts?
Peter Farey
Tom Veal wrote:
>
> You neglect the keys to anti-Stratfordian logic, to wit,
>
> 1. Whatever cannot be conclusively proven about the
> Stratford Man is false.
>
> 2. Whatever cannot be conclusively disproven about [fill
> in name of candidate] is true.
>
> Read any Oxenfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, Nevillite, etc.
> tract with those premises in mind, and its reasoning will
> become crystal clear.
I would be most disappointed if you were able to find any
such reasoning in anything I have written, either here or
on my website.
Which reminds me. I did ask you tell me some of what you
called the "many fatal flaws" in the notion "that (Marlowe's)
death in a tavern brawl on May 30, 1593, was a put-up job
to enable him to slip out of England, after which he spent
years of exile writing under an assumed name."
A response would be very much appreciated.
lackpurity
I know you, by the fact you couldn't understand my message. Comparing
me to a political candidate doesn't cover it up.
The Hinckley deal is recent history. The Shakespeare Canon is four
centuries old. You're comparing apples to oranges. That bird won't
fly.
I'd suggest you get your act together.
Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>You neglect the keys to anti-Stratfordian logic, to wit,
>>
>>1. Whatever cannot be conclusively proven about the
>>Stratford Man is false.
>>
>>2. Whatever cannot be conclusively disproven about [fill
>>in name of candidate] is true.
>>
>>Read any Oxenfordian, Baconian, Marlovian, Nevillite, etc.
>>tract with those premises in mind, and its reasoning will
>>become crystal clear.
Peter Farey wrote:
> I would be most disappointed if you were able to find any
> such reasoning in anything I have written, either here or
> on my website.
>
> Which reminds me. I did ask you tell me some of what you
> called the "many fatal flaws" in the notion "that (Marlowe's)
> death in a tavern brawl on May 30, 1593, was a put-up job
> to enable him to slip out of England, after which he spent
> years of exile writing under an assumed name."
..........................................................
Whatever cannot be conclusively disproven about [Marlowe
slippping out of England & spending years of exile writing
under an assumed name] is true?
Whatever cannot be conclusively disproven about [Marlowe
being a real flesh & blood author rather than a pseudonym
or a front man] is true?
Art Neuendorffer
Mark Cipra
> Mark Cipra wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>>>
>>> There was a rather fiendish Shakespeare quiz on Sunday
>>> too, set by Michael Dobson, and accessible from the page
>>> with Shapiro's article.
>>>
>>>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbard23.xml
>>>
>>
>> That's a pretty tough one, all right.
>
> Sure is. In fact I'm really stuck on one of the questions,
> I think I have got the seven female characters in Shake-
> speare who appear onstage in male clothing, but there is
> also apparently "one female character who is reported to
> have dressed offstage in in male clothing". Any thoughts?
>
I didn't have a firm answer for that one (or several others, without
research).
--
Tom Veal
particular anti-Stratfordian. In your case, judging by your posts here,
you believe that you have uncovered an anomalous fact and have
presented a speculative theory to explain it. I'm not sure that that
counts as hard core anti-Stratfordianism.
I've never written much about the Marlovian theory and would want to
reacquaint myself with Calvin Hoffman et al. before embarking on a
serious discussion. A couple of preliminary, general observations:
1. Let's suppose arguendo that the inscription on the Stratford
Monument contains a cryptic message declaring that Christopher Marlowe
is the true author of the works attributed to Shakespeare. Why should I
believe the unknown person who made this assertion, in the teeth of
abundant evidence that it is false?
2. The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure, and making the
idea plausible requires adding enough supplementary hypotheses to grow
Ockham's beard an ell. Plenty of Elizabethans, feeling that home was
too hot for them, fled to the continent. None found it necessary to
disguise his flight by pretending to have been murdered. The scheme is
a fine plot for a novel (as Rodney Bolt has recently demonstrated) but
unconvincing in real life.
3. A further complication is the appearance of "Shakespeare" as an
author before, or extremely shortly after, Marlowe's death, both on the
title page of "Venus and Adonis" and in Greene (or Chettle's) earlier
"Shake-scene" pun. Or is your theory that Marlowe and Shakespeare were
collaborators from the beginning and continued to work together after
the former's "disappearance"?
It should go without saying that, if an angel declared that Shakespeare
was not the Author and demanded that we choose someone else, Marlowe,
with all his drawbacks, would be the obvious choice, though I would
probably hold out for my dark horse candidate, Francis Beaumont.
Alan Jones
> Peter Farey wrote:
>> Mark Cipra wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter Farey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There was a rather fiendish Shakespeare quiz on Sunday
>>>> too, set by Michael Dobson, and accessible from the page
>>>> with Shapiro's article.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/04/23/svbard23.xml
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a pretty tough one, all right.
>>
>> Sure is. In fact I'm really stuck on one of the questions,
>> I think I have got the seven female characters in Shake-
>> speare who appear onstage in male clothing, but there is
>> also apparently "one female character who is reported to
>> have dressed offstage in in male clothing". Any thoughts?
>>
>
> I didn't have a firm answer for that one (or several others, without
> research).
Cleopatra, perhaps? (On the assumption that wearing a sword would also
involve the rest of Antony's gear.)
"....next morn,
Ere the ninth hour, I drunk him to his bed,
Then put my tires and mantles on him, whilst
I wore his sword Philippan".
Alan Jones
Peter Farey
Mark Cipra
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > In fact I'm really stuck on one of the questions,
> > I think I have got the seven female characters in Shake-
> > speare who appear onstage in male clothing, but there is
> > also apparently "one female character who is reported to
> > have dressed offstage in in male clothing". Any thoughts?
>
> I didn't have a firm answer for that one (or several
> others, without research).
I shouldn't think so! It has taken a fair amount of delving
to get as many answers as I have so far. But the question
wasn't just for those who have looked at the quiz. Is there
ANYONE out there who recognizes her?
"one female character who is reported to have dressed
offstage in in male clothing"
For the record, I have Viola (TN), Rosalind (AYLI), Imogen
(Cym), Portia (MoV), Nerissa (MoV), Jessica (MoV), and
Julia (2GV) as the 'onstage' ones.
Peter Farey
Well it's certainly better than anything I've found! But I
have a sneaky feeling that Michael Dobson would have
come up with something a little less speculative, don't you?
Mark Cipra
For some reason, Cleo had leapt to my mind, but I was too timid to mention
her.
John W. Kennedy
What about La Pucelle?
Art Neuendorffer
. [Henry the Fourth, Part Two (Quarto) 2.4]
.
Fal.: weight of a haire wil turne scales between their haber de poiz.
.
Prince: Would not this naue of a wheele haue his eares cut off?
.
Poynes: Lets beate him before his whore.
.
Prince: Looke where the witherd elder
. hath not his poule clawd like a parrot.
.
Poynes: Is it not strange that desire should
. so many yeeres out liue performance.
.
Falst.: Kisse me Doll.
.
Prince: Saturne and Venus this yeere in coniunction?
. what saies th'Almanacke to that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.Lord Burghley received a letter complaining of Oxford's compatriots
. committing robbery on the same highway in May, 1573
. the *FOURTEENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN* OF Elizabeth Regina.
.
. The precurser to Shake-speare's _Henry IV_:
. _The Famous Victories of Henry the Fift_
has Prince Hal's compatriots committing highway robbery on
"the 20th day of May last in the *FOURTEENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN*
OF our sovereign lord King Henry the Fourth" (May 20, 1413).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.Hal's pal's => highway men between Gravesend & Rochester May 20,1413
.
. Cardinal Pietro Bembo born of a noble family at Venice May 20,1470
. Vasco da Gama arrives in Calicut, India May 20,1498
.Henry VIII marries Seymour the day after Boleyn executed May 20,1536
.
. ED's pal's => highway men between Gravesend & Rochester May ??,1573 .
. Ritual "murder of" Marlowe May 20,1593
. Saturn/Venus conjunction May 20,1593 .
. 1001st. Ramadan w. Solar Eclipse (T./Arabia, p./London) May 20,1593
. 1002nd. Ramadan w. Solar Eclipse (Arabia) (Greg.) May 20,1594
.
. Anthony & Cleopatra & Pericles registered (Ed.Blount) May 20,1608
. Shakespeares Sonnets registered (Thomas Thorpe) May 20,1609 .
. Solar Eclipse (total over Shetlands) May 20,1612
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marlowe was released from the Privy Council on May 20, 1593 (Julian)
_ and was killed 1:05 PM the same *SUNday* : May 30, 1593 (Greg.)
.
_ during a partial eclipse of the *SUN*
. that also started the 1001st Ramadan.
.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1581.GIF
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Veal wrote:
.
<<Let's suppose arguendo that the inscription on the Stratford
Monument contains a cryptic message declaring that Christopher
Marlowe is the true author of the works attributed to Shakespeare.
Why should I believe the unknown person who made this assertion,
in the teeth of abundant evidence that it is false?>>
In the teeth of abundant buttons:
.
# buttons on monument bust: 29
Period of Moon phases : 29+ days
Period of *SATURN* : 29+ years
Age of Marlowe: 29+ years
-----------------------------------------------------
Tom Veal wrote:
.
