Plays really by Sir Henry Neville....
Julian Day
..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
Art Neuendorffer
> ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale!
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
<<His life has been found to mirror the evolution of The Bard's works
so precisely that the authors believe that it cannot be dismissed as
coincidence. In the history plays, Neville's ancestors - for
instance, Richard Nevil, the Earl of Warwick in Henry VI, Part II -
are described with an accuracy that could have been written only by
someone with Neville's knowledge. His ancestors, such as John of
Gaunt, in Richard II, are always mentioned sympathetically. The authors
have unearthed in Lincolnshire's Public Record Office a notebook of
1602 belonging to Neville while he was imprisoned in the Tower of
London. Crucially, they say, it includes background notes for the
procession in Henry VIII some 11 years before the play was produced.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Was that before or after Henry VIII's actual procession?
------------------------------------------------------
<<They also discovered that, as a director of the London Virginia
Company, a trading venture, Neville had access to a 20,000-word letter
detailing the Bermuda shipwreck of 1609, "a base" for The Tempest
two years later. Shakespeare could not have known of this letter, they
say, as releasing it might have devalued the shares in the Virginia
Company.>>
------------------------------------------------------
The Strats needn't worry since
they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter.
------------------------------------------------------
<<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters,
which they found to be eloquent and
"Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Did Henry write: "I am that I am?"
------------------------------------------------------
<<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University,
stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the mysterious
dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again.
------------------------------------------------------
<<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points
to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>>
------------------------------------------------------
ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!!
------------------------------------------------------
<<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of
University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship
Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although
agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book. He
told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates and
the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are compelling in
themselves. There are no awkward bits.">>
------------------------------------------------------
But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!!
------------------------------------------------------
<<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit
the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court
life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>>
------------------------------------------------------
But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience
and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile.
------------------------------------------------------
<<In contrast, Neville, an almost exact contemporary of Shakespeare
(1564-1616), travelled extensively to the Continent, visiting various
places that featured in the plays.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Henry probably returned home and told Will EVERything!
------------------------------------------------------
<<From 1601-03 Neville was imprisoned in the Tower for his part
in an attempt to overthrow the Queen. Professor Rubinstein said
that the trauma - "his head was almost chopped off" - would
explain the seminal change in the plays, when he moved
from comedies and histories to tragedies and problem plays;
a break unexplained in Shakespeare's life.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the DROESHOUT, Shakspere's head WAS chopped off
...which explains why Titus Andronicus was written so early.
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare
will be published on October 25 by Longman.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
*October 25, 2005* _The Truth Will Out_
______ - 55x11
----------------------
*October 25, 1400* [St.Crispin's day] Chaucer died.
______ + 18x11
----------------------
*October 25, 1598* Letter from Richard Quiney asking for
a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever
been found addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford.
----------------------------------------------------------------
*October 25, 1415* [St.Crispin's day] Agincourt
Ogburn:
<<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt
was elaborated in _The Famous Victories_.
Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is
the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/fvh52..JPG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Now Falstaff gets the role of man who wrote Shakespeare
By Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
_The Times_ October 05, 2005
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
<<ENTER stage left: a dramatic new candidate for the authorship
of Shakespeare's plays. The real author of the works that
have been attributed to William Shakespeare for more than
400 years has beenunmasked, according to research.
A book to be published this month by a leading academic publisher,
with a foreword by Mark Rylance, the artistic director of the Globe,
will claim that the greatest plays and verse in the English language
were written by Sir Henry Neville (c1562-1615). He was a leading
Elizabethan figure, though a minor character in today's history books.
Whether Shakespeare's Stratford-on-Avon birthplace will be consigned
to a tourists' backwater, and the vast publishing industry devoted
to him condemned to pulp, remains to be seen, but the authors,
the academics Brenda James and William Rubinstein, are in no
doubt that they have finally uncovered the 'real Bard'.
They say that Neville, a rotund man nicknamed 'Falstaff'
by close friends, had the *virtue* - unlike Shakespeare,
who lacked an appropriate background - of being an educated
man of culture, a courtier and a well-travelled linguist.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
"is there no *vertue* extant?"
--------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Fourth, Part One (1598 Quarto) 2.4]
Enter Falstaffe.
Poin. Welcome Iacke, where hast thou bin?
Falst. A plague of al cowards I say, and a vengeance too,
mar-ry and Amen: giue me a cup of sacke boy. Eare I lead
this life long, ile sow neatherstocks and mend them, and
foote them too. A plague of all cowards. Giue me a cup
of sacke rogue, is there no *vertue* extant?
he drinketh.
Prin. Didst thou neuer see Titan kisse a dish of butter,
pittifull harted Titan that melted at the sweet tale
of the sonnes, if thou didst, then behold that compound.
Falst. You rogue, heeres lime in this sacke too: there is no-
thing but rogery to be found in villanous man, yet a cowarde is
worse then a cup of sacke with lime in it. A villanous cowarde.
Go thy waies old Iacke, die when thou wilt, if manhood, good
manhood be not forgot vpon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring: there liues not three good men vnhangde in
England, and one of them is fat, and growes old, God helpe the
while, a bad world I say, I would I were a weauer. I could sing
psalmes, or any thing. A plague of all cowards I say still.
Prin. How now *Wolsacke* , what mutter you?
Falst. A kings sonne, if I do not beat thee out of thy
kingdom with a dagger of lath, and driue all thy subiects
afore thee like a flock of wild geese, ile neuer weare
haire on my face more, you prince of Wales.
------------------------------------------------------
http://webpages.charter.net/stairway/WOOLPACKMAN.htm
<<M.H. Spielmann makes a revealing remark in his Studies in the First
Folio, 1924, as follows, speaking of the Woolman's age, his moustache:
'The portrait is no portrait at all: it shows us a sickly, decrepit
old gentleman, with a falling moustache, much more than fifty-two years
old. Had Shakspeare really been such in his last illness would the
London sculptor have so rendered him? Do sculptors, in their monuments,
represent the great departed in their dying state, pressing pillows to
their stomachs?' (Spielmann, see http) Of course if the effigy is of
John Shakspeare, he was an old gentleman indeed, and might have been
decrepit. He was seventy when he died. The 'pillow' was a woolpack,
any Englishman would have twigged to that.
Hal to Falstaff, 'How now, Woolsack?'
In 1725 the English Antiquarian artist George *Vertue*
engraved the Shakspeare monument for Alexander Pope's
edition of Shakespeare's plays.
This is the first time we are shown the figure of Shakspeare writing on
a cushion. But the figure is wearing the head of the well-known Chandos
portrait of Shakspeare, as all close observers agree, the nicely
trimmed-up head of a much younger man, nothing like the head that
Dugdale pictured, nor yet very much like the head as we see it today.
Vertue (not an eyewitness in 1725) ignores the published eyewitness
testimony of the Woolpack Man in Holy Trinity, and instead gives us
an imagined version of the monument, a sort of speculation perhaps,
a suggestion of how the monument might be improved if were to honor
a great poet, and not merely a gentleman of local renown.
*Vertue* also differs from the proved eyewitnesses in setting down
the inscription beneath the figure, entering new text both of words
and phrasing. Vertue's picture in Pope's edition is an invention,
being unlike the eyewitness images of the Woolpack Man, and also
unlike the monument as we see it today.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
"Is there no *Vertue* extant?"
--------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Fourth, Part One (Folio) 2.4]
Enter Falstaffe.
Poin. Welcome Iacke, where hast thou beene?
Fal. A plague of all Cowards I say, and a Vengeance
too, marry and Amen. Giue me a cup of Sacke Boy. Ere
I leade this life long, Ile sowe nether stockes, and
mend them too. A plague of all cowards. Giue me
a Cup of Sacke, Rogue. Is there no *Vertue* extant?
Prin. Didst thou neuer see Titan kisse a dish of Butter,
pittifull hearted Titan that melted at the sweete Tale of
the Sunne? If thou didst, then behold that compound.
Fal. You Rogue, heere's Lime in this Sacke too: there
is nothing but Roguery to be found in Villanous man; yet
a Coward is worse then a Cup of Sack with lime. A vil-
lanous Coward, go thy wayes old Iacke, die when thou
wilt, if manhood, good manhood be not forgot vpon the
face of the earth, then am I a shotten Herring: there
liues not three good men vnhang'd in England, & one of
them is fat, and growes old, God helpe the while, a bad
world I say. I would I were a Weauer, I could sing all
manner of songs. A plague of all Cowards, I say still.
Prin. How now *Woolsacke* , what mntter you?
Fal. A Kings Sonne? If I do not beate thee out of thy
Kingdome with a dagger of Lath, and driue all thy Sub-
iects afore thee like a flocke of Wilde-geese, Ile
neuer weare haire on my face more. You Prince of Wales?
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Veal
Crowley and the Great Gangleri into the Neville camp, here is my
reaction to this new development:
http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2005/09/a_new_shakespea.html
gangleri
I'm not there - yet - but, who knows!
At least, this Neville fellow seems to have been a real flesh-and-blood
character unlike you know who.
But all seriousness aside, you make one comment -
The great conundrum for anti-Stratfordians is, inevitably, why the
secrecy?
- which is rooted in the Strat THEORY of the case.
A *theory* which mirrors the Queen Gertrude view of things as reflected
in her answer - "Nothing at all; yet all that is I see." - to Prince
Hamlet's question, "Do you see nothing there?"
The audience, having just witnessed an exchange between the Ghost and
the Prince in the Queen's presence, *knows* that something doesn't
make sense - that *somebody* is mistaken in his/her perception of
reality.
If it is Prince Hamlet, then Shakespeare's play reduces, as it were, to
an early version of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", with Queen
Gertrude cast as Nurse Ratched alias Orthodox Strazi scholar in
contemporary debate on the Authorship Issue.
seaker
different name, but the same old same old. I wonder if Brenda and
William will explain how busy Neville found the time to write the
plays? Like other writers, they probably have no knowledge about
theatre. Over at the Fellowship site, the usual gang are having hissy
fits. A live debate between Brenda and William vs Mark and Lynne or
Roger would be fun to watch. I wonder if Neville underlined passages
in his Bible too?
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> Julian Day wrote:
>
> > ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
> Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale!
Your "Petulant Paranoid" persona is always amusing, Art.
Has it been published?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters,
> which they found to be eloquent and
> "Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Did Henry write: "I am that I am?"
Wake up, Art; I already told you that Popeye says that.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University,
> stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the mysterious
> dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again.
Well, of course, Art -- I already noted the link with Popeye, and
"gob" is a slang word for sailor.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points
> to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!!
You have my sympathy, Art -- I can see that possession of even a
single clue would gall a Clueless Cretin no end. Indeed, it would leave
you _VERDE de envidia_.
> <<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of
> University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship
> Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although
> agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book. He
> told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates and
> the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are compelling in
> themselves. There are no awkward bits.">>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!!
Only untenable fantasies such as yours possess such "awkward bits,"
Art.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit
> the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court
> life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience
> and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile.
Didn't I already point out that you're inSeine, Art?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <<In contrast, Neville, an almost exact contemporary of Shakespeare
> (1564-1616), travelled extensively to the Continent, visiting various
> places that featured in the plays.>>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Henry probably returned home and told Will EVERything!
> ------------------------------------------------------
> <<From 1601-03 Neville was imprisoned in the Tower for his part
> in an attempt to overthrow the Queen. Professor Rubinstein said
> that the trauma - "his head was almost chopped off"
That's a bit like being "almost pregnant," isn't it, Art?
> - would
> explain the seminal change in the plays, when he moved
> from comedies and histories to tragedies and problem plays;
> a break unexplained in Shakespeare's life.>>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Based upon the DROESHOUT, Shakspere's head WAS chopped off
> ...which explains why Titus Andronicus was written so early.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> <<The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare
> will be published on October 25 by Longman.>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> *October 25, 2005* The Truth Will Out
> - 55x11
> ----------------------
> *October 25, 1400* [St.Crispin's day] Chaucer died.
> + 18x11
> ----------------------
> *October 25, 1598* Letter from Richard Quiney asking for
> a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever
> been found addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> *October 25, 1415* [St.Crispin's day] Agincourt
You appear to have some malfunctioning ganglia, Art -- or perhaps
some malfunctioning gangleria.
> Ogburn:
> <<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt
> was elaborated in The Famous Victories .
