Response to Reedy Kathman essay
Gary Kosinsky
to the Reedy/Kathman introduction below, along with some
comments of my own. I had to do some formatting, so I hope
it appears okay on readers' screens.
> In this post we go through Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy's introduction
> line by line:
>> William Shakespeare was born in April, 1564, the oldest son of John
>> Shakespeare.
> We accept this with the caveat that all the extant signatures of
> Shakespeare of Stratford are spelled with no E after the K. That is to
> say, they are spelled Shakspere or some variant. To view the
> signatures, go to
> [17]http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.html
Perhaps we should also point out that Elizabethan
spelling was not as precise as our own?
>> His father, a glover, trader, and landowner, married Mary Arden, the
>> daughter of an affluent landowner of Wilmcote. John Shakespeare was
>> ambitious, and he filled many municipal offices in Stratford including
>> that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children without
>> charge at the King's New School in Stratford.
> This is a key problem. Although John Shakespeare may have been allowed
> to educate his children without charge, there is no record that he did
> so.
In fairness, whenever an anti-Stratfordian makes
this argument, shouldn't they be at pains to point out that
*all* the records from this time for the school are no
longer available? It seems to me that if we had the records
and Shakespeare's name didn't appear therein, that would be
a much more damaging fact than is now the case. As the case
now stands, given the absence of all school records from the
time, we are left to infer whether *any* child of this time
attended the school.
>Although R and K dont actually say that William Shakespeare was
> educated at Kings New School, they imply that he was. Since it is
> clear that whoever wrote the works was the recipient of an excellent
> education, unless it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
> attended school, the impact of the Reedy and Kathman essay is
> significantly diminished.
Since it is clear that whoever wrote the works was
the recipient of an education (I'm not sure about
"excellent"), and if Reedy and Kathman can show, using other
evidence, that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, then
it's logical to assume that he went to the Kings New School.
> Reedy and Kathman also fail to acknowledge that Shakespeare of
> Stratford's parents, wife, and at least one daughter were illiterate.
> It is hard to imagine that the creator of Portia, Olivia, and Beatrice
> would fail to educate his own daughters.
Odd. I don't have any trouble whatsoever imagining
that.
>> He rose by election to the position of Alderman in 1565; and in 1568
>> he was elected Bailiff (equivalent to mayor), and in that year he made
>> an application to the Herald's office for a grant of arms. In his
>> position as Bailiff he was responsible for licensing companies of
>> actors who applied to play in the Guild Hall.
> And the point is?
I'm not sure, but perhaps that the young William
would have been exposed to the theatre and plays?
>> William Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway in November, 1582, and six
>> months later their daughter, Susanna, was born. Two other children
>> were born, the twins Hamnet and Judith, in February, 1585. Sometime
>> after this he joined a troupe of players and made his way to London.
> What is the evidence that he joined a troupe of players before going
> to London?
A good point. The date and circumstances under
which Shakespeare left Stratford are uncertain, and this
statement is probably too definite. (Personally, I also
think it's possible that Will left Stratford at a much
earlier age, but that's neither here nor there.)
>> As a member of London's leading theater company, the Lord
>> Chamberlain's Company, he wrote plays and eventually became a sharer
>> in the Globe theater.
> Where is the evidence that he wrote plays as a member of the Lord
> Chamberlains Company? And how could he have become a sharer in the
> Globe Theatre before it existed? It was built in 1598 out of wood from
> the dismantled Theatre. Therefore R and K cannot make the claim below
> that he was so successful as a playwright and sharer in the Globe that
> in 1596 he successfully renewed his fathers application for a coat of
> arms.
>> He was so successful that in 1596 he successfully renewed his father's
>> application for a grant of arms,
> Reedy and Kathman appear to be confused about chronology. See above
> point.
>> and the following year he bought and restored New Place, the
>> second-largest house in Stratford. He also bought other real estate in
>> Stratford and London. Shakespeare semi-retired from London life some
>> time around 1610.
> We request that R and K cite any evidence for his continued residence
> in London after 1604 when King James gave him red cloth in his
> capacity as a member of the Kings Men.
> What do R and K mean by semi-retired? Was he still acting? Was he
> still writing plays? Where is their evidence?
>> He died 23 April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
> It is interesting to note that Kathman and Reedy refer to his large
> estate, but fail to list the contents of the will, a document which
> mentions nothing of a literary or intellectual nature. See
> [18]http://www.bardweb.net/will.html
In fairness, there is another essay at the
Kathman/Ross website that deals with the will, is there not?
I don't think they can be expected to put the entire website
into one essay.
>> These, in bare outline, are the facts of Shakespeare's life.
> Kathman and Reedy seem only interested in the facts of the biography,
> but have little or no interest in discussing how the life of the
> author Shakespeare informs his literary works.
You seem to be assuming that the personal life of
the author has to inform his literary works.
>> Antistratfordians claim that this William Shakespeare of
>> Stratford-upon-Avon was not the author of the plays and poems that
>> bear his name, but actually the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship
>> is abundant and wide-ranging for the era in which he lived, much more
>> abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary
>> playwrights.
> Reedy and Kathmans claim that the evidence for Shakespeare of
> Stratfords authorship is abundant and wide-ranging and much more
> abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary
> playwrights has been thoroughly disproved by Diana Price in her recent
> book, Shakespeares Unorthodox Biography. See
> [19]http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/
You missed the lengthy debate that took place in
hlas concerning Diana Price's book. Suffice to say, not
everyone here was convinced that Reedy and Kathman's claim
was "thoroughly disproved by Diana Price".
> However, Reedy and Kathman persist in presenting material that has
> little or no bearing on the question of authorship as if it were
> relevant. We have already shown that points 1-4 of this essay merely
> establish that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an actor for the
> Lord Chamberlains men and sharer in the Globe Theatre, not that he was
> the author of the canon. Finally, much of the evidence contained in
> point 5 is derivative-of the First Folio, the name on the quarto title
> pages, and the Stratford Monument--or it is ambiguous. We will have
> more to say about this later.
>> This evidence falls into several different categories, all mutually
>> reinforcing. A strong, tight web of evidence shows that a real person
>> named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him;
> This statement ignores the lengthy and distinguished tradition of
> doubt,
But the essay was written in response to those
doubts!
> a tradition which includes names such as Henry Hallam, Hugh
> Trevor-Roper, Sigmund Freud, Sir George Greenwood, Abel Lefranc and
> Walt Whitman. These persons among many others did not agree with R and
> Ks evaluation of the evidence.
>> that a real person named William Shakespeare was an actor in the
>> company that produced the plays attributed to him;
> We have already made the point that William Shakespeare of Stratford
> was an actor in the company that produced the plays attributed to a
> William Shakespeare. In its present form Reedy and Kathmans statement
> represents a case of circular reasoning.
But if you concede the point that William
Shakespeare of Stratford was the actor in the company which
produced plays by someone named 'William Shakespeare', what
are you saying? That there was a second person attached to
the troupe named William Shakespeare?
>> that the actor was the same William Shakespeare of
>> Stratford-upon-Avon; that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon
>> was part-owner of the Globe Theater, where his acting company produced
>> the plays attributed to him;
> See previous point.
>> and that those who knew the writer of the plays and poems knew that he
>> was William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
>> It's true that no one single document states categorically that
>> William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear,
>> but then no such document exists for any other playwright of the time
>> either.
> There is no tradition of doubt regarding the attribution of the works
> of Ben Jonson. Jonsons presence as a playwright and poet is attested
> to by a voluminous body of evidence including letters and manuscripts
> in his own hand, books from his library, several authenticated
> portraits, records of his table talk, and occasional poems on topical
> subjects. None of these items survive for William Shakespeare of
> Stratford, even though New Place remained in the possession of his
> heirs for many years. What is the explanation for this? As Ben Jonson
> was middle class, the discrepancy cannot be explained by recourse to
> an argument claiming a class bias regarding the preservation of
> ephemeral documents, etc.
>> The evidence is cumulative and interconnected, and taken as a whole it
>> leaves no doubt that a single man was actor, author, and Stratford
>> property owner.
> As we have already pointed out, Reedy and Kathman speak only for
> themselves and other traditionalists when making this claim. Many
> scholars over the years have sensed a profound discrepancy between the
> life of Shakespeare of Stratford as documented in evidence such as
> that presented in R and Ks essay, and the literary work of William
> Shakespeare. One recent and authoritative expression of this
> discontent occurs in the second (1991) edition of Samuel Schoenbaums
> Shakespeares Lives: Perhaps we should despair of ever bridging the
> vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the
> mundane inconsequence of the documentary evidence.
>> In this essay we summarize this evidence in order to illustrate the
>> speciousness of antistratfordian claims that there is some "mystery"
>> about the authorship of Shakespeare's works.
> We will respond point by point.
> Roger Stritmatter
> Lynne Kositsky
FWIW, Lynne, IMO the only real point you scored in
this response is the one about when and how Shakespeare left
Stratford. As I mentioned, I think Reedy and Kathman
perhaps were too definite in their suggestion.
I suspect others may have more detailed criticisms
of your response, but we shall see.
I'll keep an eye out for your further responses.
- Gary Kosinsky
Bob Grumman
> FWIW, Lynne, IMO the only real point you scored in
>this response is the one about when and how Shakespeare left
>Stratford. As I mentioned, I think Reedy and Kathman
>perhaps were too definite in their suggestion.
This point was made long ago at HLAS and I, too, agree with it. Tom argued that
saying "A happened and B happened" doesn't necessarily imply that B followed A.
That's technically true, I guess, but I don't know why he or Dave didn't rewrite
the passage to show that Shakespeare eventually moved to London and, before or
after that, joined an acting troupe.
> I suspect others may have more detailed criticisms
>of your response, but we shall see.
They've only "critiqued" an opening statement that tells what our duo is going
to argue, not their argument. There's little point in responding to it, though
you did a good job, Gary. I don't know why the challengers didn't try to show
that our duo's strategy was methodologically flawed in some way, if they thought
it worth critiquing.
--Bob G.
LynnE
I hope people will take this into consideration. We will publish the final
response in the State of the Debate section in the Fellowship's Virtual
Classroom. I'll let you know when it's available.
Best wishes,
Lynne.
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:3ff73acb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Christine Cooper
> Lynne: I hope you don't mind, but I've copied your response
> to the Reedy/Kathman introduction below, along with some
> comments of my own. I had to do some formatting, so I hope
> it appears okay on readers' screens.
>
>
> > In this post we go through Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy's introduction
> > line by line:
>
+++ <Snip>
>
> >> His father, a glover, trader, and landowner, married Mary Arden, the
> >> daughter of an affluent landowner of Wilmcote. John Shakespeare was
> >> ambitious, and he filled many municipal offices in Stratford including
> >> that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children without
> >> charge at the King's New School in Stratford.
>
Why do the proponents of Shakespeare as "Shakespeare" DO this?
1561: John Sakespeare was elected Chamberlain.
1564-1565: Alderman William Bolt was accused of libelling the bailiff
and the Corporation by saying there wasn't an honest man
among them. The Corp promptly expelled him and put
John Shakespeare in his place as alderman. While not drawing
inferences on Mr. S.' "honesty" in this context, it does
indicate a lapse in his period of community service.
1566-1567 Mr. S. refused to serve when "elected." Robert Perrot was
elected to the position with 16 of 19 votes, but refused
to serve. Mr. S. received 3 votes. Ralph Cawdry got "0"
votes, and ended up with the office.
1567-1568 The Corporation had experienced so much difficulty
getting people to serve, that it passed a law
imposing fines against those elected who refused to serve.
1571-1572 Mr. S. was elected chief alderman and Adrian Quiney
was bailiff.
1575-1576 Richard Hill was high bailiff
1576-1577 Mr. S. has stopped attending council meetings
1577-1578 Mr. S.' financial difficulties are such that he has
started mortgaging his wife's inheritance.
"Election" to public office at all times pertinent wasn't
"voluntary" and according to history, and was avoided when possible.
None of this information speaks to anything like "ambition"
on the part of Mr. John Shakespeare. If the good citizens of
Stratford-Upon-Avon are fine with the facts,
all of which quoted are derived from their own website,
www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm
why do Reedy & Kathman feel that it's necessary to re-interpret?
You undermine your own credibility. What's the point in that?
> > This is a key problem. Although John Shakespeare may have been allowed
> > to educate his children without charge, there is no record that he did
> > so.
>
> >Although R and K dont actually say that William Shakespeare was
> > educated at Kings New School, they imply that he was. Since it is
> > clear that whoever wrote the works was the recipient of an excellent
> > education, unless it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
> > attended school, the impact of the Reedy and Kathman essay is
> > significantly diminished.
>
> Since it is clear that whoever wrote the works was
> the recipient of an education (I'm not sure about
> "excellent"), and if Reedy and Kathman can show, using other
> evidence, that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, then
> it's logical to assume that he went to the Kings New School.
>
WHATEVER:
1) It's clear from the record that by the time young Will was 13 or 14,
John Shakespeare's financial situation is so acute,
that Will is probably too busy learning to tan hides and butcher cows
to pursue any kind of "higher learning."
2) I've already conceded elsewhere on this site that Will had enough
"book-larnin" to orate a part and to be acceptable in the company
of Mr. Burbage and friends, at least by 1595,
when he appears on the rolls as an actor.
Given his father's financial situation by 1578, when Will is 13-14,
and Will's status and husband and father by 1582, at 18,
it's fairly certain he wasn't involved in any
formal classical studies. I will not rule out "informal,"
but don't state pure conjecture as "facts."
> >> <Snip>
and in 1568 <snip>
he made
> >> an application to the Herald's office for a grant of arms. In his
> >> position as Bailiff he was responsible for licensing companies of
> >> actors who applied to play in the Guild Hall.
>
> > And the point is?
>
> I'm not sure, but perhaps that the young William
> would have been exposed to the theatre and plays?
>
> >> William Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway in November, 1582, and six
> >> months later their daughter, Susanna, was born. Two other children
> >> were born, the twins Hamnet and Judith, in February, 1585. Sometime
> >> after this he joined a troupe of players and made his way to London.
>
> > What is the evidence that he joined a troupe of players before going
> > to London?
>
> A good point. The date and circumstances under
> which Shakespeare left Stratford are uncertain, and this
> statement is probably too definite. (Personally, I also
> think it's possible that Will left Stratford at a much
> earlier age, but that's neither here nor there.)
>
Whatever. Somehow, he made it to London and ended up as an
actor in the Chamberlain's men.
> >> As a member of London's leading theater company, the Lord
> >> Chamberlain's Company, he wrote plays and eventually became a sharer
> >> in the Globe theater.
>
> > Where is the evidence that he wrote plays as a member of the Lord
> > Chamberlains Company? And how could he have become a sharer in the
> > Globe Theatre before it existed? It was built in 1598 out of wood from
> > the dismantled Theatre. Therefore R and K cannot make the claim below
> > that he was so successful as a playwright and sharer in the Globe that
> > in 1596 he successfully renewed his fathers application for a coat of
> > arms.
>
> >> He was so successful that in 1596 he successfully renewed his father's
> >> application for a grant of arms,
>
> > Reedy and Kathman appear to be confused about chronology. See above
> > point.
>
> >> and the following year he bought and restored New Place, the
> >> second-largest house in Stratford. He also bought other real estate in
> >> Stratford and London. Shakespeare semi-retired from London life some
> >> time around 1610.
>
Who says he "restored" it? In what manner and to what extent?
> > We request that R and K cite any evidence for his continued residence
> > in London after 1604 when King James gave him red cloth in his
> > capacity as a member of the Kings Men.
>
Reedy and Kathman are constructing argument out of whole cloth.
Bad idea.
> > What do R and K mean by semi-retired? Was he still acting? Was he
> > still writing plays? Where is their evidence?
>
> >> He died 23 April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
>
<Sigh> Ned Alleyn made a lot of money and retired
with a "large estate."
According to the record,
William Shakespeare bought an old house for 60 pounds,
107 acres of arable land, and a cottage.
When he lived in London, he rented rooms (this would be from
roughly 1595 to sometime before 1616? By the time of his death
he had disposed of his 1/12 interest in the Globe, and
his interest in Blackfriars, because they're not mentioned in his will.
During the years he spent in London,
there are several entries in the public record that he owed money
which was not paid when due, so all was not hunky dory,
the whole time. This does not mean he didn't write the Work,
but the assertions of grand success distract and undermine.
If you'll lie or mislead about one thing, then...?
> > It is interesting to note that Kathman and Reedy refer to his large
> > estate, but fail to list the contents of the will, a document which
> > mentions nothing of a literary or intellectual nature. See
> > [18]http://www.bardweb.net/will.html
>
> In fairness, there is another essay at the
> Kathman/Ross website that deals with the will, is there not?
> I don't think they can be expected to put the entire website
> into one essay.
>
> >> These, in bare outline, are the facts of Shakespeare's life.
>
> > Kathman and Reedy seem only interested in the facts of the biography,
> > but have little or no interest in discussing how the life of the
> > author Shakespeare informs his literary works.
>
> You seem to be assuming that the personal life of
> the author has to inform his literary works.
Well, Duh! How is that an assumption?
What author's life does not inform his/her work?
>
> >> Antistratfordians claim that this William Shakespeare of
> >> Stratford-upon-Avon was not the author of the plays and poems that
> >> bear his name, but actually the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship
> >> is abundant and wide-ranging for the era in which he lived, much more
> >> abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary
> >> playwrights.
>
The idea that it's "much more abundant than the comparable evidence
is what's commonly called a "smoke-screen." Come on guys,
you can do better than that.
> > Reedy and Kathmans claim that the evidence for Shakespeare of
> > Stratfords authorship is abundant and wide-ranging and much more
> > abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary
> > playwrights has been thoroughly disproved by Diana Price in her recent
> > book, Shakespeares Unorthodox Biography. See
> > [19]http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/
>
> You missed the lengthy debate that took place in
> hlas concerning Diana Price's book. Suffice to say, not
> everyone here was convinced that Reedy and Kathman's claim
> was "thoroughly disproved by Diana Price".
>
> > However, Reedy and Kathman persist in presenting material that has
> > little or no bearing on the question of authorship as if it were
> > relevant. We have already shown that points 1-4 of this essay merely
> > establish that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an actor for the
> > Lord Chamberlains men and sharer in the Globe Theatre, not that he was
> > the author of the canon. Finally, much of the evidence contained in
> > point 5 is derivative-of the First Folio, the name on the quarto title
> > pages, and the Stratford Monument--or it is ambiguous. We will have
> > more to say about this later.
>
> >> This evidence falls into several different categories, all mutually
> >> reinforcing. A strong, tight web of evidence shows that a real person
> >> named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him;
>
Well, then stick to the "strong, tight web," and stop undermining
your own argument by assuming the average reader is stupid enough
to ignore the gaps in your chain of logic just because you do.
Somewhere around here I read that the argument is intended to be
aimed at the interested but uniformed reader of normal intelligence.
Well, that would be me, and I'm sceptical.
If you deliberately distort facts that are easily verifiable,
you undermine your own credibility by implying that you think
the average reader is gullible. That's lousy strategy.
If you were sure of your ground, you wouldn't need obfuscation.
Yrs, Christine:
KQKnave
kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) writes:
>Why do the proponents of Shakespeare as "Shakespeare" DO this?
>
>1561: John Sakespeare was elected Chamberlain.
>
>1564-1565: Alderman William Bolt was accused of libelling the bailiff
> and the Corporation by saying there wasn't an honest man
> among them. The Corp promptly expelled him and put
> John Shakespeare in his place as alderman. While not drawing
> inferences on Mr. S.' "honesty" in this context, it does
> indicate a lapse in his period of community service.
Why do conspiracy crackpots always DO this??
This is what that website (www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm)
actually says:
"William Bott, who last year did his best to deprive William
Clopton of his inheritance, at the same time managed to get
himself appointed as an alderman without any previous service
on the Council. We suspected then that he had friends in high
places, but nothing could be proved. However, less than 12
months later the Corporation have managed to get rid of him.
In May he was accused of libelling the Bailiff and Corporation,
saying there was not an honest man amongst them; and, as
he did not appear to defend himself, he was expelled from the
Council. Nobody will regret his going. His place will be taken
by a much more reliable man, John Shakespeare."
Keep in mind that the portions of the above quote which express
an opinion (for example, "we suspect that he had friends in high
places") are the interpretation of the person who wrote them
(Richard Bearman) not historical facts.
>1566-1567 Mr. S. refused to serve when "elected." Robert Perrot was
> elected to the position with 16 of 19 votes, but refused
> to serve. Mr. S. received 3 votes. Ralph Cawdry got "0"
> votes, and ended up with the office.
>
>1567-1568 The Corporation had experienced so much difficulty
> getting people to serve, that it passed a law
> imposing fines against those elected who refused to serve.
But not before persuading John Shakespeare to serve.
>1571-1572 Mr. S. was elected chief alderman and Adrian Quiney
> was bailiff.
>
>1575-1576 Richard Hill was high bailiff
>
>1576-1577 Mr. S. has stopped attending council meetings
And the website says that he applied for coat of arms just
as his financial troubles were beginning.
>1577-1578 Mr. S.' financial difficulties are such that he has
> started mortgaging his wife's inheritance.
>"Election" to public office at all times pertinent wasn't
>"voluntary" and according to history, and was avoided when possible.
No, it was avoided *sometimes* if the person involved didn't not
want the office. John Shakespeare refused *once*, then took the
office of bailiff and later alderman, for many years.
>None of this information speaks to anything like "ambition"
>on the part of Mr. John Shakespeare.
You seem to be confused. John Shakespeare served willingly
for many years, then applied for a coat of arms. That sounds
like "ambition" to me. Just because he refused an office *once*
doesn't mean that he didn't have ambition. More likely he just
has his plate full at the time.
>If the good citizens of
>Stratford-Upon-Avon are fine with the facts,
>all of which quoted are derived from their own website,
>www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm
>why do Reedy & Kathman feel that it's necessary to re-interpret?