<<2. The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure, and making
the idea plausible requires adding enough supplementary hypotheses to
grow Ockham's beard an ell. Plenty of Elizabethans, feeling that home
was too hot for them, fled to the continent. None found it necessary
to disguise his flight by pretending to have been murdered.>>
Plenty of Elizabethans, feeling that home was too cold for them,
fled to the continent. Many of them (e.g., Edward de Vere in 1604)
found it necessary to disguise their flight
by pretending to have died.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marlowe was released from the Privy Council on May 20, 1593 (Julian)
_ and was killed the same *SUNday* : May 30, 1593 (Greg.)
.
. during the 1:05 PM partial eclipse of the *SUN*
. that started the 1001st Ramadan.
.
Tom Veal wrote:
.
<<3. A further complication is the appearance of "Shakespeare"
as an author before, or extremely shortly after, Marlowe's death,
(or Chettle's) earlier "Shake-scene" pun.>>
A further complication is the appearance of a *VENUS & SATURN*
---------------------------------------------------------------
. PRINCE HAL (aside to Poins) *SATURN & VENUS* this
_ year in conjunction! What says th' almanac to that?
_ (Henry IV, Part I, 2.4.264-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------
. http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Solar
.
__ From 51°32'N 0°6'W: 1593-05-30 13:05:00 UTC
.
. Right Distance
. Ascension Declination (AU) Altitude Azimuth
....................................................................
*SUN* ___ 4h 28m 23s +21° 49.3' 1.015 57.493 30.316 Up
*MOON* __ 4h 28m 21s +21° 48.4' 57.4 ER 57.477 30.318 Up
.
Mercury 6h 0m 2s +24° 12.9' 0.697 62.306 -11.689 Up
.
*veNUS* _ 7h 41m 43s +24° 5.2' 0.585 53.567 -53.097 Up
*SATURN* 7h 44m 6s +21° 41.1' 9.753 51.244 -51.753 Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
*SATURday* February 26, 1564 Christ. MAR-L.O. Christened
________________ + 2 x 17
----------------------------
*SATURday* February 25, 1598 RARE TOTAL U.K. solar eclipse
*SATURday* February 25, 1598 Henry IV, Part I, registered
*SATURday* July 22, 1598 The Merchant of Venice registered
------------------------------------------------------------
THE TOTAL ECLIPSE of the *SUN* for southern Great Britain
. was Saturday February 25, 1598 (O.S.):
.
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEatlas/SEatlas2/SEatlas1581.GIF
.
Friday February 25, 1594 Henry IV crowned king of France.
(after Ash Wednesday)
.
Ash Wednesday February 25, 1601 Essex executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SENL/SENL200302A.pdf
http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes3.html
.
February 25, 1598 "There is a tradition that some persons in the north
*LOST THEIR WAY* in the time of this eclipse, and perished in the
snow." Refers to the total solar eclipse of 25 February 1598.
From: Maclaurin, Philosophical Transactions, vol xi, p193, 1737.
Quoted in UK Solar Eclipses from Year 1 by Williams.
----------------------------------------------------------
"WILLIAM CECIL, BARON BURGHLEY." 1911 Encyclopedia.
http://26.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BU/BURGHLEY_WILLIAM_CECIL_BARON.htm
.
<<Having survived all his rivals, & all his children except Robert
and the worthless Thomas, Burghley died at his London house on
[Friday] August 4, 1598, and was buried in St Martins, Stamford.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 1598 (10:08 GMT) Total Solar Eclipse
February 11, 1598 (05:33 GMT) Partial Lunar Eclipse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_ King Lear Act 1, Scene 2 (Quarto 1)
.
Glost. *THESE LATE ECLIPSES IN THE SUNNE AND MOONE* portend
no good to vs, though the wisedome of nature can reason thus
and thus, yet nature finds it selfe scourg'd by the sequent effects,
loue cooles, friendship fals off, brothers diuide, in Citties mu-
tinies, in Countries discords, Pallaces treason, the bond crackt
betweene sonne and father; find out this villaine Edmund, it shal
loose thee nothing, doe it carefully, and the noble and *TRUE*
har-ted Kent banisht, his offence honest, strange strange!
.
Bast. This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when
we are sicke in Fortune, often the surfeit of our owne behauiour,
we make guiltie of our disasters, the Sunne, the Moone, and the
Starres, as if we were Villaines by necessitie, Fooles by heauen-
ly compulsion, Knaues, Theeues, and Trecherers by spirituall
predominance, Drunkards, Lyars, and Adulterers by an enforst
obedience of planitary influence, and all that wee are euill in,
by a diuine thrusting on, an admirable euasion of whoremaster
man, to lay his gotish disposition to the charge of Starres:
my Father compounded with my Mother vnder the Dragons taile,
and my natiuitie was vnder Vrsa maior, so that it followes, I
am rough and lecherous, Fut, I should haue beene that I am, had
the maidenlest starre of the Firmament twinckled on my bastardy
.
_ Enter Edgar
.
Edgar; and out hee comes like the Catastrophe of the old Co-
medy, mine is villanous melancholy, with a sith like them of
Bedlam; O these eclipses doe portend these diuisions.
.
Edgar. How now brother Edmund, what serious contempla-
tion are you in?
.
Bast. I am thinking brother of a prediction I read
. this other day, what should follow *THESE ECLIPSES* .
.
Edg. Doe you busie your selfe about that?
.
Bast. I promise you the effects he writ of, succeed vnhappily,
as of vnnaturalnesse betweene the child and the parent, death,
dearth, dissolutions of ancient amities, diuisions in state,
mena-ces and maledictions against King and nobles, needles
diffiden-ces, banishment of friêds, dissipation of Cohorts,
nuptial breach-es, and I know not what.
.
Edg. How long haue you beene a sectary Astronomicall?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
European (Total) Eclipses of the *SUN*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greatest Saros Eclipse Sun Path
Date Eclipse Type # Gamma Mag. Lat. Long. Alt Width
(N.S.) U.T. ° ° ° km
-------------------------------------------------------------------
. 1594 May 20 03:21 T 131 0.767 1.014 64.9N 94.3E 40 76
. 1612 May 30 10:32 T 131 0.697 1.013 63.6N 1.8W 46 65
.
. 1598 Mar 07 10:08 T 133 0.889 1.021 47.7N 8.0W 27 156
. 1605 Oct 12 12:58 T 137 0.802 1.034 43.4N 0.7E 36 192
.
. 1600 Jul 10 12:33 T 120 0.281 1.024 38.2N 2.5W 73 84
. 1614 Oct 03 12:03 T 118 0.551 1.028 25.2N 13.6E 56 113
. 1593 May 30 13:05 T 121 -0.011 1.070 21.3N 16.9W 89 227
. 1607 Feb 26 09:08 T 114 0.473 1.039 18.4N 38.3E 62 147
.
. http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat/SEcatalog.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
. The 1605 solar eclipse was only a PARTIAL event
. even in France (the center of totality was 43.4N)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Wendelin at Forcalquier in Provence saw the whole Sun hidden
. apart from a very narrow thread towards the north,
. which ascribed to the illuminated atmosphere."
.
Refers to a solar eclipse at Forcalquier, France, of 12 October 1605.
From: Riccioli. http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes3.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
. Othello, The Moor of Venice Act 5, Scene 2
.
OTHELLO: My wife! my wife! what wife? I have no wife.
. O insupportable! O heavy hour!
. *Methinks it should be now a huge ECLIPSE*
. Of sun and moon, and that *the affrighted GLOBE*
. Should yawn at alteration.
------------------------------------------------------------
. Walburga, OSB Abbess
. (a.k.a., Bugga, Gaudurge, Vaubourg, Walpurga, Walpurgis)
. http://207.172.3.91/saintpat/ss/0225.htm
.
Born in Devonshire, Wessex, England, 710 AD;
died at Heidenheim, Swabia, Germany, February 25, 779;
.
Boniface was the 1st missionary to call women. In 748, in response
to his appeal, Abbess Tetta sent over to Germany st. Lioba &
St. Walburga, with other nuns. They sailed with fair weather,
but before long a terrible storm arose. Hereupon Walburga
prayed, kneeling on the deck, and at once the sea became calm.
.
. feasts of her translation:
.
May 1, 870 (translation to Eichstatt)
October 12, (Columbus Day) and
SEPTEMBER 24, 893 (translation to ZUTPHEN
_ - scene of Sidney's SEPTEMBER 22, 1586 mortal wounding).
.
_____ Patroness in storms by sailors.
.
St. Elmo's day [Pentecost / Whit Sunday] 597,
St. Augustine baptizes Saxon king Ethelbert.
.
_______ St. Augustine dies in 604;
___ Ethelbert(/bard?) dies in 616.
.
_ Ed de Vere(/bard?) dies in 1604;
___ Shakspere(/bard?) dies in 1616.
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Ethelbert of Kent, Feast day : February 25 & 26
(also known as Ædilberct, Æthelberht, Aibert, Edilbertus)
.
Born c. 560; died at Canterbury on February 24, 616;
.