>
> Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is
> the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
But Art -- do you believe that Shakespeare wrote _Famous Victories_?
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
> > >
> > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale!
David L. Webb wrote:
> Your "Petulant Paranoid" persona is always amusing, Art.
Do you suppose "Julian Day" is a real person?
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
> >
> > <<His life has been found to mirror the evolution of The Bard's works
> > so precisely that the authors believe that it cannot be dismissed as
> > coincidence. In the history plays, Neville's ancestors - for
> > instance, Richard Nevil, the Earl of Warwick in Henry VI, Part II -
> > are described with an accuracy that could have been written only by
> > someone with Neville's knowledge. His ancestors, such as John of
> > Gaunt, in Richard II, are always mentioned sympathetically. The authors
> > have unearthed in Lincolnshire's Public Record Office a notebook of
> > 1602 belonging to Neville while he was imprisoned in the Tower of
> > London. Crucially, they say, it includes background notes for the
> > procession in Henry VIII some 11 years before the play was produced.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Was that before or after Henry VIII's actual procession?
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<They also discovered that, as a director of the London Virginia
> > Company, a trading venture, Neville had access to a 20,000-word letter
> > detailing the Bermuda shipwreck of 1609, "a base" for The Tempest
> > two years later. Shakespeare could not have known of this letter, they
> > say, as releasing it might have devalued the shares in the Virginia
> > Company.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The Strats needn't worry since
> > they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Has it been published?
Ask Lynne.
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters,
> > which they found to be eloquent and
> > "Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Did Henry write: "I am that I am?"
David L. Webb wrote:
> Wake up, Art; I already told you that Popeye says that.
Then Popeye ranks higher on the authorship candidate roll
than Henry Neville.
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University,
> > stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the
> > mysterious dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Well, of course, Art -- I already noted the link with Popeye,
> and "gob" is a slang word for sailor.
Well, tickle me St. Elmo.
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points
> > to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!!
David L. Webb wrote:
> You have my sympathy, Art -- I can see that possession of
> even a single clue would gall a Clueless Cretin no end.
> Indeed, it would leave you _VERDE de envidia_.
_ED. DE VERE DIVINA_
(I'll just have to wait and see what it is.)
> > <<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of
> > University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship
> > Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although
> > agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book.
> > He told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates
> > and the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are
> > compelling in themselves. There are no awkward bits.">>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!!
David L. Webb wrote:
> Only untenable fantasies such as yours possess such "awkward bits,"
> Art.
ORTs: Crumbs; refuse. (Low German, ORT)
------------------------------------------------
Jan Hendrik OORT (1900-1992), Dutch astronomer, proposed
(1950) that comets originate in a cloud of [refuse] material
(the OORT cloud) orbiting the sun at great distance and that
they are occasionally deflected into the inner solar system
by gravitational perturbation from the passing of nearby stars.
------------------------------------------------
TROILUS: The bonds of heaven are slipp'd, dissolved, and loosed;
And with another knot, five-finger-tied,
The fractions of her faith, ORTs of her love,
The fragments, scraps, the bits and greasy relics
Of her o'er-eaten faith, are bound to Diomed.
-- Troilus and Cressida Act 5, Scene 2
------------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 3, Scene 2
PETRUCHIO: And wherefore gaze this goodly company,
As if they saw some wondrous monument,
Some COMET or unusual prodigy?
ORT
ART
------------------------------------------------
Julius Caesar Act 2, Scene 2
CALPURNIA: When beggars die, there are no COMETs seen;
The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit
> > the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court
> > life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience
> > and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Didn't I already point out that you're inSeine, Art?
You clearly indicated that I'm "normal", Dave.
(To erf [sic] is human.)
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<In contrast, Neville, an almost exact contemporary of Shakespeare
> > (1564-1616), travelled extensively to the Continent, visiting various
> > places that featured in the plays.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Henry probably returned home and told Will EVERything!
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > <<From 1601-03 Neville was imprisoned in the Tower for his part
> > in an attempt to overthrow the Queen. Professor Rubinstein
> > said that the trauma - "his head was almost chopped off"
David L. Webb wrote:
> That's a bit like being "almost pregnant," isn't it, Art?
Tell it to Professor Rubinstein, Dave.
> > would explain the seminal change in the plays, when he moved
> > from comedies and histories to tragedies and problem plays;
> > a break unexplained in Shakespeare's life.>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Based upon the DROESHOUT, Shakspere's head WAS chopped off
> > ...which explains why Titus Andronicus was written so early.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare
> > will be published on October 25 by Longman.>>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > *October 25, 2005* The Truth Will Out
> > - 55x11
> > ----------------------
> > *October 25, 1400* [St.Crispin's day] Chaucer died.
> > + 18x11
> > ----------------------
> > *October 25, 1598* Letter from Richard Quiney asking for
> > a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever
> > been found addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > *October 25, 1415* [St.Crispin's day] Agincourt
David L. Webb wrote:
> You appear to have some malfunctioning ganglia, Art
> -- or perhaps some malfunctioning gangleria.
I'm not a member of any ganglia (or gangleria).
> > Ogburn:
> > <<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt
> > was elaborated in The Famous Victories .
> >
> > Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is
> > the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
David L. Webb wrote:
> But Art -- do you believe that Shakespeare wrote _Famous Victories_?
Shakespeare (not Shakspere).
kenkap
of interest in literature or the theater."
You can do better than this crummy straw man statement. Why would one
expect any letters sent to Burghley (the bulk of his correspondance) or
letters to the Queen about money to contain any references to the
theater. Its possible if there were such letters Burghley burned them.
Whatever else you may think of "Oxenford", you know quite well his
career demonstrated not only an intense interest in literature and
theater, but acumen as well.
This is totally disingenuous on your part.
BTW, where is ONE letter from Will expressing any literary interest, or
ANY interest? Where is ONE personal contemporary validation,
particulary from folks, like say, his COUSIN?
And don't give me the dedications to the narrative poems.
Ken Kaplan
kenkap
man and join in rather than "concealing yourself". Deal with Detobel or
some others without your "gang" behind you.
Unless you were the jerk who came on and pretended he wanted to
dialogue and played a lot of games before leaving.
Ken
Tom Veal
intense interest in literature and the theater". He published a handful
of poems and wrote comedies or interludes for court performances. That
is a record consistent with gentlemanly dilettantism but indicates
nothing more. There is no sign that he took any interest in the
theatrical companies of which he was patron. Maybe literature and the
theater were in fact the great passions of his life, but they've left
nary a trace behind.
David L. Webb
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
There is another account at
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4313000/4313654.stm>.
seaker
end it with a laugh. Why should I join? I don't believe there is an
"authorship question," so if I joined Roger would kick me off. Why do
I post here? Let's just call it a summer/early fall fling.
Oxfordians share the mindset of Kevin Trudeau book's Natural Cures
"They" Don't Want You To Know About. Mark Anderson should change the
title of his book to The Real Shakespeare "They" Don't Want You To Know
About.
Books and articles by Looney, Clark, Miller, the Ogburns, Price, Roger,
Lynne, Anderson and Brenda and William are the "Of Pandas and People"
of the literary and theatre world. Of Pandas and People claims that
Intelligent Design is an alternative to Darwin. Sorry, but no cigar.
Looney and company claim their writings are an alternative to
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Ken, this is false equivalence. The
writings of Looney and company are filled with no-fault scholarship.
The Bacon, Marlowe, Oxford and now Neville believers infect the world
with the bogus notion that all points of view are created equal and are
equally deserving of respect.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
> > >
> > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
> "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > ...here is my reaction to this new development:
> > http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2005/09/a_new_shakespea.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb wrote:
> There is another account at
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4313000/4313654.stm>.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And don't forget to listen to the pathetic
"deBATE" between J. BATE & Brenda J.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_shakespeare_20051005.ram
<<0820 Former English lecturer Brenda James and Jonathan Bate,
Professor of Shakespearean and Renaissance Studies at Warwick
University, discuss new claims about the authorship of the works of
Shakespeare.>>
Does anyone out there actually know whether Shakespeare displays
a greater knowledge of glovemaking or ordnance???
(Does anyone give a damn?)
Art Neuendorffer
Laila Roth
But they are.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > Julian Day wrote:
>
> > > > ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ...here is my reaction to this new development:
>
> > > http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2005/09/a_new_shakespea.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > There is another account at
> >
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4313000/4313654.stm>.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> And don't forget to listen to the pathetic
> "deBATE" between J. BATE & Brenda J.:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_shakespeare_20051005.
> ram
Thank you for pointing this out, Art. It is indeed amusing.
kenkap
> Ken - Yes, I peek at the Fellowship site, but only to start the day or
> end it with a laugh. Why should I join? I don't believe there is an
> "authorship question," so if I joined Roger would kick me off. Why do
> I post here? Let's just call it a summer/early fall fling.
Join in. Not join. Yeah, you'd be kicked off if all you want to do is
fart around. But there you could seriously engage KC, Lynne, Roger,
Robert and others, some of whom have discredited positions you have
sserted here. Or still have not provided evidence for. I'm finding you
are the King of assertion with no backing.
>
> Oxfordians share the mindset of Kevin Trudeau book's Natural Cures
> "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Mark Anderson should change the
> title of his book to The Real Shakespeare "They" Don't Want You To Know
> About.
Be careful. I have been involved in alternative and holistic
supplements and approaches for twenty years. Trudeau is a con man,
unfortunately, but his premise is not. He's just making hay from it. I
have personally cured and dealt with many conditions successfully with
alternative means that doctors couldn't deal with. There is a great
ignorance and often supression in the medical community. They are
horrendus with chronic disease. There is enormous consensus from many
people experientially on that.
> Books and articles by Looney, Clark, Miller, the Ogburns, Price, Roger,
> Lynne, Anderson and Brenda and William are the "Of Pandas and People"
> of the literary and theatre world. Of Pandas and People claims that
> Intelligent Design is an alternative to Darwin. Sorry, but no cigar.
> Looney and company claim their writings are an alternative to
> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Ken, this is false equivalence. The
> writings of Looney and company are filled with no-fault scholarship.
> The Bacon, Marlowe, Oxford and now Neville believers infect the world
> with the bogus notion that all points of view are created equal and are
> equally deserving of respect.
No, they are deserving of respect if they contain validity and points
worth considering. Intelligent design is a bad analogy. In and of
itself it has merit. I believe in it because as a great teacher I had
once said, "the idea that the complexity of the world happened
haphazardly is akin to believing that a cyclone roared through a
junkyard and assembled a fully functional down to the last detail 747
airplane." The problem with intelligent design, which is not
incompatible with evolution, is that it is a stalking horse for
creationism and the religious right. The issue of "how" intelligent
design might work is a far more complex issue than the popular state of
the debate, and currently is hostage to political and religious
ideology.
If Price is so undeserving, why did Tennessee have her in their series?
And Stritmatter. Please give me a cogent answer to Stritmatter's
challenge on Venus and Adonis.
BTW, why is Veal's discussion on Neville on his blog "scholarly", while
our discussion is a "hissy fit". I sense hypocricy. Assertion,
assertion, asertion. You need a remedial course with Terry Ross.
Ken
kenkap
"..not an iota
of interest in literature or the theater."
So the books he patronized, and supprted, the praise he received from
Spenser and others, and the commendations of his time, such as
Puttenham of course mean nothing. You, 400 years later, know better
than his peers. Of course for you, it has to be written down somewhere
explicitely and in detail to validate it.
But the fact vthat we don't even have a letter or significant piece of
writing or contemporary personal testamonial for Will of course is not
needed. He was "middle class" (Kathman) which somehow makes all the
difference. So the author of a giant best seller goes continually under
the radar.
How do you know what his relationship with his companies were? Go to
the SOS site and read Ever Reader #8, "The Knight of the Tree of the
Sunne". It might provide a glimpse into what escapes the eye of mundane
historical myopia.
Ken
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > Julian Day wrote:
> > >
> > > > ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale!
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Your "Petulant Paranoid" persona is always amusing, Art.
> Do you suppose "Julian Day" is a real person?
Of course not, Art! It's a bogus Masonic name, chosen because
disgruntled Mithraist Masons prefer the Julian day to the upstart
Gregorian one.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> > > <<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters,
> > > which they found to be eloquent and
> > > "Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Did Henry write: "I am that I am?"
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Wake up, Art; I already told you that Popeye says that.