>You undermine your own credibility. What's the point in that?
They haven't misinterpreted anything, you have. And the page of
the website that you are paraphrasing from is not a product of
"the good citizens of Stratford-Upon-Avon", rather is is Richard
Bearman's interpretation of the historical record.
>> > This is a key problem. Although John Shakespeare may have been allowed
>> > to educate his children without charge, there is no record that he did
>> > so.
>>
>> >Although R and K dont actually say that William Shakespeare was
>> > educated at Kings New School, they imply that he was. Since it is
>> > clear that whoever wrote the works was the recipient of an excellent
>> > education, unless it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
>> > attended school, the impact of the Reedy and Kathman essay is
>> > significantly diminished.
>>
>> Since it is clear that whoever wrote the works was
>> the recipient of an education (I'm not sure about
>> "excellent"), and if Reedy and Kathman can show, using other
>> evidence, that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, then
>> it's logical to assume that he went to the Kings New School.
>>
>
>WHATEVER:
>
>1) It's clear from the record that by the time young Will was 13 or 14,
> John Shakespeare's financial situation is so acute,
> that Will is probably too busy learning to tan hides and butcher cows
> to pursue any kind of "higher learning."
How do you know this? The family mortgaged some of their lands
for 40 pounds in 1578, so what did they use this money for? The
land never reverted to them, so they must not have paid it back,
so they must have used it for something. They did not have to
pay for the schooling itself (except indirectly through taxes).
>2) I've already conceded elsewhere on this site that Will had enough
> "book-larnin" to orate a part and to be acceptable in the company
> of Mr. Burbage and friends, at least by 1595,
> when he appears on the rolls as an actor.
>
> Given his father's financial situation by 1578, when Will is 13-14,
> and Will's status and husband and father by 1582, at 18,
> it's fairly certain he wasn't involved in any
> formal classical studies. I will not rule out "informal,"
> but don't state pure conjecture as "facts."
Nonsense. It's "fairly certain" that Shakespeare's family
had the requisite social standing to attend the school. Since
they attended school beginning at the age of 4 or 5, beginning
with the petty school and moving on after two years to the grammar
school (Schoenbaum, CDL, p63-64), Shakespeare could easily have
had up to ten years (1571-1581) of grammar school education,
(including education in the classics) if indeed it lasted that long anyway.
Someone else probably knows what the average age that students
went to university, I think it was a couple of years younger than
today, so 8 years was probably enough to get everything that
could be gained from the grammar school.
[snip]
>> >> He died 23 April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
>>
>
> <Sigh> Ned Alleyn made a lot of money and retired
> with a "large estate."
>
> According to the record,
> William Shakespeare bought an old house for 60 pounds,
This is wrong, he paid 320 pounds for the 107 acres of land
no house, in 1602.
> 107 acres of arable land, and a cottage.
> When he lived in London, he rented rooms (this would be from
> roughly 1595 to sometime before 1616? By the time of his death
> he had disposed of his 1/12 interest in the Globe, and
> his interest in Blackfriars, because they're not mentioned in his
>will.
> During the years he spent in London,
> there are several entries in the public record that he owed money
> which was not paid when due, so all was not hunky dory,
> the whole time. This does not mean he didn't write the Work,
> but the assertions of grand success distract and undermine.
> If you'll lie or mislead about one thing, then...?
It is *you* who are misleading. The amounts that Shakespeare owed
were trivial, on the order of shillings, not pounds. He purchased, in addition
to the land described above, a half-interest in a lease of the tithes
of Stratford and neighboring towns in 1605, including the tithes of Stratford
parish, for 440 pounds. I would say that if Shakespeare could spend
760 pounds in 3 years that he was quite wealthy indeed.
[snip]
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Tom Reedy
> to the Reedy/Kathman introduction below, along with some
> comments of my own. I had to do some formatting, so I hope
> it appears okay on readers' screens.
>
>
> > However, Reedy and Kathman persist in presenting material that has
> > little or no bearing on the question of authorship as if it were
> > relevant. We have already shown that points 1-4 of this essay merely
> > establish that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an actor for the
> > Lord Chamberlains men and sharer in the Globe Theatre, not that he was
> > the author of the canon. Finally, much of the evidence contained in
> > point 5 is derivative-of the First Folio, the name on the quarto title
> > pages, and the Stratford Monument--or it is ambiguous. We will have
> > more to say about this later.
<snip>
This is a revealing complaint. Not only does it indicate that Lynne and
Stritmatter don't understand the interconnected logic of the essay, it
illustrates one of the basic flaws in the reasoning ability of most
antiStratfordians: they don't understand contextual weight. In fact, their
arguments rely on taking items out of context, and they seem baffled when
others include it, as in the above complaint. They honestly don't understand
context, which is one of the reasons why I doubt they can be converted from
their error. That's why you'll meet very few antiStratfordians who have read
any Elizabethan literature beyond Shakespeare and whatever "candidate"
they're flogging at the moment.
TR
LynnE
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v6SJb.36475$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think you'll find I've read quite a lot of Elizabethan and other
literature (as well as modern criticism), Tom, but not nearly as much as
Roger, who could read anyone under the table (except perhaps Terry) in that
regard any day. It is a pity that you feel you have to resort to this kind
of mudslinging, rather than responding to the material that we post with
counter argument, as we are doing in your case and David's.
We are making this response because I was asked to do so by Gary, a
traditionalist, and not because we had any particular axe to grind with
regard to your essay. We are trying to be very fair, and have conceded
points as well as saying that we have an open mind about some of your
statements. But we will attempt to show in a variety of ways that your
assertion that "contextual weight" is all important is misguided. When we
post our full response, which we're working on now, we'll be happy to have
you critique it. We expect that. It's how people grow and improve
intellectually. And surely that's what scholarly debate is all about.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> TR
>
>
Christine Cooper
Which is why I kept the "interpretation" out of the facts as I stated them.
>
> >1566-1567 Mr. S. refused to serve when "elected." Robert Perrot was
> > elected to the position with 16 of 19 votes, but refused
> > to serve. Mr. S. received 3 votes. Ralph Cawdry got "0"
> > votes, and ended up with the office.
> >
> >1567-1568 The Corporation had experienced so much difficulty
> > getting people to serve, that it passed a law
> > imposing fines against those elected who refused to serve.
>
> But not before persuading John Shakespeare to serve.
>
"Persuading" John Shakespeare to take on a job nobody else
appeared to want is contra-indicative of political ambitions.
And if he only got 3 out of 19 votes, he wasn't THAT popular.
> >1571-1572 Mr. S. was elected chief alderman and Adrian Quiney
> > was bailiff.
> >
> >1575-1576 Richard Hill was high bailiff
> >
> >1576-1577 Mr. S. has stopped attending council meetings
>
> And the website says that he applied for coat of arms just
> as his financial troubles were beginning.
And that says what about John Shakespeare?
>
> >1577-1578 Mr. S.' financial difficulties are such that he has
> > started mortgaging his wife's inheritance.
>
"Election" to public office at all times pertinent wasn't "voluntary,"
and according to history, and was avoided when possible. The facts
speak as easily to interpretation of holding office as "civic duty,"
(avoided when possible) than political ambition. I.e, if
John Shakespeare excepted the office and showed up for meetings,
then he should get a pat on the back for taking on the drudgery,
but how does that speak to political ambition? They're running a town,
guys, not sending somebody to Parliament, here.
>
> No, it was avoided *sometimes* if the person involved didn't not
> want the office. John Shakespeare refused *once*, then took the
> office of bailiff and later alderman, for many years.
Well, it's not difficult to campaign for election to an office
that more popular candidates are unwilling to fill, is it?
>
> >None of this information speaks to anything like "ambition"
> >on the part of Mr. John Shakespeare.
>
> You seem to be confused. John Shakespeare served willingly
> for many years, then applied for a coat of arms. That sounds
> like "ambition" to me. Just because he refused an office *once*
> doesn't mean that he didn't have ambition. More likely he just
> has his plate full at the time.
>
Where do you find the authority tha allows you to imply
that John Shakespeare's particular service was "willing,"
where the historical record states
that service was so commonly "unwilling," that the town
had to pass a law to coerce service?
The application for a coat of arms indicates John
had Social Ambitions, at least, but then again,
maybe he was henpecked into it(?) Either way,
the application was denied at the time (yes?).
> >If the good citizens of
> >Stratford-Upon-Avon are fine with the facts,
> >all of which quoted are derived from their own website,
> >www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm
> >why do Reedy & Kathman feel that it's necessary to re-interpret?
> >You undermine your own credibility. What's the point in that?
>
> They haven't misinterpreted anything, you have. And the page of
> the website that you are paraphrasing from is not a product of
> "the good citizens of Stratford-Upon-Avon", rather is is Richard
> Bearman's interpretation of the historical record.
They approved of its content sufficiently to adopt it.
John Shakespeare's political ambitions, if any,
are peripheral to the issue of William Shakespeare's early life.
Why would you need to imply ambition where none is indicated?
Why put the word "ambition" in at all, when "persuasion"
is just as, if not more, indicative of "arm twisting?"
It's distracting. Leave the "ambition" issue out out of the essay.
Just say he served and leave it at that.
>
> >> > This is a key problem. Although John Shakespeare may have been allowed
> >> > to educate his children without charge, there is no record that he did
> >> > so.
>
> >> >Although R and K dont actually say that William Shakespeare was
> >> > educated at Kings New School, they imply that he was. Since it is
> >> > clear that whoever wrote the works was the recipient of an excellent
> >> > education, unless it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
> >> > attended school, the impact of the Reedy and Kathman essay is
> >> > significantly diminished.
> >>
> >> Since it is clear that whoever wrote the works was
> >> the recipient of an education (I'm not sure about
> >> "excellent"), and if Reedy and Kathman can show, using other
> >> evidence, that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, then
> >> it's logical to assume that he went to the Kings New School.
> >>
> >
> >WHATEVER:
> >
> >1) It's clear from the record that by the time young Will was 13 or 14,
> > John Shakespeare's financial situation is so acute,
> > that Will is probably too busy learning to tan hides and butcher cows
> > to pursue any kind of "higher learning."
>
> How do you know this? The family mortgaged some of their lands
> for 40 pounds in 1578, so what did they use this money for?
To stay out of debtor's prison, maybe?
The
> land never reverted to them, so they must not have paid it back,
> so they must have used it for something. They did not have to
> pay for the schooling itself (except indirectly through taxes).
>
> >2) I've already conceded elsewhere on this site that Will had enough
> > "book-larnin" to orate a part and to be acceptable in the company
> > of Mr. Burbage and friends, at least by 1595,
> > when he appears on the rolls as an actor.
> >
> > Given his father's financial situation by 1578, when Will is 13-14,
> > and Will's status and husband and father by 1582, at 18,
> > it's fairly certain he wasn't involved in any
> > formal classical studies. I will not rule out "informal,"
> > but don't state inferences and conjecture as "facts."
>
> Nonsense. It's "fairly certain" that Shakespeare's family
> had the requisite social standing to attend the school. Since
> they attended school beginning at the age of 4 or 5, beginning
> with the petty school and moving on after two years to the grammar
> school (Schoenbaum, CDL, p63-64), Shakespeare could easily have
> had up to ten years (1571-1581) of grammar school education,
> (including education in the classics) if indeed it lasted that long anyway.
> Someone else probably knows what the average age that students
> went to university, I think it was a couple of years younger than
> today, so 8 years was probably enough to get everything that
> could be gained from the grammar school.
>
I'm not arguing that the Elizabethan grammar school education
was more rigorous than our own.
But the "fact" of William's attendance lies somewhere
between inference and conjecture.
If R & K are making such an inference, they should say so, and
not argue it outside the body of their essay, after
their "factlessness" has been pointed out by somebody else.
> [snip]
> >> >> He died 23 April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
> >>
> >
> > <Sigh> Ned Alleyn made a lot of money and retired
> > with a "large estate."
> >
> > According to the record,
> > William Shakespeare bought an old house for 60 pounds,
>
> This is wrong, he paid 320 pounds for the 107 acres of land
> no house, in 1602.
>
> > 107 acres of arable land, and a cottage.
> > When he lived in London, he rented rooms (this would be from
> > roughly 1595 to sometime before 1616? By the time of his death
> > he had disposed of his 1/12 interest in the Globe, and
> > his interest in Blackfriars, because they're not mentioned in his
> >will.
> > During the years he spent in London,
> > there are several entries in the public record that he owed money
> > which was not paid when due, so all was not hunky dory,
> > the whole time. This does not mean he didn't write the Work,
> > but the assertions of grand success distract and undermine.
> > If you'll lie or mislead about one thing, then...?
>
> It is *you* who are misleading. The amounts that Shakespeare owed
> were trivial, on the order of shillings, not pounds.
So, why didn't he pay his trivial bills when they were due?
He purchased, in addition
> to the land described above, a half-interest in a lease of the tithes
> of Stratford and neighboring towns in 1605, including the tithes of Stratford
> parish, for 440 pounds. I would say that if Shakespeare could spend
> 760 pounds in 3 years that he was quite wealthy indeed.
> [snip]
>
>
He sold out his theatre interests?
He has a house (or a boarding house, depending on who you listen to)
a cottage, a nice piece of land to rent to a farmer,
and some retirement income.
How much would the tithes and rental income have netted him annually?
How does a life-time of work that results in an estate
worth in the neighborhood of 1,000 pounds or so
qualify him for "wealthy" by Elizabethan standards?
Wealthy compared to whom? What were his daughters' dowries?
One of them married "up," but not too far up.
How about, he retired "comfortably circumstanced?"
He did pretty well for a tanner's son, and the family recovered
from its financial downturn of the 1570's.
He and his London partners kept up their friendships until they died,
and they mentioned each other in their respective wills.
Given the propensity for Eliabethan actors & playwrights to die
at knife point or in abject poverty, I'd say he did okay by comparison.
Why this need for hyperbole?
Christine
Christine Cooper
If an opinion (or inference) is first stated as fact,
and then repeated three times by others who accept its "factual" nature
on faith, rather than authority,
often makes the opinion doctrinal, but can't make it factual.
If John is simply repeating Mary's opinion,
then John's opinion carries less "weight,"
than if John's opinion were independently derived.
If John and Mary each derived the same opinion independently,
then the two opinions would carry greater "weight."
If John and Mary each derived different opinions independently,
then additional examination would be beneficial.
Would you agree?
Christine
Bob Grumman
>This is a revealing complaint. Not only does it indicate that Lynne and
>Stritmatter don't understand the interconnected logic of the essay, it
>illustrates one of the basic flaws in the reasoning ability of most
>antiStratfordians: they don't understand contextual weight. In fact, their
>arguments rely on taking items out of context, and they seem baffled when
>others include it, as in the above complaint. They honestly don't understand
>context, which is one of the reasons why I doubt they can be converted from
>their error. That's why you'll meet very few antiStratfordians who have read
>any Elizabethan literature beyond Shakespeare and whatever "candidate"
>they're flogging at the moment.
>
>TR
Just to flog my own theory of psychology, I think you have it right about
context, Tom, but I would add that actually the anti-Stratfordian problem is
that they can't GET AWAY from context. It's THEIR context, though--that is,
each perceives everything in the context of his rigidniplex, or delusional
system, and can't take anything out of that context, so can't begin to take the
next step, which is to see it in its OWN context. Apologies if this sounds even
more incoherent/crankish than usual but I wanted to put it on record (for
myself) while your post made me think of it.
--Bob G.
>
>
Greg Reynolds
> Lynne: I hope you don't mind, but I've copied your response
> to the Reedy/Kathman introduction below, along with some
> comments of my own. I had to do some formatting, so I hope
> it appears okay on readers' screens.
Thank you, Gary.
This is a fair means of communicating the details.
I wondered why Lynne wanted to bring attention to her SF site
where they compare Strats to defense attorneys (which Lynne
claims is abhorrent when done to her) or present such legitimacy for
Baconians (who regularly eat Oxfordians for a snack here).
> > In this post we go through Dr. Kathman and Mr. Reedy's introduction
> > line by line:
>
> >> William Shakespeare was born in April, 1564, the oldest son of John
> >> Shakespeare.
>
> > We accept this with the caveat that all the extant signatures of
> > Shakespeare of Stratford are spelled with no E after the K. That is to
> > say, they are spelled Shakspere or some variant. To view the
> > signatures, go to
> > [17]http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.html
>
> Perhaps we should also point out that Elizabethan
> spelling was not as precise as our own?
Since we are speaking of Shakespeare, it would be ridiculous to use
the dozens of variant spellinges in an essay. Ox(en)ford(e) used
several spellinges, too.
> >> His father, a glover, trader, and landowner, married Mary Arden, the
> >> daughter of an affluent landowner of Wilmcote. John Shakespeare was
> >> ambitious, and he filled many municipal offices in Stratford including
> >> that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children without
> >> charge at the King's New School in Stratford.
>
> > This is a key problem. Although John Shakespeare may have been allowed
> > to educate his children without charge, there is no record that he did
> > so.
>
> In fairness, whenever an anti-Stratfordian makes
> this argument, shouldn't they be at pains to point out that
> *all* the records from this time for the school are no
> longer available? It seems to me that if we had the records
> and Shakespeare's name didn't appear therein, that would be
> a much more damaging fact than is now the case. As the case
> now stands, given the absence of all school records from the
> time, we are left to infer whether *any* child of this time
> attended the school.
Meanwhile, Lynne and Roger are not refuting anything, especially that
John was privileged to educate his children without charge at the King's
New School in Stratford.
Maybe Lynne and Roger could show what school THEIR Shakespeare
attended--AND why the other pupils didn't become Shakespeare.
Probably because his talent (really just his style) wasn't taught, so the
schooling of Shakespeare is a nonissue. He obviously knew something that
wasn't taught and that is why the world (and all its teachers) reveres him
beyond all their own known teachings. He would be just as magnificent
if he were a noble, but he wasn't. All the evidence denies that. That he
was a commoner is no more magnificent, however.
Oxford did not attend school--he was tutored. His degrees were honorary
and he never used his education for any career. That explains why he
is not considered to be the author of Shakespeare's works, doesn't it?
(Be fair if you are judging Shakespeare on his education.)
Oxfordians are on thin ice whenever they discuss schooling.
Wouldn't Oxford University boast that their alumnus wrote Hamlet?
They know (better than Lynne and Roger) that there is no question--
Oxford was not involved in the canon.
> > Although R and K dont actually say that William Shakespeare was
> > educated at Kings New School, they imply that he was. Since it is
> > clear that whoever wrote the works was the recipient of an excellent
> > education, unless it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
> > attended school, the impact of the Reedy and Kathman essay is
> > significantly diminished.
>
> Since it is clear that whoever wrote the works was
> the recipient of an education (I'm not sure about
> "excellent"), and if Reedy and Kathman can show, using other
> evidence, that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, then
> it's logical to assume that he went to the Kings New School.
A hugely credible eyewitness explained that Shakespeare was
prominent for his lack of education.
See Jonson.
As explained, the author had small latin and less greek.
JUST LIKE IN HIS PLAYS.
> > Reedy and Kathman also fail to acknowledge that Shakespeare of
> > Stratford's parents, wife, and at least one daughter were illiterate.
This is a stupid lie.
Are Lynne and Roger basing their conclusion on one sample?
That is a horrendous means of reaching their foregone conclusion.
Retract it, Roger and Lynne, since you will not be verifying it.
I repeat... you cannot substantiate that either daughter was illiterate
so your reasoning power is flawed if you persist in concluding without
evidence.
Shall I use this ONE SAMPLE of your scholarship to define you two?
Of course it would be fair of me IF it is fair of you to pretend that one
sample is the entire lifetime output of either of these two women.
If you do not substantiate that Judith was illiterate, you are not able to
call her such. And you are incapable because you have only one
sample. Admit it--do not dig yourselves any deeper.
Be fair (which is impossible for any researcher who starts with the conclusion).
> > It is hard to imagine that the creator of Portia, Olivia, and Beatrice
> > would fail to educate his own daughters.
>
> Odd. I don't have any trouble whatsoever imagining
> that.
Lynne and Roger cannot verify the education of the girls
so they have no basis to make their foregone conclusions.
We know that Oxford did not attend his wife's funeral or his
daughters' weddings, but we do NOT know how educated the
Shakespeare girls were. Susanna owned London real estate and
sold some but not all of the books she owned. Oxfordians ignore
such detail and instead proclaim Susanna was illiterate although
she married the most prominent physician in town.
Lynne and Roger are raising more questions about their own leaky
belief system than they are about Judith or Susanna. I can list many of
Lynne's outright falsehoods, so I know what I am dealing with.
Lynne and Roger exhibit a reading and comprehension deficiency
that Susanna and Judith do not.
It is handy that Lazy Lynne and Roger cowrote this errant and
malfeasant treatise because it makes them equally culpable and though
both have skulked off from my sincere discussions, they can now share the
blame equally for presenting this indefensible nonsense.
And it is laughable they would voluntarily make assumptions
and call them facts. (hey, Lynne, we are not children, so we actually
want to know how you determined Susanna or Judith was illiterate.
Please explain--you'll be the first, if you dare indulge us.)
[I do not intend to make this easy for the said hacks. They are
the attackers of Shakespeare and I am but a humble defender.
Every time I silence Lynne and Roger, I feel that Shakespeare
is defended. It is a comedy for me, a tragedy for Lynne and
Roger, and history for all.]
> >> He rose by election to the position of Alderman in 1565; and in 1568
> >> he was elected Bailiff (equivalent to mayor), and in that year he made
> >> an application to the Herald's office for a grant of arms. In his
> >> position as Bailiff he was responsible for licensing companies of
> >> actors who applied to play in the Guild Hall.
>
> > And the point is?
>
> I'm not sure, but perhaps that the young William
> would have been exposed to the theatre and plays?