In the days of the Saxons, Ethelbert, great-grandson of Hengist,
the 1st Saxon conqueror of Britain, reigned for 36 years over Kent
beginning about 560, the oldest of the kingdoms. Although he had
been defeated by Ceawlin of Wessex at the battle of Wimbledon in 568,
Ethelbert became the third bretwalda of England, exercising supremacy
over all other Saxon kings and princes south of the Humber. Under
his rule Kent was the most cultured of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms;
it was closely associated with the Frankish Rhineland.
.
He married a Christian princess, Bertha, granddaughter of King Clovis
of the Franks and sister of Chilperic's brother Charibert, king of
Paris. Bertha brought with her to England her own chaplain, Bishop
Saint Liudhard of Senlis, and in a church built in Roman times
in Canterbury that was dedicated to *Saint Martin* . Although
Ethelbert was a courteous man, he was himself not yet a Christian.
When Augustine and his missionaries, sent from Rome by Gregory
the Great, landed on the isle of Thanet and requested Ethelbert's
permission to preach, he ordered them to remain where they were and
arranged for them to be well tended until he had reached a decision.
.
Ethelbert feared that the missionaries might be magicians, so he
would not receive them indoors, in case he needed to retreat quickly
from their sorcery. In that time they believed at that time, an evil
spell would be ineffective outdoors. So the king arranged to meet
them in the open air on Thanet Island *UNDER A GREAT OAK* .
.
They came in the bright morning light, the emissaries of Rome,
bearing before them a great silver cross & a picture of our Lord
painted on a large wooden panel, and chanting Gregorian strains.
At their head marched Augustine, whose tall figure & patrician
features were the center of attention. it was a moving sight,
and who could have foretold all that the day held in store
for England! As the paraded forwarded they prayed
for their salvation and that of the English.
.
The king, surrounded by a great company of courtiers, invited the
visitors to be seated, and after listening carefully to what Augustine
had to say, gave a generous answer: "You make fair speeches and
promises, but all this is to me new and uncertain. I cannot all at
once put faith in what you tell me, and abandon all that I, with my
whole nation, have for so long a time held sacred. But since you have
come from so far away to impart to us what you yourselves, by what I
see, believe to be the truth and the supreme good, we shall do you no
hurt, but, on the contrary, shall show you all hospitality, and shall
take care to furnish you with the means of living. We shall not hinder
you from preaching your religion, and you may convert whom you can."
.
He accommodated them in the royal city of Canterbury and before the
year was over there were 10,000 converts according to a letter from
Saint Gregory to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria. On Whit Sunday 597
(traditionally, though it is more likely to have occurred in 601),
King Ethelbert himself was baptized by Saint Augustine. In 601,
Gregory wrote an encouraging letter to Ethelbert, congratulating him
on becoming a Christian. Not since the conversions of Constantine
and Clovis had Christendom known an event so thrillingly momentous.
.
In the government of his kingdom, his thoughts were completely turned
upon the best means of promoting the welfare of his people. He enacted
wholesome laws, abolished the worship of idols, and turned pagan
temples into churches. While he granted religious freedom to his
subjects, believing conversion by conviction was the only *TRUE*
conversion, thousands of them also became Christians. His code of
laws for Kent is the earliest known legal document written in a
Germanic language. The first law decreed that any person who
stole from the church or clergy must make immediate reparation.
.
Ethelbert gave his royal palace of Canterbury to Saint Augustine for
his use, founded a cathedral there, and built the abbey of Saints
Peter and Paul (later called Saint Austin's) just outside the city
walls. He also laid the foundations for Saint Andrew's in Rochester
and many other churches. King Ethelbert was instrumental in
bringing King Sebert (Sabert) of the East Saxons and King Redwald
of the East Angles to faith in Christ. He built the cathedral
of *Saint Paul's in London* in the territory of King Sebert.
.
Saint Gregory the Great, delighted with the progress made in the
English mission field, sent a number of presents to King Ethelbert.
The pope wrote that "by means of the good gifts that God has
granted to you, I know He blesses your people as well."
He urged King Ethelbert to destroy the shrines of idols and to
raise the moral standards of his subjects by his own good example.
.
Upon his death, Ethelbert was buried beside his first wife Bertha in
the porticus (side-chapel) of St. Martin in the Abbey Church of SS.
Peter and Paul. Later his relics were deposited under the high altar
of that same church, then called Saint Austin's. Polydore Virgil
reports that a vigil light was kept before the tomb of St. Ethelbert,
and was sometimes an instrument of miracles even in the days of
King Henry VIII. There seems to have been an unofficial cultus at
Canterbury from early times, but his feast is found in calendars
only from the 13th century, and generally on February 25 or 26,
because Saint Matthias occupied February 24.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Shrove Tuesday, February 24, 1601, the Lord Chamberlains's Men
_ were summoned for a Command Performance.
.
<<The term "shrovetide" (from "to shrive", or hear confessions)
is explained by a sentence in the Anglo-Saxon _Ecclesiastical
Institutes_ translated by Abbot Aelfric about A.D. 1000: "In the week
immediately before Lent everyone shall go to his confessor and confess
his deeds and the confessor shall so shrive him as he then my hear
by his deeds what he is to do [in the way of penance]".>>
.
http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980101/ARTICLES/SHROVE.HTM
............................................................
On Ash Wednesday, February 25, 1601, Essex was beheaded
____________ 'in a private ceremony.'
__ "He acknowledged, with thankfulness to God,
____ that he was thus spewed out of the realm."
.
<<The reference to the sealing of the servants of God for
their protection in Revelation is an allusion to a parallel
passage in Ezekiel, where Ezekiel also sees a sealing
_ of the servants of God for their protection:
.
"And the LORD said to him [one of the four cherubim],
. 'Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put
. a mark [literally, *a TAV* ] upon the foreheads of
. the men who sigh & groan over all the abominations
. that are committed in it.'
.
. And to the others he said in my hearing,
.
. 'Pass through the city after him, and smite;
. your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity;
. slay old men outright, young men and maidens,
. little children and women, but touch no one
. upon whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary.'
.
So they began with the elders who were before the house."
. - (Ezekiel 9:4-6)>>
.
_ http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/ash_wed.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
> Reply to Terry Ross:
> I know you, by the fact you couldn't understand my message.
Your message was as plain as it was tiresome; you may not understand
yourself, but fear not; help is available.
> Comparing
> me to a political candidate doesn't cover it up.
Monroe Cornish had one response to every topic: everything was a bunch
of junk except the imagined conspiracy involving John W. Hinckley Jr.
You have one response to every topic: everything is a bunch of junk
except your imagined conspiracy involving Satan and your saints. Since
you act as if you were a disciple of Monroe Cornish, I thought you
might profit by hearing about him. He should be at least one of your
saints, if not your god.
>
> The Hinckley deal is recent history. The Shakespeare Canon is four
> centuries old.
Don't you understand your own blather? Your struggle between the
saints and Satan may be eternal (perhaps it just seems that way to
anyone who has read your posts), but new saints are thrown up in each
age, and (if you but knew it) you are lucky enough to live in the age
of St. Monroe Cornish. Your rejection of Monroe Cornish is obviously
the work of Satan speaking through what you think are your own words.
> You're comparing apples to oranges. That bird won't
> fly.
Block that metaphor!
There is nothing particularly wrong about comparing apples to oranges
-- many people do it regularly, as when deciding which of two pieces of
fruit to pack for lunch. Were you to study apples, you might learn
that they are not all alike. No apple sold in my local supermarket
today is as crisp or rewarding as one of next October's Yorks will be
in its season. Similarly, there are seasons for varieties of oranges
and their close cousins. Honeybells are only available in the early
part of the year; the season for Valencias is longer, but the pleasures
are less intense. To everything there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under the heaven: but to the monomaniac all seasons are one and
all purposes are one. The differences among the apples or among the
oranges, or between St. Shakespeare and St. Emerson -- all such
differences are a bunch of junk to the monomaniac, whose one and only
season is the season of his own obsession.
>
> I'd suggest you get your act together.
You might consider taking your act apart, or adding some variety to it.
You keep doing your one trick, and its one that was old when Moses was
running for the city council.
>
> Michael Martin
>
I see you are now spelling your last name without the extra "s" it bore
in your first response to me. Did the "s" stand for Satan?
Bianca Steele
>> Comparing
>> me to a political candidate doesn't cover it up.
>
> Monroe Cornish had one response to every topic: everything was a bunch
> of junk except the imagined conspiracy involving John W. Hinckley Jr.
But, Terry, how could there possibly be two conspiracies? For that
kind of conspiracy theorist, the conspiracy takes the place of God,
doesn't it? Therefore, any conspiracy is the same conspiracy: anyone
who thinks they have a separate conspiracy is just what you call a
"useful idiot." Umberto Eco demolished that kind of argument iirc. Or
maybe that was your point, in which case, never mind.
> You have one response to every topic: everything is a bunch of junk
> except your imagined conspiracy involving Satan and your saints. Since
> you act as if you were a disciple of Monroe Cornish, I thought you
> might profit by hearing about him.