> Then Popeye ranks higher on the authorship candidate roll
> than Henry Neville.
In that case, so do Lynne Kositsky and Al Gore, both of whom have
said the same thing, Art.
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > <<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University,
> > > stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the
> > > mysterious dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Well, of course, Art -- I already noted the link with Popeye,
> > and "gob" is a slang word for sailor.
> Well, tickle me St. Elmo.
But Art -- "Saint Elmo" is an anagram of "Mason tile"!
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > <<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points
> > > to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!!
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > You have my sympathy, Art -- I can see that possession of
> > even a single clue would gall a Clueless Cretin no end.
> > Indeed, it would leave you VERDE de envidia .
> ED. DE VERE DIVINA
You're missing a VERb, Art -- unless, of course, you're trying to use
the uncommon VERb "divinar" ("adivinar" is more usual), in which case
this *still* makes scant sense, as the VERb "divinar" is transitive.
> (I'll just have to wait and see what it is.)
> > > <<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of
> > > University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship
> > > Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although
> > > agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book.
> > > He told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates
> > > and the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are
> > > compelling in themselves. There are no awkward bits.">>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!!
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Only untenable fantasies such as yours possess such "awkward bits,"
> > Art.
> ORTs: Crumbs; refuse. (Low German, ORT)
[VERborrea de borracho borrada]
> The Taming of the Shrew Act 3, Scene 2
>
> PETRUCHIO: And wherefore gaze this goodly company,
> As if they saw some wondrous monument,
> Some COMET or unusual prodigy?
>
> ORT
> ART
That's right, Art: Art -> ort -> out -> nut.
[...]
> > > <<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit
> > > the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court
> > > life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience
> > > and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Didn't I already point out that you're inSeine, Art?
> You clearly indicated that I'm "normal", Dave.
> (To erf [sic] is human.)
I already noted that erf is an odd function, Art.
[Más VERborrea de borracho borrada]
> > > Ogburn:
>
> > > <<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt
> > > was elaborated in The Famous Victories .
> > >
> > > Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is
> > > the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > But Art -- do you believe that Shakespeare wrote Famous Victories ?
>
> Shakespeare (not Shakspere).
Then why didn't he accord Oxford a prominent role in the canonical
works?
[...]
Tom Veal
dozens of other poets garnered as much. Books were dedicated to him in
the hope that he would give money to the authors. He probably did; many
other nobles did likewise. None of that demonstrates the "intense
interest in literature and the theater" that you hypothesize. Again, it
may have existed, but it can't be proven from the evidence.
This silence is significant, because a fairly large quantity of
evidence is extant. By contrast, relatively little material of any sort
survives about Shakespeare of Stratford, so silence means much less. It
happens, however, that the remnants include clear signs of his close
connections to the theater and explicit statements that he was an
author of note. That testimony (e. g., the First Folio, Jonson's
Timber, Davies' epigram, etc.) isn't as conclusive as
anti-Stratfordians desire (and I don't wish to spark another round of
debate about its merits), but it constitutes vastly more evidence of
literary and theatrical interests that all of Oxenford's papers
contain.
Terry Ross
> seaker wrote:
>> Ken - Yes, I peek at the Fellowship site, but only to start the day or
>> end it with a laugh. Why should I join? I don't believe there is an
>> "authorship question," so if I joined Roger would kick me off. Why do
>> I post here? Let's just call it a summer/early fall fling.
>
> Join in. Not join. Yeah, you'd be kicked off if all you want to do is
> fart around. But there you could seriously engage KC, Lynne, Roger,
> Robert and others, some of whom have discredited positions you have
> sserted here. Or still have not provided evidence for. I'm finding you
> are the King of assertion with no backing.
People who do not toe the Oxfordian line at the SF forum are asked to shut
up and asked to leave. Of course the same kind of thing happens here, but
on a more catholic basis, and this is not a club; there are regulars here,
but no members.
>>
>> Oxfordians share the mindset of Kevin Trudeau book's Natural Cures
>> "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Mark Anderson should change the
>> title of his book to The Real Shakespeare "They" Don't Want You To Know
>> About.
>
> Be careful. I have been involved in alternative and holistic supplements
> and approaches for twenty years. Trudeau is a con man, unfortunately,
> but his premise is not. He's just making hay from it. I have personally
> cured and dealt with many conditions successfully with alternative means
> that doctors couldn't deal with.
That Ken favors quackery is not really a surprise; I hope his "cures" have
been limited to his own ailments.
> There is a great ignorance and often supression in the medical
> community. They are horrendus with chronic disease. There is enormous
> consensus from many people experientially on that.
You have "been involved in alternative and holistic supplements and
approaches for twenty years." Are there any chronic diseases of 20 years
ago for which "alternative and holistic supplements and approaches" have
provided a general cure?
Genuine medicine has its successes. Do you remember when peptic ulcers
were the result of a chronic disease? Avoid stress; eat a bland diet;
drink your milk -- these became part of the maintenance program for this
chronic disease. There were medicines that could help somewhat, but no
cure, and thus there was room for "alternative" non-solutions. The
much-despised medical community now knows that most peptic ulcers are the
result of an infection that can be cured with antibiotics. Of course one
can still find "alternative means" to treat peptic ulcers, but even an
"alternative" healer ought to recommend that a person suffering from the
condition should see a real doctor and see if real medicine can help. If
nothing can help, then the choice of placebos may not matter much.
>
>> Books and articles by Looney, Clark, Miller, the Ogburns, Price, Roger,
>> Lynne, Anderson and Brenda and William are the "Of Pandas and People"
>> of the literary and theatre world. Of Pandas and People claims that
>> Intelligent Design is an alternative to Darwin. Sorry, but no cigar.
>> Looney and company claim their writings are an alternative to
>> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Ken, this is false equivalence. The
>> writings of Looney and company are filled with no-fault scholarship.
>> The Bacon, Marlowe, Oxford and now Neville believers infect the world
>> with the bogus notion that all points of view are created equal and are
>> equally deserving of respect.
>
> No, they are deserving of respect if they contain validity and points
> worth considering.
The Oxfordians are no more worthy of respect than the Baconians, Marlites,
and (presumably) Nevillagers.
> Intelligent design is a bad analogy.
"Intelligent design" is a very good analogy. We have a very similar
rejection of genuine scholarship combined with a parasitism on and parody
of the real thing. Stock car racing might not be a good analogy, but
intelligent design is quite apt.
> In and of itself it has merit.
The analogy is getting better and better.
> I believe in it because as a great teacher I had once said, "the idea
> that the complexity of the world happened haphazardly is akin to
> believing that a cyclone roared through a junkyard and assembled a fully
> functional down to the last detail 747 airplane."
You were taught by Fred Hoyle?
> The problem with intelligent design, which is not incompatible with
> evolution, is that it is a stalking horse for creationism and the
> religious right. The issue of "how" intelligent design might work is a
> far more complex issue than the popular state of the debate, and
> currently is hostage to political and religious ideology.
Intelligent design is not compatible with natural selection. It is not
merely a stalking-horse for creationism, it IS creationism. Intelligent
design assumes an intelligent designer. Who designed that designer --
another designer, even more intelligent? At some point intelligent design
must have an undesigned designer, aka God. This is not a new argument
(see Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God's existence, especially #5), but it IS
a religious one.
>
> If Price is so undeserving, why did Tennessee have her in their series?
> And Stritmatter. Please give me a cogent answer to Stritmatter's
> challenge on Venus and Adonis.
What challenge? Can you point to anything in Roger's article that
provides the least reason to steal credit for *Venus and Adonis* from
Shakespeare and assign it to Oxford?
>
> BTW, why is Veal's discussion on Neville on his blog "scholarly", while
> our discussion is a "hissy fit". I sense hypocricy. Assertion,
> assertion, asertion. You need a remedial course with Terry Ross.
OK, so I'm responding to a troll; it's a bit less incoherent than Ken's
usual job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LynnE
>
> "Intelligent design" is a very good analogy. We have a very similar
> rejection of genuine scholarship combined with a parasitism on and parody
> of the real thing.
Yes, Terry, you're quite right. You do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Kositsky Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
http://www.Shakespearefellowship.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross wrote:
>>
>> "Intelligent design" is a very good analogy. We have a very similar
>> rejection of genuine scholarship combined with a parasitism on and parody
>> of the real thing.
>
> Yes, Terry, you're quite right. You do.
And even parodic signatures, I see --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lynne Kositsky Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
> http://www.Shakespearefellowship.org
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Others guys imitate us,
But the original is still the greatest.
-- Billy Page
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale!
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > Your "Petulant Paranoid" persona is always amusing, Art.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Do you suppose "Julian Day" is a real person?
David L. Webb wrote:
> Of course not, Art! It's a bogus Masonic name, chosen because
> disgruntled Mithraist Masons prefer the Julian day to the upstart
> Gregorian one.
Who does this Gregory guy think he is, anyhow!
> > > > <<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters,
> > > > which they found to be eloquent and
> > > > "Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Did Henry write: "I am that I am?"
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > Wake up, Art; I already told you that Popeye says that.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Then Popeye ranks higher on the authorship candidate roll
> > than Henry Neville.
David L. Webb wrote:
> In that case, so do Lynne Kositsky and Al Gore,
> both of whom have said the same thing, Art.
Absolutely!
---------------------------------------------------------
GORE, v. t. [OE. GAR SPEAR] To pierce or wound as with a horn;
to penetrate with a pointed instrument, as a SPEAR; to STAB.
Edward deVere/Arthur BROOKE - STABs a servant, 1567.
FULKE GRE-VILLE/Baron BROOKE - STABbed by servant, 1628.
GORE, n. [AS. gor dirt, DUNG; akin to Icel. gor, SW. gorr, OHG. gor,
& perh. to E. cord, chord, and yarn; cf. Icel. g["o]rn, GARnir, guts.]
"[BRUTE] GORE GRE-VILLE"
{anagram}
"GEORG[E TURB]ER-VILLE"
GEORG[E TURB]ER-VILLE wrote Arthur BROOKE's epitaph.
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > > <<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University,
> > > > stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the
> > > > mysterious dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again.
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > Well, of course, Art -- I already noted the link with Popeye,
> > > and "gob" is a slang word for sailor.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Well, tickle me St. Elmo.
David L. Webb wrote:
> But Art -- "Saint Elmo" is an anagram of "Mason tile"!
It was a "MALINTESO" on my part then.
---------------------------------------------------------
The great SPRING festival of Cybele & ATTIS
<<Finally, the Roman festival closed on the 27th of March with a
procession to the brook ALMO. The silver image of the goddess, with its
face of jagged black stone, sat in a waggon drawn by OXEN. Preceded by
the nobles walking barefoot, it moved slowly, to the music of pipes
and TAMBOURINES, out by the Porta Capena, & so down to the banks of
the ALMO, which flows into the Tiber just below the walls of Rome.
There the high-priest, robed in purple, washed the waggon, the image,
& the other sacred objects in the water of the stream. On returning
from their bath, the wain & the OXEN were strewn with fresh SPRING
flowers. All was mirth & gaiety. No one thought of the blood that
had flowed so lately. Even the EUNUCH priests forgot their wounds.>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > > <<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points
> > > > to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!!
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > You have my sympathy, Art -- I can see that possession of
> > > even a single clue would gall a Clueless Cretin no end.
> > > Indeed, it would leave you VERDE de envidia .
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ED. DE VERE DIVINA
David L. Webb wrote:
> You're missing a VERb, Art --
DE VERb's right there, Dave. (Play the DIVINA).
> > (I'll just have to wait and see what it is.)
>
> > > > <<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of
> > > > University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship
> > > > Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although
> > > > agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book.
> > > > He told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates
> > > > and the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are
> > > > compelling in themselves. There are no awkward bits.">>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!!
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > Only untenable fantasies such as yours possess such "awkward bits,"
> > > Art.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ORTs: Crumbs; refuse. (Low German, ORT)
David L. Webb wrote:
> [VERborrea de borracho borrada]
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The Taming of the Shrew Act 3, Scene 2
> >
> > PETRUCHIO: And wherefore gaze this goodly company,
> > As if they saw some wondrous monument,
> > Some COMET or unusual prodigy?
> >
> > ORT
> > ART
David L. Webb wrote:
> That's right, Art: Art -> ort -> out -> nut.
JACTA est ALEA.
> > > > <<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit
> > > > the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court
> > > > life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience
> > > > and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile.