The point is the history and the responsibility of the position. (Again,
Lynne and Roger are showing their spite, not any refutation.)
One good point made is that the provinces hosted public theatre BEFORE
London was permitted to host public theatre.
The essay is free to cover anything its authors choose, so the comment
"And the point is?" is just a derogatory statement made by two
detractors who cannot show that Oxford ever knew of, or attended,
any Shakespeare play.
> >> William Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway in November, 1582, and six
> >> months later their daughter, Susanna, was born. Two other children
> >> were born, the twins Hamnet and Judith, in February, 1585. Sometime
> >> after this he joined a troupe of players and made his way to London.
>
> > What is the evidence that he joined a troupe of players before going
> > to London?
>
> A good point. The date and circumstances under
> which Shakespeare left Stratford are uncertain, and this
> statement is probably too definite. (Personally, I also
> think it's possible that Will left Stratford at a much
> earlier age, but that's neither here nor there.)
Reedy explained that the events mentioned in the phraseology
need not be chronological. To be user-friendly, an editor
may opt to reverse their order for clarity. (I personally would
rephrase it for even Oxfordians to understand.)
BUT NO ONE CAN REFUTE that....
...Robert Dudley was a patron of an acting company by 1559
which was known as "Dudley's Men" until 1564
...Dudley's Men played the queen's court in 1560-62
...Dudley was made "Earl of Leicester" by Queen Elizabeth in 1564
...Dudley's Men were made Leicester's Men in 1572
...Leicester's Men included James Burbage who was the father of
two of the King's Men and shareholders of the Globe and lifelong
career fellows of William Shakespeare
...Leicester's Men included Wil Kemp
...Leicester's men played Stratford upon Avon in 1586
...Leicester was given command of the queen's army in the
Dutch wars and Wil Kemp served under Leicester
...Wil Kemp was a shareholder in the Globe and sold his
share to Shakespeare (and others)
...Kemp was named as a principal player in Shakespeare's plays
in the First Folio
Careful what you wish for, Lynne and Roger. Are you unaware
of these facts? They show very slight degrees of separation between
the Queen, the London theatre, the King's Men, Stratford upon Avon,
William Shakespeare, his fellows, and The First Folio.
I cannot connect them further and you sure cannot disconnect them.
They are far more integral than any details regarding Oxford.
> >> As a member of London's leading theater company, the Lord
> >> Chamberlain's Company, he wrote plays and eventually became a sharer
> >> in the Globe theater.
>
> > Where is the evidence that he wrote plays as a member of the Lord
> > Chamberlains Company?
Jonson mentions that he wrote Julius Caesar, and that was
during his tenure with LCM as the play dates to 1599. That is a fact.
That both Eliza and James were Shakespeare's fans (not to mention patrons)
indicates he was writing both as a member of LCM and KM because
Jonson did not single anyone else out as the writer and of course no one was
known by that man's name.
There is NO explanation and NO justification for confusing the name
with anyone else. Please try. I personally challenge Lynne and Roger
to show that William Shakespeare was anyone else. They need facts, not
broadside nonsense such as they demonstrated in falsely concluding that
one daughter was illiterate.
> > And how could he have become a sharer in the
> > Globe Theatre before it existed? It was built in 1598 out of wood from
> > the dismantled Theatre.
Lynne and Roger go haywire here. They get confused but if they reread,
the essay does not make the false claims they do. This is the sloppiness
I was cautioning would appear when a couple of detractors go at it.
> > Therefore R and K cannot make the claim below
> > that he was so successful as a playwright and sharer in the Globe that
> > in 1596 he successfully renewed his fathers application for a coat of
> > arms.
>
> >> He was so successful that in 1596 he successfully renewed his father's
> >> application for a grant of arms,
Roger and Lynne are deliberately misleading the reader here, because they
claim the essay states "he was so successful as a playwright and sharer..."
which it does not. They are either confused or misleading, but either way,
their scorn is driving their intellect and they are not refuting the presented facts.
> > Reedy and Kathman appear to be confused about chronology. See above
> > point.
A better phrasing would help, but the facts are not refutable by Lynne or Roger.
> >> and the following year he bought and restored New Place, the
> >> second-largest house in Stratford. He also bought other real estate in
> >> Stratford and London. Shakespeare semi-retired from London life some
> >> time around 1610.
>
> > We request that R and K cite any evidence for his continued residence
> > in London after 1604 when King James gave him red cloth in his
> > capacity as a member of the Kings Men.
He owned a residence through 1616 when his daughter inherited it.
A residence.
To think he took the red cloth and left town is a bizarre argument.
> > What do R and K mean by semi-retired? Was he still acting? Was he
> > still writing plays? Where is their evidence?
One marked difference is collaboration rather than sole authorship.
> >> He died 23 April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
>
> > It is interesting to note that Kathman and Reedy refer to his large
> > estate, but fail to list the contents of the will, a document which
> > mentions nothing of a literary or intellectual nature. See
> > [18]http://www.bardweb.net/will.html
>
> In fairness, there is another essay at the
> Kathman/Ross website that deals with the will, is there not?
> I don't think they can be expected to put the entire website
> into one essay.
The essayists deem what is necessary for their case.
The detractors are baying at the moon.
> >> These, in bare outline, are the facts of Shakespeare's life.
>
> > Kathman and Reedy seem only interested in the facts of the biography,
> > but have little or no interest in discussing how the life of the
> > author Shakespeare informs his literary works.
>
> You seem to be assuming that the personal life of
> the author has to inform his literary works.
I would love to read an Oxfordian essay that builds a case instead
of trying to destroy one. They haven't fact #1 to build on.
> >> Antistratfordians claim that this William Shakespeare of
> >> Stratford-upon-Avon was not the author of the plays and poems that
> >> bear his name, but actually the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship
> >> is abundant and wide-ranging for the era in which he lived, much more
> >> abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary
> >> playwrights.
>
> > Reedy and Kathmans claim that the evidence for Shakespeare of
> > Stratfords authorship is abundant and wide-ranging and much more
> > abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary
> > playwrights has been thoroughly disproved by Diana Price in her recent
> > book, Shakespeares Unorthodox Biography. See
> > [19]http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/
Rather than send us away, Lynne and Roger, please make your point.
I did not see you refute anything yet.
> You missed the lengthy debate that took place in
> hlas concerning Diana Price's book. Suffice to say, not
> everyone here was convinced that Reedy and Kathman's claim
> was "thoroughly disproved by Diana Price".
>
> > However, Reedy and Kathman persist in presenting material that has
> > little or no bearing on the question of authorship as if it were
> > relevant. We have already shown that points 1-4 of this essay merely
> > establish that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an actor for the
> > Lord Chamberlains men and sharer in the Globe Theatre, not that he was
> > the author of the canon. Finally, much of the evidence contained in
> > point 5 is derivative-of the First Folio, the name on the quarto title
> > pages, and the Stratford Monument--or it is ambiguous. We will have
> > more to say about this later.
Answer my points, you lazy researchers, and don't lie about the daughters.
> >> This evidence falls into several different categories, all mutually
> >> reinforcing. A strong, tight web of evidence shows that a real person
> >> named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him;
>
> > This statement ignores the lengthy and distinguished tradition of
> > doubt,
>
> But the essay was written in response to those
> doubts!
>
> > a tradition which includes names such as Henry Hallam, Hugh
> > Trevor-Roper, Sigmund Freud, Sir George Greenwood, Abel Lefranc and
> > Walt Whitman. These persons among many others did not agree with R and
> > Ks evaluation of the evidence.
Got any detail?
> >> that a real person named William Shakespeare was an actor in the
> >> company that produced the plays attributed to him;
>
> > We have already made the point that William Shakespeare of Stratford
> > was an actor in the company that produced the plays attributed to a
> > William Shakespeare. In its present form Reedy and Kathmans statement
> > represents a case of circular reasoning.
>
> But if you concede the point that William
> Shakespeare of Stratford was the actor in the company which
> produced plays by someone named 'William Shakespeare', what
> are you saying? That there was a second person attached to
> the troupe named William Shakespeare?
Yes, this is the secret that Oxfordians need to explain to the world.
Who was the person that Heminge and Condel meant?
USE EVIDENCE, LYNNE AND ROGER.
>
> >> that the actor was the same William Shakespeare of
> >> Stratford-upon-Avon; that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon
> >> was part-owner of the Globe Theater, where his acting company produced
> >> the plays attributed to him;
>
> > See previous point.
I hope you answered Gary's question of who was the Folio talking
about and featuring in a prominently displayed engraving if not
the one and only aforementioned William Shakespeare.
I think that when you honestly attempt to answer that one question,
Lynne and Roger, you will see the folly of your ways. There is
ONE man and his picture is there so that there is NO way there
was any of the confusion you so require for your Oxfordianism.
> >> and that those who knew the writer of the plays and poems knew that he
> >> was William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> >> It's true that no one single document states categorically that
> >> William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet and King Lear,
> >> but then no such document exists for any other playwright of the time
> >> either.
>
> > There is no tradition of doubt regarding the attribution of the works
> > of Ben Jonson.
If you are calling Oxfordianism a tradition, it skipped two centuries.
Make me laugh.
> > Jonsons presence as a playwright and poet is attested
> > to by a voluminous body of evidence including letters and manuscripts
> > in his own hand, books from his library, several authenticated
> > portraits, records of his table talk, and occasional poems on topical
> > subjects.
So why are you denying his eyewitness testimony regarding Shakespeare?
> > None of these items survive for William Shakespeare of
> > Stratford, even though New Place remained in the possession of his
> > heirs for many years. What is the explanation for this?
You know of the theft but fail to mention it.
> > As Ben Jonson
> > was middle class, the discrepancy cannot be explained by recourse to
> > an argument claiming a class bias regarding the preservation of
> > ephemeral documents, etc.
You are pretending class arguments are valid anyway--that's
your Oxfordianism, not reality.
> >> The evidence is cumulative and interconnected, and taken as a whole it
> >> leaves no doubt that a single man was actor, author, and Stratford
> >> property owner.
>
> > As we have already pointed out, Reedy and Kathman speak only for
> > themselves and other traditionalists when making this claim. Many
> > scholars over the years have sensed a profound discrepancy between the
> > life of Shakespeare of Stratford as documented in evidence such as
> > that presented in R and Ks essay, and the literary work of William
> > Shakespeare. One recent and authoritative expression of this
> > discontent occurs in the second (1991) edition of Samuel Schoenbaums
> > Shakespeares Lives: Perhaps we should despair of ever bridging the
> > vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the
> > mundane inconsequence of the documentary evidence.
I question the authorship of that monstrosity of a sentence.
> >> In this essay we summarize this evidence in order to illustrate the
> >> speciousness of antistratfordian claims that there is some "mystery"
> >> about the authorship of Shakespeare's works.
>
> > We will respond point by point.
Take a hint--use evidence.
If you call Judith illiterate you must explain your technique in determining that.
> > Roger Stritmatter
> > Lynne Kositsky
>
> FWIW, Lynne, IMO the only real point you scored in
> this response is the one about when and how Shakespeare left
> Stratford. As I mentioned, I think Reedy and Kathman
> perhaps were too definite in their suggestion.
>
> I suspect others may have more detailed criticisms
> of your response, but we shall see.
>
> I'll keep an eye out for your further responses.
>
>
> - Gary Kosinsky
I give the detractors an F for failing to refute the essay.
And an "incomplete" for having no such essay available
or possible for their suggested surrogate, Oxford.
Thank you, Gary for adapting the webpage for our use.
Greg Reynolds
Tom Reedy
news:cIVJb.207$D21.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Pointing out a characteristic bias is hardly mudslinging.
> counter argument, as we are doing in your case and David's.
>
> We are making this response because I was asked to do so by Gary, a
> traditionalist, and not because we had any particular axe to grind with
> regard to your essay. We are trying to be very fair, and have conceded
> points as well as saying that we have an open mind about some of your
> statements. But we will attempt to show in a variety of ways that your
> assertion that "contextual weight" is all important is misguided. When we
> post our full response, which we're working on now, we'll be happy to have
> you critique it.
I don't know if I will or not. The main reaction I have toward all this is
boredom. The core essay was written years ago, in response to Volker's
contention that there was no contemporary evidence from Shakespeare's
lifetime that identified him as the author, and it was expanded into its
present form because it did a pretty good job of summarizing the historical
evidence.
Since the identification of Shakespeare with his works is not vital to my
self image, as it apparently is to antiStratfordians, I don't have a
neurotic need to obsess about who wrote the canon, so I may just leave you
to argue with the historical record rather than try to defend it.
> We expect that. It's how people grow and improve
> intellectually. And surely that's what scholarly debate is all about.
The odds of finding that here are pretty slim, and from what I've perused on
your antistrat Web site, the odds of finding it there are nil.
TR
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>
>
> >
> > TR
> >
> >
>
>
Tom Reedy
news:bt9br...@drn.newsguy.com...
I think it probably boils down to organic differences in the brain
structure, which is another reason why they'll never see the light.
TR
> >
> >
>
Neil Brennen
It makes perfect sense to me.
Gary Kosinsky
(Christine Cooper) wrote:
>gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<3ff73acb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>>Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter wrote:
>> > Kathman and Reedy seem only interested in the facts of the biography,
>> > but have little or no interest in discussing how the life of the
>> > author Shakespeare informs his literary works.
>> You seem to be assuming that the personal life of
>> the author has to inform his literary works.
>
> Well, Duh! How is that an assumption?
> What author's life does not inform his/her work?
Well d'uh indeed!
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the
idea of an author's life informing his literary works.
What does that mean?
Should I understand that the Oxfordians can make a
case that their candidate's life "informs" the canon? And
that the Marlovians can make a case that their candidate's
life "informs" the canon? And that the Baconians can make a
case that their candidate's life "informs" the canon? And
if the canon can be seen to have been "informed" by these
different lives, why can't it been seen to have been
"informed" by anyone's life, including Shakespeare of
Stratford?
Is the idea that an author's life "informs" his
work, even if true, of any use at all in this case?
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
<lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>It's fine, Gary, but it's only part one and it's only in draft.
>I hope people will take this into consideration. We will publish the final
>response in the State of the Debate section in the Fellowship's Virtual
>Classroom. I'll let you know when it's available.
Thank-you, Lynne. Any idea of when it may be
available? (BTW: by 'it', do you mean your response to the
introduction, or your critique of the whole essay?)
- Gary Kosinsky
LynnE
Gary,
As of today we have a rough draft of a line by line critique of the entire
essay. However, in the next week or so we would like to check some facts and
add a bit of material. Hopefully the critique will be available in the next
couple of weeks, but my going to Florida may complicate things if I can't
get online to work with Roger.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
> - Gary Kosinsky
Bob Grumman
>> Just to flog my own theory of psychology, I think you have it right about
>> context, Tom, but I would add that actually the anti-Stratfordian problem
>is
>> that they can't GET AWAY from context. It's THEIR context, though--that
>is,
>> each perceives everything in the context of his rigidniplex, or delusional
>> system, and can't take anything out of that context, so can't begin to
>take the
>> next step, which is to see it in its OWN context. Apologies if this
>sounds even
>> more incoherent/crankish than usual but I wanted to put it on record (for
>> myself) while your post made me think of it.
>
>It makes perfect sense to me.
Thanks, Neil. I suspect Roger won't agree.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
What you did was leave out important facts and add your own
interpretations.
>>
>> >1566-1567 Mr. S. refused to serve when "elected." Robert Perrot was
>> > elected to the position with 16 of 19 votes, but refused
>> > to serve. Mr. S. received 3 votes. Ralph Cawdry got "0"
>> > votes, and ended up with the office.
>> >
>> >1567-1568 The Corporation had experienced so much difficulty
>> > getting people to serve, that it passed a law
>> > imposing fines against those elected who refused to serve.
>>
>> But not before persuading John Shakespeare to serve.
>>
>
>"Persuading" John Shakespeare to take on a job nobody else
>appeared to want is contra-indicative of political ambitions.
>And if he only got 3 out of 19 votes, he wasn't THAT popular.
He was popular enough to be a candidate in the first place.
>
>> >1571-1572 Mr. S. was elected chief alderman and Adrian Quiney
>> > was bailiff.
>> >
>> >1575-1576 Richard Hill was high bailiff
>> >
>> >1576-1577 Mr. S. has stopped attending council meetings
>>
>> And the website says that he applied for coat of arms just
>> as his financial troubles were beginning.
>
>
>And that says what about John Shakespeare?
You seem to have lost the thread of your own argument. One of
the things you are trying to claim is that John Shakespeare was not
ambitious. You said in the earlier post, and I quote, "None of this information
speaks to anything like "ambition" on the part of Mr. John Shakespeare."
Yet he was involved in an election, served in public office for several
years, applied for a coat of arms. If that does not indicate some kind
of ambition, I don't know what does.
>>
>> >1577-1578 Mr. S.' financial difficulties are such that he has
>> > started mortgaging his wife's inheritance.
>>
>
>"Election" to public office at all times pertinent wasn't "voluntary,"
> and according to history, and was avoided when possible.
This is nonsense. It was avoided *in one election* by two people,
but there is no indication that it was always avoided "when possible".
John Shakespeare was very obviously working his way up the ladder
in town. You neglected to mention the offices he held before 1560.
He began as a an ale-taster in 1556, then became a constable in1558,
then an affeeror by 1559. Shortly afterwards, he was elected one
of the fourteen principal burgesses. The responsibility to serve
as one of the alderman if elected was one of the responsibilities
involved in being a burgess, and it was that responsibility for which
the town imposed a 20s fine for refusing to serve if elected. It was
not a general election because the alderman were drawn from the
burgesses.
>The facts speak as easily to interpretation of holding office as "civic
duty,"
> (avoided when possible) than political ambition.
No, because John Shakespeare worked his way up the political
ladder, as I explained above, which does indicate political ambition.
The responsibility to serve as an alderman if elected was considered one
of the duties of a burgess, which is what John Shakespeare was.
> I.e, if
> John Shakespeare excepted the office and showed up for meetings,
> then he should get a pat on the back for taking on the drudgery,
> but how does that speak to political ambition?
Because he had already accepted political offices in the town for
years before. It was just this particular appointment which he
refused *temporarily*. The obvious explanation for the refusal
is that his plate was already full, given that he was already
a burgess when he was elected alderman.
>They're running a town,
> guys, not sending somebody to Parliament, here.
>
>
>>
>> No, it was avoided *sometimes* if the person involved didn't not
>> want the office. John Shakespeare refused *once*, then took the
>> office of bailiff and later alderman, for many years.
>
>
>Well, it's not difficult to campaign for election to an office
>that more popular candidates are unwilling to fill, is it?
It was not a general campaign. He was *already* and officer
of the town when he *temporarily* refused election to alderman.
>>
>> >None of this information speaks to anything like "ambition"
>> >on the part of Mr. John Shakespeare.
>>
>> You seem to be confused. John Shakespeare served willingly
>> for many years, then applied for a coat of arms. That sounds
>> like "ambition" to me. Just because he refused an office *once*
>> doesn't mean that he didn't have ambition. More likely he just
>> has his plate full at the time.
>>
>
>Where do you find the authority tha allows you to imply
>that John Shakespeare's particular service was "willing,"
>where the historical record states
>that service was so commonly "unwilling," that the town
>had to pass a law to coerce service?
Try reading what I wrote above. He served the town in many
capacities for many years. He was *already* an officer of
the town when the *additional* duty of alderman was imposed
upon him, which he refused *temporarily*.
Imagine if you will someone living in a modern New England
town. He becomes a police officer, becoming known in town.
Then he runs a small business, then runs for election for
a minor office like fence-viewer. Then he is elected to the
school board, after that the city council. Now after serving
on the council for awhile, the council elects him to be
president of the council, and he refuses at first because
he thinks he has too much to do. This situation would
be a close analog of what happened with John Shakespeare.
>The application for a coat of arms indicates John
>had Social Ambitions, at least, but then again,
>maybe he was henpecked into it(?) Either way,
>the application was denied at the time (yes?).
Nonsense. There is no evidence that he was henpecked,
just evidence that he applied.
>> >If the good citizens of
>> >Stratford-Upon-Avon are fine with the facts,
>> >all of which quoted are derived from their own website,
>> >www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm
>> >why do Reedy & Kathman feel that it's necessary to re-interpret?
>> >You undermine your own credibility. What's the point in that?
>>
>> They haven't misinterpreted anything, you have. And the page of
>> the website that you are paraphrasing from is not a product of
>> "the good citizens of Stratford-Upon-Avon", rather is is Richard
>> Bearman's interpretation of the historical record.
>
>
>They approved of its content sufficiently to adopt it.
Where does it say that the citizens of the town approved, or even
had anything to do with, that web page?
>John Shakespeare's political ambitions, if any,
>are peripheral to the issue of William Shakespeare's early life.
>Why would you need to imply ambition where none is indicated?
>Why put the word "ambition" in at all, when "persuasion"
>is just as, if not more, indicative of "arm twisting?"
>It's distracting. Leave the "ambition" issue out out of the essay.
>Just say he served and leave it at that.
Because it's an historical fact that he had ambition. Why would
you want to discourage so strongly the idea that he had
ambition?
>> >> > This is a key problem. Although John Shakespeare may have been
>allowed
>> >> > to educate his children without charge, there is no record that he
>did
>> >> > so.
>>
>> >> >Although R and K dont actually say that William Shakespeare was
>> >> > educated at Kings New School, they imply that he was. Since it is
>> >> > clear that whoever wrote the works was the recipient of an excellent
>> >> > education, unless it can be proven that Shakespeare of Stratford
>> >> > attended school, the impact of the Reedy and Kathman essay is
>> >> > significantly diminished.
>> >>
>> >> Since it is clear that whoever wrote the works was
>> >> the recipient of an education (I'm not sure about
>> >> "excellent"), and if Reedy and Kathman can show, using other
>> >> evidence, that Shakespeare was the author of the plays, then
>> >> it's logical to assume that he went to the Kings New School.