Yours is as helpful a suggestion as that made by people who tell Jewish
posters -- and everyone else who is listening -- that their expressed
opinions make them comparable to Otto Weininger and Hitler, whom they
ought to read and thus repent of their self-hatred which will end up
getting their relatives murdered (not to mention getting the innocent
gentiles blamed, when they would have remained innocent in deed as well
as mind if only those Jews had not been emotionally disturbed). Not
that I remember you, Terry, doing anything like that. Or anyone else
in this ng, Jewish or gentile. (Not that I would name names if I did
remember, though.)
>He should be at least one of your
> saints, if not your god.
You would not put up with this yourself from any other person. Why
not? Do you care why others let you get away with it when they don't
let everybody?
[snip]
If you really care about what you say, you should not imho be posting
on Usenet.
----
Bianca Steele
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dang, Terry, I'm jealous--this lady never told ME I shouldn't be
posting to Usenet--that I know of.
--Bob
Bianca Steele
> 1. Let's suppose arguendo
Let me play devil's advocate, something I enjoy -- though I'm not a
lawyer (on the other hand, my mother was imo ruined by having been on
the debate team) -- and don't do much anymore.
>that the inscription on the Stratford
> Monument contains a cryptic message declaring that Christopher Marlowe
> is the true author of the works attributed to Shakespeare. Why should I
> believe the unknown person who made this assertion, in the teeth of
> abundant evidence that it is false?
What kind of evidence? What kind of witnesses? You cannot say that
the communication (in the linguistic sense) is per se unbelievable or
false on the basis of its own perceptible attributes. The evidence is
going to stand.
>
> 2. The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure, and making the
> idea plausible requires adding enough supplementary hypotheses to grow
> Ockham's beard an ell. Plenty of Elizabethans, feeling that home was
> too hot for them, fled to the continent. None found it necessary to
> disguise his flight by pretending to have been murdered. The scheme is
> a fine plot for a novel (as Rodney Bolt has recently demonstrated) but
> unconvincing in real life.
Some people do not require a convincing argument or scheme. Their
accounts may be indistinguishable from skepticism, but this does not
make them any less true. (Whether they can really know what they
appear to be talking about is a different story. And I speak from
experience.) The account is as good as any other.
>
> 3. A further complication is the appearance of "Shakespeare" as an
> author before, or extremely shortly after, Marlowe's death, both on the
> title page of "Venus and Adonis" and in Greene (or Chettle's) earlier
> "Shake-scene" pun. Or is your theory that Marlowe and Shakespeare were
> collaborators from the beginning and continued to work together after
> the former's "disappearance"?
The Marlovian case is hopeless. It is too easy to trace it back to
English professors' sloppy prose. If you read them with even a bit
less than 100% rigor, you can be persuaded that they are saying
anything (and it takes imo a peculiar sort of mind, and mood, to read
them with rigor and get substance out of them). Even Bloom, you can
read as a Marlovian if you put your mind to it; the only reason you
can't is that you know enough about Bloom to know he couldn't possibly
be saying that (though if the writer is clever enough, it could take
you eight years to come to that conclusion).
>
> It should go without saying that, if an angel declared that Shakespeare
> was not the Author and demanded that we choose someone else, Marlowe,
> with all his drawbacks, would be the obvious choice, though I would
> probably hold out for my dark horse candidate, Francis Beaumont.
Myself, I wish I could make a case for Mary Sidney. But she already
has Astrophel & Stella, and I don't believe they could have been
written by the same person (though Brame and Popova may disagree).
-
----
Bianca Steele
"You who live in this Sour Little Age cannot imagine
the sheer grandeur of the prospect we gazed upon . . .
You cannot imagine it. I weep for you."
---- Tony Kushner, Slavs!
John H
>The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure ...
Not so. He had been fingered by the notorious Archbishop Whitgift as a
freethinker and associate of Walter Ralegh, and was under investigation
(actually, charges were being prepared) for heresy, blasphemy and
atheism -- all capital offences. He was also due to appear before the
star chamber to face interrogation on these charges (and perhaps
torture), scheduled for the day which following his reported death.
>A further complication is the appearance of "Shakespeare" as an author before, or extremely shortly after, Marlowe's death, both on the title page of "Venus and Adonis" and in Greene (or Chettle's) earlier "Shake-scene" pun.
It has been argued by some competent scholars that the reference to
"Shake-scene" by Greene refers to Edward Alleyn. The word "Shake-scene"
literally means an actor, and has no obvious connection with
Shakespeare.
>Or is your theory that Marlowe and Shakespeare were collaborators ...
There is not the slightest sceric of evidence to suggest that WS and CM
knew each other well, let alone collaborated. If any such came to
light, that would be a sensational discovery.
-- JH
Peter Farey
John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Is there
> > ANYONE out there who recognizes her?
> >
> > "one female character who is reported to have dressed
> > offstage in in male clothing"
> >
> > For the record, I have Viola (TN), Rosalind (AYLI), Imogen
> > (Cym), Portia (MoV), Nerissa (MoV), Jessica (MoV), and
> > Julia (2GV) as the 'onstage' ones.
>
> What about La Pucelle?
Thanks John.
Yes, I did have her in my list of seven originally, having
only a couple of weeks ago watched the BBC video with Brenda
Blethyn as Joan. On the other hand, I know of no actual
mention in the text of her dressing in specifically male
*clothing*, and the only contemporary illustration of her
armed (see Arden 3, p.28) shows her in what seems to be a
dress. Yes, she does disguise herself as a peasant (3.1),
but not necessarily a male one, so finally I went for
Nerissa instead, as Portia says that they are both to be
"accoutered like young men".
But this still doesn't get us any nearer to finding the
'offstage' one anyway. I can't believe that Doson is going
to beat all of us!
Peter Farey
Tom Veal wrote:
>
> What applies to anti-Stratfordians in general may not
> apply to each particular anti-Stratfordian.
Which is, of course, precisely the point I was making.
Let us agree right here and now that the vast majority
of anti-Stratfordian 'thought' is fairly accurately
described in your summary. But it would needs only
ONE exception for the point you were making to be
totally irrelevant, since (somewhat like virginity)
it would need only one anti-Stratfordian, even if his
case was different to that of any other, to prove the
Stratfordian story wrong.
> In your case, judging by your posts here, you believe
> that you have uncovered an anomalous fact and have
> presented a speculative theory to explain it. I'm not
> sure that that counts as hard core anti-Stratfordianism.
Nor do I! I have come to the conclusion that by far the
best explanation of ALL the facts and anomalies that I
know of related to the authorship of Shakespeare's works
is that Marlowe did not die at Deptford, but survived to
play a major part in writing them. I believe that most
people would describe this as anti-Stratfordian, and thus
covered by any analysis of "anti-Stratfordian logic".
> I've never written much about the Marlovian theory and
> would want to reacquaint myself with Calvin Hoffman et
> al. before embarking on a serious discussion.
We are discussing whether or not there are "many fatal
flaws" in the *notion* that Marlowe's death in a
tavern brawl on May 30, 1593, was a put-up job to enable
him to slip out of England, after which he spent years of
exile writing under an assumed name. My own reasons for
believing this to be probable owe little or nothing to
Hoffman's (or any other Marlovian's) argument. With all
due modesty, may I suggest that - as far as the 'death'
is concerned - you restrict yourself to my essay
"Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End", which contains all
you should need to know about why I believe it to have
been faked. We could get onto what he may or may not
have done *after* this later.
> A couple of preliminary, general observations:
>
> 1. Let's suppose arguendo that the inscription on the
> Stratford Monument contains a cryptic message declaring
> that Christopher Marlowe is the true author of the works
> attributed to Shakespeare. Why should I believe the
> unknown person who made this assertion, in the teeth of
> abundant evidence that it is false?
Yes indeed. I have on several occasions made the same
point myself, and clearly differentiated what I claim to
be the *facts* that a hidden meaning is contained in the
monument and that it was put there deliberately, and the
*suppositions* as to what the author actually meant by
it and whether he was telling the truth.
> 2. The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure,
> and making the idea plausible requires adding enough
> supplementary hypotheses to grow Ockham's beard an ell.
Funnily enough, it is good old William's razor that I
employ in finding that both the death was faked and that
the monument's 'riddle' is valid.
> Plenty of Elizabethans, feeling that home was too hot
> for them, fled to the continent. None found it necessary
> to disguise his flight by pretending to have been murdered.
This is not what I think happened. I find the most likely
scenario to be that it was a compromise between those on
the Privy Council who thought he should be tried and
executed, and those who wanted him saved.
> The scheme is a fine plot for a novel (as Rodney Bolt
> has recently demonstrated) but unconvincing in real life.
In fact I believe that the basic theory did first appear
in a novel by Wilbur Ziegler in 1895. Have you read
Bolt's extraordinary book, by the way? He employs a method
that I have never come across before, mixing fact and
fiction very cleverly indeed. Although I was a little dis-
concerted to find that he cites my website no fewer than
13 times without ever indicating whose it is!
> 3. A further complication is the appearance of "Shake-
> speare" as an author before, or extremely shortly after,
> Marlowe's death, both on the title page of "Venus and
> Adonis" and in Greene (or Chettle's) earlier "Shake-scene"
> pun. Or is your theory that Marlowe and Shakespeare were
> collaborators from the beginning and continued to work
> together after the former's "disappearance"?