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > Didn't I already point out that you're inSeine, Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You clearly indicated that I'm "normal", Dave.
> > (To erf [sic] is human.)
David L. Webb wrote:
> I already noted that erf is an odd function, Art.
NEVERtheless, erf is the sum total of normal.
> > > > Ogburn:
> >
> > > > <<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt
> > > > was elaborated in The Famous Victories .
> > > >
> > > > Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is
> > > > the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > But Art -- do you believe that Shakespeare wrote Famous Victories ?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Shakespeare (not Shakspere).
David L. Webb wrote:
> Then why didn't he accord Oxford
> a prominent role in the canonical works?
Oxford is TRUly EVERyw[HERE] if you know w[HERE] to look.
----------------------------------------------------------
[ECO]: [HERE] (Venetian)
"[E]dwardus [C]omes [O]xon{iensis}"
TOTHEO [N] l ___ I _ EBE G ____ ETTERO
FTHESE__ [I] n ___ S - UIN G ____ SONNET
SMrWha_- [L] L __ [H]a P <P> I__ [N] ESSEA
NDthat____[E] T __ [E]r _ N <I> T___[I] EPROM
ISEDB Y O u ___- [R]e V <E> R [L] IVING
POEtW I s h ____ [E]t _ H [T] H_- [E] WELLW
IShIN- G a _____ [d V e] N [T] u ______ ReRINS
EtTIN G fort----_______ H [T] t
----------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1616 Francis Beaumont's non-Tomb in Westminster:
<<MORTALITY, behold and FEAR!
_____ What a change of flesh ____ IS HERE!
__ Think how many royal ____ [BO]NES
____ Sleep within this heap of ____ [STON]ES:>>
-------------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1616 William Shakspere grave in Stratford:
<<Good friend for Iesus sake F(orb)EAR(e)
__ To digg the dust encloased ____ HE(a)RE:
_______ Blest be ye man yt spares thes__[STON]ES
__ And CURST be he yt moves my [BO]NES.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Mousie
Art wrote:
> > The Strats needn't worry since
> > they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter.
David wrote:
>
> Has it been published?
We're working on it, David.
So far a major journal has politely declined to read our article, and
the organizers of a big conference who at first enthusiastically
invited us to speak are now apparently doing everything in their power
to disinvite us. I suppose this is what one calls academic freedom--the
freedom of academics to refuse to let material that contradicts
cherished beliefs be heard or seen.
Regards,
L.
Mousie
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, LynnE wrote:
>
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> >>
> >> "Intelligent design" is a very good analogy. We have a very similar
> >> rejection of genuine scholarship combined with a parasitism on and parody
> >> of the real thing.
> >
> > Yes, Terry, you're quite right. You do.
>
> And even parodic signatures, I see --
>
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Lynne Kositsky Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
> > http://www.Shakespearefellowship.org
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Others guys imitate us,
> But the original is still the greatest.
No, my dear. It is just that you're so easy to parody.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Kositsky Visit the SHAKESPEARE FELLOWSHIP home page
http://www.Shakespearefellowship.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
seaker
You think it's scholarship.
It ISN"T scholarship; it's fantasy.
I think you and Roger should be invited to speak as an example of
non-scholarship.
Mousie
First, you are talking about a presentation you haven't seen or heard.
It is my experience that pronouncing on something one knows nothing
about is rather foolhardy, so I try not to do it myself. If you'd like
to argue The Tempest with me, I should be pleased to cooperate. Try
your luck...what is your first point? Please be specific.
Second, I would be delighted to speak as an example of non-scholarship
if it means I can speak. Then people could decide for themselves how
scholarly our work actually is. Would you like to contact the
organizers and suggest it? Suppression is such bad form, I always
think.
Third, one gets very little support around here, Robert, when one
talks, talks, talks with absolutely no facts to back up what one says.
Haven't you noticed yet?
Regards,
L
O, and by the way, le shana tova.
gangleri
Intelligent design is not compatible with natural selection. It is not
merely a stalking-horse for creationism, it IS creationism.
Intelligent design assumes an intelligent designer. Who designed that
designer -- another designer, even more intelligent? At some point
intelligent design must have an undesigned designer, aka God. This is
not a new argument (see Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God's existence,
especially #5), but it IS a religious one.
Here's - ah - something aka God:
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me
not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding? (Isaiah, Ch. 29:16)
Who the hell do they think they are kidding with this God stuff?
Not us Strazis, that's for sure!
For, as the offspring of what Carl Sagan labeled "primordial slime",
Strazis know God-like drivel from slime - blessed be its name.
Philling Station
Terry Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, kenkap wrote:
>
> > seaker wrote:
> >> Ken - Yes, I peek at the Fellowship site, but only to start the day or
> >> end it with a laugh. Why should I join? I don't believe there is an
> >> "authorship question," so if I joined Roger would kick me off. Why do
> >> I post here? Let's just call it a summer/early fall fling.
> >
> > Join in. Not join. Yeah, you'd be kicked off if all you want to do is
> > fart around. But there you could seriously engage KC, Lynne, Roger,
> > Robert and others, some of whom have discredited positions you have
> > sserted here. Or still have not provided evidence for. I'm finding you
> > are the King of assertion with no backing.
>
> People who do not toe the Oxfordian line at the SF forum are asked to shut
> up and asked to leave.
Agreed.
Philling Station
Mousie wrote:
> Art wrote:
> > > The Strats needn't worry since
> > > they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter.
>
> David wrote:
> >
> > Has it been published?
>
>
>
> We're working on it, David.
>
> So far a major journal has politely declined to read our article,
Lynne, is this your first rejection as a writer? If so, please don't
take it to heart.
and
> the organizers of a big conference who at first enthusiastically
> invited us to speak are now apparently doing everything in their power
> to disinvite us.
Was this the allegedly non-authorship related paper on 15th and 16th
century travel writing, or some Oxfordian "Of Pandas and People" thing?
I suppose this is what one calls academic freedom--the
> freedom of academics to refuse to let material that contradicts
> cherished beliefs be heard or seen.
I would think part of academic freedom is to protect academics from
wasting their time with evidenceless conspiracy theories. If a Dr.
Groves chooses to amuse himself reading posts by people who claim Old
English is still spoken today, that's his choice. Why inflict that
drivel on a roomful of conference-goers?
Mark Cipra
news:1128649971.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
seaker -
I'm not qualified to judge whether or not the specific paper Lynne refers to
represents *good* scholarship and should be published, but from what she's
posted here on it, they have taken a scholarly approach - it is not fantasy.
It also has nothing directly to do with anti-Stratfordianism. They attempt
to show that the widely accepted source for the Tempest is unlikely to be
the actual source. Not coincidentally, this would strengthen (or
"un-weaken") the case for Oxford, but to the best of my knowledge they don't
even bring his name up in the paper.
It would be very sad *if* their work is being rejected because of their
anti-Stratfordian connections rather than on the quality of the work.
Mark Cipra
news:_is1f.746$Rh5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Well, the second option would be sad, too, but for different reasons :)
Best wishes on the paper, Lynne.
>
>
Philling Station
Hi Mark,
Doesn't this statement that the presentation was "scholarly" imply then
that their antiStrat writing is not up to the standard this
non-"authorship" paper pretends to? And what examples of their work did
the committee that is allegedly uninviting Strit-matter and Kos-itsky
have to judge them? Canadian young adult novels (of a high standard,
but fiction nevertheless) and a doctoral thesis that is controversial
(to put it mildly). I can understand some groups being very squimish
about inviting these two individuals to speak. Would you invite the
authors of "Of Pandas and People" to lecture on 19th century nature
writing in the Galapagos Islands?
Mark Cipra
news:1128685192.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hey, Neil:
I don't know much about how papers are submitted, reviewed, and approved. I
don't know if publications and meetings have minimum requirements for the
writers, but even so, doesn't Lynne's co-author have an appropriate degree
and teach? I really don't think it should make any difference that one
writer is not known as a scholar and the other ... not respected, shall we
say. My inclination would be to read the abstract and the first few pages;
if I liked that, I'd read more. If I thought the paper was worthy, I'd send
it around for review, and then publish. In the case of a controversial
paper, I'd prefer to err on *their* side, and maybe send it around for
review anyway. (Again, it seems to me that the authors may be
controversial, but that the paper itself is not, particularly - I imagine
people get published all the time with alternative source proposals.)
Yes, if the nitwits who put together "Pandas" could put together a paper
that made an actual contribution to scholarship/science (a highly dubious
proposition), I'd publish it.
Mousie
Philling Station wrote:
> Mousie wrote:
> > Art wrote:
> > > > The Strats needn't worry since
> > > > they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter.
> >
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > Has it been published?
> >
> >
> >
> > We're working on it, David.
> >
> > So far a major journal has politely declined to read our article,
>
> Lynne, is this your first rejection as a writer? If so, please don't
> take it to heart.
Actually, Neil, I have had very few rejections. But I've never been
rejected before my work has been read before.
>
> and
> > the organizers of a big conference who at first enthusiastically
> > invited us to speak are now apparently doing everything in their power
> > to disinvite us.
>
> Was this the allegedly non-authorship related paper on 15th and 16th
> century travel writing, or some Oxfordian "Of Pandas and People" thing?
It wasn't Pandas and people. I don't write well about animals.
>
> I suppose this is what one calls academic freedom--the
> > freedom of academics to refuse to let material that contradicts
> > cherished beliefs be heard or seen.
>
> I would think part of academic freedom is to protect academics from
> wasting their time with evidenceless conspiracy theories.
This had nothing to do with any conspiracy theory, unless there was a
previous conspiracy to keep the truth of the Strachey "letter" from the
public, which I don't happen to believe. I think it was just poor
scholarship and passing on the Strachey baton.
>If a Dr.
> Groves chooses to amuse himself reading posts by people who claim Old
> English is still spoken today, that's his choice. Why inflict that
> drivel on a roomful of conference-goers?
That is a shameful response, Neil. What has it to do with us? Our work
on The Tempest is carefully researched. In fact one of the adjudicators
has now said that both adjudicators admired our work but felt it should
be published in a specialised journal. And round and round it goes...
L.
Mousie
Thank you so much, Mark. I don't think the work can be bad. A prominent
traditional expert on The Tempest is impressed by it, and a rather big
scholarly publisher has decided to publish our edition of The Tempest,
which we'll start working on in a couple of months. The truth will out,
as it has been said. It's just depressing to meet with so many road
blocks because of who we are rather than what we've done. To be invited
to a conference only to be disinvited was a terribly harsh blow, as I
was immensely excited, and it was probably my only chance in this life
to visit the country concerned. But if you were to see the entire
correspondence, I believe you would understand that this "give and
take" had nothing to do with our work; it had to do with the mindsets
of the conference organizers, one of whom has steadfastly refused to
communicate with us since he first enthusiastically accepted our paper.
Regards,
Lynne
>
> >
> >
Mousie
> Mark Cipra wrote:
> > "seaker" <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote in message
> > news:1128649971.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Lynne - The writings the Oxfordians do might look like scholarship.
> > > You think it's scholarship.
> > > It ISN"T scholarship; it's fantasy.
> > >
> > > I think you and Roger should be invited to speak as an example of
> > > non-scholarship.
> > >
> >
> > seaker -
> >
> > I'm not qualified to judge whether or not the specific paper Lynne refers to
> > represents *good* scholarship and should be published, but from what she's
> > posted here on it, they have taken a scholarly approach - it is not fantasy.
> > It also has nothing directly to do with anti-Stratfordianism. They attempt
> > to show that the widely accepted source for the Tempest is unlikely to be
> > the actual source. Not coincidentally, this would strengthen (or
> > "un-weaken") the case for Oxford, but to the best of my knowledge they don't
> > even bring his name up in the paper.
> >
> > It would be very sad *if* their work is being rejected because of their
> > anti-Stratfordian connections rather than on the quality of the work.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Doesn't this statement that the presentation was "scholarly" imply then
> that their antiStrat writing is not up to the standard this
> non-"authorship" paper pretends to?
The organizers themselves said that our papers showed admirable
scholarship. They intimated that their audience was not intellectual
enough to understand them.
>And what examples of their work did
> the committee that is allegedly uninviting Strit-matter and Kos-itsky
> have to judge them?
They had two thirty minute papers, from which we were going to fashion
powerpoints. The papers are available to members of the Fellowship and
other interested persons to read, although we are still holding out
hope that a mainstream journal will be kind enough to publish them.