>> >>
>> >
>> >WHATEVER:
>> >
>> >1) It's clear from the record that by the time young Will was 13 or 14,
>> > John Shakespeare's financial situation is so acute,
>> > that Will is probably too busy learning to tan hides and butcher cows
>> > to pursue any kind of "higher learning."
>>
>> How do you know this? The family mortgaged some of their lands
>> for 40 pounds in 1578, so what did they use this money for?
>
>
>To stay out of debtor's prison, maybe?
There is no record of any debtor's prison. By the late 1590's
the Herald's College said that John Shakespeare had "lands
and tenemants of good wealth and substance" worth 500 pounds.
[snip]
>>
>> It is *you* who are misleading. The amounts that Shakespeare owed
>> were trivial, on the order of shillings, not pounds.
>
>
>So, why didn't he pay his trivial bills when they were due?
We don't know that they weren't paid eventually. There is no
record to show that he was fined for not paying them, or any
record of a claim against his estate after he died. Communication
was not instantaneous in those days. The fact that he owed
a few shillings as part of a tax may not have been known
by him immediately.
> He purchased, in addition
>> to the land described above, a half-interest in a lease of the tithes
>> of Stratford and neighboring towns in 1605, including the tithes of
>Stratford
>> parish, for 440 pounds. I would say that if Shakespeare could spend
>> 760 pounds in 3 years that he was quite wealthy indeed.
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>He sold out his theatre interests?
Why do you insist on making things up, while chastising those
who make reasonable inferences? Whatever the source of
his money, he had a lot of it.
>He has a house (or a boarding house, depending on who you listen to)
>a cottage, a nice piece of land to rent to a farmer,
>and some retirement income.
>How much would the tithes and rental income have netted him annually?
>How does a life-time of work that results in an estate
>worth in the neighborhood of 1,000 pounds or so
>qualify him for "wealthy" by Elizabethan standards?
>Wealthy compared to whom?
He was wealthy by any standard, including today. I can't
imagine owning a share in the tax income of my town
and the three neighboring towns, and the house that I
grew up in was smaller than the one that Shakespeare
grew up in. He was not the Donald Trump of his time,
but he certainly was well off.
>What were his daughters' dowries?
>One of them married "up," but not too far up.
>How about, he retired "comfortably circumstanced?"
>He did pretty well for a tanner's son, and the family recovered
>from its financial downturn of the 1570's.
>He and his London partners kept up their friendships until they died,
>and they mentioned each other in their respective wills.
>Given the propensity for Eliabethan actors & playwrights to die
>at knife point or in abject poverty, I'd say he did okay by comparison.
>Why this need for hyperbole?
What hyperbole?
Christine Cooper
> On 3 Jan 2004 22:00:02 -0800, kemahw...@yahoo.com
> (Christine Cooper) wrote:
>
> >gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<3ff73acb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>
> >>Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter wrote:
> >> > Kathman and Reedy seem only interested in the facts of the biography,
> >> > but have little or no interest in discussing how the life of the
> >> > author Shakespeare informs his literary works.
>
> >> You seem to be assuming that the personal life of
> >> the author has to inform his literary works.
>
> >
> > Well, Duh! How is that an assumption?
> > What author's life does not inform his/her work?
>
> Well d'uh indeed!
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is meant by the
> idea of an author's life informing his literary works.
>
> What does that mean?
>
It means a person WRITES passionately about that which the person
FEELS passionately.
It means that I, personally, do not think that the author was
a mere hack, writing for the unwashed masses or for the Queen's purpose,
or whatever employer the proponent may have in mind,
including Peter Farey's concept that W.S. (whoever W.S. was)
wrote one successful history play and decided he was "onto a good thing,"
and wrote some more. How dry is that?
In this particular context, I'm asserting that the Work
fairly screams that the author "felt" passionately about SOMETHING,
otherwise, we wouldn't be so moved by it to the extent that
it survived for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS. I'm asserting that artistic work
survives because the artist expressed his/her own peculiar baggage,
and the baggage somehow resonates to an extent that it becomes timeless.
Pick an artist, ANY artist.
I.e., we are "moved," or "inspired." Choose your own synonym.
Exactly what the author felt passionately about,
we won't know until and unless some casket-full of letters
is turned up, what-EVER.
In the meantime, everyone wants to OWN both the Work and the author,
because it resonates our own peculiar passions.
I've written a few things over time, and I do know that my work
is recognized by others only when I'm brave enough to expose my soul.
Mere technical skill and the demands of the purse are insufficient.
Sheez
Christine
d
bookburn
"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.04010...@posting.google.com...
I understand that a few literary critics of liberal tendencies
have theorized that writers/artists do their thing as a
sanity-saving function, in which the inner person
exercises/exorcises neuroses, psychoses, complexes, conflicts,
etc.. The act of dramatizing, or acting out the psyche in some
surrogate form is considered therapeutic in restoring balance to
those who then can objectively understand what was concealed.
So Shakespeare and his audience might benefit from such a "play"
to the extent they can identify with its action. The big center
of interest one can identify in the canon, it seems to me, is
about the question of identity, whether it's staged and resolved
in terms of twins, doubles, sudden reversals, appearances versus
realities, disguises, epiphanies, sex changes, or magical
transmutations of man, animal, spirit, or version of reality.
The sonnets seem deliberately ambiguous about identities. The
identity issue transcends the canon so much that it seems
possible to assume it is never resolved; which is a function of
why we are puzzling with the identity, still.
Another writer who clearly demonstrates correlation between
biography and literary output would be Charles Dickens, who like
Shakespeare: 1) had a basic education only until about 10; 2)
had family troubles with both step-father and mother--who sent
him into child labor; 3) managed to complete a three-year course
in court stenography in 3 months; 4) found himself instantly
popular with his first publication at a young age, followed by a
series of successes; 5) appeared on stage playing his novel
characters with great sincerity, sometimes becoming
embarrassingly emotional and beside himself; 6) publicly
acknowledged that Great Expectations was autobiographical; 6)
conducted his own family life with secrecy and multiple
identities--and probably many more parallels I don't know.
bookburn
Lorenzo4344
>fairly screams that the author "felt" passionately about SOMETHING,
>otherwise, we wouldn't be so moved by it to the extent that
>it survived for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS. I'm asserting that artistic work
>survives because the artist expressed his/her own peculiar baggage,
>and the baggage somehow resonates to an extent that it becomes timeless.
Bravo.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Peter Farey
>
<snip>
>
> It means that I, personally, do not think that the author
> was a mere hack, writing for the unwashed masses or for
> the Queen's purpose, or whatever employer the proponent
> may have in mind, including Peter Farey's concept that W.S.
> (whoever W.S. was) wrote one successful history play and
> decided he was "onto a good thing," and wrote some more.
> How dry is that?
The general welcomes Tamburlaine received,
When he arrived last upon our stage,
Hath made our poet pen his second part,
Where death cuts off the progress of his pomp
And murderous fates throw all his triumphs down.
Would such a response to public (or theatre owner) demand
necessarily prevent his including a whole lot of material about
which he felt passionate?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Groves
news:20040104183422...@mb-m26.aol.com...
[desunt nonulla]
> Imagine if you will someone living in a modern New England
> town. He becomes a police officer, becoming known in town.
> Then he runs a small business, then runs for election for
> a minor office like fence-viewer.
Jim, I know this is OT, but I'm intrigued: what's a fence-viewer? And can
it really be an elected office when nearly half the population (it seems)
can't be persuaded to cast a vote for the presidency?
Peter G.
KQKnave
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> writes:
In various towns and times the fence viewer can be elected or appointed.
He basically is responsible for settling disputes over boundaries. I was
just using that example because that was a minor office that I had heard
of, from my own small town.
Christine Cooper
Absolutely not. What made you think I thought that?
It appears the author was also passionate about history.
(i.e., among other things, the author was not engaging
in disconnected cerebral exercises)
Tragedies and comedies are also "histories," yes?
I just don't think the author was "responding to demand."
Those who write (paint) (sculpt) (tie flies) (whatever)
do so because they MUST. Art is not a Choice.
The genie demands to be let out of the bottle.
Whoever wrote the Work, would have done so regardless
of the laws of supply and demand.
I guess I consider you the most erudite of the contributers,
and I suspect you did an end-run around my question about RII,
and I was disappointed. I know I've read that
Elizabeth was grilling Bacon about whether he thought RII was treason,
because she was after the author's curlies,
and I'm not willing to defer, at this point, but willing to agree if
the conversation never actually took place.
Everyone here re-writes the issue.
You didn't address why the author altered Gaunt's role, either.
Happy-piphany, or it should be by the time you read this. :-)
Christine
*********
Gary Kosinsky
(Christine Cooper) wrote:
So you're saying the author of the canon wrote
"passionately" about something, because he "felt
passionately" about something, but after reading the canon
you have no idea what that something was.
Sounds kind of nonsensical to me, Christine.
>In the meantime, everyone wants to OWN both the Work and the author,
>because it resonates our own peculiar passions.
What do you mean that everyone wants to "OWN" the
Work and the author?
>I've written a few things over time, and I do know that my work
>is recognized by others only when I'm brave enough to expose my soul.
>Mere technical skill and the demands of the purse are insufficient.
So what may be true for you must have been true for
Shakespeare and every other writer in history?
>Sheez
Sheez indeed.
- Gary Kosinsky
Tom Reedy
news:45b7371d.04010...@posting.google.com...
news:<btbbdm$693$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > Christine Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > It means that I, personally, do not think that the author
> > > was a mere hack, writing for the unwashed masses or for
> > > the Queen's purpose, or whatever employer the proponent
> > > may have in mind, including Peter Farey's concept that W.S.
> > > (whoever W.S. was) wrote one successful history play and
> > > decided he was "onto a good thing," and wrote some more.
> > > How dry is that?
> >
> > The general welcomes Tamburlaine received,
> > When he arrived last upon our stage,
> > Hath made our poet pen his second part,
> > Where death cuts off the progress of his pomp
> > And murderous fates throw all his triumphs down.
> >
> > Would such a response to public (or theatre owner) demand
> > necessarily prevent his including a whole lot of material about
> > which he felt passionate?
> >
> >
>
> Absolutely not. What made you think I thought that?
> It appears the author was also passionate about history.
If he was, he sure got a lot of it wrong.
> (i.e., among other things, the author was not engaging
> in disconnected cerebral exercises)
Agreed. Writing drama, which is what playwrights do (our author being a
playwright), is not a "disconnected cerebral exercise."
> Tragedies and comedies are also "histories," yes?
>
> I just don't think the author was "responding to demand."
And your opinion is based on what, your opinion that the author was
passionate about history?
> Those who write (paint) (sculpt) (tie flies) (whatever)
> do so because they MUST. Art is not a Choice.
Do you not know the difference between art and self-expression? Or are they
the same in your book?
> The genie demands to be let out of the bottle.
> Whoever wrote the Work, would have done so regardless
> of the laws of supply and demand.
Your notion that all artists are Romantics is not even true today, much less
was it in the 17th Century.
>
> I guess I consider you the most erudite of the contributers,
> and I suspect you did an end-run around my question about RII,
> and I was disappointed. I know I've read that
> Elizabeth was grilling Bacon about whether he thought RII was treason,
> because she was after the author's curlies,
> and I'm not willing to defer, at this point, but willing to agree if
> the conversation never actually took place.
> Everyone here re-writes the issue.
> You didn't address why the author altered Gaunt's role, either.
Maybe the author wasn't as passionate about history as you think.
TR
Tom Reedy
A true Stritmatterian false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
> >or whatever employer the proponent may have in mind,
> >including Peter Farey's concept that W.S. (whoever W.S. was)
> >wrote one successful history play and decided he was "onto a good thing,"
> >and wrote some more. How dry is that?
Why is that dry? Writers want to be successful. When a writer has a success,
they usually try to repeat it.
> >
> >In this particular context, I'm asserting that the Work
> >fairly screams that the author "felt" passionately about SOMETHING,
> >otherwise, we wouldn't be so moved by it to the extent that
> >it survived for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
How, exactly, does it "move" you?
> I'm asserting that artistic work
> >survives because the artist expressed his/her own peculiar baggage,
> >and the baggage somehow resonates to an extent that it becomes timeless.
I see a vibrating American Tourister.
> >Pick an artist, ANY artist.
OK. Asa Carter.
> >
> >I.e., we are "moved," or "inspired." Choose your own synonym.
> >
> >Exactly what the author felt passionately about,
> >we won't know until and unless some casket-full of letters
> >is turned up, what-EVER.
>
> So you're saying the author of the canon wrote
> "passionately" about something, because he "felt
> passionately" about something, but after reading the canon
> you have no idea what that something was.
I think she mentioned history earlier.
>
> Sounds kind of nonsensical to me, Christine.
>
> >In the meantime, everyone wants to OWN both the Work and the author,
> >because it resonates our own peculiar passions.
>
> What do you mean that everyone wants to "OWN" the
> Work and the author?
>
> >I've written a few things over time, and I do know that my work
> >is recognized by others only when I'm brave enough to expose my soul.
> >Mere technical skill and the demands of the purse are insufficient.
"Mere" technical skill is not gained by feeling passionately about a
subject, and artists are always craftsmen to begin with.
I don't understand this imaginary antiStratfordian split between art, craft
and commerce. To them, true artists spit on filthy lucre and spurn material
success. Art has never been able to survive without patronage, whether is be
in the form of a royal grant or popular success.
People who hold the idea that artists spurn financial success just reveal
that they don't hang around artists very much. Much of their conversation
consists of obsessing over money, and especially writers, in my experience.
TR
Paul Crowley
news:45b7371d.04010...@posting.google.com...
> I know I've read that
> Elizabeth was grilling Bacon about whether he thought RII was treason,
> because she was after the author's curlies,
> and I'm not willing to defer, at this point, but willing to agree if
> the conversation never actually took place.
" Essex lived quietly at his house in the Strand, in disgrace, for over
a year. Then in February 1601 he planned an insurrection. The Queen
was to be detained by his adherents at Richmond, while he arrested
his rivals and seized control of London. As a preliminary attempt to
influence public opinion in his favour, he paid the Lord Chamberlain's
players, which was the name of Shakespeare's company, to perform a
play about Richard II in London. It was almost certainly Shakespeare's
play.
This was a sensitive subject, dealing with the deposition of a King, and
one which had been referred to recently in a book by Sir John Hayward,
"The History of Henry IV", which had worried Elizabeth. Hayward had
dedicated the book to Essex and had written in the dedication; 'Most
illustrious Earl, with your name adorning the front of our Henry, he may
go forth to the public happier and safer'. Elizabeth thought that these
words might have a sinister interpretation, even though they were written
in Latin, not in English for the general public to read. She imprisoned
Hayward in the Tower; but Sir Francis Bacon advised her that it would
be impossible to prosecute him for high treason."
(Ridley, *Elizabeth*, page 330)
Paul.
John W. Kennedy
> In various towns and times the fence viewer can be elected or appointed.
> He basically is responsible for settling disputes over boundaries. I was
> just using that example because that was a minor office that I had heard
> of, from my own small town.
My father had a term as a Fence Viewer in Waterville, ME. He then moved
up to Culler of Hoops and Staves.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Greg Reynolds
> I'm not arguing that the Elizabethan grammar school education
> was more rigorous than our own.
> But the "fact" of William's attendance lies somewhere
> between inference and conjecture.
> If R & K are making such an inference, they should say so, and
> not argue it outside the body of their essay, after
> their "factlessness" has been pointed out by somebody else.
Does the same apply to Roger and Lynne calling "one of
Shakespeare's daughters" illiterate? Their factlessness has been
pointed out. They've been asked to reveal the technique
they used to determine the illiteracy of daughter (who they
decline to name for some reason but I pretty much think
they are trashtalking Judith).
Thank you, Christine. It is so nice to have you here.
I'll sit down and wait for your answer.
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey
Christine Cooper wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Christine Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > It means that I, personally, do not think that the author
> > > was a mere hack, writing for the unwashed masses or for
> > > the Queen's purpose, or whatever employer the proponent
> > > may have in mind, including Peter Farey's concept that W.S.
> > > (whoever W.S. was) wrote one successful history play and
> > > decided he was "onto a good thing," and wrote some more.
> > > How dry is that?
> >
> > The general welcomes Tamburlaine received,
> > When he arrived last upon our stage,
> > Hath made our poet pen his second part,
> > Where death cuts off the progress of his pomp
> > And murderous fates throw all his triumphs down.
> >
> > Would such a response to public (or theatre owner) demand
> > necessarily prevent his including a whole lot of material
> > about which he felt passionate?
>
> Absolutely not. What made you think I thought that?
You *seemed* to be suggesting in the post as a whole that
the subject of a play would not be chosen because the
public wanted more, but solely because the subject either
was or contained something he felt passionate about. I was
pointing out that I do not see these as mutually exclusive.
If this was not what you meant, I apologize.
> It appears the author was also passionate about history.
> (i.e., among other things, the author was not engaging
> in disconnected cerebral exercises)
> Tragedies and comedies are also "histories," yes?
It was the potential for multi-part stories (of which 8
of the 10 "histories" in the First Folio are examples) that
I was suggesting as a reason. That they undoubtedly also
offered the opportunity to express his own feelings went,
I thought, without saying.
> I just don't think the author was "responding to demand."
> Those who write (paint) (sculpt) (tie flies) (whatever)
> do so because they MUST. Art is not a Choice.
> The genie demands to be let out of the bottle.
> Whoever wrote the Work, would have done so regardless
> of the laws of supply and demand.
Self actualization is great, but board and lodging have
to be dealt with first.
> I guess I consider you the most erudite of the contributers,
Thanks, but I am most certainly not, and have never
pretended to be. (But I do have a better ear for the
iambic pentameter than some people.) ;o)
.
> and I suspect you did an end-run around my question about
> RII, and I was disappointed.
> An "end-run"?
> I know I've read that Elizabeth was grilling Bacon
Back to those breakfasts again!
> about whether he thought RII was treason, because she
> was after the author's curlies, and I'm not willing to
> defer, at this point, but willing to agree if the
> conversation never actually took place. Everyone here
> re-writes the issue.
Sorry, you've lost me.
> You didn't address why the author altered Gaunt's role,
> either.
No indeed, and as I have a slightly better idea now of what
you were looking for, let me see what I can do.
Marlowe arrives back in England in May 1595, sick and almost
broke, and with a new identity. However, he does bring with
him a collection of foreign books which he has collected on
his travels. He is feeling bitter about how he has been
treated since his 'disappearance', particularly by Lord
Burghley, whom he now thinks has let him down.
Fortunately for him, Anthony Bacon takes him in, helps
nurse him back to health, and then finds somewhere for him
to hide out for a while, as a French tutor at Burley on the
Hill - the home of Sir John Harington - and with the name
*Monsieur Le Doux*. Anthony's own secretary, Jaques Petit,
will join him there later, pretending to be his valet.
Burley is a massive household, and undoubtedly had a well-
stocked library. Although no details remain, we may
reasonably assume that most of the English sources of
*Richard II* could have been available there - Holinshed
(of course), *The Mirror for Magistrates* most probably,
Berner's translation of *Froissart* perhaps, and (hot off
the presses) Daniel's *Civil Wars*.
The last of these may well have triggered the idea of
starting another multi-part history with *Richard II*, but
I suspect that two other things may have had a significant
influence too.
One would be his own experience of banishment, his disgust
at the way he had been treated, and the obvious sympathy
he would feel for Bolingbroke suffering a similar fate. The
other resides, perhaps, in one of the foreign books he
brought with him, *Les Semaines*, by du Bartas. Although
Sylvester would not translate this into English until 1605,
'Le Doux' would of course have been very familiar with the
original. And in that we find (in book 2, Sylvester's
translation):
All-haile (deere ALBION) *Europes* Pearle of price,
The Worlds rich Garden, Earths rare Paradice;
Thrice-happy Mother, which aye bringest-forth
Such Chiualry as daunteth all the Earth,
(Planting the Trophies of thy glorious Armes
By Sea and Land, where euer *Titan* warmes):
Such Artizans as doo wel-neere Eclipse
Faire Natures praise in peere-less Workmanships:
Such happy Wits, as *Egipt*, *Greece*, and *Rome*
(At least) haue equal'd, if not ouer-come;
And shine among their (Modern) learned Fellowes,
As Gold doth glister among paler Yellowes;
Or as *Apollo* th'other *Planets* passes
Or as His Flower excels the Medow-grasses
Thy Riuers, Seas; thy Cities, Shires doo seem;
Ciuil in manners, as in Buildings trim:
*Fenc'd from the World* (as better-worth then That)
With triple Wall (of Water, Wood, and Brasse)
Which neuer Stranger yet had powere to passe
(Saue when the Heau'ns haue for thy haynous Sinne
By some of Thine, with *falseKeyes* let them in.
Although Sylvester apparently adapted du Bartas to
refer to England rather than France (I haven't seen
the original) it could clearly have been the stimulus
for much of John of Gaunt's most famous speech, with
'Shakespeare' rather than Sylvester being the first to
shift it across the channel.
> Happy-piphany, or it should be by the time you read this. :-)
>
> Christine
Indeed it is. Cheers!
Christine Cooper
People write.
Some write passionately.
Some write, but not passionately.
How is that false?
>
> > >or whatever employer the proponent may have in mind,
> > >including Peter Farey's concept that W.S. (whoever W.S. was)
> > >wrote one successful history play and decided he was "onto a good thing,"
> > >and wrote some more. How dry is that?
>
> Why is that dry? Writers want to be successful. When a writer has a success,
> they usually try to repeat it.
>
> > >
Michaelangelo painted, but always returned to sculpture?
> > >In this particular context, I'm asserting that the Work
> > >fairly screams that the author "felt" passionately about SOMETHING,
> > >otherwise, we wouldn't be so moved by it to the extent that
> > >it survived for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
>
> How, exactly, does it "move" you?