I see no reason to assume that Shakespeare had not been
involved in writing plays before Marlowe's disappearance.
In fact I would say that Greene possibly even tells us
that one of them was *Faire Em, the Miller's Daughter of
Manchester*. What he does *not* say, of course, is just
how much of *Richard Duke of York* was Shakespeare's. It
could have been only a page or two.
> It should go without saying that, if an angel declared
> that Shakespeare was not the Author and demanded that
> we choose someone else, Marlowe, with all his drawbacks,
> would be the obvious choice, though I would probably
> hold out for my dark horse candidate, Francis Beaumont.
'Dark foal' rather? *Venus and Adonis* at ten years old
would be going some!
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:
The words of Michael Martin(s) [lackpurity]
> >> Comparing
> >> me to a political candidate doesn't cover it up.
> >
Now my words for MM(s)[lp]
> > Monroe Cornish had one response to every topic: everything was a bunch
> > of junk except the imagined conspiracy involving John W. Hinckley Jr.
>
The fair Bianca:
> But, Terry, how could there possibly be two conspiracies? For that
> kind of conspiracy theorist, the conspiracy takes the place of God,
> doesn't it? Therefore, any conspiracy is the same conspiracy: anyone
> who thinks they have a separate conspiracy is just what you call a
> "useful idiot." Umberto Eco demolished that kind of argument iirc. Or
> maybe that was your point, in which case, never mind.
"Useful idiot" was Lenin's phrase; "a bunch of junk" is from the living
book of that underrated performance artist Monroe Cornish. "Never
mind" is only good advice if you act on it.
TR for MM(s)[lp]:
>
> > You have one response to every topic: everything is a bunch of junk
> > except your imagined conspiracy involving Satan and your saints. Since
> > you act as if you were a disciple of Monroe Cornish, I thought you
> > might profit by hearing about him.
>
The progressively less fair Bianca:
> Yours is as helpful a suggestion as that made by people who tell Jewish
> posters -- and everyone else who is listening -- that their expressed
> opinions make them comparable to Otto Weininger and Hitler, whom they
> ought to read and thus repent of their self-hatred which will end up
> getting their relatives murdered (not to mention getting the innocent
> gentiles blamed, when they would have remained innocent in deed as well
> as mind if only those Jews had not been emotionally disturbed).
The trying-to-be-slightly-more-fair Bianca:
> Not
> that I remember you, Terry, doing anything like that.
Were you there when I crucified Jack Lord?
> Or anyone else
> in this ng, Jewish or gentile. (Not that I would name names if I did
> remember, though.)
Yes, by all means, let's start NOT naming names NOW.
TR for MM(s)[lp]:
>
> >He should be at least one of your
> > saints, if not your god.
>
Bianca the reformed and unnaming:
> You would not put up with this yourself from any other person. Why
> not? Do you care why others let you get away with it when they don't
> let everybody?
Let's just keep it under our hats, shall we, and hope nobody notices.
>
> [snip]
>
> If you really care about what you say, you should not imho be posting
> on Usenet.
Cole Porter wrote,
To win you, Bianca,
There's nothing I would not do.
I would gladly give up coffee for Sanka,
Even Sanka, Bianaca, for you.
I'm too fond of coffee.
Terry Ross
> Dang, Terry, I'm jealous--this lady never told ME I shouldn't be
> posting to Usenet--that I know of.
That's nothing compared with what the Florida Citrus Board threatened
to do when they thought I had dissed Valencia Oranges. In order to
keep this whole matter out of court, my lawyers have advised me to
agree to the following language:
"A full year of rich Florida sunshine makes the Valencia Florida's most
sought-after juice orange. Filled with sweet juice rich in color and
flavor, the Valencia is great for fresh eating and salads, too!"
Paul Crowley
news:e2v0cq$nuc$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> I have come to the conclusion that by far the
> best explanation of ALL the facts and anomalies that I
> know of related to the authorship of Shakespeare's works
What facts and anomalies?
> is that Marlowe did not die at Deptford, but survived to
> play a major part in writing them.
How are these facts and anomalies explained
by your Marlite theory?
It is the near-complete absence of ANY
explanation (let alone the setting out of the
problems) that is the most irritating aspect of
Marlism. We get endless drivel on boring
detail, such as the exact extent of "the Verge",
-- and nothing else.
Stratfordianism is a pyramid of monstrous
anomalies. Not one is explained by
Marlism.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:1146270502.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Veal wrote:
>>The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure ...
>
> Not so. He had been fingered by the notorious Archbishop Whitgift
There was nothing notorious about Whitgift.
He was a fairly competent and relatively
inoffensive Archbishop of Canterbury -- one
of the very few bishops (perhaps the only one)
who was liked by the Queen.
> as a freethinker and associate of Walter Ralegh,
Raleigh had another ten years of power and
favouritism, before the Queen died in 1603.
> and was under investigation
> (actually, charges were being prepared) for heresy, blasphemy and
> atheism -- all capital offences.
Hardly anyone was arraigned on such charges
under Elizabeth, let alone executed.
> He was also due to appear before the
> star chamber to face interrogation on these charges (and perhaps
> torture), scheduled for the day which following his reported death.
If everyone, who was ever threatened with this
kind of fate, faked their deaths and ran off to the
Continent, the country would have been empty,
and the Continent full of anonymous
Englishmen.
Paul.
Bianca Steele
[Whatever.]
> > Not
> > that I remember you, Terry, doing anything like that.
>
> Were you there when I crucified Jack Lord?
Were you at Sinai?
[...]
----
Bianca Steele
John H
>>>The motivation for faking Marlowe's death is obscure ...
>> Not so. He had been fingered by the notorious Archbishop Whitgift
>There was nothing notorious about Whitgift. He was a fairly competent and relatively
inoffensive Archbishop of Canterbury -- one of the very few bishops
(perhaps the only one) who was liked by the Queen.
At the time, John Whitgift was the most loathed and feared man in
England. His wave of religious persecution set in motion the Pilgrim
and Puritan exodus. He was responsible for tightening censorship, and
was determined to use the power of the star chamber to stifle the
beginnings of scientific and metaphysical inquiry, which he regarded as
dangerous to the stability of church and state. Whitgift's excesses
disturbed and polarized both the Church and advisers to the Crown,
including both Lord Burghley and Dudley (Earl of Leicester). When
Parliament sought to curb Whitgift's excesses in 1584, Elizabeth
forbade members to discuss anything pertaining to "the cause of
religion".
>> as a freethinker and associate of Walter Ralegh,
>Raleigh had another ten years of power and favouritism, before the Queen died in 1603.
Ralegh was patron of The School of Night, a private society which
attracted both aristocrats and freethinkers. Whitgift and other church
officials viewed it as a School of Atheism, and sought every
opportunity to shut it down.
>> and was under investigation (actually, charges were being prepared) for heresy, blasphemy and atheism -- all capital offences.
>Hardly anyone was arraigned on such charges under Elizabeth, let alone executed.
Marlowe's associate, Thomas Kyd, was tortured on the rack for precisely
these offences. This experience broke his health and he died within a
year. The penalties imposed for heresy were particularly cruel.
>> He was also due to appear before the star chamber to face interrogation on these charges (and perhaps torture), scheduled for the day which following his reported death.
> If everyone, who was ever threatened with this kind of fate, faked their deaths and ran off to the Continent, the country would have been empty, and the Continent full of anonymous Englishmen.
Many of those threatened with this kind of fate eventually made their
way to New England (America).
-- JH
Undecided
> Illiteracy was no obstacle to being a baliff -
Nor was an `X' as a signature any proof of it. Some scholars did so,
and future generations may conclude the handwriting of doctors today
proof of illiteracy.
--
Doubting Timus
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
http://tremonius.blogspot.com/
Paul Crowley
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
>> Illiteracy was no obstacle to being a baliff -
>
> Nor was an `X' as a signature any proof of it. Some scholars did so, and future generations
> may conclude the handwriting of doctors today proof of illiteracy.
This is quite false. The nature of the 'X' itself
is a reliable guide. Take a look at Judith
Shagsper's mark on the deed made out by her
sister-in-law Elizabeth Quiney (which Elizabeth
signed). It's pretty obvious that Judith had
never become comfortable at handling a pen.
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
We have indisputable evidence that the
Stratman's younger daughter was illiterate.
He came into a huge sum of money around
the time of her 12th birthday, so he could
easily have afforded tuition fees. The older
sister, Susanna, was almost certainly illiterate
as well. In the face of such evidence, who
would want to maintain that the Stratman is
a remotely plausible candidate for the
authorship?
Paul.
Peter Farey
Re: "one female character who is reported to have
dressed offstage in in male clothing".
I've just remembered this one (which I ought to,
having played Autolycus and thus been onstage at
when it happens). Perdita is not strictly speaking
"reported as" doing it, as the question puts it, but
I think it's the most likely answer so far!