>Canadian young adult novels (of a high standard,
> but fiction nevertheless)
Good God, Neil, you didn't think I was going to send them the Rachel
books, did you?
>and a doctoral thesis that is controversial
> (to put it mildly).
Yes, it is. Are you suggesting that we were judged on my novels and
poetry and Roger's dissertation rather than the papers we sent in? In
any case, what you're not getting is that we were initially invited:
"It would be wonderful to
inlcude (sic) your presentation in our programme." There has now been a
long and pronounced drawing back, an obfuscation,
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Of course, it will all come to light eventually. I wonder if they read
HLAS.
>I can understand some groups being very squimish
> about inviting these two individuals to speak.
Squimish? Perhaps you mean Squamish? That they are native groups? And
again, they had already invited us to speak. They are now
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
>Would you invite the
> authors of "Of Pandas and People" to lecture on 19th century nature
> writing in the Galapagos Islands?
You are suggesting that the quality of our work doesn't matter? We
should never get a look in because Roger's dissertation is
controversial, at least among traditionalists, and I abandoned my PhD
in English to publish award-winning poetry and novels? I am beginning
to see where the adjudicators are coming from. Thank you for clarifying
matters for me.
Regards,
Lynne
David L. Webb
"Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[...]
> Hey, Neil:
>
> I don't know much about how papers are submitted, reviewed, and approved.
The procedure is pretty much what you've outlined below, with some
slight variations depending upon the discipline.
> I
> don't know if publications and meetings have minimum requirements for the
> writers,
They don't -- except for a very few.
Some professional society meetings require that presenters either be
members of the society or be introduced by members of the society; of
course, nonmembers present their work at such meetings all the time
(indeed, I have done so myself) because it is a trivial matter to find a
society member who will sponsor one's talk.
As for journals, almost all of them publish articles by people with
no advanced degrees or other credentials, provided the quality of the
work is adequate and the paper passes the usual scrutiny of peer review.
(By the same token, some very good papers by well-known researchers with
all the advanced degrees, credentials, and academic honors that one
could wish are *rejected* by professional journals. Editors' and
referees' opinions of what is significant and interesting vary, as the
editors and referees are human.) Some excellent scientific papers have
been published by undergraduates and amateurs. Of course, most papers
in the scientific and scholarly professional literature are by authors
with advanced degrees, but the reason is obvious: few amateurs possess
the requisite training to make worthwhile original research
contributions to fields that often require formidable technical
expertise; however, there are notable exceptions.
The situation is somewhat different with the e-print archive in
mathematics and physics, a relatively recent phenomenon that has altered
the dynamic of publication in those fields. The papers appearing there
are unrefereed *preprints* that will presumably be submitted in due
course for publication elsewhere, but are being circulated throughout
the professional world in advance. It is understood that the results
are provisional, as they have not been peer reviewed; indeed, some
useful peer review occurs by means of the site itself, as interested
readers find errors in the preprints and notify the authors, and it is
not uncommon for a paper to be substantially revised before publication
or withdrawn altogether as a result of reader feedback from the paper's
informal preliminary dissemination via the archive. (Indeed, prior to
the archive's existence, most researchers sent out paper copies of their
preprints to scores of potentially interested people at the author's own
expense (many still do), so the same mechanism was in action -- but it
operated less efficiently, as there was no suitable means of "mass
mailing" one's preprint to the entire world.) When the archive first
began, anyone could submit a preprint. My understanding is that now one
must be either an established submitter or one's submission must be
endorsed by an established submitter; this change was instituted in
order to avoid the plethora of crackpot submissions (trisections of the
angle, etc.) that began to proliferate as cranks got wind of the free
global forum that the archive afforded. Indeed, the hilarious
Altschuler preprint appeared there.
> but even so, doesn't Lynne's co-author have an appropriate degree
> and teach?
He does; but those circumstances will have little or no influence
upon the eventual publication of the paper in question. If the work
passes muster, it is simply a matter of finding the right venue. For
example, some journals would be reluctant to publish a paper that long
(indeed, my most recent paper was submitted to a journal that normally
does not accept any paper exceeding ten pages in length), but other
journals certainly do publish longer papers; one must simply choose
one's venue wisely. If the work is worthwhile, then getting it
published is simply a matter of finding the appropriate venue. This may
take time and patience, and one's work may be rejected several times
before it is accepted (sometimes before it is accepted by a very good
journal). Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter should not be discouraged by such
rejections, which are part and parcel of the process. In particular,
they *certainly* should not conclude that there is some orthodox
academic conspiracy dedicated to silencing alternative viewpoints. In
most academic fields, vigorous disputes are the rule rather than the
exception.
> I really don't think it should make any difference that one
> writer is not known as a scholar and the other ... not respected, shall we
> say. My inclination would be to read the abstract and the first few pages;
> if I liked that, I'd read more. If I thought the paper was worthy, I'd send
> it around for review, and then publish.
That is indeed what journal editors routinely do.
Mark Cipra
news:1128695759.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
That's a sad statement. Better luck with more reasonable editors.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Lynne
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
>
Mousie
David or anyone else, do you know of anything like this for papers in
English Literature?
Thank you, David. That is helpful. We will, of course, submit
elsewhere, and in addition we are speaking at a different mainstream
conference in the spring.
>In particular,
> they *certainly* should not conclude that there is some orthodox
> academic conspiracy dedicated to silencing alternative viewpoints. In
> most academic fields, vigorous disputes are the rule rather than the
> exception.
I do not conclude that. I am, however, pretty sure that the climate
changed with regard to this particular conference. That someone went
from an extravagant acceptance to absolute silence in a day, while
others have covered for him for the past THREE MONTHS as he has
continued to refuse to reply or forward our papers to adjudicators or
even communicate to us whether we are welcome to speak, is suspicious,
to say the least. And rather heart-breaking.
>
> > I really don't think it should make any difference that one
> > writer is not known as a scholar and the other ... not respected, shall we
> > say. My inclination would be to read the abstract and the first few pages;
> > if I liked that, I'd read more. If I thought the paper was worthy, I'd send
> > it around for review, and then publish.
>
> That is indeed what journal editors routinely do.
Yes. And of course, If no one will take our paper(s), we can of course
publish in an Oxfordian newsletter or journal. We have already received
offers. But I think that would be a terrible shame in this case,
although we will publish our updated response to Dr. Kathman's essay in
our own newsletter. We'll also have it up on the web soon.
Thanks for your input, all. Thanks particularly to you, David, and to
you, Mark, for your encouragement.
Regards,
Lynne
David L. Webb
"Mousie" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I don't, unfortunately, but I'm certainly not the person to ask about
mechanisms for preprint circulation in English literature. In fact, the
e-print archive is relatively new in even in high-energy physics (where
it originated) and in mathematics, which are relatively technology-savvy
fields, and it utilizes the server space and other resources of one of
the national laboratories. I suspect that the technology will soon
spread to other fields as well -- it probably just requires someone
willing to furnish server space and someone willing to administer it.
Not knowing which conference that was or what the procedure for the
acceptance of submissions was, I could not comment upon what happened in
that instance, much less upon its propriety. However, I would emphasize
that academia in general and the humanities in particular, _pace_ the
paranoia of Mr. Crowley and a few others who have evidently never been
near a major research university, is an unusually sympathetic venue for
innovative and controversial ideas, provided that those ideas are backed
by solid intellectual groundwork. Indeed, those outside the academy
(e.g., politicians and sometimes the press) have often criticized the
academy for being too *uncritical* of half-baked ideas.
> > > I really don't think it should make any difference that one
> > > writer is not known as a scholar and the other ... not respected, shall
> > > we
> > > say. My inclination would be to read the abstract and the first few
> > > pages;
> > > if I liked that, I'd read more. If I thought the paper was worthy, I'd
> > > send
> > > it around for review, and then publish.
> > That is indeed what journal editors routinely do.
> Yes. And of course, If no one will take our paper(s), we can of course
> publish in an Oxfordian newsletter or journal.
If I were you, Lynne, I would do so only as a last resort. Don't
forget that it is not at all uncommon for several years to elapse
between a paper's first submission and its eventual publication. (The
longest I know of offhand is eight years, but there were exceptional
circumstances in that case).
> We have already received
> offers. But I think that would be a terrible shame in this case,
If the paper is at all worth while, and I have no reason to doubt
that it is, then that would indeed be a shame. About most of the
anti-Stratfordian newsletters and journals that I have seen, the less
said, the better.
> although we will publish our updated response to Dr. Kathman's essay in
> our own newsletter. We'll also have it up on the web soon.
>
> Thanks for your input, all. Thanks particularly to you, David, and to
> you, Mark, for your encouragement.
Good luck, Lynne.
> Regards,
> Lynne
Peter Groves
I don't know of such a thing within the discipline -- the closest thing I
can think of is Hardy Cook's SHAKSPER site, where people can post
pre-publication versions of articles for general comment. Of course Hardy
as banished authorship discussion <per se> as generally productive of more
heat than light, but there's no reason why your work should be presented in
that light. You'd need to join first, but that's not a problem (_both_
Kennedys are members)..
Peter G.
Philling Station
Sorry, poor choice of example. My bad, as the young people say. I
thought it was an Oxfordian paper.
Mousie
ok. But might our posting on Shaksper affect later attempts to publish?
Regards,
Lynne
Philling Station
No, but I wondered what you'd published that indicated you had some
track record in academia.
> >and a doctoral thesis that is controversial
> > (to put it mildly).
>
> Yes, it is. Are you suggesting that we were judged on my novels and
> poetry and Roger's dissertation rather than the papers we sent in?
I wasn't aware of what you submitted.
In
> any case, what you're not getting is that we were initially invited:
> "It would be wonderful to
> inlcude (sic) your presentation in our programme." There has now been a
> long and pronounced drawing back, an obfuscation,
>
> Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
> Where ignorant armies clash by night.
>
> Of course, it will all come to light eventually. I wonder if they read
> HLAS.
Sorry, you are correct, I misread the postings.
> >I can understand some groups being very squimish
> > about inviting these two individuals to speak.
>
> Squimish?
Yes, I am guilty of an Innesism.
Perhaps you mean Squamish? That they are native groups? And
> again, they had already invited us to speak. They are now
>
> Retreating, to the breath
> Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
> And naked shingles of the world.
>
> >Would you invite the
> > authors of "Of Pandas and People" to lecture on 19th century nature
> > writing in the Galapagos Islands?
>
> You are suggesting that the quality of our work doesn't matter?
I think quality does matter. Won't you let me play devil's advocate for
once, Lynne?
We
> should never get a look in because Roger's dissertation is
> controversial, at least among traditionalists, and I abandoned my PhD
> in English to publish award-winning poetry and novels?
I am in awe of your ability to take what I post and run with it.
Mousie
Only book reviews for some academic journals long ago. I have never
pretended to be anything I'm not. I've been too taken up with my own
work in the past to be interested in academia.
If you must, but it doesn't suit you.
>
> We
> > should never get a look in because Roger's dissertation is
> > controversial, at least among traditionalists, and I abandoned my PhD
> > in English to publish award-winning poetry and novels?
>
> I am in awe of your ability to take what I post and run with it.
Thank you, Neil. In my defence, I have to admit that your posts are
extremely easy to run with.
Lynne
Peter Groves
> Thanks very much, Peter. Our papers don't mention Oxford so it may be
> ok. But might our posting on Shaksper affect later attempts to publish?
I don't see why (it's specifically for pr-publication comments). You can
check it out at:
http://www.shaksper.net/review-papers/index.html
Peter G.
.
Bianca Steele
> I don't see why (it's specifically for pr-publication comments).
My, this thread has become fascinating! But if I don't want to see
that, obviously I can simply ignore it.
marika
> I have never
> pretended to be anything I'm not.
sounds good
mk5000
"i've been to not only every board meeting since being elected, i've
been
to every attempted one as well... unfortunately the only other person i
can say the same about is colin mcgregor..."--kurt wismer
seaker
ok.
Do tell Lynne! I thought the whole purpose of your Tempest paper was to
discredit the William Strachey letter. Once you and Dr. Strittmatter (I
just love how Roger refers to himself in the third person on that
Oxford site) did this, you could hop, skip and jump to prove that The
Tempest was written long before Eddie de Vere died.