>
Why does "how" the reader is moved,
have anything to do with the assertion "that" the reader is moved?
This is argument for argument's sake, but then lots of commentary
around here appears to fall into that category,
which is about the time Lynne's "and your point is?" echoes down the halls.
> > I'm asserting that artistic work
> > >survives because the artist expressed his/her own peculiar baggage,
> > >and the baggage somehow resonates to an extent that it becomes timeless.
>
> I see a vibrating American Tourister.
>
(sounds Warholian) :-)
> > >Pick an artist, ANY artist.
>
> OK. Asa Carter.
>
> > >
Interesting choice.
either an example of Jungian balance or
a consistent argument in favor of racial purity,
in different contexts, over a life-time,
depending on how the reader interprets the author.
Also a good example of how knowing the identity of the author
alters the reader's conception of the work, isn't it?
Didn't he also die in a tavern brawl? ;-)
> > >I.e., we are "moved," or "inspired." Choose your own synonym.
> > >
> > >Exactly what the author felt passionately about,
> > >we won't know until and unless some casket-full of letters
> > >is turned up, what-EVER.
> >
> > So you're saying the author of the canon wrote
> > "passionately" about something, because he "felt
> > passionately" about something, but after reading the canon
> > you have no idea what that something was.
>
> I think she mentioned history earlier.
>
> >
> > Sounds kind of nonsensical to me, Christine.
Your personal interpretation of the author's words,
may not be the same as the person sitting next to you,
may not be the author's meaning, or may only be
one of several intended meanings.
Such is the nature and mystery of language
and the subject of much domestic discord, too.
The thread on sexual preference is one example of many.
> >
> > >In the meantime, everyone wants to OWN both the Work and the author,
> > >because it resonates our own peculiar passions.
> >
> > What do you mean that everyone wants to "OWN" the
> > Work and the author?
> >
Lawyers claim W.S. was a lawyer.
Homosexuals believe W.S. was homosexual.
(but then, you're just arguing for the Helluvit, again.)
> > >I've written a few things over time, and I do know that my work
> > >is recognized by others only when I'm brave enough to expose my soul.
> > >Mere technical skill and the demands of the purse are insufficient.
>
> "Mere" technical skill is not gained by feeling passionately about a
> subject, and artists are always craftsmen to begin with.
>
I never indicated nor asserted otherwise.
Which is one reason I would incline more toward the Stratman than Oxford,
because my initial impression of Oxford
is that he lacked the self-discipline
to knock out all those plays,
but I don't want to bring Lynne down on my head. ;-)
Michaelangelo was an aristocrat, but
laboured years to learn anatomy and stonecraft.
agonized over material, and sweated two years on the Pieta.
(now I'm getting side-tracked)
> I don't understand this imaginary antiStratfordian split between art, craft
> and commerce. To them, true artists spit on filthy lucre and spurn material
> success. Art has never been able to survive without patronage, whether is be
> in the form of a royal grant or popular success.
Again, I never indicated nor asserted a "split."
But, there's a difference between hacks and artists.
Some artists agonize over money, but won't turn their work loose,
until they've made it into ART.
Much ART is reworked, revised, and reconceived.
(called variations on a theme?)
Michaelangelo did at least three Pietas.
We have Wodehouse's revisions, insertions, and interlineations,
His work is not less ART because he needed the money.
(passion is not limited to misery, religion, and sex)
>
> People who hold the idea that artists spurn financial success just reveal
> that they don't hang around artists very much. Much of their conversation
> consists of obsessing over money, and especially writers, in my experience.
>
That's like arguing Nureyev was a great dancer
because he made a lot of money at it.
Money is incentive, but not a muse.
Many great artists died in poverty, because their work
wasn't appreciated in their lifetime.
> TR
>
> >
> > So what may be true for you must have been true for
> > Shakespeare and every other writer in history?
> >
distinguish between "writer" and "artist" when you say that.
> > >Sheez
> >
> > Sheez indeed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Gary Kosinsky
Christine
Christine Cooper
1) You appear to be able to goad Lynne into
grating her verbal teeth without my assistance, thanks.
I'll just watch.
2) One case of "factlessness" does not excuse the other, of course.
I think I originally entered this un-holie pfray
with an attack on the Oxfordian assertion
that William Of Stratford was illiterate.
The status of his daughter's literacy is irrelevant.
My Dad didn't send me to college, and it's hardly a novel idea.
Besides, when you educate girls, they tend to get uppity,
and stop thinking of you as an authority, don't they? ;-)
3) Reedy & Kathman's "big sin" is announcing that
their essay is written for the interested, but uninformed, lay-person,
and then state all sorts of "facts" that turn out to be inferences,
many of which are subject to multiple interpretations,
and then when asked for clarification
by a member of said target audience,
they answer by stating that it's "obvious,"
when it isn't so obvious in the eyes of the "informed" lay-person,
thus causing the "uninformed" lay-person
to feel like R & K intended to dupe the unwary,
and thereby causing said layperson to become suspicious
and hostile and sympathetic to the other side.
In actual fact, Reedy & Kathman are oblivious of said lay-person,
and their essay is aimed directly at the Oxfordian mid-ship,
returning us to point (1) above. :-)
4) Thank you, it's nice to be here.
Does that mean it's generally accepted
that I'm not Mr. Baker or Ms. Beaton or some other person?
Is it common to go about this place like the Scarlet Pimpernel?
Do you often type standing up?
Cordially, Christine
Christine Cooper
> Christine Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > Christine Cooper wrote:
> > > >
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > It means that I, personally, do not think that the author
> > > > was a mere hack, writing for the unwashed masses or for
> > > > the Queen's purpose, or whatever employer the proponent
> > > > may have in mind, including Peter Farey's concept that W.S.
> > > > (whoever W.S. was) wrote one successful history play and
> > > > decided he was "onto a good thing," and wrote some more.
> > > > How dry is that?
> > >
> > > The general welcomes Tamburlaine received,
> > > When he arrived last upon our stage,
> > > Hath made our poet pen his second part,
> > > Where death cuts off the progress of his pomp
> > > And murderous fates throw all his triumphs down.
> > >
> > > Would such a response to public (or theatre owner) demand
> > > necessarily prevent his including a whole lot of material
> > > about which he felt passionate?
> >
> > Absolutely not. What made you think I thought that?
That was the subject of the discussion.
Passion and experience imbue words with life.
The fact that the setting is historical is a choice between formats
within a medium, like science fiction or mysteries.
The author enjoyed both and was good enough to make money at it,
under the "do what you love, and the money will follow," theory
of career choice. If an author is talented enough
at something he/she enjoys to be lucky enough
to earn a living at it, it doesn't mean they "do it for the money."
When the joy is gone, the artist either becomes a hack,
or quits and goes back to Warwickshire to raise sheep or something.
>
> You *seemed* to be suggesting in the post as a whole that
> the subject of a play would not be chosen because the
> public wanted more, but solely because the subject either
> was or contained something he felt passionate about. I was
> pointing out that I do not see these as mutually exclusive.
> If this was not what you meant, I apologize.
>
> > It appears the author was also passionate about history.
> > (i.e., among other things, the author was not engaging
> > in disconnected cerebral exercises)
> > Tragedies and comedies are also "histories," yes?
>
> It was the potential for multi-part stories (of which 8
> of the 10 "histories" in the First Folio are examples) that
> I was suggesting as a reason. That they undoubtedly also
> offered the opportunity to express his own feelings went,
> I thought, without saying.
>
Well, the discussion started because somebody else disagreed,
if only as a way to keep the conversation going.
Sigh, I miss England, too. Must have been brutal for him,
But, hey, he got to keep all four of his quarters in situ,
so his resentment is slightly misplaced, methinks.
But, that's the artistic temper for you!!!
Thank you. I believe this is one of 2 or 3 posts that
shed some light on my RII conundrum. I will now ponder on
the matter further.
I guess I should point out that since I've read all that
stuff at Mr. Farey's web-site, I already know what his
sources are, so don't accuse me of accepting the "facts"
on faith, just because it's Peter. I'm still musing on
the coffer vs. the lists, issue, and how that affects
the probable identity of M. LeDoux.
BTW, given that so many people think Elizabeth had children,
and what happened to the odd person or two who said as much,
I think it perfectly feasible that if Elizabeth said,
"Marlowe is dead, and that's the end of the matter,"
which she did, then if Marlowe walked up to Ben Jonson and said,
"Hi, I'm James Bond," Jonson would have to grin and bear it. Yes?
If there were a bunch of Elizabeth's children running around loose,
and everybody just smiled, and said nothing,
then Marlowe's "death" is a walk in the park by comparison.
Same argument applies to the alleged Oxford and Bacon conspiracy,
but I'm not as convinced of the argument for the need for
pseudonyms and secrecy in those contexts.
But, that's another issue. I just wanted to bring it up
before Greg or Terry jump my case.
> > Happy-piphany, or it should be by the time you read this. :-)
> >
> > Christine
>
> Indeed it is. Cheers!
>
Still!
Christine
Paul Crowley
news:WQnKb.38989$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I don't understand this imaginary antiStratfordian split
> between art, craft and commerce. To them, true artists
> spit on filthy lucre and spurn material success.
That is indeed nonsense -- no doubt prompted
by an over-romantic conception of the Bard.
> Art has never been able to survive without patronage,
> whether is be in the form of a royal grant or popular success.
It's the difference _between_ those two
that counts. List all the great works of art
you know which were 'financed' by popular
success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
> People who hold the idea that artists spurn financial
> success just reveal that they don't hang around artists
> very much. Much of their conversation consists of
> obsessing over money, and especially writers, in my
> experience.
Self-designated artists are maybe not a good
guide. But I'd agree with you -- few are known
for their dedicated asceticism. Often they have
appalling characters, and hideous streaks of
selfishness and meanness. One I know had a
near-life-long detestation of a rival (far below
him in literary capacity) and when that rival
fell into political disfavour, he did his best to
deprive him of his most cherished role -- his
wardenship of some tin mines.
Paul.
LynnE
"Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45b7371d.04010...@posting.google.com...
news:<3FFA3AF1...@core.com>...
> > Christine Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not arguing that the Elizabethan grammar school education
> > > was more rigorous than our own.
> > > But the "fact" of William's attendance lies somewhere
> > > between inference and conjecture.
> > > If R & K are making such an inference, they should say so, and
> > > not argue it outside the body of their essay, after
> > > their "factlessness" has been pointed out by somebody else.
> >
> > Does the same apply to Roger and Lynne calling "one of
> > Shakespeare's daughters" illiterate? Their factlessness has been
> > pointed out. They've been asked to reveal the technique
> > they used to determine the illiteracy of daughter (who they
> > decline to name for some reason but I pretty much think
> > they are trashtalking Judith).
> >
> > Thank you, Christine. It is so nice to have you here.
> > I'll sit down and wait for your answer.
> >
> > Greg Reynolds
>
>
> 1) You appear to be able to goad Lynne into
> grating her verbal teeth without my assistance, thanks.
> I'll just watch.
Not at all, not at all, Christine. I have other things on my mind. However,
since Greg appears in this reflection of your post to be asking for evidence
that Judith was illiterate, I suggest he go to
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
where he will find an example of her mark. It would be highly improbable for
someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
If Greg would like to contact me with further questions, my email is on the
top of my posts, or he can post on the Fellowship boards.
>
> 2) One case of "factlessness" does not excuse the other, of course.
> I think I originally entered this un-holie pfray
> with an attack on the Oxfordian assertion
> that William Of Stratford was illiterate.
To my knowledge, Roger and I have never asserted that Shakespeare of
Stratford was illiterate. Even if Roger has, I certainly haven't. Indeed, in
other posts, I have readily acknowledged that as he was an actor he could
likely read. There is no proof of his literacy, however, except for six
(perhaps seven) rather poorly executed signatures, not one of which conforms
to the variants in spelling of the name that is appended to many of the
quartos.
> The status of his daughter's literacy is irrelevant.
> My Dad didn't send me to college, and it's hardly a novel idea.
Of course, your dad wasn't Shakespeare (no impoliteness intended), who
constantly wrote of educated women in a positive way. It is also often
interesting to examine the environment from which someone emerges. In
Shakespeare of Stratford's family we only have one example (and there is
only scant evidence) of literacy. One of his daughters, Susanna, *may* have
been literate, because she could sign her name, albeit awkwardly. However,
there is contradictory evidence with regard to her being able to read and
write in any significant way. There might be a good case for stating that
the fact that Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no bearing
on the man himself. But when this illiteracy extends to the generation below
him, and when at the same time the author is so passionate about
intelligent, educated, strong women, I believe questions can reasonably be
asked.
Best wishes,
Lynne
snip>
> Cordially, Christine
Tom Reedy
news:gQAKb.3463$HR....@news.indigo.ie...
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:WQnKb.38989$Pg1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > I don't understand this imaginary antiStratfordian split
> > between art, craft and commerce. To them, true artists
> > spit on filthy lucre and spurn material success.
>
> That is indeed nonsense -- no doubt prompted
> by an over-romantic conception of the Bard.
>
> > Art has never been able to survive without patronage,
> > whether is be in the form of a royal grant or popular success.
>
> It's the difference _between_ those two
> that counts. List all the great works of art
> you know which were 'financed' by popular
> success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
The plays of Shakespeare.
TR
John W. Kennedy
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:gQAKb.3463$HR....@news.indigo.ie...
>>that counts. List all the great works of art
>>you know which were 'financed' by popular
>>success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
> The plays of Shakespeare.
And of Aeschylus, and Sophocles, and Euripides, and Aristophanes, and
Plautus, and Terence.
And the epics of Homer.
And the entire corpus of Elizabethan and Restoration drama.
And the Arthurian Vulgate, and Post-Vulgate, and the "Morte Darthur".
And the novels of Samuel Richardson, Madame D'Arblay ("Fanny Burney"),
and Jane Austen.
What a silly question!
BCD
> It's the difference _between_ those two
> that counts. List all the great works of art
> you know which were 'financed' by popular
> success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
***I'll choose 1715-1720, if you please. As you'll recall from your
studies of Alexander Pope, his version of the *Iliad* is generally
cited as the first significant work, at least in English lit, to break
with the patronage system. It appeared, segment by segment,
1715-1720, supported by its popular success; and Pope was henceforth
financially secure and able to live--and indeed live well--from the
proceeds from his writing.
***Pope has been in a period of less favor for a while; still, having
read various English translations of the *Iliad*, I find Pope's
version to be the most powerful.
> > [...]
> Self-designated artists are maybe not a good
> guide. But I'd agree with you -- few are known
> for their dedicated asceticism. Often they have
> appalling characters, and hideous streaks of
> selfishness and meanness. [...]
***As do others, often, and without having a redeeming characteristic
of producing even self-designated art.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Bob Grumman
>that counts. List all the great works of art
>you know which were 'financed' by popular
>success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
Name all the publics before 1650 who had the material wherewithal to finance any
art. Was there one before the public that attended the plays put on at the
Globe and similar theatres in Shakespeare's time?
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
This is the flaw of Lynne's thinking--placing the whole of her conclusive
powers on one single sample with no clue as to the subject's age,
or circumstance, or purpose. This was not a handwriting contest
and it is not definitive of a lifetime of literacy. I find it very inattentive
of Lynne to provide Diana Price's site as "evidence" because I
mentioned Diana and Lynne in the same phrase because
they are equally guilty of slamming Judith without just cause.
Diana does not give any detail regarding Judith's age or
circumstance. Diana does not know how many instances there
were of Judith writing. Diana has only this single sample and
no further detail, so it is Diana staking her entire scholarship
reputation on one sample, but that temptation is too great and
there goes Diana, making her final conclusion on almost no detail at all.
So, please don't pretend an opinion with almost no data is
evidence. Show that this was the absolute best effort that Judith ever
made or quit pretending that it was.
Diana states....
"Shakspere's younger daughter signed with a mark.
The pigtail shape in the middle of the image is
the "mark." A scribe or attorney wrote the
name Judith "Shakespeare."
Diana makes two errors here. Diana misspells Shakespeare
in the first instance and my reason for saying so is that the second
instance is the only reference available for any spelling
regarding this sample. So Diana ignores the very detail
she is presenting to import what she considers a demeaning
spelling, but the subject under study rejects Diana's other
spelling. Then, Diana says that a scribe or
attorney wrote the name. Well, which is it, Diana? By not
knowing if it was a scribe or an attorney, Diana cannot
claim it is either a scribe or an attorney. Diana does not
know if it was a scribe. Diana does not know if it was an
attorney. SO Diana does not know if it was Judith, either.
These are false conclusions and an attempt to dumb down
a Shakespeare daughter.
Double click your MOUSE if Diana sways your opinion
with her misspelling, her conclusion based on a single sample,
or her nebulous editorial comment about a scribe OR an attorney.
This is research? Then I judge this single sample of Diana's
research as cruelly as she judges this one sample of Judith's
literacy.
Thanks for the indefinitive sample, Lynne. Now that you've
identified your faulty technique, you can begin your research
anew and actually provide a sensible statement in your
essay rebuttal other than "because Diana Price thinks so
and here's her webpage."
Here is more detest for the Shakespeares from Diana's site.
Notice how Susanna is mercilessly demeaned by a detractor:
+++
Susanna Hall's signature
Shakspere's elder daughter was able to sign her name.
One example survives. This is the image given in
Halliwell-Phillipps's Outlines. Paleographer E. Maunde
Thompson describes this as a “painfully formed signature,
which was probably the most that she was capable of
doing with the pen.”
Note how the letter u is out of place compared to the
following letters. The three a's are all different, as are the
two n's and the two final l's.
+++
Again we see an imported spelling used to demean and confuse.
As for "painfully formed," this is a ridiculous comment and has
no basis in paleography. What does pain have to do with it and
how does Thompson deduce the writer was in pain? This is
pure hogwash and an attempt to demean the Shakespeares. It
could just as easily have been gleefully formed. As for calling
it probably the most she could do with a pen, that is an amateur
opinion added only to insult Susanna. Thompson is not speaking
as a professional but as a detractor (but he can only fool people
who already are working from the conclusion that either of these
girls were illiterate).
As for Diana's determination that "The three a's are all different, as
are the two n's and the two final l's" this proves that it was written
and not copied, or drawn from a model provided to an illiterate girl.
These cheap shots have no merit in determining either person's
lifetime of literacy.
> If Greg would like to contact me with further questions, my email is on the
> top of my posts, or he can post on the Fellowship boards.
I happily submitted the Oxfordian Frequently Unanswered Questions
to the aforementioned fellowship to no avail. If there were an Oxfordian
just busting to clear things up, I would have heard about it. They are
still unanswered and fair game for discussion. HLAS is easy to find.
> > 2) One case of "factlessness" does not excuse the other, of course.
> > I think I originally entered this un-holie pfray
> > with an attack on the Oxfordian assertion
> > that William Of Stratford was illiterate.
>
> To my knowledge, Roger and I have never asserted that Shakespeare of
> Stratford was illiterate. Even if Roger has, I certainly haven't.
Lynne just wants him to have never attended school. Okay.
> Indeed, in
> other posts, I have readily acknowledged that as he was an actor he could
> likely read.
Roscius was an actor and a writer, no?
Wasn't Shakespeare compared to Roscius by a contemporary,
as discovered recently by a colleague of SF?
> There is no proof of his literacy, however, except for six
> (perhaps seven) rather poorly executed signatures, not one of which conforms
> to the variants in spelling of the name that is appended to many of the
> quartos.
There is eyewitness commentary and critique of Shakespeare's
writing of Julius Caesar. Hard to ignore unless you're a really
super ignorer.
> > The status of his daughter's literacy is irrelevant.
I heartily agree, Christine. They are not an issue
> > My Dad didn't send me to college, and it's hardly a novel idea.
>
> Of course, your dad wasn't Shakespeare (no impoliteness intended), who
> constantly wrote of educated women in a positive way.
If Shakespeare had to be his characters, he'd have to murder about 100
people, an absurd idea, so that doesn't seem important to authorship.
> It is also often
> interesting to examine the environment from which someone emerges. In
> Shakespeare of Stratford's family we only have one example (and there is
> only scant evidence) of literacy. One of his daughters, Susanna, *may* have
> been literate, because she could sign her name, albeit awkwardly.
Ha ha ha. Lynne has just one measly 400 year old sample.
"Painfully," "awkwardly;" keep the mean-spirited comments coming!
Susanna wasn't using an expensive Waterman or even a Bic. It is foolhardy
to make any conclusive decisions regarding literacy on what Lynne just
admitted was scant evidence.
> However,
> there is contradictory evidence with regard to her being able to read and
> write in any significant way. There might be a good case for stating that
> the fact that Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no bearing
> on the man himself.
Lynne has no basis for this claim that the parents and wife were illiterate;
that is HER reading deficiency on display.
> But when this illiteracy extends to the generation below
> him, and when at the same time the author is so passionate about
> intelligent, educated, strong women, I believe questions can reasonably be
> asked.
Forget the writing and concentrate on the loving relationship and
see Shakespeare loved and cared for women and his daughters and that
Oxford mistreated women, sought companionship with boys instead,
offended his wife, and that his daughters waited til he was dead to marry.
Lynne's reasoning that "the author is so passionate about
intelligent, educated, strong women" is a dead end for
Oxford. We have seen much love and concern for the
Shakespeare girls and none for the Vere girls.
And the literacy issue is a draw. Lynne would need more
than a single sample to make any of her cruelly conspicuous
conclusions.
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3FFA3AF1...@core.com>...
> > Christine Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not arguing that the Elizabethan grammar school education
> > > was more rigorous than our own.
> > > But the "fact" of William's attendance lies somewhere
> > > between inference and conjecture.
> > > If R & K are making such an inference, they should say so, and
> > > not argue it outside the body of their essay, after
> > > their "factlessness" has been pointed out by somebody else.