CAMILLO ...Fortunate mistress - let my prophecy
Come home to ye! - you must retire yourself
Into some covert, take your sweetheart's hat
And pluck it o'er your brows, muffle your face,
Dismantle you, and, as you can, disliken
The truth of your own seeming, that you may -
For I do fear eyes - over to shipboard
Get undescried.
PERDITA I see the play so lies
That I must bear a part.
CAMILLO No remedy.
Mouse
O, Terry, I'm so glad you're back. And in fighting form too.
Lynne, who is also back, just this minute, from a tour of many
cities...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
> www.shakespearefellowship.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Veal
Marlowe's death (http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm). I think,
though, that I'll stick to my original conclusion that the theory
that the event was faked has "many fatal flaws". To explain why I
am unconvinced would require writing at some length, which I'd prefer
not to take the time to do right now. In brief, I think that all of the
anomalies on which you rest your theory can be economically explained
by the unadventurous assumption that Marlowe, Frizer, Skeres and Poley
were old friends (for which there is no direct evidence, but they had
many opportunities to meet and we have no lists of Marlowe's friends
and acquaintances). They gathered for a convivial meeting upon the
occasion of Poley's return from the continent. Marlowe skipped his
obligation to report to the Privy Council because he either (i) made
light of any danger that he might be in or (ii) was conscious of his
guilt and planned to flee the country after the social gathering.
Unluckily, he got into the quarrel with Frizer that ended in his death.
We have no way to judge the accuracy of the survivors' account of the
affair, though it would be unsurprising for it to be exculpatory.
The crown coroner made a point of intervening in the case, because (i)
it was, as you concede, within his jurisdiction, and (ii) Poley, a
royal servant, was involved, so there were obvious reasons not to leave
it in the hands of a local official.
This is all disappointingly humdrum, but so is life, much of the time.
One other point: Your parallel between Marlowe, on the one hand, and
the separatists Barrow and Greenwood, on the other, is weak. While the
latter were nominally condemned for seditious writings, it is obvious
that the authorities cared little about that, as shown by the fact that
their entire oeuvres were written while they were in Fleet prison! For
five and a half years, no one stopped them from sending thick
manuscripts abroad for publication. Their substantive offense, of
having set up a sect outside the Church of England, could not be
prosecuted at law, Parliament having declined to extend the
anti-recusancy laws to nonconforming Protestants. Executing them was
primarily an attempt to intimidate their followers, not a response to
their writings. See their lives in the Oxford DNB for details.
John H
faking Marlowe's death I neglected to mention that, in addition to the
charge of committing religious offences, there was the further charge
that he had been involved in writing seditious material.
Within Peter Farey's web site (the section on Marlowe's death), one
finds the statement:
" If we examine other documents related to this event, however, we
discover that a far more serious charge was facing him - of having
written material that was seditious. And for this crime no fewer than
three people had been executed already within only the past two months.
"
I would say that the conjunction of these impending charges provides
sufficient motive for what some have supposed to be a faked death and
cover-up. Admittedly, in less urgent circumstances the faked death
hypothesis would have to be regarded as implausible.
-- JH
Tom Veal
did not yet face), he had a motive to leave the country, a course of
action taken by thousands of Englishmen during the reigns of Mary and
Elizabeth. Arranging a phony demise would have been painting the lily.
John H
overlooking some relevant features of the situation, namely that it has
been demonstrated that he was a secret government agent, and while
perceived to be alive would always be at risk of having his cover blown
under capture with possible release of information under torture via
the religious agents (who worked independently of the state
intelligence apparatus), or alternatively by agents of a foreign power,
especially Spain which was England's adversary. He knew too much to
allow that to happen. The announcement of his death would both resolve
the problem of his anticipated legal prosecution, and also lessen the
likelihood of both his true identity and operational status being
uncovered while resident in either England or on the continent. There
was a further motive for the state to keep him alive and within reach
(which would not necessarily be the case if he was obliged to leave
England under his own resources); as "the kingdom's highest mind"
presumably he was regarded by some of the enlightened elite as a
national literary asset.
-- JH
Tom Veal
a little work as an intelligence gatherer and provacateur. He wasn't an
Elizabethan James Bond. Nor was the Spanish intelligence service
Smersh; some would say it was more like KAOS.
John H
continent in the service of Her Majesty. Some even think he was a
double agent, but that's another story.
-- JH
Bianca Steele
incidentally. I don't know if I've ever mentioned that.
----
Bianca
Tom Veal
as a government agent dates from his Cambridge days. He did not, so far
as the known facts indicate, rise even as high as Robert Poley.
lackpurity
Terry Ross wrote:
> lackpurity wrote:
> > Reply to Terry Ross:
> > I know you, by the fact you couldn't understand my message.
>
> Your message was as plain as it was tiresome; you may not understand
> yourself, but fear not; help is available.
MM:
You didn't understand my message. That's your problem, whether you are
tired, or whatever.
> > Comparing
> > me to a political candidate doesn't cover it up.
>
> Monroe Cornish had one response to every topic: everything was a bunch
> of junk except the imagined conspiracy involving John W. Hinckley Jr.
> You have one response to every topic: everything is a bunch of junk
> except your imagined conspiracy involving Satan and your saints.
MM:
Sorry, but you're just another pigeonholer. There have been real
conspiracies, not just imagined ones, all instigated by Satan.
Everybody in this world, with the exception of Saints, is under the
influence of Satan. If you don't understand this, it's your problem,
buddy.
Since
> you act as if you were a disciple of Monroe Cornish, I thought you
> might profit by hearing about him. He should be at least one of your
> saints, if not your god.
MM:
If you don't believe in Satan, that's your prerogative. Marlowe did.
Shakespeare did. This raises real questions about how much you know
about them. Maybe very little? Your perception of how I'm acting, is
simply that. You remind me of those who chose to free Barabas. Or, if
that is not enough, then you remind me of those who thought Christ was
just the son of a carpenter. For topping on the cake, you remind me of
Art Neuendorffer, who thinks Shakespeare was just a country bumpkin.
> > The Hinckley deal is recent history. The Shakespeare Canon is four
> > centuries old.
>
> Don't you understand your own blather? Your struggle between the
> saints and Satan may be eternal (perhaps it just seems that way to
> anyone who has read your posts), but new saints are thrown up in each
> age, and (if you but knew it) you are lucky enough to live in the age
> of St. Monroe Cornish. Your rejection of Monroe Cornish is obviously
> the work of Satan speaking through what you think are your own words.
MM:
You don't understand Shakespeare. You don't understand Marlowe. You
don't understand me. Buddy, I think you have a problem. I'd suggest
you learn the difference between imagining and knowing. You seem to
have some difficulty with that.
> > You're comparing apples to oranges. That bird won't
> > fly.
>
> Block that metaphor!
>
> There is nothing particularly wrong about comparing apples to oranges
> -- many people do it regularly, as when deciding which of two pieces of
> fruit to pack for lunch. Were you to study apples, you might learn
> that they are not all alike. No apple sold in my local supermarket
> today is as crisp or rewarding as one of next October's Yorks will be
> in its season. Similarly, there are seasons for varieties of oranges
> and their close cousins. Honeybells are only available in the early
> part of the year; the season for Valencias is longer, but the pleasures
> are less intense. To everything there is a season, and a time to every
> purpose under the heaven: but to the monomaniac all seasons are one and
> all purposes are one. The differences among the apples or among the
> oranges, or between St. Shakespeare and St. Emerson -- all such
> differences are a bunch of junk to the monomaniac, whose one and only
> season is the season of his own obsession.
> > I'd suggest you get your act together.
>
> You might consider taking your act apart, or adding some variety to it.
> You keep doing your one trick, and its one that was old when Moses was
> running for the city council.
MM:
You might consider learning something from Marlowe's writings,
Shakespeare's writings, or anyone superior to you. I think that would
be most beneficial to you. I think you know something about apples and
oranges, but your knowledge of the Mystic Poets could be improved,
immensely.
Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
John H
>There is much speculation, but the only firm evidence of Marlowe's work as a government agent dates from his Cambridge days. He did not, so far as the known facts indicate, rise even as high as Robert Poley.
Charles Nichol, in his interesting book "The Reckoning", surmised
(Chapters 25 and 26) that Marlowe's complete exoneration by Burghley
for his supposed misadventures in Holland in 1592 * properly belongs to
the "secret theatre of Elizabethan espionage". Nichol has made a
careful case for Marlowe's involvement in espionage activity there
during 1592 -- which occurred some five years after leaving Cambridge.
Such incidents suggest that Marlowe had led a charmed life, operating
under an umbrella of protection.
I find Nichol's argument for Marlowe's continuing involvement in the
Elizabethan secret service rather persuasive. It is within this context
that Nichol finds the secret service credentials of the other
participants in the Deptford event to have particular significance.
Although I am not as ready as ready as he is to jump to the conclusion
that Marlowe was murdered on that occasion.
-- JH
* He was actually arrested in Vlissingen for supposed counterfeiting,
and this was classified at the time as petty treason, a capital
offence.
lackpurity
Emily Dickinson wrote a poem, "Thanksgiving."
Literature Network>Emily Dickinson>Poems, Series 3> LIV. Thanksgiving
Day.
LIV. Thanksgiving Day.
ONE day is there of the series
Termed Thanksgiving day,
Celebrated part at table,
Part in memory.
Neither patriarch nor pussy,
I dissect the play;
Seems it, to my hooded thinking,
Reflex holiday.
Had there been no sharp subtraction
From the early sum,
Not an acre or a caption
Where was once a room,
Not a mention, whose small pebble
Wrinkled any bay, --
Unto such, were such assembly,
'T were Thanksgiving day.
MM:
Bianca, Emily Dickinson was a Female Sat Guru. She ranked right up
there with Shakespeare and Marlowe.
Her poem is about the hypocrisy of the people of the world. We thank
God, but then we throw pebbles in the bay. What happens when we throw
pebbles in the bay? The ripples go out. They strike whomever or
whatever is in their path. The ripples will reflect back on the cause
of the ripples. We thank God, but then we sin everyday.
This poem applies to those who post without consideration. I know your
reply is to Terry Ross, and I think you gave him good advice.
Emily teaches that we need to "subtract from the early sum." What does
she mean? She means that we have a huge karmic account, and if we are
going to progress spiritually, we need a subtraction from all these
debts. Who can do this for us? Answer: The Sat Guru, and it doesn't
matter, if the Master is a He, or a She.
In conclusion, Emily says we are often hypocrites. We are not
subtracting, but rather adding more karmas, to our already huge
account. The throwing of the pebbles, and the ripples on the bay,
means adding to our karmas.
Terry Ross can cogitate, if he is subtracting, or adding to his karmic
account, by pigeonholing me. LOL
Michael Martin'
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lightfromsoundoasis
Tom Veal
worthwhile to compare his Oxford DNB article on Marlowe, where he
sticks to ascertainable facts.
There is a long, long leap from the known - that Marlowe was arrested
for counterfeiting in the Netherlands - to the unknown - that he was
still working as an English secret agent - to the highly dubious - your
earlier suggestion that he possessed vital secrets that made disguising
his identity essential. That the counterfeiting charge came to nothing
*might* indicate that Lord Burghley intervened on his behalf. Or it may
be another of many examples of the erratic course of Elizabethan
justice. Or Marlowe might even have been innocent. The "Burghley
intervention" theory suffers from a distinct lack of evidence. Not only
is there no record that Burghley knew or did anything about the case,
but Marlowe did not invoke his name when questioned by the governor of
Flushing; instead, in the governor's words, "the scholer sais himself
to be very wel known both to the Earle of Northumberland and my Lord
Strang[e]", neither of whom had any involvement in English espionage.
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
sentence. It rather turns things on their heads. There was a report of
his death and an investigation into it and all records of activity from
Marlowe stopped at that point. There's no sense that Nichol "jumps to a
conclusion" he simply states what is in the historical record. Anyone
wishing to postulate that Marlowe didn't die at that point, escaped
abroad and wrote two dozen further plays under a pseudonym is "jumping
to a conclusion" in that there is no evidence for this whatsoever.
Best wishes
John Andrews
jo...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk
literacy for the sake of argument, what ideas do you have as what
Shakespeare was paid by the Duke of Rutland for in 1613? The "impresa"
traditionally comprised a painted image and a piece of text - usually a
poem. Burbage was known to paint - his self portrait is usually
acknowledged to be evidence of this so it's pretty clear what Rutland's
payment to him was for. What could Shakespeare's payment possibly have
been for? I know you'll have an answer drawing on your unique brand of
historical revisionism.
Best wishes
John Andrews
John H
>It's odd, John, to use the phrase "jump to the conclusion" in your last sentence. It >rather turns things on their heads. There was a report of his death and an investigation >into it and all records of activity from Marlowe stopped at that point. There's no sense >that Nichol "jumps to a conclusion" he simply states what is in the historical record. >Anyone wishing to postulate that Marlowe didn't die at that point, escaped abroad and >wrote two dozen further plays under a pseudonym is "jumping to a conclusion" in that >there is no evidence for this whatsoever.
It seems that you have now jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, John.
I simply said that I'm not particularly attracted to the murder
hypothesis. Nichol (and others) have speculated about the possibility
of murder, taking into account CM's known previous connections with the
Elizabethan secret service and the known operational status of the
other players in the Deptford incident. However it might well have been
homicide in self-defence (as originally reported), or even an accident.
Or alternatively, it might have been a faked death and cover-up. There
are several possibilities other than murder.
-- JH
Tom Reedy
news:1146435735.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And I, too, have returned within the past two hours from 10 days in
Stratford and London. Where did you go?
TR
John H
>There is a long, long leap from the known - that Marlowe was arrested for counterfeiting in the Netherlands - to the unknown - that he was still working as an English secret agent - to the highly dubious - your earlier suggestion that he possessed vital secrets that made disguising his identity essential.
The object of the exercise was to provide a *possible* motive for
faking Marlowe's death. Admittedly there is a speculative element in
all of this - in these matters the absence of hard evidence obliges
everybody to speculate. At a personal level I am agnostic in regard to
all of the hypotheses that have been advanced, and will remain so
unless and until firm evidence favouring any specific explanation comes
to light.
>That the counterfeiting charge came to nothing *might* indicate that Lord Burghley intervened on his behalf.
According to Nichol's account, he was interviewed by Burghley following
the incident.
Nichol's opinion is based on (a) a docket by one of Burghley's
secretaries on the back of an extant letter to Burghley from the
governor of Vlissingen, Sir Robert Sidney, written in 1592, as well as
(b) the statement in Sidney's letter to Burghley in that letter that
"... I thought it fit to send them [Marlowe and his associate Gifford
Gilbert] over unto your Lordship, to take their trial as you shall
think best." According to Nichol, the fact that CM was able to escape
punishment indicates that he was able to demonstrate, as he had done on
a previous occasion, that his motives were loyal.
>Marlowe did not invoke his name when questioned by the governor of Flushing; instead, in the governor's words, "the scholer sais himself to be very wel known both to the Earle of Northumberland and my Lord Strang[e]", neither of whom had any involvement in English espionage.
This is all perfectly explicable. Nichol provides three possible
explanations, all of which are plausible: either (a) CM did not, at
that time, possess the all-imortant warranty given to government agents
as a matter of course that would have proved his operational status and
loyalty, or (b) he did not reveal his status as an English agent
because his arrest and deportation were actually a reinforcement of his
cover as a Catholic coiner; to the conspirators, arrest was a
credential - a bona fide, or (c) he considered it more dangerous to
reveal himself as a spy than to take the consequences as a coiner.
-- JH
Mouse
To Baltimore, then Palo Alto, then San Francisco for the Renaissance
Society Conference, where everyone was very kind. Then back to
Baltimore, to the Eastern Shore (I think it's called that) for a day,
to Philadelphia for the Shakespeare Association Conference, where I
didn't see Dave but he might have seen me; I think Roger said he saw
him. To Portland, OR, then to Fredericton, New Brunswick, and then on
to Moncton, NB, where I didn't shake hands with the Prime Minister, who
was staying at my hotel. :(
I'm sure I've forgotten some places. I meant to go to Washington to see
my little book on display at the Folger, but didn't have time. I'm
pleased my debate with Prof Rubinstein is over. I couldn't think about
all my other presentations till I'd hung, drawn, and quartered him. <g>
How was your trip? What weird and wonderful things have you found out
about Shakespeare?
L.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
a chance.
--Bob
Mouse
Why don't you ask at the Fellowship? Several saw it. They'll have a
better idea of how it went, as they watched it, while I was inside it,
so to speak.
Regards,
Lynne
Tom Veal
evidence that actually exists. If one adds enough premises, one can
provide possible motives for anything. What I think that I've shown is
that, by adding only a single, not at all implausible assumption, viz.,
that the men who met with Marlowe at Eleanor Bull's house were old
friends, it is possible to sweep away the mysteries surrounding his
death without creating new ones.
The simplest explanation may not be the true one, of course, but, in
the present state of our knowledge, it seems more convincing than the
more complex and guesswork-ridden alternatives.
The Historian
Mouse wrote:
>
> > > O, Terry, I'm so glad you're back. And in fighting form too.
> > >
> > > Lynne, who is also back, just this minute, from a tour of many
> > > cities...
> >
> > And I, too, have returned within the past two hours from 10 days in
> > Stratford and London. Where did you go?
>
> To Baltimore, then Palo Alto, then San Francisco for the Renaissance
> Society Conference, where everyone was very kind. Then back to
> Baltimore, to the Eastern Shore (I think it's called that) for a day,
> to Philadelphia for the Shakespeare Association Conference, where I
> didn't see Dave but he might have seen me; I think Roger said he saw
> him.
Lynne fails to mention who else she saw in Philadelphia, and how good
he looks 56 pounds lighter. :-(
Mouse
Lynne saw The Historian. She had breakfast with him. He looks very
handsome, having lost 56 pounds.
Lynne also saw Marty in Philly. She had lunch with him. He's also very
handsome.
Did Lynne miss anyone else?
Miss Mouse
John H
>What I think that I've shown is that, by adding only a single, not at all implausible assumption, viz., that the men who met with Marlowe at Eleanor Bull's house were old
friends, it is possible to sweep away the mysteries surrounding his
death without creating new ones.
Old friends don't remain within the same room all day long for a social
occasion. The reported duration of their time spent together suggests
they were there for business reasons.
-- JH
Elizabeth
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > > Lynne, who is also back, just this minute, from a tour of many
> > > cities...
Welcommmme back!! I have missed you. I was just about
to write a post asking if anybody knew where you were.
> > And I, too, have returned within the past two hours from 10 days in
> > Stratford and London. Where did you go?
> To Baltimore, then Palo Alto, then San Francisco for the Renaissance
> Society Conference, where everyone was very kind. Then back to
> Baltimore, to the Eastern Shore (I think it's called that) for a day,
> to Philadelphia for the Shakespeare Association Conference, where I
> didn't see Dave but he might have seen me; I think Roger said he saw
> him. To Portland, OR, then to Fredericton, New Brunswick, and then on
> to Moncton, NB, where I didn't shake hands with the Prime Minister, who
> was staying at my hotel. :(
That's what, eight -- nine if you don't live in Moncton -- flights???
That's a lotta drinkin' Lynne. ;)
Tom Veal
> Tom Veal wrote (inter alia):
> >What I think that I've shown is that, by adding only a single, not at all implausible assumption, viz., that the men who met with Marlowe at Eleanor Bull's house were old
> friends, it is possible to sweep away the mysteries surrounding his
> death without creating new ones.
>
> Old friends don't remain within the same room all day long for a social
> occasion.
>
Mouse
Elizabeth wrote:
> Mouse wrote:
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > Lynne, who is also back, just this minute, from a tour of many
> > > > cities...
>
>
> Welcommmme back!! I have missed you.
Thank you, Elizabeth. I have missed you and everyone else. Well,
*almost* everyone. ;)
> I was just about
> to write a post asking if anybody knew where you were.
*I* didn't know where I was most of the time.
>
>
> > > And I, too, have returned within the past two hours from 10 days in
> > > Stratford and London. Where did you go?
>
>
> > To Baltimore, then Palo Alto, then San Francisco for the Renaissance
> > Society Conference, where everyone was very kind. Then back to
> > Baltimore, to the Eastern Shore (I think it's called that) for a day,
> > to Philadelphia for the Shakespeare Association Conference, where I
> > didn't see Dave but he might have seen me; I think Roger said he saw
> > him. To Portland, OR, then to Fredericton, New Brunswick, and then on
> > to Moncton, NB, where I didn't shake hands with the Prime Minister, who
> > was staying at my hotel. :(
>
>
> That's what, eight -- nine if you don't live in Moncton -- flights???
> That's a lotta drinkin' Lynne. ;)
It was actually eleven flights altogether. And a whole lot of car
driving. In NB my "chauffeur," a rather lovely girl named Julie, often
drove me miles and miles to my presentations. I live in Toronto, by the
way. That was my last flight--a short one home from Moncton.
And I protest (probably too much). I only had two drinks the whole time
I was away. But I did eat rather a lot of chocolate...
Regards,
Lynne
Nessus
obvious that he had not bothered to read the Strachey Letter or -
apparently - any primary source before crossing swords with Lynne, but
it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. He was done halfway through
the Mouse's opening statement. Lynne's command and elucidation of the
actual source material seemed to come as a great surprise to him, as
did the actual contents of said source material. Three snaps in "Z"
formation. ;-)
-Nessus
Art Neuendorffer
>>
<<What I think that I've shown is that,
by adding only a single, not at all
implausible assumption, viz., that the men
who met with Marlowe at Eleanor Bull's
house were old friends, it is possible
to sweep away the mysteries surrounding
his death without creating new ones.
> John H wrote:
>>Old friends don't remain within the same
>> room all day long for a social occasion.
Tom Veal wrote:
> No? Your old friends must differ toto caelo from mine!
Old friends, old friends,
Sat on their parkbench like bookends
[A] newspaper blown through the grass
[F]alls on the round toes
[o]f the high shoes of the old friends
[O]ld friends, winter companions, the old men
[L]ost in their overcoats, waiting for the sun
The sounds of the city sifting through trees
Settles like dust on the shoulders of the old friends
Can you imagine us years from today,
Sharing a parkbench quietly
How terribly strange to be seventy
Old friends, memory brushes the same years,
Silently sharing the same fears
Art N.
Tom Reedy
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> "Mouse" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1146435735.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>> > O, Terry, I'm so glad you're back. And in fighting form too.
>> >
>> > Lynne, who is also back, just this minute, from a tour of many
>> > cities...
>>
>> And I, too, have returned within the past two hours from 10 days in
>> Stratford and London. Where did you go?
>
> To Baltimore, then Palo Alto, then San Francisco for the Renaissance
> Society Conference, where everyone was very kind. Then back to
> Baltimore, to the Eastern Shore (I think it's called that) for a day,
> to Philadelphia for the Shakespeare Association Conference, where I
> didn't see Dave but he might have seen me; I think Roger said he saw
> him. To Portland, OR, then to Fredericton, New Brunswick, and then on
> to Moncton, NB, where I didn't shake hands with the Prime Minister, who
> was staying at my hotel. :(
>
> I'm sure I've forgotten some places. I meant to go to Washington to see
> my little book on display at the Folger, but didn't have time. I'm
> pleased my debate with Prof Rubinstein is over. I couldn't think about
> all my other presentations till I'd hung, drawn, and quartered him. <g>
>
> How was your trip?
It was wonderfully relaxing, although too short. Usually I try to stay long
enough to want to come home, but this one was about a week short of that
(only 10 days). We saw a not-so-good Romeo and Juliet in Stratford and two
bordering-on-great plays in London: The Crucible and Blood Brothers. All
were entertaining, though.
I also got to see five of the six Official Shakespeare Signatures (I think
the evidence strongly favors the inclusion of a seventh in the Archaionomia
notation, but I doubt it will ever become an Official Shakespeare
Signature). The only one I didn't see was the one at the Guild Hall Library.
If I had stayed an extra day, I could have seen that one, also, and my card
would have been complete.
> What weird and wonderful things have you found out
> about Shakespeare?
You know I'm not allowed to tell you that, Lynne.
TR
>
> L.
Art Neuendorffer
> I also got to see five of the six Official Shakespeare Signatures
> (I think the evidence strongly favors the inclusion of a seventh
> in the Archaionomia notation, but I doubt it will ever become
> an Official Shakespeare Signature).
Last Friday the populated Irrawaddy delta of Burma/Myanmar
was struck by a *CATEGORY 4* tropical cyclone
by the name of MALA (i.e., garland of flowers).
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/atcf_web/image_archives/2006/io022006.06043006
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/archdat/tropical_cyclones/tc06/IO/02B.MALA/amsre/36h/20060428.1939.aqua1.x.36h.02BMALA.115kts-927mb-163N-933E.80pc.jpg
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/archdat/tropical_cyclones/tc06/IO/02B.MALA/amsre/pct/20060428.1939.aqua1.x.pct.02BMALA.115kts-927mb-163N-933E.80pc.jpg
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/archdat/tropical_cyclones/tc06/IO/02B.MALA/tmi/tmi_37v/20060429.0432.trmm.x.tmi_37v.02BMALA.115kts-927mb-163N-933E.62pc.jpg
The *Official* death count
out of Myanmar's military dictatorship
was *just FOUR* persons!!
(Those guys are doing a Helloffa job!!)
-----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
MM:
I agree.
Master Christopher Marlowe practically prophesied his own death with
the quote, "Quod me nutrit, me destruit." I wonder if Peter Farey
considers that to be insignificant?
Shakespeare referred to Marlowe, in "As You Like It," as a dead
Shepherd. In his Sonnet, he mentioned that he was killed by cowards.
Those who think Marlowe continued to live are up against a lot of
contrary evidence.
Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lightfromsoundoasis
lackpurity
MM:
Let's look at the evidence, as John Andrews suggested. I don't think
on balance, that evidence is helpful to the faked-death theory. Most
of the evidence is going the other direction, IMHO.
Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lightfromsoundoasis
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I'll ask at the Fellowship, LynnE, but the poreceding is a good
indication of why it'll be a waste of time. (Note: it's arguments that
count, not how much a person has read. Not that I would expected
Rubenstein to make a good showing.)
--Bob
Mouse
How good an argument can one make if one hasn't read the material? I
would also add that the professor's mantra, repeated over and over
again in response to questions, was that it was only common sense that
The Tempest relied on the Bermuda pamphlets. That appeared, for the
most part, to be his argument.
I understand the proceedings were taped, by the way.
L.
>
> --Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
The above is a good example of why it'd probably be a waste of time
asking about LynnE's debate at the Fellowship, but I will, anyway.
(Note: I'm concerned with arguments, not familiarity with source
material.)
--Bob G.
Mouse
>
> > What weird and wonderful things have you found out
> > about Shakespeare?
>
> You know I'm not allowed to tell you that, Lynne.
"Rats!" said the Mouse.
>
> TR
>
> >
> > L.
Bianca Steele
I'm curious how they do The Crucible in England.
----
Bianca