As for William Shakespeare's, of Stratford upon Avon, The Tempest, it
is full of pitfulls for actors, directors and designers. If Prospero
is a strong actor and the actors who play Alonso, Sebastian, Antonio,
and Gonzalo are weak, then the production turns into a one man show.
If the sound designer goes wild with the tempest, the lines in the
opening scene get lost in the noise. Without an actor who knows how to
use Shakespeare's language, Act I Scene 2 is dull. Ariel is a tricky
role since most actors have never played an airy spirit. It's
important to find variety in Caliban or the character will become one
long shout. Prospero controls much of the action, so the director and
actor need to find the character's conflict and find the place in the
script where Prospero decides to change.
In best production I 've seen, a woman played Prospero which brought
some interesting colors to the role. Doing the magic
wasn't easy for Prospero. In fact, at one point, Prospero almost
"killed" Ariel. The production was moving.
Chess One
>> Groves chooses to amuse himself reading posts by people who claim Old
>> English is still spoken today, that's his choice. Why inflict that
>> drivel on a roomful of conference-goers?
>
> That is a shameful response, Neil. What has it to do with us? Our work
> on The Tempest is carefully researched. In fact one of the adjudicators
> has now said that both adjudicators admired our work but felt it should
> be published in a specialised journal. And round and round it goes...
>
> L.
Lets not beat around the bush - since this thread has been ostensibly about
scholarship; OE in C19th series of commentaries is the same subject: nothing
to do with anyone's scholarship particularly, but pointedly about abusive
writing by people who display no scholarship at all. Instead they infer an
authority due only to themselves and their point of view.
I'm sure a conference room of people won't want to hear about the under-side
of 'research and expertise' as a subject of professional deformation, but
the subject of propaganda and authoritarianism is certainly of wider
interest to other disciplines, and of some importance in the world in the
last century and this - and certainly of greater contemporary impact than
the subject of this conference -- which is not to take a fling at the
conference, but the terms of reference evoked above for this conversation.
Goebells had a PhD!
I resent these people's pretence to a form of knowledge that is of such a
narrow vein as to make it specious, and which is couched in such terms as to
make it a form of credulousness, a belief rather than a knowing, and nothing
at all to do with 'scholarship'.
Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised.
This very subject is one of the core elements of the Author's Works!
Phil Innes
Philling Station
Chess One wrote:
> >>If a Dr.
> >> Groves chooses to amuse himself reading posts by people who claim Old
> >> English is still spoken today, that's his choice. Why inflict that
> >> drivel on a roomful of conference-goers?
> >
> > That is a shameful response, Neil. What has it to do with us? Our work
> > on The Tempest is carefully researched. In fact one of the adjudicators
> > has now said that both adjudicators admired our work but felt it should
> > be published in a specialised journal. And round and round it goes...
> >
> > L.
>
> Lets not beat around the bush - since this thread has been ostensibly about
> scholarship; OE in C19th series of commentaries is the same subject: nothing
> to do with anyone's scholarship particularly, but pointedly about abusive
> writing by people who display no scholarship at all.
Speaking about abusive people, Philth, would you finally answer the
question I've asked repeatedly of you: did you have Lynne Kositsky's
permission to repost some of her HLAS posts to the chess groups and
present them as evidence I was stalking her? A yes or no answer,
please, and not another off-topic rant in the British Language.
Peter Groves
Peter G.
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcN1f.691$RG1.333@trndny08...
Chess One
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> >>If a Dr.
>> >> Groves chooses to amuse himself reading posts by people who claim Old
>> >> English is still spoken today, that's his choice. Why inflict that
>> >> drivel on a roomful of conference-goers?
>> >
>> > That is a shameful response, Neil. What has it to do with us? Our work
>> > on The Tempest is carefully researched. In fact one of the adjudicators
>> > has now said that both adjudicators admired our work but felt it should
>> > be published in a specialised journal. And round and round it goes...
>> >
>> > L.
>>
>> Lets not beat around the bush - since this thread has been ostensibly
>> about
>> scholarship; OE in C19th series of commentaries is the same subject:
>> nothing
>> to do with anyone's scholarship particularly, but pointedly about abusive
>> writing by people who display no scholarship at all.
>
> Speaking about abusive people, Philth,
LOL - yes we are having a little demonstration of who here could possibly be
abusive, and its interesting that they all seem to come out of one mold -
puns apart
> would you finally answer the
> question I've asked repeatedly of you:
You may repeat it as much as you like, but you demonstrate the case by your
writing, more substantially than I need redeliver your words to you - the
ones you don't deny, but demand 'proofs' of.
> did you have Lynne Kositsky's
> permission to repost some of her HLAS posts to the chess groups and
> present them as evidence I was stalking her? A yes or no answer,
> please, and not another off-topic rant in the British Language.
You demand that a stalker's conditions should be acknowledged. I don't think
so! Neither does the other woman you insulted and who left the newsgroup. I
see that a number of male writers have left also - after a little unfriendly
wordplay on your part.
Try and write a few on-topic posts, here or in the chess groups, if you want
any repect - playing follow-the-leader gives up entirely too much
responsibility to someone, in this case to someone who can't handle it, and
besides, is not really a very healthy thing to do in most circumstances.
Phil Innes
Chess One
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ALO1f.10816$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Is there a British Language interpreter handy?
>
> Peter G.
What good would that do you?
"Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised."
Tell me Peter, in what language does the word British first appear? After
that try Old, then English, then go for "it" and "and" and "I" and "is"
Phil
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Philling Station wrote:
> Terry Ross wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, kenkap wrote:
> >
> > > seaker wrote:
> > >> Ken - Yes, I peek at the Fellowship site, but only to start the day or
> > >> end it with a laugh. Why should I join? I don't believe there is an
> > >> "authorship question," so if I joined Roger would kick me off. Why do
> > >> I post here? Let's just call it a summer/early fall fling.
> > >
> > > Join in. Not join. Yeah, you'd be kicked off if all you want to do is
> > > fart around. But there you could seriously engage KC, Lynne, Roger,
> > > Robert and others, some of whom have discredited positions you have
> > > sserted here. Or still have not provided evidence for. I'm finding you
> > > are the King of assertion with no backing.
> >
> > People who do not toe the Oxfordian line at the SF forum are asked to shut
> > up and asked to leave.
>
> Agreed.
As a Fellowship member, I feel I ought to somewhat defend it. The few
Fellowship people who participate in the authorship threads there tend,
most of them, to get annoyed with people like me and treat us somewhat
badly (as I do them) but my impression is that only Dr. Stritmatter
(and only when he's annoyed, which is only half the time) lays down
laws and makes it fairly clear that if you don't sign a loyalty oath,
and discuss the topics he thinks you ought to, he doesn't want you
around. Others, like Ken, keep telling me that if I don't reform, they
won't bother arguing with me, anymore, but they keep arguing with me,
anyway.
I think we've had some productive threads, but not of late. When I
have time, I'm going to debate one of them about the Anderson book.
--Bob G.
Philling Station
Strangly enough, Ms. Kositsky invited me to visit her in Baltimore, an
invitation that was mentioned on the newsgroup. I think that answers
the question conclusively. By asking, I just wanted to see if you were
man enough to admit that you were misrepresenting Ms. Kositsky's views
and were man enough to admit you were acting without her knowledge or
consent.
I don't think
> so! Neither does the other woman you insulted and who left the newsgroup.
Evidence? Does this woman have a name? You saw no objection to citing
Lynne's name and email address on the chess groups.
I
> see that a number of male writers have left also - after a little unfriendly
> wordplay on your part.
Examples?
Bianca Steele
Yes, I once began an interesting discussion on the free boards with
Robert Detobel, one which inspired me to do some additional reading and
research (and to conclude that he was wrong), but then Bassanio (whose
profile at first identified him as Dr. Stritmatter and later did not)
interjected and Herr Detobel seemed to lose interest in me. I also
agree that Bob G. does an admirable job of defending all at HLAS, even
though he's forced into it by the attitudes of the other SF members.
----
Bianca Steele
Mousie
name out of your arguments with each other?
Thanks,
LynnE
Mousie
> >Our papers don't mention Oxford so it may be
> >ok.
>
> Do tell Lynne! I thought the whole purpose of your Tempest paper was to
> discredit the William Strachey letter.
Actually not, Robert. I began idly reading, almost certain that the
Strachey "letter" presented a problem for Oxford's authorship, as I was
pretty sure Shakespeare was the author of _The Tempest_; however, once
I'd read the letter, I was astounded by all the problems I saw, and
went from there. It has been a very fascinating journey, posing all
sorts of interesting questions about sources, some of which are not
answered yet. And it has filled my time rather effectively, as I didn't
feel well enough to write a new novel.
>Once you and Dr. Strittmatter (I
> just love how Roger refers to himself in the third person on that
> Oxford site) did this, you could hop, skip and jump to prove that The
> Tempest was written long before Eddie de Vere died.
Thank you. I believe we just did that in Ashland to the satisfaction of
everyone present. As time passes, I will tell HLASers what we found out
about the play, which we now believe to be an occasional play written
to be performed on the cusp between Shrovetide and Lent.
>
> As for William Shakespeare's, of Stratford upon Avon, The Tempest, it
> is full of pitfulls for actors, directors and designers. If Prospero
> is a strong actor and the actors who play Alonso, Sebastian, Antonio,
> and Gonzalo are weak, then the production turns into a one man show.
I can quite see that. I do find some of the characters very two
dimensional in any case, more reminiscent perhaps of those in a
morality play.
> If the sound designer goes wild with the tempest, the lines in the
> opening scene get lost in the noise.
I have a video of a Stratford, Ontario performance in which not one
line in the first scene is decipherable.
>Without an actor who knows how to
> use Shakespeare's language, Act I Scene 2 is dull.
I have never liked Scene 2 in any case. It tends to drag on stage.
There is far too much to be explained to Miranda, imo, and then we
still need to be introduced to Ariel and Caliban--and Ferdinand. We
might discuss at some point why Scene 2 isn't broken up into smaller
discrete scenes.
>Ariel is a tricky
> role since most actors have never played an airy spirit. It's
> important to find variety in Caliban or the character will become one
> long shout. Prospero controls much of the action, so the director and
> actor need to find the character's conflict and find the place in the
> script where Prospero decides to change.
>
> In best production I 've seen, a woman played Prospero which brought
> some interesting colors to the role. Doing the magic
> wasn't easy for Prospero. In fact, at one point, Prospero almost
> "killed" Ariel. The production was moving.
Which production was that? Were all the actors women?
Regards,
Lynne
"Our revels now are ended."
Tom Reedy
> In the nicest possible way, fellas, may I ask you to please leave my
> name out of your arguments with each other?
>
> Thanks,
> LynnE
There's only one way to have that done, and you know what it is.
TR
Philling Station
Mousie wrote:
> In the nicest possible way, fellas, may I ask you to please leave my
> name out of your arguments with each other?
>
> Thanks,
> LynnE
Sure, I'll be glad to. But will the Brattleboro Bedlam do so?
Philling Station
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Mousie" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1128790918.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > In the nicest possible way, fellas, may I ask you to please leave my
> > name out of your arguments with each other?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > LynnE
>
> There's only one way to have that done, and you know what it is.
>
> TR
Care to enlighten the rest of us?
David L. Webb
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
> I'm sure a conference room of people won't want to hear about the under-side
> of 'research and expertise' as a subject of professional deformation [sic],
Is there a speaker of the British language who can translate?
> but
> the subject of propaganda and authoritarianism is certainly of wider
> interest to other disciplines, and of some importance in the world in the
> last century and this - and certainly of greater contemporary impact than
> the subject of this conference -- which is not to take a fling at the
> conference, but the terms of reference evoked above for this conversation.
> Goebells [sic]
Who?
> had a PhD!
>
> I resent these people's [sic] pretence to a form of knowledge that is of such a
> narrow vein as to make it specious, and which is couched in such terms as to
> make it a form of credulousness, a belief rather than a knowing, and nothing
> at all to do with 'scholarship'.
>
> Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
> allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised.
Is there a speaker of the British language who can translate?
Mark Cipra
I recall reading, long ago, the proposition that Tempest was originally
conceived as a much longer play, structurally similar to the other Romances,
with multiple locations, treachery, banishments, etc. Act V proved to be
enough material for an entire play, though, so Scene 2 provides all of that
talky exposition. I can't recall if the writer was making the case that it
was actually a revision (in which case, it might have been Dover Wilson) or
merely that Shakespeare realized in the early going that Act V was the best
part of the Romances anyway, so why not cut to the chase.
(I say all this realizing I am offereing another rabbit hole for the
Oxfordians to run down.)
Chess One
>> You demand that a stalker's conditions should be acknowledged.
>
> Strangly enough, Ms. Kositsky invited me to visit her in Baltimore, an
I do not remark on her choice - only what she wrote here before, which I did
not mis-represent on deny nor distort. This is her chice, and I like her,
she is good soul, and maybe you are too?
But in writing about histories we must not confound our current confederates
with the subject of what moved /them/. Neither should we, from a personality
basis either reject or subscribe to perspectives based on current affection
or the other thing - you catch the drift?
> invitation that was mentioned on the newsgroup. I think that answers
> the question conclusively. By asking, I just wanted to see if you were
> man enough to admit that you were misrepresenting Ms. Kositsky's views
Not at all Neil. I so did not misrepresent her, that I quoted her words
entire, and without my own comment, letting them stand for themselves.
> and were man enough to admit you were acting without her knowledge or
> consent.
She did make them public writing here. What the fuck are you meaning to say
about this situation, when she writes that you are making her ill, that you
seemed to betray a trust in being admitted to some group or other, then
acting up like a juvenile.
I do not not see any response of your own which owns any of this, instead
you complain! But you complain so much that you usually entirely avoid any
subject matter. On the other hand you have a critical mind, you do not like
bullshit, but you do not like me becauce I have attained some level of
confidence with people to whom you would also like to write [well, so you
think - it ain't all roses].
I don't know why you impose these restrictions upon yourself, and mostly
decline to speculate on persoanl reasons, except that there are also
collective reasons why someone such as yourself should behave like this,
within a group role, and these things are afforded less credit - though are
often of significant potency.
Should you wish to continue to represent yourself here as you would wish to
appear, I will pay no more attention to you - except as a group-being.
You know, it is interesting for me to observe that the people you mostly
write with or about have characters that you do not find avowable - yet you
continue to write with them or about them to an extraordinary extent. This
is also a perceived pattern of what is called the 'attraction of opposites',
and is something to consider.
> I don't think
>> so! Neither does the other woman you insulted and who left the newsgroup.
>
> Evidence? Does this woman have a name?
Yes, she has a name, and you know it. You write here Neil for the public,
but even though you address your comments to me, I do not pretend that you
don't know what I say. You can have the public stage if you want - but
beware you - they will use you for their purposes unless you know your own
mind well, very well, and to avoid the situation means admitting a certain
vulnerablity. Reply and keep this message, so that when it may be important
you can reflect on it.
> You saw no objection to citing
> Lynne's name and email address on the chess groups.
>
> I
>> see that a number of male writers have left also - after a little
>> unfriendly
>> wordplay on your part.
>
> Examples?
You know as well as I. I do not do your bidding, not give two hoots what
anyone thinks about public status or proving that any person is a shit.
Neither do the Greats Neil - they are heartily sick and tired of being
attended to, but will talk to any plain man who shows up. Beware those who
accept you on any other terms.
Behaviors are varied, but surface factors.
What is any soul that is any different than any other?
Phil
Philling Station
Chess One wrote:
> "Philling Station" <Spam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128785148.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> You demand that a stalker's conditions should be acknowledged.
> >
> > Strangly enough, Ms. Kositsky invited me to visit her in Baltimore, an
>
> I do not remark on her choice - only what she wrote here before, which I did
> not mis-represent on deny nor distort.
You cited it as evidence I was stalking her. Stalking is a criminal
act.
This is her chice, and I like her,
> she is good soul, and maybe you are too?
>
> But in writing about histories we must not confound our current confederates
> with the subject of what moved /them/. Neither should we, from a personality
> basis either reject or subscribe to perspectives based on current affection
> or the other thing - you catch the drift?
>
> > invitation that was mentioned on the newsgroup. I think that answers
> > the question conclusively. By asking, I just wanted to see if you were
> > man enough to admit that you were misrepresenting Ms. Kositsky's views
>
> Not at all Neil. I so did not misrepresent her, that I quoted her words
> entire, and without my own comment,
You cited it as evidence I was stalking her. Stalking is a criminal
act.
>letting them stand for themselves.
>
> > and were man enough to admit you were acting without her knowledge or
> > consent.
>
> She did make them public writing here.
You cited it as evidence I was stalking her, a claim she never made.
Stalking is a criminal act.
What the fuck are you meaning to say
> about this situation, when she writes that you are making her ill, that you
> seemed to betray a trust in being admitted to some group or other, then
> acting up like a juvenile.
I'd already addressed her statements a number of times, as the threads
in question will show.
> I do not not see any response of your own which owns any of this, instead
> you complain!
You cited it as evidence I was stalking her. Stalking is a criminal
act. It's understandable that I complain.
But you complain so much that you usually entirely avoid any
> subject matter. On the other hand you have a critical mind, you do not like
> bullshit, but you do not like me
Saying I do not like bullsh*t and do not like you are one and the same.
becauce (sic) I have attained some level of
> confidence with people to whom you would also like to write [well, so you
> think - it ain't all roses].
Your insanity knows no bounds. Why you think a chess historian would
pine to act as toady to ex-Soviet GMs is beyond comprehension.
> I don't know why you impose these restrictions upon yourself, and mostly
> decline to speculate on persoanl reasons, except that there are also
> collective reasons why someone such as yourself should behave like this,
> within a group role, and these things are afforded less credit - though are
> often of significant potency.
>
> Should you wish to continue to represent yourself here as you would wish to
> appear, I will pay no more attention to you - except as a group-being.
How fortunate to be ignored by "the sort of ignorant opinionated tosser
who
used to bore people in pubs before the Internet gave him a wider
forum."
> You know, it is interesting for me to observe that the people you mostly
> write with or about have characters that you do not find avowable - yet you
> continue to write with them or about them to an extraordinary extent. This
> is also a perceived pattern of what is called the 'attraction of opposites',
> and is something to consider.
>
> > I don't think
> >> so! Neither does the other woman you insulted and who left the newsgroup.
> >
> > Evidence? Does this woman have a name?
>
> Yes, she has a name, and you know it.
No, I don't. Please let us know.
You write here Neil for the public,
> but even though you address your comments to me, I do not pretend that you
> don't know what I say.
Most of the posters here don't read British, and so we often DON'T know
what you say.
You can have the public stage if you want - but
> beware you - they will use you for their purposes unless you know your own
> mind well, very well, and to avoid the situation means admitting a certain
> vulnerablity. Reply and keep this message, so that when it may be important
> you can reflect on it.
Where is that British Language Decoder Ring? Peter, you have it?
> > You saw no objection to citing
> > Lynne's name and email address on the chess groups.
> >
> > I
> >> see that a number of male writers have left also - after a little
> >> unfriendly
> >> wordplay on your part.
> >
> > Examples?
>
> You know as well as I.
No, I don't. Please let us know.
marika
seaker wrote:
> Our papers don't mention Oxford so it may be
> ok.
i see what you mean
she would let you know up front
>
> Do tell Lynne!
is it her fault.
>I thought the whole purpose of your Tempest paper was to
> discredit the William Strachey letter.
she is very practical and realistic. she is the type who would
never let a tax lien accumulate against her.
>Once you and Dr. Strittmatter (I
> just love how Roger refers to himself in the third person on that
> Oxford site) did this, you could hop, skip and jump to prove that The
> Tempest was written long before Eddie de Vere died.
i think she is to a certain extent an unwilling participant in order to
run research the way she would think best
>
> As for William Shakespeare's, of Stratford upon Avon, The Tempest, it
> is full of pitfulls for actors, directors and designers.
i also think that the on again off again thing is mostly Shakespeare's
fault
mk5000
"In Russia a poet is more than a poet." -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko
Elizabeth
> Actually not, Robert. I began idly reading, almost certain that the
> Strachey "letter" presented a problem for Oxford's authorship, as I was
> pretty sure Shakespeare was the author of _The Tempest_; however, once
> I'd read the letter, I was astounded by all the problems I saw, and
> went from there.
Hello. I hope you're well.
I'm still not sure whether you and Roger consider
the Strachey letter to be defective as a letter or if a
pamphlet, it would be acceptable evidence.
If it can be proven to be a draft for a Virginia Company
pamphlet would that create problems for your hypothesis
or would you reject the substance of both letter and
pamphlet?
Can you tell us if the Strachey letter is necessary to
your hypothesis or have you categorically rejected it?
There is evidence in the Strachey letter/pamphlet that
points to Bacon as its author. Since Bacon was notoriously
a pamphleteer (never ad hoc, always for patrons),in addition
to the identification of Bacon by Spedding and Brown, any
further evidence that points to Bacon as the author would
tend to confirm that the Strachey letter is a pamphlet.
I have put off posting on Purchas' evidence for months because
I fear Art's reaction. I'm already the stereotypically evil
Lucy Van Pelt with stereotypically bushy black eyebrows
(as if the Normans did not commit genocide). I'm not eager
to provoke Art lest he have a fit when Purchas connects
the KJV to Bacon (who else was the greatest English prose
stylist in 1610?)
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Mousie
Elizabeth wrote:
> Mousie wrote:
>
> > Actually not, Robert. I began idly reading, almost certain that the
> > Strachey "letter" presented a problem for Oxford's authorship, as I was
> > pretty sure Shakespeare was the author of _The Tempest_; however, once
> > I'd read the letter, I was astounded by all the problems I saw, and
> > went from there.
>
>
> Hello. I hope you're well.
Yes, thank you, Elizabeth, only a little travel tired. How are you?
>
>
> I'm still not sure whether you and Roger consider
> the Strachey letter to be defective as a letter or if a
> pamphlet, it would be acceptable evidence.
It is copied from a number of earlier sources to which Shakespeare
would have had access, as well as several later sources that prove it
couldn't have been sent to England July 15, 1610. There are also other
problems with it. It doesn't much matter what you call it, letter or
pamphlet or book. It wasn't a source. Whether The Tempest was a source
for Strachey is a matter for conjecture.
>
>
>
> If it can be proven to be a draft for a Virginia Company
> pamphlet would that create problems for your hypothesis
> or would you reject the substance of both letter and
> pamphlet?
Wouldn't make any difference. We can show that The Tempest was likely
written much earlier, certainly by 1604/1605, very possibly by 1602. We
can also show you another play that looks very much as if it copied the
premise for its subplot from Strachey--if you use Kathman's essay as a
yardstick--but was in fact performed and I believe published (would
have to check that) in 1605.
>
>
>
> Can you tell us if the Strachey letter is necessary to
> your hypothesis or have you categorically rejected it?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. We can show that
Shakespeare used much earlier sources from which Strachey copied,
sometimes verbatim. The Strachey letter is rejected by us as a source
for The Tempest.
>
>
>
> There is evidence in the Strachey letter/pamphlet that
> points to Bacon as its author. Since Bacon was notoriously
> a pamphleteer (never ad hoc, always for patrons),in addition
> to the identification of Bacon by Spedding and Brown, any
> further evidence that points to Bacon as the author would
> tend to confirm that the Strachey letter is a pamphlet.
The letter/pamphlet is, imo, definitely by Strachey. His MO is all over
it. He even uses the same sources he plagiarises from in History of
Travel.
>
>
>
> I have put off posting on Purchas' evidence for months because
> I fear Art's reaction.
Art is usually a pussycat. Of course, I, as a mouse, must be very
careful of him.
I'm already the stereotypically evil
> Lucy Van Pelt with stereotypically bushy black eyebrows
> (as if the Normans did not commit genocide). I'm not eager
> to provoke Art lest he have a fit when Purchas connects
> the KJV to Bacon (who else was the greatest English prose
> stylist in 1610?)
How did we get from True Repertory to the KJV?
Regards,
Lynne
>
>
>
>
> Cordially,
>
> Elizabeth
Mousie
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > If it can be proven to be a draft for a Virginia Company
> > pamphlet would that create problems for your hypothesis
> > or would you reject the substance of both letter and
> > pamphlet?
By the way, Elizabeth, if you're going to posit that True Repertory is
a pamphlet, what do you make of the "Noble Lady" salutations?
Regards,
Lynne
marika
Elizabeth wrote:>
>
> I'm already the stereotypically evil
> Lucy Van Pelt with stereotypically bushy black eyebrows
> (as if the Normans did not commit genocide).
That's a beautiful bit of imagery. I've been paying particular
attention to that facial feature in actors to see what degree of evil
they might represent.
I notice eyes, but I don't always notice the resemblance.
For instance,
One really good show where the evil eyes thing was used to great
effect: Carnivale.
And rain, they seemed to use rain a lot though I missed that ofttimes.
I don't know about the justin thing, just quoting someone else. Though
that same
person seemed to think this rain and Justin thing happened more than
once in various
episodes. The seed thing was mentioned several times too.
I don't know man, he didn't look like he was having an orgasm at all.
Hey it's rainin'. Weird sort of orgasm if you ask me.
I did notice one thing that keeps freakin me out. The eyes in the
masks. The mask keeps changing appearance.
Sometimes it looks like Jon Savage, sometimes like Justin, sometimes
like the kid
and sometimes like that intermediary devil, whatsis face the one
carting around the two smelly bodies in his car....
While I was writing this, I got a very unexpected email DING from
someone who I haven't heard from in maybe five years. His studio
burned to the ground. Fire man, what a weird peice fo synchronicity.
mk5000
"Oh wait and see my heart is bleeding
Still I should call it home
And teach my babies, my son and my daughter, to blow this place
And share it with no one, yeah"--leave me praying, dave matthews
Art Neuendorffer
> > I have put off posting on Purchas' evidence for months
> > because I fear Art's reaction.
Mousie wrote:
> Art is usually a pussycat. Of course,
> I, as a mouse, must be very careful of him.
====================================
Pussycat, Pussycat where have you been
I've been to London to visit the Queen
Pussycat, pussycat what did you there
I frightened a little MOUSE under her chair
This song involves the Tudor Queen Elizabeth. One of the nurses in
the castle had an old tomcat that liked to roam. She constantly had
to collect it from the throne room. The old tom's favourite spot
was to sit underneath the Queens throne. Once when the nurse went
to collect her cat, the Queen had just sat down in her chair. The
cats tail innocently brushed the Queen's foot. The Queen leapt up
in surprise. The Queen then declared that the cat should live
under the throne but only if he kept the throne room free of MICE.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alice...was always ready to talk about her pet: 'Dinah's our cat.
And she's such a capital one for catching mice you can't think!
And oh, I wish you could see her after the birds!
Why, she'll eat a little bird as soon as look at it!'
This speech caused a remarkable sensation among the party.
Some of the birds hurried off at once: one old *Magpie* began
wrapping itself up VERy carefully, remarking, 'I really must
be getting home; the NIGHT-air doesn't suit my throat!'
----------------------------------------------------------------
a cat named TRIXIE
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/unitedcats/henry.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/dreams/383/towercat.htm
<<The Tower of London has been a home for many prisoners during its
long history. A grim and foreboding place like this seems to be an
unlikely home for two cats to set up home. But during the Tudor and
Elizabethan eras, a cat gave loyal comfort to one of those unfortunates
incarcerated there. During the bitter struggle between the Yorkest and
Lancastrians in the War of the Roses, Sir Henry Wyatt was taken
prisoner by King Richard III, in 1483, and sent to the tower. This was
quite a difference in life for him, as he had once been the Governor of
the Tower, and now he had a rather different view on life in the tower.
Being a well known cat lover living in Allington Castle it was said of
him that he "ever used to make much of a cat". Stories say that while
in the Tower he was visited by a stray cat which made its way to his
cell through a chimney. The cat often used to leave the cell and come
back with pigeons which it gave to Wyatt. It is said these were cooked
for him by a friendly gaoler and made up for the meagre rations that
were fed to the prisoners. It was surmised that when he was first
incarcerated he would become succumb to illness & starvation, but the
gifts of food that the cat brought kept him alive until he was later
released. Later Sir Henry had a memorial built to his cat friend in a
church at Boxley in Kent. He also remembered him in a painting of him
in 1532. Several years later, in 1601, when the reign of Queen
Elizabeth was nearing its end, Henry Wriothesley, the third Earl of
Southampton, was incarcerated in the Tower of London for supporting The
Earl of Essex's rebellion. During his stay there he was joined by his
favourite cat, a black & white female called Trixie. The Earl being a
nobleman, had two houses, one country mansion in Gloucestershire and
another, Southampton House, in London. One story says the cat made its
own way across London from Southampton House, scaled the walls &
clambered across the roofs until it found the chimney of his cell and
climbed down to join the Earl. We know that the cat kept Wriothesley
company because many years later after the event, the tale was put into
writing by Thomas Pennant an antiquarian. The cat was also included in
a portrait commissioned by Wriothesley around 1603, & painted by John
de Critz the Elder. Trixie is shown as a black cat with white markings
to her face, a snowy white bib, and white forepaws, sitting by the
right arm of the Earl with a quizzical look upon her face. Trixie kept
her master company in the tower for about two years. The queen died in
1603 and was succeeded by James I who ordered his release.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
October 6, 1542 => "Wyatt resteth here, that quick could never rest"
October 6, 1573 => Henry Wriothesley (3rd Earl of Southampton) born
October 6, 1576 => Roger Manners (6th Earl of Rutland) born
October 6, 1621 => Registration of Othello
--------------------------------------------------------
a cat named ACATAR: To obey (Spanish, Portuguese)
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<SIR HENRY WYATT (1460-1537), the father of the poet, resisted
the pretensions of Richard III to the throne, and was in consequence
arrested & imprisoned in the Tower for two years. According to his
son's statement he was racked in Richard's presence and vinegar &
MUSTARD were forced down his throat. There is an old tradition
in the family that while in the Tower a cat [named ACATAR]
brought him a pigeon every day from a neighbouring dovecot and
thus saved him from starvation. The Earl of Romney, who is directly
descended in the female line from the Wyatts, possesses a curious
half-length portrait of Sir Henry seated in a prison cell with a cat
drawing towards him a pigeon through the grating of a window.
Lord Romney also possesses a second picture of 'The cat that
fed Sir Henry Wyatt,' besides a small bust portrait of Sir Henry. The
pictures, illustrating the tradition of the cat, represent Sir Henry
Wyatt
in advanced years, and were obviously painted on hearsay evidence
very long after the date of the alleged events they claim to depict.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
Art (always looking for pigeons) Neuendorffer
Chess One
so maybe you should consider whatever influence you have, because
stalking isn't an 'argument'.
Phil
"Mousie" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1128790918.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In the nicest possible way, fellas, may I ask you to please leave my
> name out of your arguments with each other?
>
> Thanks,
> LynnE
>
>
Chess One
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:David.L.Webb-
>> Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
>> allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised.
>
> Is there a speaker of the British language who can translate?
Its already translated into English, Jung being no great rattle. The real
question seems to be an ability to understand what is inconvenient or even
moderately complex. <--- club-Strat fact #17
Phil
The Britons spoke Chinese //David Webb?
Chess One
> act.
If you actually have a point, then make it.
Evidently this person does not wish to be mentioned again - and so I will
not.
But this does not relieve you from the facts of your actions - and if your
unwanted attentions made someone ill so that they retired temporarily from
the newsgroups, wouldn't that be stalking at all? An obsessive attention to
one person, combined with negative personal attributions?
It may be criminal, but what is that to you.
Phil Innes
David L. Webb
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:ALO1f.10816$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Is there a British Language interpreter handy?
> >
> > Peter G.
> What good would that do you?
>
> "Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
> allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised."
>
> Tell me Peter, in what language does the word British first appear? After
> that try Old, then English, then go for "it" and "and" and "I" and "is"
>
> Phil
Remarkable! After all Peter's patient tutorials in remedial
linguistics, Mr. Innes *continues* to confuse a language with its
lexicon!
> > "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:hcN1f.691$RG1.333@trndny08...
> >> >>If a Dr.
> >> >> Groves chooses to amuse himself reading posts by people who claim Old
> >> >> English is still spoken today, that's his choice. Why inflict that
> >> >> drivel on a roomful of conference-goers?
> >> >
> >> > That is a shameful response, Neil. What has it to do with us? Our work
> >> > on The Tempest is carefully researched. In fact one of the adjudicators
> >> > has now said that both adjudicators admired our work but felt it should
> >> > be published in a specialised journal. And round and round it goes...
> >> >
> >> > L.
> >>
> >> Lets not beat around the bush - since this thread has been ostensibly
> > about
> >> scholarship; OE in C19th series of commentaries is the same subject:
> > nothing
> >> to do with anyone's scholarship particularly, but pointedly about abusive
> >> writing by people who display no scholarship at all. Instead they infer
> >> an
> >> authority due only to themselves and their point of view.
> >>
> >> I'm sure a conference room of people won't want to hear about the
> > under-side
> >> of 'research and expertise' as a subject of professional
> >> deformation [sic], but
> >> the subject of propaganda and authoritarianism is certainly of wider
> >> interest to other disciplines, and of some importance in the world in the
> >> last century and this - and certainly of greater contemporary impact than
> >> the subject of this conference -- which is not to take a fling at the
> >> conference, but the terms of reference evoked above for this
> >> conversation.
> >> Goebells [sic] had a PhD!
Chess One
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> In article <H9Q1f.311$C62.89@trndny05>,
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:ALO1f.10816$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > Is there a British Language interpreter handy?
>> >
>> > Peter G.
>
>> What good would that do you?
>>
>> "Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
>> allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised."
>>
>> Tell me Peter, in what language does the word British first appear? After
>> that try Old, then English, then go for "it" and "and" and "I" and "is"
>>
>> Phil
>
> Remarkable! After all Peter's patient tutorials in remedial
> linguistics, Mr. Innes *continues* to confuse a language with its
> lexicon!
There is nothing remarkable about the subject, but what should be inferred
by it, and what should constitute 100+ abusive messages.
Phil Innes
John W. Kennedy
> In article <H9Q1f.311$C62.89@trndny05>,
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>news:ALO1f.10816$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Is there a British Language interpreter handy?
>>>
>>>Peter G.
>
>
>
>>What good would that do you?
>>
>>"Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
>>allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised."
>>
>>Tell me Peter, in what language does the word British first appear? After
>>that try Old, then English, then go for "it" and "and" and "I" and "is"
>>
>>Phil
>
>
> Remarkable! After all Peter's patient tutorials in remedial
> linguistics, Mr. Innes *continues* to confuse a language with its
> lexicon!
Actually, the word "British" is first attested in Greek, though it is
believed to be of Celtic origin.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Chess One
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:08i2f.9855$dl2....@fe08.lga...
> David L. Webb wrote:
>> In article <H9Q1f.311$C62.89@trndny05>,
>> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ALO1f.10816$U51....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>>Is there a British Language interpreter handy?
>>>>
>>>>Peter G.
>>
>>
>>>What good would that do you?
>>>
>>>"Almost all reactions are emotional ones; reactions to what has not been
>>>allowed to inform the writer, and so rejected and exteriorised."
>>>
>>>Tell me Peter, in what language does the word British first appear? After
>>>that try Old, then English, then go for "it" and "and" and "I" and "is"
>>>
>>>Phil
>>
>>
>> Remarkable! After all Peter's patient tutorials in remedial
>> linguistics, Mr. Innes *continues* to confuse a language with its
>> lexicon!
>
> Actually, the word "British" is first attested in Greek, though it is
> believed to be of Celtic origin.
Little reward in being right, since its almost unprovable if inferentially
indicated, but only as much as Brutus coming to Britain from Troy - what
difference did it make if this is an apochryphal reference?. But at least
they found Troy!
There are many inter-borrowings with other early languages, and inter-mythic
questions. I have been trying to establish when the Phoenicians setled in
the Hayle estuary, Cwll, which is probably not a late date, not later than
300 bce, and probaly tin and lead trading, though poss. also kaolin, and
though Dahphne du Maurier writes about it, and her family investigated these
subjects, she only recorded vagaries, and preferred to talk of her family's
lost searches for the "Baconian" manuscripts in a certain river. Her own
cited sources are famous, but unpublished now, and my guess is that they
will be equivocal.
Timing early exchanges is difficult, since BCE the damned Greeks never
mentioned Bognor Regis! nor Torquay! but only the Hesperidies! And the
Islands of Eternal Spring guarded by great giants in the second eden of
apple trees.
Mary Caine has some ideas. She is still alive, and I have a friend who
corresponds with her.
heuch! phil