> >
> > Does the same apply to Roger and Lynne calling "one of
> > Shakespeare's daughters" illiterate? Their factlessness has been
> > pointed out. They've been asked to reveal the technique
> > they used to determine the illiteracy of daughter (who they
> > decline to name for some reason but I pretty much think
> > they are trashtalking Judith).
> >
> > Thank you, Christine. It is so nice to have you here.
> > I'll sit down and wait for your answer.
> >
> > Greg Reynolds
>
> 1) You appear to be able to goad Lynne into
> grating her verbal teeth without my assistance, thanks.
> I'll just watch.
I love Lynne and respect her and would not allow anyone to
falsely portray Lynne as anything she isn't, or give Lynne's
credit to anyone else, or form some society bent on defaming Lynne.
> 2) One case of "factlessness" does not excuse the other, of course.
> I think I originally entered this un-holie pfray
> with an attack on the Oxfordian assertion
> that William Of Stratford was illiterate.
> The status of his daughter's literacy is irrelevant.
> My Dad didn't send me to college, and it's hardly a novel idea.
> Besides, when you educate girls, they tend to get uppity,
> and stop thinking of you as an authority, don't they? ;-)
(Make me cry, why don't you? My only child leaves tomorrow
for a semester in Rome. We don't say "uppity" because we
bless each day we applaud opportunity for all --"Glad for other
men's good" is how Corin said it.)
> 3) Reedy & Kathman's "big sin" is announcing that
> their essay is written for the interested, but uninformed, lay-person,
> and then state all sorts of "facts" that turn out to be inferences,
> many of which are subject to multiple interpretations,
> and then when asked for clarification
> by a member of said target audience,
> they answer by stating that it's "obvious,"
> when it isn't so obvious in the eyes of the "informed" lay-person,
> thus causing the "uninformed" lay-person
> to feel like R & K intended to dupe the unwary,
> and thereby causing said layperson to become suspicious
> and hostile and sympathetic to the other side.
Maybe you're going to make it a kinder, gentler essay.
I think everything is a draft. I remember Lynne commenting
that she would devise "A Question of Will" differently now in
retrospect. (I hope she means she would scrap it altogether.) I go
into libraries sometimes and just proofread the books for fun.
> In actual fact, Reedy & Kathman are oblivious of said lay-person,
> and their essay is aimed directly at the Oxfordian mid-ship,
> returning us to point (1) above. :-)
>
>
> 4) Thank you, it's nice to be here.
> Does that mean it's generally accepted
> that I'm not Mr. Baker or Ms. Beaton or some other person?
My mom was a lawyer so you ring true to me.
("Portia to Wed" read the Tribune Society Page in 1948.)
Alisa is a favorite of mine, and we correspond often enough
on the real issues of today.
And Baker, well, I enjoyed him in that Mike Rubbo cartoon.
> Is it common to go about this place like the Scarlet Pimpernel?
More like Scarlett O'Hara--as long as there are Oxfordians,
"I'll never go hungry again!"
> Do you often type standing up?
Metaphorically.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > > I'm not arguing that the Elizabethan grammar school education
> > > > was more rigorous than our own.
> > > > But the "fact" of William's attendance lies somewhere
> > > > between inference and conjecture.
> > > > If R & K are making such an inference, they should say so, and
> > > > not argue it outside the body of their essay, after
> > > > their "factlessness" has been pointed out by somebody else.
> > Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote
> > > Does the same apply to Roger and Lynne calling "one of
> > > Shakespeare's daughters" illiterate? Their factlessness has been
> > > pointed out. They've been asked to reveal the technique
> > > they used to determine the illiteracy of daughter (who they
> > > decline to name for some reason but I pretty much think
> > > they are trashtalking Judith).
> > >
> > > Thank you, Christine. It is so nice to have you here.
> > > I'll sit down and wait for your answer.
> "Christine Cooper" <kemahw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > 1) You appear to be able to goad Lynne into
> > grating her verbal teeth without my assistance, thanks.
> > I'll just watch.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Not at all, not at all, Christine. I have other things on my mind.
However,
> since Greg appears in this reflection of your post to be asking for
evidence
> that Judith was illiterate, I suggest he go to
> http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
>
> where he will find an example of her mark. It would be highly
> improbable for someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
I personally think that Judith's curly-Q is quite artistic!
> > 2) One case of "factlessness" does not excuse the other, of course.
> > I think I originally entered this un-holie pfray
> > with an attack on the Oxfordian assertion
> > that William Of Stratford was illiterate.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> To my knowledge, Roger and I have never asserted that Shakespeare of
> Stratford was illiterate. Even if Roger has, I certainly haven't. Indeed,
in
> other posts, I have readily acknowledged that as he was an actor he could
> likely read. There is no proof of his literacy, however, except for six
> (perhaps seven) rather poorly executed signatures, not one of which
conforms
> to the variants in spelling of the name that is appended to many of the
> quartos.
>
> > The status of his daughter's literacy is irrelevant.
> > My Dad didn't send me to college, and it's hardly a novel idea.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Of course, your dad wasn't Shakespeare (no impoliteness intended), who
> constantly wrote of educated women in a positive way. It is also often
> interesting to examine the environment from which someone emerges. In
> Shakespeare of Stratford's family we only have one example (and there is
> only scant evidence) of literacy. One of his daughters, Susanna, *may*
have
> been literate, because she could sign her name, albeit awkwardly. However,
> there is contradictory evidence with regard to her being able to read and
> write in any significant way. There might be a good case for stating that
> the fact that Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no
bearing
> on the man himself. But when this illiteracy extends to the generation
below
> him, and when at the same time the author is so passionate about
> intelligent, educated, strong women, I believe questions can reasonably
> be asked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In art, Saint Anne is often portrayed:
teaching the young Mary to read
(e.g., in 13th-century manuscripts at the Bodleian Library, Oxford,
and wall-paintings at Croughton, Northantshire);
Her body was brought from Palestine to Constantinople in 710, whence
some portions of her relics have been dispersed in the West, where
they are claimed by . . . Canterbury, Durham, and Reading (England).
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0726.htm
July 26: Feastday of Joachim & Ann, Parents of Mary
--------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 1605: WS buys 31 yrs of 1/2 Stratford TITHES from Rph Hubaud
for £440 for family burial sepulchre.
------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 1602, "James Roberts]. A booke,
The REVEnge of HAMLETT prince of Denmarke,
as it was latelie acted by the Lord Chamberlayn his servantes."
was entered into the Stationers' register.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Thomas Harriot made the earliest telescopic observations in England.
On 26 July 1609 at 9 p.m. he sketched the Moon viewing it
through a telescope with a magnification of 6.>>
http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Harriot.html
Thomas Harriot
Born: 1560 in Oxford, England
Died: 2 July 1621 in London, England
-------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26: Feastday of Joachim & Ann, Parents of Mary
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0726.htm
<<1st century; the feast is kept on September 9 in the East. Tradition
has assigned the names Joachim and Anne (meaning "gracious" in Hebrew)
to the parents of the Blessed Virgin, although there is some thought
that her father's name may actually have been Heli (Luke 3:23), though
it is very uncertain. Joachim has been assigned other names as well in
other apocryphal writings: Cleopas, Eliacim, Jonachir, and Sadoc. The
names Anne and Joachim derive from an early apocryphal writing called
the Protoevangelium of James (2nd century), which professes to give an
account of Mary's birth and early life. The story parallels that of the
Biblical narrative (1 Samuel 1) of the childless Hannah bearing Samuel.
It is worth noting that in Hebrew Anne and Hannah are the same name.
Whatever their names, they were highly extolled by Saints John
Damascene, Epiphanius, and Gregory of Nyssa as the model for Christian
spouses and parents, who principal duty is the holy education of their
children. By this they glorify their Creator, perpetuate His honor on
earth, and sanctify their own souls. Saint Paul says that it is by the
education of their children that parents are to be saved. Nor does he
admit anyone to serve the altar, whose sons do not, by their holy
conduct, give proofs of a virtuous education. Nevertheless, many parents
are more solicitous about establishing their children in the world than
by providing them with a good example and teaching them Christian
virtue.
Although nothing is known about either of them, tradition fills up the
story of their lives. Joachim is said to have been born at Nazareth and
married Anne when he was still a young man. He was a rich farmer who
possessed great herds. Because they had no children for many years,
Joachim was publicly mocked--to be childless was considered a punishment
for unworthiness. One day the Temple priest even refused Joachim's
offering of a lamb. In a last prayer for a child, he withdrew to the
desert and fasted for forty days.
Anne's father is said to have been a nomadic Jew named Akar, who
brought his wife to Nazareth for their daughter's birth. Anne, too,
after her marriage to Joachim, was saddened that God had not blessed
them with children. She would weep and pray for God to answer her
prayer. One day as she was praying beneath a laurel tree feeling that
even Joachim had abandoned her (he was in the desert), an angel is said
to have told her that God had heard her prayers [image]. She would have
a child who would be praised throughout the world. Anne replied, "As my
God lives, if I should conceive either a boy or a girl, the child shall
be a gift to my God, serving Him in holiness throughout the whole of its
life."
Then the angel told her to run and meet her husband, who in obedience
to another angel, was returning with his herds. They met by the Golden
Gate and from that time Anne prepared for the blessed event. Saint Anne
gave birth to Mary when she was about 40. It is said that Anne kept her
promise and placed Mary in the service of God at the Temple when she
was but three years old. According to tradition, she and Joachim lived
to see the birth of Jesus and Joachim died just after seeing his divine
grandchild presented in the Temple at Jerusalem, and buried in Jerusalem.
Her body was brought from Palestine to Constantinople in 710, whence
some portions of her relics have been dispersed in the West, where they
are claimed by Duren (Rheinland, Germany), Apt-en-Provence (France),
and Canterbury, Durham, and Reading (England).
The liturgical cultus of Saint Anne appears in the 6th century in the
East and the 8th in the West. In the 10th century, feast of the
Conception of Anne was celebrated in Naples, spread to Canterbury in
about 1100, and was kept at Worcester soon after; however, it was not
generally observed until late in the 14th century spurred by the growing
interest in the Blessed Virgin. The cultus of Anne became an object of
bitter attack by Martin Luther, especially the images of her with Jesus
and Mary--a favorite subject of Renaissance painters. In response, the
Holy See extended her feast to the Universal Church in 1584.
Joachim has been honored in the East from time immemorial; but only
since the 16th century in the West. The cultus of Saint Joachim began in
the East with artistic representations as on the columns of Saint Mark's
in Venice, Italy--which date to the 6th century. The hesitancy of the
Catholic Church in allowing an official cultus of Joachim can be seen in
the authorization of the feast by Julius II, its suppression by Saint
Pius V, and restoration by Gregory XV. Clement II placed it in August
and Leo XIII raised its rank. In the West, Joachim is in the Roman
Martyrology on March 20, but his feast was on August 16 until it was
joined with that of Saint Anne.
The Bollandist Father Cuper has collected a great number of miracles
wrought through the intercession of Saint Anne.
In art, Saint Anne is often portrayed:
(1) with the Virgin Mary holding the Infant Jesus in her lap;
(2) being kissed by Saint Joachim at the Golden Gate;
(3) in pictures of the birth of her daughter;
(4) teaching the young Mary to read or embroider (e.g., in 13th-century
manuscripts at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and wall-paintings at
Croughton, Northantshire); or
(5) holding the Blessed Virgin in one arm and the Holy Child in the
other.
Saint Joachim is generally shown as an old man leading the Blessed
Virgin as a child. He may also be depicted:
(1) bringing a lamb to the altar and being turned away by the priest;
(2) greeting Saint Anne at the Golden Gate; or
(3) carrying a basket of doves and a staff.
The most famous cycle of paintings of the two together are those of
Giotto in the Arena Chapel at Padua, Italy, but the images were well
known elsewhere.
Albrecht Dürer's Saint Anne with Virgin and Child
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/durer/st-anne.jpg
Saint Anne is the patron of Brittany, childless women, housewives,
cabinet makers, and MINERS (the result of a comparison between
Mary & Jesus and precious metals).>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
> >It's the difference _between_ those two
> >that counts. List all the great works of art
> >you know which were 'financed' by popular
> >success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
>
> Name all the publics before 1650 who had the material wherewithal
> to finance any art.
There weren't any -- that's my point. Not
merely were they poor, they were illiterate
and uneducated. The notion that they
would go for real art, or that a poet would
write real art for the public stage, is absurd.
> Was there one before the public that attended the plays put
> on at the Globe and similar theatres in Shakespeare's time?
There weren't any such public in Shake-
speare's time either. It is just imagined by
Strats -- out of nothing. Still, it was an
amusing fantasy while it lasted -- poor,
uneducated, illiterate 'groundlings' flocking
to see the plays of Shakespeare.
One thing, that is mildly interesting about
the Stratfordian fantasy, is that its victims
did not even begin to realise that the idea
was crazy.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:m1CKb.5300$BA6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> To my knowledge, Roger and I have never asserted that Shakespeare of
> Stratford was illiterate. Even if Roger has, I certainly haven't. Indeed, in
> other posts, I have readily acknowledged that as he was an actor he could
> likely read.
Lynne, would you mind explaining how, under
your scenario, the other actors of the company
regarded the Stratman.
Did they think he was also the playwright?
If so, would they have asked him how to
play certain lines, or suggested to him
various amendments of the text . . .
discussed the technicalities, etc.,etc.?
If not, did they think someone else was
the playwright?
Since, as actor he would often perform at
court, and in the great houses of aristocrats,
did royalty and courtiers discuss the plays
with him? Would they have got him to sign
their copies of *V&A* and of *Lucrece* and
of various quarto editions? Do you think that
the story of the Queen asking the playwright
to show 'Falstaff in Love' is true? If so, was
this conversation with the Stratman? If not,
do you think she had other conversations
with him about, say, Richard II, and who was
at which battle and how he had put artillery
into King John and was quite unaware of the
geography of all the major cities of Northern
Italy . . . and so on and on?
I could go on and on and on . . . but I know,
and you know, and everyone here knows that
you, as a quasi-Strat, will have no answers
to any of these questions, and you will, as
is normal for Strats, dodge and duck them.
> There might be a good case for stating that the fact that
> Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no bearing
> on the man himself.
Oh yeah? How many writers emerge from
homes where the parents are illiterate?
Some facts in the world need to be
recognised. It does not always work
in the way the politically-correct would
prefer -- as they rev up their 4x4s to ferry
their offspring to the most expensive
schools they can afford.
Paul.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Not at all, not at all, Christine. I have other things on my mind.
> However,
> > since Greg appears in this reflection of your post to be asking for
> evidence
> > that Judith was illiterate, I suggest he go to
> > http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
> >
> > where he will find an example of her mark. It would be highly
> > improbable for someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
> I personally think that Judith's curly-Q is quite artistic!
Since you believe her to have been an illiterate boob, I can only
assume that you meant to write "Artistic."
[...]
Well, why not? You just said that she was a teacher of reading.
[...]
What?! Just after seeing his divine grandchild presented in the
Temple and buried?! I think you're oVERlooking a few intervening years,
Art.
> Her body was brought from Palestine to Constantinople in 710, whence
> some portions of her relics have been dispersed in the West, where they
> are claimed by Duren (Rheinland, Germany), Apt-en-Provence (France),
> and Canterbury, Durham, and Reading (England).
You already said that above, Art -- are you getting senile? Or are
you parodying Richard Kennedy?
Does any of the above lunatic logorrhea have anything to do with
Shakespeare, Art? Or is it merely yet another
aneuendor...@comicass.nut core dump?
LynnE
I don't pretend to have all the answers, Paul, unlike some. These are
questions that have worried me but that I cannot state positively what the
truth of the matter is because I don't believe we have any proof of
anything. In my novel I suggested that most people in the Chamberlain's Men
and in Oxford's immediate circle were in on the ruse, if ruse it could be
called, but that cannot, of course, be a definitive answer.
>
> > There might be a good case for stating that the fact that
> > Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no bearing
> > on the man himself.
>
> Oh yeah? How many writers emerge from
> homes where the parents are illiterate?
In Shakespeare's time, probably more than one or two. Today not many, unless
the family has emigrated from the third world. However, I have a B.A., an
M.A., and a B.Ed, although my father left school at ten or eleven and my
mother at thirteen. Besides, you are not reading carefully. I said: "there
might be a good case for stating..." not that there is. I am trying to bend
over backwards to be as fair as I can be with regard to evidence or lack of
it, both here and in the response that Rog and I are writing. I don't want
to make great sweeping statements that I can't in any way defend. That, to
my mind, is one of the problems with the original essay.
>
> Some facts in the world need to be
> recognised. It does not always work
> in the way the politically-correct would
> prefer -- as they rev up their 4x4s to ferry
> their offspring to the most expensive
> schools they can afford.
I've never been called politically correct before, Paul, which is what I
imagine you're saying. You might contact my publishers if you believe that I
am. I have never had a 4x4 (I thought it was a planks till I looked it up),
and the only time a child of mine ever attended a private school was when I
taught in one and so fees were reduced. But perhaps you are attempting to be
ironic.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
Tom Reedy
> "Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:btfi4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> > >It's the difference _between_ those two
> > >that counts. List all the great works of art
> > >you know which were 'financed' by popular
> > >success before 1650 . . . or even 1850.
> >
> > Name all the publics before 1650 who had the material wherewithal
> > to finance any art.
>
> There weren't any -- that's my point. Not
> merely were they poor, they were illiterate
> and uneducated. The notion that they
> would go for real art, or that a poet would
> write real art for the public stage, is absurd.
>
> > Was there one before the public that attended the plays put
> > on at the Globe and similar theatres in Shakespeare's time?
>
> There weren't any such public in Shake-
> speare's time either. It is just imagined by
> Strats -- out of nothing. Still, it was an
> amusing fantasy while it lasted -- poor,
> uneducated, illiterate 'groundlings' flocking
> to see the plays of Shakespeare.
"How would it have ioyed Talbot (the terror of the French) to thinke that
after he had lyne two hundred yeares in his Tombe, hee should triumph againe
on the Stage, and haue his bones newe embalmed with the teares of ten
thousand spectators at least, (at seuerall times) who, in the Tragedian that
represents his person, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding?"
Thomas Nashe, *Pierce Penilesse his Supplication to the Diuell* 1592
Pretty substantial "nothing." But of course, it's not that hard at all to
show what an ignorant ass Crowley is. It's almost as if he craves it.
TR
Tom Reedy
>
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
> news:oSXKb.3797$HR....@news.indigo.ie...
> >
> > Some facts in the world need to be
> > recognised. It does not always work
> > in the way the politically-correct would
> > prefer -- as they rev up their 4x4s to ferry
> > their offspring to the most expensive
> > schools they can afford.
>
> I've never been called politically correct before, Paul, which is what I
> imagine you're saying. You might contact my publishers if you believe that
I
> am. I have never had a 4x4 (I thought it was a planks till I looked it
up),
> and the only time a child of mine ever attended a private school was when
I
> taught in one and so fees were reduced. But perhaps you are attempting to
be
> ironic.
That isn't irony, Lynne. That's just another expression of the sick envy and
bitter failure that runs throughout all of Crowley's posts.
TR
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> >
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
>
>
Lynne
> In article <6MadnT9zHq7...@comcast.com>,
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
>
> [...]
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
> > > Not at all, not at all, Christine. I have other things on my mind.
> However,
> > > since Greg appears in this reflection of your post to be asking for
> evidence
> > > that Judith was illiterate, I suggest he go to
> > > http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
> > >
> > > where he will find an example of her mark. It would be highly
> > > improbable for someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
>
> > I personally think that Judith's curly-Q is quite artistic!
>
> Since you believe her to have been an illiterate boob, I can only
> assume that you meant to write "Artistic."
Just to clarify, David, just because someone is illiterate doesn't in
the least mean she is a boob.
Best wishes,
Lynne
snip
Paul Crowley
>
> > Did they think he was also the playwright?
> > If so, would they have asked him how to
> > play certain lines, or suggested to him
> > various amendments of the text . . .
> > discussed the technicalities, etc.,etc.?
> > If not, did they think someone else was
> > the playwright?
> >
> > Since, as actor he would often perform at
> > court, and in the great houses of aristocrats,
> > did royalty and courtiers discuss the plays
> > with him? Would they have got him to sign
> > their copies of *V&A* and of *Lucrece* and
> > of various quarto editions? Do you think that
> > the story of the Queen asking the playwright
> > to show 'Falstaff in Love' is true? If so, was
> > this conversation with the Stratman? If not,
> > do you think she had other conversations
> > with him about, say, Richard II, and who was
> > at which battle and how he had put artillery
> > into King John and was quite unaware of the
> > geography of all the major cities of Northern
> > Italy . . . and so on and on?
> I don't pretend to have all the answers, Paul, unlike some.
One or two would suffice.
> These are
> questions that have worried me but that I cannot state positively what the
> truth of the matter is because I don't believe we have any proof of
> anything.
A dodge. Of course we don't have proof
of anything. No one is asking for it. We
have to try to come to sensible judgements
on the basis of the information that we do.
As soon as you begin to picture the Stratman
trying to be an actor (having arrived in
London in his late 20s with a strong Brummy
accent) the whole image should disintegrate.
It makes no sense.
Further, you completely fail to understand
the meaning of the name 'Will Shake-speare'
-- and its intense complex of Elizabethan puns.
A real person with a name like THAT can only
have been selected because of it. The chances
that he would also be a competent actor are
minute.
You really must, at some point, look into all
the ignorant, worthless Stratfordian baggage
that you carry around.
> In my novel I suggested that most people in the Chamberlain's Men
> and in Oxford's immediate circle were in on the ruse, if ruse it could be
> called, but that cannot, of course, be a definitive answer.
It's nuts -- it would mean, in effect, that
everyone in London would have known
> > > There might be a good case for stating that the fact that
> > > Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no bearing
> > > on the man himself.
> >
> > Oh yeah? How many writers emerge from
> > homes where the parents are illiterate?
>
> In Shakespeare's time, probably more than one or two.
Not so. There was not a flash of lightning
when suddenly everyone began to read
and write. It was, and still is, a slow process.
Illiterate parents have illiterate children.
Literate parents have literate children, and
a few become writers.
> Today not many, unless
> the family has emigrated from the third world.
And, even then it's exceedingly rare. The
first generation to become literate hope to
do well in business or a career. Only after
they succeed are their children likely to
consider the possibility that material
success is not everything.
> However, I have a B.A., an
> M.A., and a B.Ed, although my father left school at ten or eleven and my
> mother at thirteen. Besides, you are not reading carefully. I said: "there
> might be a good case for stating..." not that there is.
Same difference. There is no possibility
of a 'good case'. Look at the figures,
and for god's sake, stop being a Strat.
> > Some facts in the world need to be
> > recognised. It does not always work
> > in the way the politically-correct would
> > prefer -- as they rev up their 4x4s to ferry
> > their offspring to the most expensive
> > schools they can afford.
>
> I've never been called politically correct before, Paul, which is what I
> imagine you're saying.
I know nothing about you. I am attacking the
Stratfordian hypocrisy which, in one breath
says that you can have illiterate parents and
next-to-nothing as an education . . . . and
STILL make great literary achievements . . .
yet at the same time makes _enormous_
efforts to achieve every possible educational
and social advantage for their own children.
There is nothing wrong the latter -- only let's
be honest about it . . . and forget the
Stratfordian nonsense.
Paul.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Not at all, not at all, Christine. I have other things on my mind.
> > However,
> > > since Greg appears in this reflection of your post to be asking for
> > evidence
> > > that Judith was illiterate, I suggest he go to
> > > http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
> > >
> > > where he will find an example of her mark. It would be highly
> > > improbable for someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I personally think that Judith's curly-Q is quite artistic!
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Since you believe her to have been an illiterate boob,
> I can only assume that you meant to write "Artistic."
I aught to have said "autistic."
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
> > > Of course, your dad wasn't Shakespeare (no impoliteness intended), who
> > > constantly wrote of educated women in a positive way. It is also often
> > > interesting to examine the environment from which someone emerges. In
> > > Shakespeare of Stratford's family we only have one example (and there
is
> > > only scant evidence) of literacy. One of his daughters, Susanna, *may*
> > have
> > > been literate, because she could sign her name, albeit awkwardly.
However,
> > > there is contradictory evidence with regard to her being able to read
and
> > > write in any significant way. There might be a good case for stating
that
> > > the fact that Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no
> > bearing
> > > on the man himself. But when this illiteracy extends to the generation
> > below
> > > him, and when at the same time the author is so passionate about
> > > intelligent, educated, strong women, I believe questions can
reasonably
> > > be asked.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > In art, Saint Anne is often portrayed:
> > teaching the young Mary to read
> > (e.g., in 13th-century manuscripts at the Bodleian Library, Oxford,
> > and wall-paintings at Croughton, Northantshire);
> >
> > Her body was brought from Palestine to Constantinople in 710, whence
> > some portions of her relics have been dispersed in the West, where
> > they are claimed by . . . Canterbury, Durham, and Reading
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Well, why not? You just said that she was a teacher of reading.
Much like you are a teacher of B&O.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What?! Just after seeing his divine grandchild presented in the
> Temple and buried?! I think you're oVERlooking a few intervening years,
> Art.
Shakespearean scholars often oVERlook a few intervening years, Dave.
> > Her body was brought from Palestine to Constantinople in 710, whence
> > some portions of her relics have been dispersed in the West, where they
> > are claimed by Duren (Rheinland, Germany), Apt-en-Provence (France),
> > and Canterbury, Durham, and Reading (England).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You already said that above, Art -- are you getting senile?
I paraphrased it above.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Does any of the above lunatic logorrhea have
> anything to do with Shakespeare, Art?
In Art, Saint ANNE Whateley is often portrayed
teaching the young Judith to write her name
(e.g., in cave-paintings at Croughton, Northantshire).
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > since Greg appears in this reflection of your post to be asking
> > > > for evidence that Judith was illiterate, I suggest he go to
> > > > http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
> > > >
> > > > where he will find an example of her mark. It would be highly
> > > > improbable for someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>> I personally think that Judith's curly-Q is quite artistic!
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > Since you believe her to have been an illiterate boob,
> > I can only assume that you meant to write "Artistic."
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Just to clarify, David, just because someone
> is illiterate doesn't in the least mean she is a boob.
A bubbellah, then.
Art
LynnE
It's not in the least a dodge.
>Of course we don't have proof
> of anything. No one is asking for it. We
> have to try to come to sensible judgements
> on the basis of the information that we do.
> As soon as you begin to picture the Stratman
> trying to be an actor (having arrived in
> London in his late 20s with a strong Brummy
> accent) the whole image should disintegrate.
> It makes no sense.
We don't know when he arrived in London. When
I construct scenarios the way you do, I call them *fiction.*
>
> Further, you completely fail to understand
> the meaning of the name 'Will Shake-speare'
> -- and its intense complex of Elizabethan puns.
> A real person with a name like THAT can only
> have been selected because of it. The chances
> that he would also be a competent actor are
> minute.
You're saying he was selected as a front man because of his name and then he
was taken to London to play the part that belonged to the name, only he
couldn't play the part because he spoke in dialect and was illiterate and so
he just hung around the theatre counting pennies and holding the horses?
Have I got it right? For all I know you might be correct, whatever your
scenario. I have to be honest and say I simply don't know.
> You really must, at some point, look into all
> the ignorant, worthless Stratfordian baggage
> that you carry around.
I'll leave it in the airport on Saturday. It will save having it
hand-searched.
>
> > In my novel I suggested that most people in the Chamberlain's Men
> > and in Oxford's immediate circle were in on the ruse, if ruse it could
be
> > called, but that cannot, of course, be a definitive answer.
>
> It's nuts -- it would mean, in effect, that
> everyone in London would have known
Well, I did say it was a novel. And in the novel, practically everyone in
London except for the protagonist did know.
>
> > > > There might be a good case for stating that the fact that
> > > > Shakespeare's parents and wife were illiterate has no bearing
> > > > on the man himself.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah? How many writers emerge from
> > > homes where the parents are illiterate?
> >
> > In Shakespeare's time, probably more than one or two.
>
> Not so. There was not a flash of lightning
> when suddenly everyone began to read
> and write. It was, and still is, a slow process.
> Illiterate parents have illiterate children.
> Literate parents have literate children, and
> a few become writers.
1) If it's true that illiterate parents always have illiterate children, no
one would ever learn to read
2) My dad was close to illiterate and yet I am --ta dum-- a writer. ;)
>
> > Today not many, unless
> > the family has emigrated from the third world.
>
> And, even then it's exceedingly rare. The
> first generation to become literate hope to
> do well in business or a career. Only after
> they succeed are their children likely to
> consider the possibility that material
> success is not everything.
There are many, many Canadian writers who are first or at best second
generation. Brits too. They keep winning the Booker. Where do you get your
information from?
>
> > However, I have a B.A., an
> > M.A., and a B.Ed, although my father left school at ten or eleven and my
> > mother at thirteen. Besides, you are not reading carefully. I said:
"there
> > might be a good case for stating..." not that there is.
>
> Same difference. There is no possibility
> of a 'good case'. Look at the figures,
> and for god's sake, stop being a Strat.
What figures? You have figures from Elizabethan times?
>
> > > Some facts in the world need to be
> > > recognised. It does not always work
> > > in the way the politically-correct would
> > > prefer -- as they rev up their 4x4s to ferry
> > > their offspring to the most expensive
> > > schools they can afford.
> >
> > I've never been called politically correct before, Paul, which is what I
> > imagine you're saying.
>
> I know nothing about you.
That's true, anyhow.
I am attacking the
> Stratfordian hypocrisy which, in one breath
> says that you can have illiterate parents and
> next-to-nothing as an education . . . . and
> STILL make great literary achievements . . .
But I have never believed one can have next to nothing as an education and
still be a literary great--not the kind of great Shakespeare was anyhow. I
believe he must have had a very superior education and a reasonably long
literary apprenticeship. In our essay we struck out that he must have had
close to the best education in England, and substituted "superior." But
"close to the best" is what I believe. I have no idea what you're arguing
about.
> yet at the same time makes _enormous_
> efforts to achieve every possible educational
> and social advantage for their own children.
This, of course, is a generalisation.
> There is nothing wrong the latter -- only let's
> be honest about it . . . and forget the
> Stratfordian nonsense.
Well, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. I am not a Stratfordian. I do
not believe that Will Shakespeare of Stratford had the education necessary
to become the author. Nor has he left any kind of paper trail that would
help us decide in his favour. I think that Oxford is our best candidate.
However, whether there was a front man or the plays were brokered or stolen
or the name was simply a pseudonym is something I simply cannot be sure
about. If you'd ask me for a guess, my guess would be that Shakespeare of
Stratford was a front man, but it would be a guess only.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
David L. Webb
lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
I agree. HoweVER, perhaps you should address your clarification to
Art, the illiterate District Heights boob, who habitually refers to
Shakespeare as the illiterate Stratford boob.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > It would be highly improbable
> > > > > for someone who was literate to sign with a mark.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > I personally think that Judith's curly-Q is quite artistic!
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > Since you believe her to have been an illiterate boob,
> > > I can only assume that you meant to write "Artistic."
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > Just to clarify, David, just because someone is illiterate
> > doesn't in the least mean she is a boob.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I agree. HoweVER, perhaps you should address your clarification
> to Art, the illiterate District Heights boob, who habitually refers to
> Shakespeare as the illiterate Stratford boob.
[I]lliterate [B]oob
Zip: 20747
(Please enclose a self addressed Jackalope.)
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
about his favorite Lord are refuted?
TR
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Qd_Kb.24388$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
David L. Webb
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Notice how quickly Crowley becomes scarce when his masturbatory fantasies
> about his favorite Lord are refuted?
>
> TR
Indeed. This episode is curiously reminiscent of Mr. Crowley's
magisterial and extended scholarship on the "Ray Mignot" sonnet, and his
conspicuous silence after its author was revealed to have been KQKnave.
bookburn
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> Another writer who clearly demonstrates correlation between
> biography and literary output would be Charles Dickens, who
like
> Shakespeare: 1) had a basic education only until about 10; 2)
> had family troubles with both step-father and mother--who sent
> him into child labor; 3) managed to complete a three-year
course
> in court stenography in 3 months; 4) found himself instantly
> popular with his first publication at a young age, followed by
a
> series of successes; 5) appeared on stage playing his novel
> characters with great sincerity, sometimes becoming
> embarrassingly emotional and beside himself; 6) publicly
> acknowledged that Great Expectations was autobiographical;
No, it's David Copperfield that is most autobiographical. bb
6)
> conducted his own family life with secrecy and multiple
> identities--and probably many more parallels I don't know.
>
> bookburn
>
A Tsar Is Born
LynnE wrote:
> > Of course, your dad wasn't Shakespeare (no impoliteness intended), who
> > constantly wrote of educated women in a positive way.
> > But when this illiteracy extends to the generation below
> > him, and when at the same time the author is so passionate about
> > intelligent, educated, strong women, I believe questions can reasonably
be
> > asked.
>
> Forget the writing and concentrate on the loving relationship and
> see Shakespeare loved and cared for women and his daughters and that
> Oxford mistreated women, sought companionship with boys instead,
> offended his wife, and that his daughters waited til he was dead to marry.
>
> Lynne's reasoning that "the author is so passionate about
> intelligent, educated, strong women" is a dead end for
> Oxford. We have seen much love and concern for the
> Shakespeare girls and none for the Vere girls.
Interesting point, Greg, and not only vis-a-vis Vere.
I do not know Marlowe's plays at all well.
(Maybe we should do one if we ever again do a POTM.)
Do any of Marlowe's plays (the ones written under his own name) present
witty, independent and well-educated females of the
Beatrix-Rosalind-Olivia-Portia-Helena type? Or is this (another) very real
difference between the Marlovian oeuvre and the Shakespearean canon?
(Of the four leading candidates, His Nibs of Stratford appears to have been
the most heterosexual, not that this means a damn thing about anything.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Greg Reynolds
A Tsar Is Born wrote:
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
> news:3FFB76FB...@core.com...
> LynnE wrote:
>
>>>Of course, your dad wasn't Shakespeare (no impoliteness intended), who
>>>constantly wrote of educated women in a positive way.
>>
> <snip>
>
>>>But when this illiteracy extends to the generation below
>>>him, and when at the same time the author is so passionate about
>>>intelligent, educated, strong women, I believe questions
>>>can reasonably be asked.
>>
>>Forget the writing and concentrate on the loving
>>relationship and see Shakespeare loved and cared >>for women and his daughters and that Oxford mistreated
>> women, sought companionship with boys instead,
>>offended his wife, and that his daughters waited
>>til he was dead to marry.
>>Lynne's reasoning that "the author is so passionate about
>>intelligent, educated, strong women" is a dead end for
>>Oxford. We have seen much love and concern for the
>>Shakespeare girls and none for the Vere girls.
>
>
> Interesting point, Greg, and not only vis-a-vis Vere.
De Vere didn't connect with women--a notable void
in his understanding of people. Anne Cecil, Ann Vavasour,
Queen Elizabeth, those are people he lied to, cheated on,
ditched a funeral of, was imprisoned by. Susan, Bridget,
Elizabeth, those are people who feared him, avoided him,
married after his death, and were cheated out of a decent
inheritance by his disinterest in them.
I would like any Oxfordian to show any instance of de Vere
having any positive regard for any female.
Lynne's remarks about William Shakespeare
and any neglect of his daughters' welfare is
just bone-headed derogatory guesswork that
fails in light of the historical record. Name
any author who gave his daughters more!
For a laugh, think of de Vere writing King Lear
autobiographically and having nothing to give the
daughters! And having no Cordelia anyway! Ha ha ha!
Whereas Shakespeare had two kingdoms and two Cordelias!
Love of women is a Shakespeare trait whereas pushing
women aside for self-interest is an Oxford trait.
I know Roger and Lynne won't be countering that
obvious truth. I don't know why Lynne is even
flirting with disaster in discussing daughters.
More for her to skulk from is all I can see there.
> I do not know Marlowe's plays at all well.
> (Maybe we should do one if we ever again do a POTM.)
Okay--Doctor Faustus! I just read it. Blow past the latin
and it takes takes about 2 hours. Read it and let's talk.
The holidays are over.
> Do any of Marlowe's plays (the ones written under his own name) present
> witty, independent and well-educated females of the
> Beatrix-Rosalind-Olivia-Portia-Helena type?
Not in Faustus (you left out Celia and Imogen).
There is a hostess and a duchess and the spirit
of Helena in Doctor Faustus and the other
FORTY NINE characters are male--not that
Shakespearean, who usually needs about half
that many roles.
> Or is this (another) very real
> difference between the Marlovian
> oeuvre and the Shakespearean canon?
(The difference was supposed to be the
comedy/humor/laughs but Marlowe is somewhat
funny, I found. I left my notes in the
book, but there were two jokes I got.)
> (Of the four leading candidates, His Nibs of Stratford
> appears to have been the most heterosexual, not that
> this means a damn thing about anything.)
And the least busy with anything else. (Usury only takes
five minutes a week, whereas tin mining is forty hours,
and philosophy and faking death are both 24/7.)
Greg Reynolds
lecolin
> "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> > Another writer who clearly demonstrates correlation between
> > biography and literary output would be Charles Dickens, who
> like
> > Shakespeare: 1) had a basic education only until about 10; 2)
> > had family troubles with both step-father and mother--who sent
> > him into child labor; 3) managed to complete a three-year
> course
> > in court stenography in 3 months; 4) found himself instantly
> > popular with his first publication at a young age, followed by
> a
> > series of successes; 5) appeared on stage playing his novel
> > characters with great sincerity, sometimes becoming
> > embarrassingly emotional and beside himself; 6) publicly
> > acknowledged that Great Expectations was autobiographical;
>
> No, it's David Copperfield that is most autobiographical. bb
>
I had wondered about that identification. Surely Great Expectations
is autobiographical in some senses -- some might argue the most
autobiographical in revealing the historical progression of Dickens'
state of mind. But, yes, David Copperfield is closest to the facts of
his life.
> 6)
> > conducted his own family life with secrecy and multiple
> > identities--and probably many more parallels I don't know.
> >
> > bookburn
> >
And he was unsure about Shakespeare's authorship too, hey.
(BTW, I liked your comments earlier, finding questions of identity the
most pervasive theme in Shakespeare.)
Tom Reedy
news:3ace705f.04011...@posting.google.com...
I was unaware of this. Can you provide some quote or evidence to support it?
TR
lecolin
The standard quote -- which you must know and I assume you do not find
to indicate that Dickens was unsure about authorship -- is from
1847-
In a June 13 letter to William Sandys, Charles Dickens expresses his
trepidation over the Shakespeare question: "it is a Great Comfort, to
my thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. It is a fine
mystery; and I tremble every day lest something should come out. If he
had had a Boswell, society wouldn't have respected his grave, but
would calmly have had his skull in the phrenological shop-windows."
(this taken from http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/historyofdoubt.htm
While I don't agree that Dickens endorses a non-Stratfordian view (as
some think), I do think the passage indicates an uncertainty in his
mind, as if the given information does not come together clearly or
cogently or sufficiently, and rather than plumb that question, he is
happy to leave it "a fine mystery."
Peter Farey
"A Tsar Is Born" wrote:
>
> >
> > Forget the writing and concentrate on the loving
> > relationship and see Shakespeare loved and cared
> > treated women, sought companionship with boys
> > instead, offended his wife, and that his daughters
> > waited til he was dead to marry.
> >
> > Lynne's reasoning that "the author is so passionate
> > about intelligent, educated, strong women" is a
> > dead end for Oxford. We have seen much love and
> > concern for the Shakespeare girls and none for the
> > Vere girls.
>
> Interesting point, Greg, and not only vis-a-vis Vere.
> I do not know Marlowe's plays at all well.
> (Maybe we should do one if we ever again do a POTM.)
> Do any of Marlowe's plays (the ones written under his
> own name) present witty, independent and well-educated
> females of the Beatrix-Rosalind-Olivia-Portia-Helena
> type? Or is this (another) very real difference between
> the Marlovian oeuvre and the Shakespearean canon?
>
> (Of the four leading candidates, His Nibs of Stratford
> appears to have been the most heterosexual, not that
> this means a damn thing about anything.)
>
> Jean Coeur de Lapin
Whilst it is certainly true that women of the type you
list do not figure in Marlowe's plays, he was neverthe-
less able to create fairly strong female characters
who had a clear idea of what they wanted, and of how
they were going to get it. Isabella (E2), Dido, Olympia
(2Tam) and Catherine (MaP) all had the sort of guts
that reappeared in Shakespeare's Margaret (H6), Eleanor
(KJ), Tamora (TA) and Katherine (ToS). But it is only
with Katherine in fact that I would see the beginnings
of your Beatrice, Rosalind etc.
Part of what is a clear difference, therefore, could
just be a question of a gradual development of an
appreciation of how dramatically rewarding such feisty
women could be when witty too. Another factor, of
course, could be the actors available.
When William Kempe was replaced by Robert Armin, the
nature of Shakespeare's clowns changed too. I would
suggest that a similar change would have been created
by a switch from the Lord Admiral's men (Alleyn) to
the Lord Chamberlain's men (Burbage) and possibly
with an equally significant change in the quality of
the 'female' actors at the same time?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Neil Brennen
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<ZtWLb.2975$zj7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "lecolin" <lec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ace705f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I was unaware of this. Can you provide some quote or evidence to support
it?
> > TR
>
> The standard quote -- which you must know and I assume you do not find
> to indicate that Dickens was unsure about authorship -- is from
> 1847-
> In a June 13 letter to William Sandys, Charles Dickens expresses his
> trepidation over the Shakespeare question: "it is a Great Comfort, to
> my thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. It is a fine
> mystery; and I tremble every day lest something should come out. If he
> had had a Boswell, society wouldn't have respected his grave, but
> would calmly have had his skull in the phrenological shop-windows."
>
> (this taken from
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/historyofdoubt.htm
>
> While I don't agree that Dickens endorses a non-Stratfordian view (as
> some think), I do think the passage indicates an uncertainty in his
> mind, as if the given information does not come together clearly or
> cogently or sufficiently, and rather than plumb that question, he is
> happy to leave it "a fine mystery."
I'm glad to know that you don't consider the passage as antiStratfordian,
since it means I can spare you the charge of intellectual dishonesty I am
now throwing at the Shakespeare Fellowship.
I disagree with your interpretation, however. You are taking the "fine
mystery" comment with too much weight. Dickens clearly means that it is a
good thing we don't know more about the poet, as otherwise every aspect of
his life would be on display, and analyzed, and interpreted. Remember,
Dickens is writing during the period when Bardolatry was beginning.
Here's a related quote by historian Barbara Tuchman. Her thoughts are close
to those penned by Dickens, and likewise can be misinterpreted.
"...I feel no great obligation to pry into a subjects private life and
reveal - unless it is clearly relevant - what he would have wanted to
keep private. "What business has the public to know of Byron's
wildness?" asked Tennyson. "He has given them fine work and they ought
to be satisfied." Tennyson has a point. Do we really have to know of
some famous person that he wet his pants at age six and had oral sex
at sixty? I suppose it is quite possible that Shakespeare may have
engaged in one or both of these habits. If evidence to that effect
were suddenly to be found today, what then would be the truth of
Shakespeare - the new finding or *King Lear*? Would the plays interest
us more because we had evidence of the authors' excretory or amoratory
digressions? ... Happily, in the case of the greatest English writer,
we know and are likely to know close to nothing of his private life. I
like this vacuum, this miracle, this great floating monument of work
that has no explanation at all."
- Barbara Tuchman, "Biography as a prism of history", in her book
Practicing History
Tom Reedy
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<ZtWLb.2975$zj7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "lecolin" <lec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ace705f.04011...@posting.google.com...
> > > "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<vvu5gaf...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > > "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> > > > > Another writer who clearly demonstrates correlation between
> > > > > biography and literary output would be Charles Dickens, who
> > > > >
> > >
> > > And he was unsure about Shakespeare's authorship too, hey.
> >
> > I was unaware of this. Can you provide some quote or evidence to support
it?
> >
> > TR
> >
>
> The standard quote -- which you must know and I assume you do not find
> to indicate that Dickens was unsure about authorship -- is from
>
> 1847-
>
> In a June 13 letter to William Sandys, Charles Dickens expresses his
> trepidation over the Shakespeare question: "it is a Great Comfort, to
> my thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. It is a fine
> mystery; and I tremble every day lest something should come out. If he
> had had a Boswell, society wouldn't have respected his grave, but
> would calmly have had his skull in the phrenological shop-windows."
>
> (this taken from
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/historyofdoubt.htm
>
> While I don't agree that Dickens endorses a non-Stratfordian view (as
> some think), I do think the passage indicates an uncertainty in his
> mind, as if the given information does not come together clearly or
> cogently or sufficiently, and rather than plumb that question, he is
> happy to leave it "a fine mystery."
>
I find that quotation unconvincing as far as evidence for Dickens'
skepticism. I think he is happy to leave it "a fine mystery" to frustrate
the vulgar curiosity about celebrities.
I'll be finding out the context for the quotation and looking into Dickens'
other comments on Shakespeare in the Bogus AntiStart thread.
TR
Tom Reedy
news:QrbMb.2443$q4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
So what else is new?
This is from a 2001 post that might give a little insight into Dickens'
attitude:
From *The Soul's Code: In Search of Character and Calling* by James Hillman,
beginning from page 175:
======================================================
Writers especially resist biographies. Henry James burned his papers in a
garden bonfire. Charles Dickens did, too. At twenty-nine (?) Sigmund Freud
had already burned his papers; he is quoted as saying" "As for biographers,
let them worry. . . .I am already looking forward to seeing them go astray."
And he destroyed, and tried to purchase from recipients, other of his
papers, as he got older. Lyndon Johnson wrote "Burn this" on the top of
inconsequential letters he wrote from Washington to former students and
friends back home. William Makepeace Thackeray, T.S. Eliot, and Matthew
Arnold wanted no biographies written of them. Leon Edel, a philosopher of
biography and master of its art, reports:
Some feel it [biography] to be a prying, peeping and even predatory
process. Biography has been called "a disease of English literature"
(George Eliot); professional biographers have been called "hyenas"
(Edward Sackville-West). They also have been called "psycho-
plagiarists" (Nabokov) and biography has been said to be "always
superfluous" and "usually in bad taste" (Auden).
Some writers--for example, J.D. Salinger--will not even give interviews, and
may threaten or pursue lawsuits to deter biographers. Willa Cather wanted no
one to examine her life, and Eudora Welty is "extremely private and won't
answer anything personal about herself or about friends." . . . .These
writers seem to be saying that whatever is personal about me, about my very
life, shall be closeted, even burned in a sacrificial conflagration, in
order to sustain the truth of my work. My life, as Auden says, is
"superfluous." . . . .
In the light of previous chapters, we can make good sense of all this
autobiographical subterfuge. Something in us doesn't want to lay out the
facts for fear they will be taken for the truth, and the only truth.
Something in us doesn't want biographers to pry too closely, to grasp too
keenly the inspiration of a life's work. . . .
Paul Crowley
The population of London at that time was
around 200,000. I think that we can take it
that the play would have been a major
'tourist' attraction, and that many of those
visiting the capital (such as to attend the
royal court) or for political (as attending
Parliament) or for trade, business or legal
reasons, would also have gone. And that
it would have attracted the better educated
members of society. So I doubt if many
illiterates attended at all.
However, the real question is for whom
the play was written. Very often works
of art find wholly unexpected audiences.
They recognise the truth and quality of
the work, and tolerate its obscurities.
That was clearly the case with the Henry
VI plays. It was manifestly NOT written
for an uneducated public audience. Nor
were any of the rest of the canon. Only
a fool would maintain otherwise. The
highly educated audiences which saw
them in the 1660s (at one of the two small
theatres then allowed -- with expensive
seats) found them quite confusing and
needed to have them 'dumbed-down'.
Outside of a tiny highly-privileged (or
'court') circle, there was clearly no audience
or readership for sophisticated literary
works until about, say, 1760 -- although
the selection of a particular date between
~1660 and ~1840 will be largely arbitrary,
as education steadily spread and printing
costs steadily came down.
Stratfordians must, au fond, realise this.
Their claims are wholly ahistorical. That
must be why they cling to their beliefs in
such an irrational and fervent manner.
There is no room within such a belief-
system for thought or for reason,
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:QrbMb.2443$q4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > The standard quote -- which you must know and I assume you do not find
> > to indicate that Dickens was unsure about authorship -- is from
> > 1847-
> > In a June 13 letter to William Sandys, Charles Dickens expresses his
> > trepidation over the Shakespeare question: "it is a Great Comfort, to
> > my thinking, that so little is known concerning the poet. It is a fine
> > mystery; and I tremble every day lest something should come out. If he
> > had had a Boswell, society wouldn't have respected his grave, but
> > would calmly have had his skull in the phrenological shop-windows."
> Here's a related quote by historian Barbara Tuchman. Her thoughts are close
> to those penned by Dickens, and likewise can be misinterpreted.
>
> "...I feel no great obligation to pry into a subjects private life and
> reveal - unless it is clearly relevant - what he would have wanted to
> keep private. "What business has the public to know of Byron's
> wildness?" asked Tennyson. "He has given them fine work and they ought
> to be satisfied." Tennyson has a point. Do we really have to know of
> some famous person that he wet his pants at age six and had oral sex
> at sixty? I suppose it is quite possible that Shakespeare may have
> engaged in one or both of these habits. If evidence to that effect
> were suddenly to be found today, what then would be the truth of
> Shakespeare - the new finding or *King Lear*? Would the plays interest
> us more because we had evidence of the authors' excretory or amoratory
> digressions? ... Happily, in the case of the greatest English writer,
> we know and are likely to know close to nothing of his private life. I
> like this vacuum, this miracle, this great floating monument of work
> that has no explanation at all."
These the words of someone on the wrong
side of a paradigm shift. We heard much
the same from all who opposed new forms
of understanding -- who could not conceive
of its possibility: "There are many mysteries
in the way God moves the sun, moon and
stars around us every day. But there is no
point in thinking further about them (nor in
listening to fools like Copernicus). Nothing
will change their beauty and glory, and they
are all that matter . . . "
The words of Dickens are more perceptive.
He senses that the official Shakespeare
story is nonsense. He knows that it is liable
to be overturned at any moment by facts
emerging from the intense investigations
proceeding at the time. He is half-sure that
it will be. He realises that it will drastically
change our understanding of all aspects of
literary experience, and he fears that he will
not be able to cope.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
offers it up as truth.
TR
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:7qjMb.4795$HR....@news.indigo.ie...
lecolin
While that is a reasonable reading of the last sentence (of the
Dickens quote), it does not help explain why he would "tremble" or
think it a "fine" ("mystery.") Reading it as skepticism makes more
sense.
Tom Reedy
Have you read what Dickens thought about biography?
At any rate, I'll be putting the comment in context, something for which
most antiStratfordians have no use (and with good reason in most cases).
TR
lecolin
If I did think it antiStratfordian, that would be my opinion, and it
would not show "intellectual dishonesty." It would simply and fairly
be my opinion.
> I disagree with your interpretation, however. You are taking the "fine
> mystery" comment with too much weight. Dickens clearly means that it is a
> good thing we don't know more about the poet, as otherwise every aspect of
> his life would be on display, and analyzed, and interpreted. Remember,
> Dickens is writing during the period when Bardolatry was beginning.
>
While I think your take is fair, I must reemphasize what I perceive:
that Dickens is unsure enough about the source of the plays to be
unable to clearly or safely endorse the presumed author. He does not
take a stand, pro- or anti- Stratford. But the biographical
information at his hand is not enough to convince him.
> Here's a related quote by historian Barbara Tuchman. Her thoughts are close
> to those penned by Dickens, and likewise can be misinterpreted.
>
> "...I feel no great obligation to pry into a subjects private life and
> reveal - unless it is clearly relevant - what he would have wanted to
> keep private. "What business has the public to know of Byron's
> wildness?" asked Tennyson. "He has given them fine work and they ought
> to be satisfied." Tennyson has a point. Do we really have to know of
> some famous person that he wet his pants at age six and had oral sex
> at sixty?
These schools of thought have been at each other for years: whether
biography is important or irrelevant in viewing works of art. My
personal view is that the presumed biography of William Shakespeare of
Stratford, has colored our perceptions of the work, so a
biography-free reading is now impossible. How then can we see what
the works are meant to contain, if we cannot read them but through
glasses that presume an assumed writer's perspective? Following that
challenge for myself is a good part of what took me away from
Stratfordianism.
Neil Brennen
It would be a blatant misinterpretation of the passage. And to endorse the
view that it was meant to be a statement of doubt on Dickens' part AFTER it
was correctly interpreted would be intellectual dishonesty.
> > I disagree with your interpretation, however. You are taking the "fine
> > mystery" comment with too much weight. Dickens clearly means that it is
a
> > good thing we don't know more about the poet, as otherwise every aspect
of
> > his life would be on display, and analyzed, and interpreted. Remember,
> > Dickens is writing during the period when Bardolatry was beginning.
>
> While I think your take is fair, I must reemphasize what I perceive:
> that Dickens is unsure enough about the source of the plays to be
> unable to clearly or safely endorse the presumed author.
Nowhere in the passage does Dickens say that.
He does not
> take a stand, pro- or anti- Stratford. But the biographical
> information at his hand is not enough to convince him.
Nowhere in the passage does Dickens say that.
lecolin
If I were you, I would now accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. But
you believe what you say, so this is not a case of dishonesty. I
think you are wrong, and push the quote in favor of your preference.
<Shrug> Note that I said that I did not think the passage endorsed a
non-Stratfordian view, but it certainly does not endorse the
Stratfordian. He may be discussing the authorship question; or he may
be simply glad that Shakespeare's warts are lost in time -- the
passage can fairly be viewed either way. There is not enough
information here to rule out either view. So there is no point in
people calling each other names over this (if there is ever a point in
that.)
Bob Grumman
>> > that Dickens is unsure enough about the source of the plays to be
>> > unable to clearly or safely endorse the presumed author.
>>
>> Nowhere in the passage does Dickens say that.
>>
>> He does not
>> > take a stand, pro- or anti- Stratford. But the biographical
>> > information at his hand is not enough to convince him.
>>
>> Nowhere in the passage does Dickens say that.
>
>If I were you, I would now accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. But
>you believe what you say, so this is not a case of dishonesty. I
>think you are wrong, and push the quote in favor of your preference.
><Shrug> Note that I said that I did not think the passage endorsed a
>non-Stratfordian view, but it certainly does not endorse the
>Stratfordian. He may be discussing the authorship question; or he may
>be simply glad that Shakespeare's warts are lost in time -- the
>passage can fairly be viewed either way. There is not enough
>information here to rule out either view. So there is no point in
>people calling each other names over this (if there is ever a point in
>that.)
The context shows beyond reasonable doubt that Dickens was glad more about
Shakespeare's private affairs was not known, because the more the public knew
about an author, the more they would desecrate his memory by prying into even
his most personal life history. There is nothing in the passage about the
authorship question, nor--so far as I know--in anything else that Dickens wrote
to indicate he did not take Shakespeare as Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>There is nothing in the passage about the
>authorship question, nor--so far as I know--in anything else that Dickens wrote
>to indicate he did not take Shakespeare as Shakespeare.
>
'I think there must be something in the place,' said Mrs Nickleby,
who had been listening in silence; 'for, soon after I was married, I
went to Stratford with my poor dear Mr Nickleby, in a post-chaise
from Birmingham--was it a post-chaise though?' said Mrs Nickleby,
considering; 'yes, it must have been a post-chaise, because I
recollect remarking at the time that the driver had a green shade
over his left eye;--in a post-chaise from Birmingham, and after we
had seen Shakespeare's tomb and birthplace, we went back to the inn
there, where we slept that night, and I recollect that all night
long I dreamt of nothing but a black gentleman, at full length, in
plaster-of-Paris, with a lay-down collar tied with two tassels,
leaning against a post and thinking; and when I woke in the morning
and described him to Mr Nickleby, he said it was Shakespeare just as
he had been when he was alive, which was very curious indeed.
Stratford--Stratford,' continued Mrs Nickleby, considering. 'Yes, I
am positive about that, because I recollect I was in the family way
with my son Nicholas at the time, and I had been very much
frightened by an Italian image boy that very morning. In fact, it
was quite a mercy, ma'am,' added Mrs Nickleby, in a whisper to Mrs
Wititterly, 'that my son didn't turn out to be a Shakespeare, and
what a dreadful thing that would have been!'
Conclusive proof, I'm afraid, Bob.
--
Jo
David L. Webb
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thomas Pynchon is another famously reclusive author one might add to
the list.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> >There is nothing in the passage about the
> >authorship question, nor--so far as I know--in anything else that Dickens
> >wrote to indicate he did not take Shakespeare as Shakespeare.
"Jo Lonergan" <jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote
> 'I think there must be something in the place,' said Mrs Nickleby,
> who had been listening in silence; 'for, soon after I was married, I
> went to Stratford with my poor dear Mr Nickleby, in a post-chaise
> from Birmingham--was it a post-chaise though?' said Mrs Nickleby,
> considering; 'yes, it must have been a post-chaise, because I
> recollect remarking at the time that the driver had a green shade
> over his left eye;--in a post-chaise from Birmingham, and after we
> had seen Shakespeare's tomb and birthplace, we went back to the inn
> there, where we slept that night, and I recollect that all night
> long I dreamt of nothing but a black gentleman, at full length, in
> plaster-of-Paris, with a lay-down collar tied with two tassels,
> leaning against a post and thinking; and when I woke in the morning
> and described him to Mr Nickleby, he said it was Shakespeare just as
> he had been when he was alive, which was very curious indeed.
> Stratford--Stratford,' continued Mrs Nickleby, considering. 'Yes, I
> am positive about that, because I recollect I was in the family way
> with my son Nicholas at the time, and I had been very much
> frightened by an Italian image boy that very morning. In fact, it
> was quite a mercy, ma'am,' added Mrs Nickleby, in a whisper to Mrs
> Wititterly, 'that my son didn't turn out to be a Shakespeare, and
> what a dreadful thing that would have been!'
>
> Conclusive proof, I'm afraid, Bob.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"but a black gentleman, at full length, in plaster-of-Paris,
with a lay-down collar tied with two tassels,"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stay passenger, why goest thou by so fast,
Read if thou canst whom envious death hath PLaST,
within this monument: Shakspeare.
-----------------------------------------------------------
P L a S T
[P]ost [L]ucem [S]pero [T]enebras
(After the darkness HOPE for light)
DICKENS works with extensive use of the word "HOPE":
Dombey & Son 210
David Copperfield 198
Our Mutual Friend 194
Bleak House 183
Little Dorrit 181
Nickolas Nickleby 159
Barnaby Rudge 115
Pickwick Papers 114
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 3, Scene 1
BOTTOM Some man or other must present Wall: and let him
have some PLASTER, or some loam, or some rough-cast
about him, to signify wall; and let him hold his
fingers thus, and through that cranny shall
Pyramus and Thisby WHISPER.
---------------------------------------------------------------
'I take an interest, my lord,' said Mrs Wititterly, with a faint
smile, 'such an interest in the drama.'
'Ye--es. It's VERY interesting,' replied Lord VERIsopht.
'I'm always ill after SHAKESPEARE,' said Mrs Wititterly. 'I
scarcely exist the next day; I find the reaction so VERY great after
a tragedy, my lord, and SHAKESPEARE is such a delicious creature.'
'Ye--es!' replied Lord VERIsopht. 'He was a CLAYver man.'
'Do you know, my lord,' said Mrs Wititterly, after a long silence,
'I find I take so much more interest in his plays, after having
been to that dear little dull house he was born in!
Were you EVER there, my lord?'
'What a delight, what a comfort, what a happiness, this
amiable creature must be to you,' said Sir Mulberry.
'She is indeed, sir,' replied Mrs Nickleby; 'she is the
sweetest-tempered, kindest-hearted creature--and so clEVER!'
'She looks CLAYver,' said Lord VERIsopht,
with the air of a judge of clEVERness.
'I assure you she is, my lord,' returned Mrs Nickleby. 'When she
was at school in Devonshire, she was uniVERsally allowed to be
beyond all exception the VERY clEVERest girl there, and there
were a great many VERY clEVER ones too, and that's the TRUTH.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-- Clamn dEVER, Lenehan said to Mr O'Madden Burke. - _Ulysses_
CLAY - sediment found in pits or in streets (Isa. 57:20; Jer. 38:60),
dust mixed with spittle (John 9:6), and potter's CLAY (Isa. 41:25; Nah.
3:14; Jer. 18:1-6; Rom. 9:21). CLAY was used for sealing (Job 38:14;
Jer. 32:14). Our Lord's tomb may have been thus sealed (Matt. 27:66).
-- Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Stratford--Stratford,' continued Mrs Nickleby, considering. 'Yes,
I am positive about that, because I recollect I was in the family
way with my son Nicholas at the time, and I had been VERY much
frightened by an ITALIAN IMAGE BOY that VERY morning. In fact,
it was quite a mercy, ma'am,' added Mrs Nickleby, in a whisper to
Mrs Wititterly, 'that my son didn't turn out to be a SHAKESPEARE,
and what a dreadful thing that would have been!'>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford and Orazio Cogno, the ITALIAN ChoirBOY
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ITALY/Orazio.html
<<In 1580-81, in letters directed to members of the Privy Council,
Henry Howard & Charles Arundel accused Oxford, among numerous other
crimes including multiple instances of pederasty, of having sodomized
an Italian servant of his named Auratio or Horatio. The identity of
this Italian servant [came out in] a deposition which he gave to the
Inquisition on AUGUST 27, 1577, shortly after his return to Venice.
[Titian died on AUGUST 27, 1576 in Venice.
Feast of St. Monica AUGUST 27: patron saint of mothers
with troubled or wayward children.]
The deposition reveals that the servant's full name was Orazio Cogno.
"Millort de Voxfor," who attended the GREEK Church in Venice
[San Giorgio dei Greci (The church of St George of the Greeks)]
(not a Greek Orthodox church, but rather
a church known as a HAVEN OF UNORTHODOXY),
first noticed Orazio singing at the church of S. Maria Formosa.
Orazio consulted his father (Francisco Cogno) and his mother about
the earl's subsequent invitation to accompany him back to England,
and they advised him to accept. Orazio moved into Oxford's house in
Venice on "Zuoba Grassa," the Thursday before the beginning of Lent.
Although Orazio served Oxford officially as a PAGE, he was a
musician. On one occasion he sang before Queen Elizabeth, who
urged him to convert to the reformed religion. In London he made the
acquaintance of "AMBROSO da Venetia," "che e musicho della Regina de
ingelterra" (who is a musician to the queen), and with five brothers
from Venice who were "musici della Regina et fano flauti et viole"
- evidently members of the extensive Bassano family.
\
Orazio reported that Oxford "speaks LATIN and Italian well.">>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Monica = Queen Elizabeth
St. Ambrose = AMBROSO da Venezia
St. Augustine = Orazio Cogno
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<St. Monica converted her son St. Augustine
who was baptized by St. Ambrose in 387.
St. Monica died later that same year, on the way
back to Africa from Rome in the Italian town of Ostia.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<Did you EVER hear a definition of FAME, sir?'
'I have heard sEVERal,' replied Nicholas, with a smile.
'What is yours?'
'When I dramatise a book, sir,' said the literary gentleman,
'THAT'S FAME. FOR ITS AUTHOR.'
'Oh, indeed!' rejoined Nicholas.
'That's fame, sir,' said the literary gentleman.
'So Richard Turpin, Tom King, and Jerry Abershaw have
handed down to fame the names of those on whom they
committed their most impudent robberies?' said Nicholas.
'I don't know anything about that, sir,'
answered the literary gentleman.
'SHAKESPEARE dramatised stories which had previously
appeared in print, it is TRUE,' observed Nicholas.
'Meaning BILL, sir?' said the literary gentleman.
'So he did. Bill was an adapter, certainly, so he was
--and VERY well he adapted too--considering.'
'I was about to say,' rejoined Nicholas, 'that SHAKESPEARE derived
some of his plots from old tales and legends in general circulation;
but it seems to me, that some of the gentlemen of your CRAFT,
at the present day, have shot VERY far beyond him--'>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens:
'I am not Sir MULBERRY, no, nor Lord Frederick VERisopht,
Miss Nickleby, nor am I Mr Pyke, nor Mr PLUCK either.'
Kate looked at her again, but less steadily than before; and
resting her ELBOW ON THE TABLE, coVERED her eyes with her hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nickolas Nickleby by Charles Dickens
<<No bell or book for me! Throw me on a DUNGHILL,
and let me rot there, to infect the air!'>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 3, Scene 7
CORNWALL Turn out that eyeless villain; throw this slave
Upon the DUNGHILL. Regan, I bleed apace:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 1, Scene 3
YORK: Base DUNGHILL villain and mechanical,
I'll have thy head for this thy traitor's speech.
Act 4, Scene 10
IDEN: Hence will I DRAG thee headlong by the heels
Unto a DUNGHILL which shall be thy grave,
And there cut off thy most ungracious head;
Which I will bear in triumph to the king,
Leaving thy trunk for CROWS to feed upon.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer