Kositsky over Kosinsky (finally!) & Weir 2K
Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------
13,100 Neuendorffer Jul 26, 1997
4,650 Grumman Oct 6, 1997
4,430 John Kennedy Jun 9, 1998
4,350 Reynolds Mar 21, 1998
4,230 KQKnave Feb 15, 1997
3,640 Webb Jul 4, 1996
3,420 Crowley Dec 9, 1995
2,720 Reedy Feb 4, 1998
2,420 Stonehouse Apr 3, 1996
2,330 Volker May 31, 1997
2,210 Kathman Aug , 1995
2,150 Symposium1 Apr 13, 1998
2,050 Richard Kennedy Mar 4, 1997
2,000 Elizabeth Weir Mar 4, 2001
1,758 Nathan / "crows dog" Nov 17, 1996
1,470 bookburn Dec 21, 1998
1,390 Farey Jun 18, 1998
1,260 Kositsky Aug 1, 2001
1,230 Kosinsky Nov 26, 1996
1,080 lyra Jul 8, 2001
920 Neil Brennen/SS Jan 25, 2002
---------------------------------------------------
Note: Elizabeth Weir was being undercounted previously
because she often posts as simply "Elizabeth".
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth
STOP PROJECTING YOUR GUILT.
My posts do not average 120 k.
TAKE MY NAME OFF YOUR LIST.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
PS I don't think your numbers are accurate.
Art Neuendorffer
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Neuendorffer.
>
> STOP PROJECTING YOUR GUILT.
I only project my orthographs.
> My posts do not average 120 k.
Perhaps you have little to say.
> TAKE MY NAME OFF YOUR LIST.
I'll think up an alias.
> PS I don't think your numbers are accurate.
They are BETA GOOGLE numbers.
You have the highest numbers for any one who joined HLAS in this century.
Art N.
Elizabeth
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
From: "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> - Find
messages by this author
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:14:34 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 6 2005 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: Kositsky over Kosinsky (finally!) & Weir 2K
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Elizabeth" <elizabeth_w...@mail.com> wrote
> Neuendorffer.
> STOP PROJECTING YOUR GUILT.
I only project my orthographs.
Then project YOUR OWN NUMBERS, Art.
Google is spooling my posts if I write
in 'Reply To Author' so I'm writing more
short posts in the 'Note' box.
> My posts do not average 120 k.
Perhaps you have little to say.
Gigabytes of text are no substitute for real evidence.
> TAKE MY NAME OFF YOUR LIST.
I'll think up an alias.
OK.
> PS I don't think your numbers are accurate.
They are BETA GOOGLE numbers.
Yeh, but you're running the search engine.
You have the highest numbers for any one who joined HLAS in this
century.
I'll stop posting to you.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
>>> My posts do not average 120 k.
> Art Neuendorffer Mar 6, 2:14 pm
>> Perhaps you have little to say.
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> Gigabytes of text are no substitute for real evidence.
Talking ad naseum about "having real evidence" is
no substitute for actually "presenting real evidence"
[that Bacon was the actual author and was not
simply heavily involved in editing & publishing
the canon (which he certainly was)].
Art Neuendorffer (Gigaling)
Elizabeth
no substitute for actually "presenting real evidence"
I took Kathman in the Strachey debate, Art, but that means absolutely
nothing to you because you hold to a completely ideosyncratic
definition of 'evidence.' Have you read Madame Bovary?
". . . [that Bacon was the actual author and was not
simply heavily involved in editing & publishing
the canon (which he certainly was)]."
Lynne gets 'aristocratic stigma of print' even if you insist on
cleaving to Strat orthodoxy on that point.
Bacon had little if anything to do with 'editing and publishing the
canon.'
The idea that Bacon would put an earl's works into print is as U N T
H I N K A B L E as an earl allowing his works to be printed for the
(ugh) public.
You have made Oxford into a hopeless anachronism, Art.
Americans have ruined the reading of the Shakespeare works because they
read them democratically as well as demotically.
The works are not democratic and the author was not democratic. Like
Oxford, he was trained from birth to look down on classes lower than
himself (although he was plunged into the lower class at his father's
death and spent two decades climing back up) but the UNIQUE thing about
the Shakespeare works that makes them so endearing and invaluable is
'life, liberty and dower.' Even the Magna Carta said nothing about
life or liberty. This genius believed in fundamental rights regardless
of class.
Oxford was a traditional feudal earl fighting to preserve feudal right.
Oxford was not politically evolved enough to write that natural law
grants 'life, liberty and dower' because
feudal rights are organized around a military quid pro quo
not anything 'fundamental to Nature' (Case of the Post-nati).
All Oxford ever wanted was to regain what his class had
lost. Oxford was not a reformer.
The main reason that the First Folio was printed at all
was that Jonson changed class prejudice against plays (formerly 'toys')
with his 1616 First Folio.
The second reason is that the indecisive but apparently sexually
irresistable Pembroke was dopey for plays. He was the first real
theatre aficionado, he was Jonson's doting patron and Bacon's friend,
bastard son, cousin or whatever, and Pembroke, as the richest man in
England, was in a position to put up the front money for the FF.
Try to keep the politics of the time in mind, Art. Oxford was the
intragenerational enemy of the Dudley-Sidney=Herberts, not in any
deadly sense but in the 'family feud' sense. Oxford was a faithful
Catholic, the most likeable thing about Oxford, Pembroke was a
Calvinist Puritan before Puritanism became Puritanical. Pembroke was
brought to Court after Oxford was evicted from Court. Oxford's
daughters, as far as we know, never saw him after Burghley took them. I
believe they were raised at Theobalds.
The other hindrance to Oxford's authorship in addition to the fact that
any claimant needs Jonson and the Baconians have Jonson, is that there
is not a single piece of evidence that connects Oxford to the
Shakespeare works. Amateur Freudian analysis of the Shakespeare works
is not evidence.
I'm researching a post on evidence and I'll compare examples from
Baconian, Strat and Oxfordian pages.
Cordially,
(name withheld).
lyra
Elizabeth wrote:
>
> The second reason is that the indecisive but apparently sexually
> irresistable Pembroke was dopey for plays. He was the first real
> theatre aficionado, he was Jonson's doting patron and Bacon's friend,
> bastard son, cousin or whatever, and Pembroke, as the richest man in
> England, was in a position to put up the front money for the FF.
and Marlowe's son! (Pembroke was, I mean) -
how I wish we could get some DNA to look at.
lyra
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> Talking ad naseum about "having real evidence" is
> no substitute for actually "presenting real evidence"
> [that Bacon was the actual author and was not
> simply heavily involved in editing & publishing
> the canon (which he certainly was)].
and it (editing etc.)
explains a very great deal, too.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> You should read Oxford's bible sometimes.
> Almost every underlined phrase shows concern for the poor.
Yeah, himself.
Connivance was his only theme of the 1590s.
What did the queen say to the wouldbe tinman?
"You won't be getting snippy with me."
Elizabeth
Bacon's corpse is among the hordes of missing corpses
from the post-Catholic era.
I have no theory about Bacon's absence from his
tomb but Oxford and the Stratford Burgher would not
have wanted to be buried in unsanctivied ground. A lot
of conforming Catholics were buried on top of their
ancestors in the grave yard 'set asides.'
As far as DNA is concerned, we have portraits of the
odd genetics of that family group. Bacon's combination
of genetic traits are found in less than 2% of the
English population.
<http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portra1.jpg>
The Saunders looks like Bacon, has his genetics and
the extant descriptions of his features are a match (small
mouth, a sweet nature, a sad expression) to the sitter.
The sitter is also wearing kersy brown which was some
kind of a statement made by Bacon. Bacon was dumped
into the lower class by virtue of being cut out of his
father's will (an acknowledgement that Bacon was a
bastard which was a terrible stain in those days).
I've found three Saunders close to Bacon starting with
his father's mother Alice Saunders Cooke, a Gregory
Saunders and a third male Saunders. The Strats would
love to have claim this portrait but there's nothing to
connect the actor to it except the usual making stuff up.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Art wrote:"Talking ad naseum about "having real evidence" is
> no substitute for actually "presenting real evidence"
>
> I took Kathman in the Strachey debate, Art,
Remarkable! Elizabeth just keeps the comedy coming!
> but that means absolutely
> nothing to you because you hold to a completely ideosyncratic [sic]
Actually, Art's "evidence" is generally more idiot-syncretic than
idiosyncratic. The same observation applies to Elizabeth's "evidence."
> definition of 'evidence.' Have you read Madame Bovary?
>
> ". . . [that Bacon was the actual author and was not
> simply heavily involved in editing & publishing
> the canon (which he certainly was)]."
>
> Lynne gets 'aristocratic stigma of print'
But Lynne publishes all the time, despite her Bush-dynasty blue blood.
> even if you insist on
> cleaving to Strat orthodoxy on that point.
>
> Bacon had little if anything to do with 'editing and publishing the
> canon.'
Judging by the available evidence, Bacon had little if anything to do
with the Shakespeare canon, period.
> The idea that Bacon would put an earl's works into print is as U N T
> H I N K A B L E
But Art just "thought" that. Is Elizabeth suggesting that Art's
mental processes cannot properly be characterized as thinking? If so,
the irony could scarcely be richer.
> as an earl allowing his works to be printed for the
> (ugh) public.
>
> You have made Oxford into a hopeless anachronism, Art.
>
> Americans have ruined the reading of the Shakespeare works because they
> read them democratically as well as demotically.
There's nothing like a little snobbery to lend credence to an
argument.
> The works are not democratic and the author was not democratic. Like
> Oxford, he was trained from birth to look down on classes lower than
> himself (although he was plunged into the lower class at his father's
> death and spent two decades climing [sic]
> back up) but the UNIQUE thing about
> the Shakespeare works that makes them so endearing and invaluable is
> 'life, liberty and dower.' Even the Magna Carta said nothing about
> life or liberty.
From the Magna Carta:
"We have also granted to all free men of our realm, for us and our
heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to
keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:...."
"If any one shall have been disseized by us, or removed, without a
legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or
lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to him."
"Moreover all the subjects of our realm, clergy as well as laity,
shall, as far as pertains to them, observe, with regard to their
vassals, all these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have
decreed shall, as far as pertains to us, be observed in our realm
with regard to our own."
One would scarcely expect a document from 1215 to exhibit the same
awareness of liberties that would evolve some three and a half centuries
later, but it is absurd to declare that the Magna Carta said *nothing*
about life or liberty. Elizabeth, of course, has never read the
document in question, but is merely "cook[ing] from scratch," as she so
aptly expresses it -- that is, she is making up "facts" as she goes
along, as is her custom.
> This genius believed in fundamental rights regardless
> of class.
>
> Oxford was a traditional feudal earl fighting to preserve feudal right.
> Oxford was not politically evolved enough to write that natural law
> grants 'life, liberty and dower' because
> feudal rights are organized around a military quid pro quo
> not anything 'fundamental to Nature' (Case of the Post-nati).
>
> All Oxford ever wanted was to regain what his class had
> lost. Oxford was not a reformer.
>
> The main reason that the First Folio was printed at all
> was that Jonson changed class prejudice against plays (formerly 'toys')
> with his 1616 First Folio.
>
> The second reason is that the indecisive but apparently sexually
> irresistable Pembroke
Evidence? This pronouncement is reminiscent of one of Elizabeth's
most amusing posts:
"Elizabethan males wore ridiculous clothing but Leicester
looks like a sexy beast in his doublet and hose--the musk
fairly radiates off the canvas. Southampton's clothes
in his 1600 portrait are over the top--he looks like he's
got his bustle on sideways--but Southampton was gay.
What can I say?"
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/10ebe7a434ec18be?dmode=source>
> was dopey for plays. He was the first real
> theatre aficionado, he was Jonson's doting patron and Bacon's friend,
> bastard son, cousin or whatever, and Pembroke, as the richest man in
> England, was in a position to put up the front money for the FF.
>
> Try to keep the politics of the time in mind, Art. Oxford was the
> intragenerational enemy of the Dudley-Sidney=Herberts, not in any
> deadly sense but in the 'family feud' sense. Oxford was a faithful
> Catholic, the most likeable thing about Oxford, Pembroke was a
> Calvinist Puritan before Puritanism became Puritanical. Pembroke was
> brought to Court after Oxford was evicted from Court. Oxford's
> daughters, as far as we know, never saw him after Burghley took them. I
> believe they were raised at Theobalds.
On what basis does Elizabeth believe this?
> The other hindrance to Oxford's authorship in addition to the fact that
> any claimant needs Jonson and the Baconians have Jonson, is that there
> is not a single piece of evidence that connects Oxford to the
> Shakespeare works. Amateur Freudian analysis of the Shakespeare works
> is not evidence.
>
> I'm researching a post on evidence and I'll compare examples from
> Baconian, Strat and Oxfordian pages.
>
> Cordially,
>
> (name withheld).
On stylistic grounds alone, there could be scant doubt about the
identity of the author of Elizabeth's post. When one takes into account
the content as well, all doubt is removed.
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Lyra wrote: "I wish we could get some DNA to look at.'
There's no need -- Elizabeth can unerringly infer genetic
relationships by means of pure hallucination, as she will no doubt do
below.
> Bacon's corpse is among the hordes of missing corpses
> from the post-Catholic era.
>
> I have no theory about Bacon's absence from his
> tomb but Oxford and the Stratford Burgher would not
> have wanted to be buried in unsanctivied [sic] ground. A lot
> of conforming Catholics were buried on top of their
> ancestors in the grave yard 'set asides.'
>
> As far as DNA is concerned, we have portraits of the
> odd genetics of that family group.
What did I predict above? Elizabeth will now demonstrate genetic
relationships based solely upon portraiture!
> Bacon's combination
> of genetic traits are found in less than 2% of the
> English population.
Which genetic traits of Bacon are found in less than 2% of the
English population? If Elizabeth means Bacon's entire genotype, then
presumably that genotype is utterly unique in human history, so
Elizabeth's claim is trivial.
> <http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portra1.jpg>
That's Faker's web site, a reliable source if ever there was one!
> The Saunders looks like Bacon,
Well, that settles it, then!
> has his genetics
Elizabeth's preternatural ability to discern genetic relationship
based upon superficial physical resemblance as gauged by one or two
examples of Renaissance portraiture is extraordinary! No doubt she can
read off the entire sequence of nucleotides in each chromosome by
cursory inspection of a faded four hundred year-old canvas! But we have
already seen several amusing examples of Elizabeth's vivid visal,
auditory, and even olfactory halluncinations evoked by viewing
Elizabethan canvases:
"Elizabethan males wore ridiculous clothing but Leicester
looks like a sexy beast in his doublet and hose--the musk
fairly radiates off the canvas. Southampton's clothes
in his 1600 portrait are over the top--he looks like he's
got his bustle on sideways--but Southampton was gay.
What can I say?"
"Are you saying that you can't tell any difference between
the Southampton wearing lipstick and an earring with his
forehead shaved up to the parietal bones to show off
the feminine curve of his forehead versus the
rock star Wriothesley of the Hilliard?
I can do a post on the way Elizabethan women achieved
that fashionable high rounded forehead. If Wriothesley
wasn't a prettie seventeen year old his 'receding hairline'
would looke like male pattern baldness. That forehead
is almost twice as high as in his 1600 portrait."
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/10ebe7a434ec18be?dmode=source>
"Italiante [sic] dress was foppish but nevertheless preening and
assertive. It was more 'fighting cock' than feminine. Just out
of the picture these romantic, almost Byronic-looking youths
are wearing rapiers and under the silk their aristocratic
bodies are nicked and scarred."
Note Elizabeth's x-ray vision in the above excerpt -- even the sitter's
clothing does not foil her penetrating gaze!
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/6494a35f49d29cc5?dmode=source>
"The most telling thing in the painting are the pencil line eyebrows
plucked into perfect crescents. Those don't appear in nature.
Compare them to Southampton's natural eyebrows.
And the hair shaved back to the parietal bones. That fairly
screams 'I'm wearing a wig!!!'"
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/19554fff60c98948?dmode=source>
"Defied by genetics. Elizabeth interited [sic] Anne Boleyn's
black eyes and perfectly straight hair [she wore a curly red
wig].
It's unlikely that the blue-eyed frizzy-haired
Oxford would be Elizabeth's son.
Seymour would have to be an albino.
The black-eyed, black-haired Anne Boleyn is a marker in the Tudor gene
pool as far as identifying the heirs apparent to the title of Royal
Bastard. If brains are genetic she supplied that too. She was very
brilliant. And beautiful."
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/72857ebd7b82ff87?dmode=source>
"We can deduce--at least I can deduce--you apparently don't
know basic logic--from a knowledge of primary colors and pigments
that the brown hair shown in Southampton's portrait is a wig and
not Southampton's own hair.
[snip of Webb's insults]
The color 'brown' is a combination of THREE PRIMARY COLORS,
red, yellow and blue.
In painting, unless you're a purist who mixes from only pure
primary pigments (some painters do) you mix
RED + GREEN (yellow and blue) = BROWN.
Southampton's famous hair was an astonishing 'strawberry
blond' or light blond hair with a touch of red pigment in it.
There is no way that Southampton's own light blond-red hair,
could (quote) 'fade back to brown' in a 'faded' painting (you forgot
to show proof that the portrait is faded) because there was no blue
pigment in Southampton's own light blond-red hair.
Had there been any blue pigment in Southampton's own hair,
his hair would have been ash blond or light brown. We know
from A.L. Rowse and others that it was not.
If the portrait is faded--and I doubt it is--Southampton's own
hair could only fade to pinkish or light orange tones. The
painting did not darken because it was not kept in the city
where it would be exposed to chemical pollutants (worst in
the Victorian era of coal burning) but at a country house
on a wall going up a staircase. It was clearly not hung over
a sooty fireplace. For Southampton's hair to chemically darken
to brown, the whole painting would have to darken.
The purchased hair in the wig has a more blue pigment but
less red pigment that Southampton's own hair so it wouldn't
darken to such a yellowish brown."
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/089ab67543c68e5d?dmode=source>
> and
> the extant descriptions of his features are a match (small
> mouth, a sweet nature,
Amazing! Elizabeth can actually discern -- *from someone's features*
-- that that person possessed "a sweet nature"! Her powers of deductive
hallucination are evidently without peer!
> a sad expression) to the sitter.
> The sitter is also wearing kersy [sic] brown which was some
> kind of a statement made by Bacon.
If Bacon was not the sitter, then the sitter's "kersy [sic] brown"
attire can scarcely have been a "statement made by Bacon."
> Bacon was dumped
> into the lower class by virtue of being cut out of his
> father's will (an acknowledgement that Bacon was a
> bastard which was a terrible stain in those days).
>
> I've found three Saunders close to Bacon starting with
> his father's mother Alice Saunders Cooke, a Gregory
> Saunders and a third male Saunders. The Strats would
> love to have claim this portrait but there's nothing to
> connect the actor to it except the usual making stuff up.
"The usual making stuff up" is an admirably concise and candid
characterization of Elizabeth's own method of "research."
[...]
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110223958.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Art wrote:"Talking ad naseum about "having real evidence" is
> > no substitute for actually "presenting real evidence"
> >
> > I took Kathman in the Strachey debate, Art, but that means absolutely
> > nothing to you because you hold to a completely ideosyncratic
> > definition of 'evidence.' Have you read Madame Bovary?
> I don't have "an idiosyncratic definition of 'evidence,'" Elizabeth.
Actually, Elizabeth claimed that Art possessed "a completely
ideosyncratic [sic] definition of 'evidence.'"
> And at
> this point I am comfortable suggesting that with regard to the Strachey
> debate, you are definitely rooting for the wrong side.
But Elizabeth *owns* the Strachey letter, Lynne -- she says so
herself!
> And actually, although I'm not Art,
Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could possibly
confuse the two of you.
> I'd like to say I have read Madame
> Bovary. Have you read the Strachey letter?
How can you ask that, Lynne?! Remember that your interlocutor is
Elizabeth -- *of course* she has not read _Madame Bovary_. Indeed,
Elizabeth probably thinks that "M'damn Ovary" is some sort of plaint
concerning a failure of nineteenth-century contraception.
> Regards,
> Lynne
>
> >
> > ". . . [that Bacon was the actual author and was not
> > simply heavily involved in editing & publishing
> > the canon (which he certainly was)]."
> >
> > Lynne gets 'aristocratic stigma of print' even if you insist on
> > cleaving to Strat orthodoxy on that point.
See? Elizabeth even obligingly awarded you "aristocratic stigma of
print," Lynne, thereby supporting my speculation concerning your blue
blood (your conjectural consanguinity with the Bush dynasty, etc.).
[Elizabeth's lunacy snipped]
LynnE
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:david.l.webb-B370...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> In article <GO4Xd.10360$JH1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1110223958.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > Art wrote:"Talking ad naseum about "having real evidence" is
> > > no substitute for actually "presenting real evidence"
> > >
> > > I took Kathman in the Strachey debate, Art, but that means absolutely
> > > nothing to you because you hold to a completely ideosyncratic
> > > definition of 'evidence.' Have you read Madame Bovary?
>
> > I don't have "an idiosyncratic definition of 'evidence,'" Elizabeth.
>
> Actually, Elizabeth claimed that Art possessed "a completely
> ideosyncratic [sic] definition of 'evidence.'"
>
> > And at
> > this point I am comfortable suggesting that with regard to the Strachey
> > debate, you are definitely rooting for the wrong side.
>
> But Elizabeth *owns* the Strachey letter, Lynne -- she says so
> herself!
I believe we shall allow Elizabeth to keep the Strachey letter, David.
>
> > And actually, although I'm not Art,
>
> Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could possibly
> confuse the two of you.
Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that there's
anything wrong with Art, of course. But he's a good bit taller than I and
has no paws.
>
> > I'd like to say I have read Madame
> > Bovary. Have you read the Strachey letter?
>
> How can you ask that, Lynne?! Remember that your interlocutor is
> Elizabeth -- *of course* she has not read _Madame Bovary_. Indeed,
> Elizabeth probably thinks that "M'damn Ovary" is some sort of plaint
> concerning a failure of nineteenth-century contraception.
Actually, David, I was more interested in whether Elizabeth had read True
Repertory.
And here is a question for you or Elizabeth or anyone else who cares to
answer: Part of the enigma of the original Strachey letter is that it was
not published until 1625, by Purchas in his Pilgrims. I have seen people
suggest that it was banned in 1610 as the material in it was considered too
damaging to print. Does anyone have a primary or even secondary source for
this?
Thanks much,
Mouse
Art Neuendorffer
> > > I am comfortable suggesting that with regard to the Strachey
> > > debate, you are definitely rooting for the wrong side.
> > -- she says so herself!
> I believe we shall allow Elizabeth to keep the Strachey letter, David.
> > could possibly confuse the two of you.
> Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that
> there's anything wrong with Art, of course. But he's a good
> bit taller than I and has no paws.
> And here is a question for you or Elizabeth or anyone else who cares
Unless thou couldst return to make amends?
One poor retiring minute in an age
Would PURCHASe thee a thousand thousand friends,
Lending him wit that to bad debtors lends:
O, this dread night, wouldst thou one hour come back,
I could prevent this storm and shun thy wrack!
And given to time your own dear-PURCHASed right
That I have hoisted sail to all the winds
Which should transport me farthest from your sight.
Enough to PURCHASe such another island,
So thou wilt let me live, and feel no pain.
You have desire to PURCHASe; and your store,
I think, is not for idle markets, sir.
------------------------------------------------------
Will PURCHASe us a good opinion
And buy men's voices to commend our deeds:
It shall be said, his judgment ruled our hands;
Our youths and wildness shall no whit appear,
But all be buried in his gravity.
What bargains may I make, still to be sealing?
To sell myself I can be well contented,
So thou wilt buy and pay and use good dealing;
Which PURCHASe if thou make, for fear of slips
Set thy seal-manual on my wax-red lips.
That loves the thing he can not PURCHASe. --Spenser.
They that can give up essential liberty to PURCHASe a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
Those who would give up essential liberty to PURCHASe a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
John Balguy: Contentment is a pearl of great price, and whoever procures it at the expense of ten thousand desires makes a wise and a happy PURCHASe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Chapter 49, Verse 32
1526 Tyndale Which felde and the caue that is therin was bought of the childern of Heth.
1611 King James The PURCHASe of the field and of the cave that is therein was from the children of Heth.
http://www.as.ua.edu/english/3_graduate/strode/articles/taylor/hamlet1.htm
"Where, my lord?"
"In my mind's eye, Horatio." [1]
Elizabeth
Lynne wrote:
> > And at
> > this point I am comfortable suggesting that with regard to the
Strachey
> > debate, you are definitely rooting for the wrong side.
>
> But Elizabeth *owns* the Strachey letter, Lynne -- she says so
> herself!
Where did I say that, Webb?
Google advanced search shows:
Your search -"I own the Strachey letter"
group:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare author:elizabeth author:weir -
did not match any documents.
I didn't say that 'I own the Strachey letter,' Webb, but
after your Homer screw-up I have no confidence that
you can keep any of your facts straight.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
about the
identity of the author of Elizabeth's post."
On stylistic grounds as well as twenty or so matching phrases (out of a
paragraph, for goodness sakes, Webb) there could be scant doubt about
the identity of the author of Webb's post on Homer It was that aura
reader over on myth-ing link dot org.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Elizabeth" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
Plainly, you cannot even remember your own comic contributions to
this forum -- not that your fans will find this incapacity surprising.
Nor can you use the Google archive competently -- not that this
revelation is exactly newsworthy either. Peter Groves wrote:
"...then I'm afraid I have to tell you that you're an unteachable
moron. Since you're insensible to facts you won't, of course,
register this."
Peter's words have proved prescient; you evidently registered neither
his post, nor your own reply. In the latter, you rejoined:
"Unteachable moron to you, owner of the Strachey letter
to Kathman."
You can find this most entertaining post at
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/de339c245d7ee9f8?dmode=source>
-- or at any rate you could if you were capable of pasting a URL into a
window.
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > > And actually, although I'm not Art,
> > Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could possibly
> > confuse the two of you.
> Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that there's
> anything wrong with Art,
There isn't? You're *sure*, Lynne? This he *is* just trolling, as I
suspected? Did he confide this to you?
> of course. But he's a good bit taller than I
Art is a head taller in one respect, but a head short in another
sense.
> and
> has no paws.
Art has had no pause for some years now, ever since he discoVERed
h.l.a.s.; indeed, his output is an unprecedented, uninterrupted effusion
of VERbal diarrhea.
> > > I'd like to say I have read Madame
> > > Bovary. Have you read the Strachey letter?
> > How can you ask that, Lynne?! Remember that your interlocutor is
> > Elizabeth -- *of course* she has not read _Madame Bovary_. Indeed,
> > Elizabeth probably thinks that "M'damn Ovary" is some sort of plaint
> > concerning a failure of nineteenth-century contraception.
> Actually, David, I was more interested in whether Elizabeth had read True
> Repertory.
Elizabeth has not read *any* of her supposed sources, Lynne:
Einstein, Poincaré, Rips, Akrigg, Hsu, Kathman, etc. -- the list is
virtually endless! Not that one can really fault her -- indeed, her
functional illiteracy renders the exercise pointless.
> And here is a question for you or Elizabeth or anyone else who cares to
> answer: Part of the enigma of the original Strachey letter is that it was
> not published until 1625, by Purchas in his Pilgrims. I have seen people
> suggest that it was banned in 1610 as the material in it was considered too
> damaging to print. Does anyone have a primary or even secondary source for
> this?
Primary source: Elizabeth Weird, hallucination. Secondary source:
Ibid.
[...]
LynnE
> In article <vBlXd.12405$fW4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > And actually, although I'm not Art,
>
> > > Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could
possibly
> > > confuse the two of you.
>
> > Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that there's
> > anything wrong with Art,
>
> There isn't? You're *sure*, Lynne? This he *is* just trolling, as I
> suspected? Did he confide this to you?
No, but he was quite delightful, a pleasure to drink tea with. He seemed
VERy sane, but who am I to judge?
>
> > of course. But he's a good bit taller than I
>
> Art is a head taller in one respect, but a head short in another
> sense.
>
> > and
> > has no paws.
>
> Art has had no pause for some years now, ever since he discoVERed
> h.l.a.s.; indeed, his output is an unprecedented, uninterrupted effusion
> of VERbal diarrhea.
I thought of the pun, but was too polite to mention it.
>
> > > > I'd like to say I have read Madame
> > > > Bovary. Have you read the Strachey letter?
>
> > > How can you ask that, Lynne?! Remember that your interlocutor is
> > > Elizabeth -- *of course* she has not read _Madame Bovary_. Indeed,
> > > Elizabeth probably thinks that "M'damn Ovary" is some sort of plaint
> > > concerning a failure of nineteenth-century contraception.
>
> > Actually, David, I was more interested in whether Elizabeth had read
True
> > Repertory.
>
> Elizabeth has not read *any* of her supposed sources, Lynne:
> Einstein, Poincaré, Rips, Akrigg, Hsu, Kathman, etc. -- the list is
> virtually endless! Not that one can really fault her -- indeed, her
> functional illiteracy renders the exercise pointless.
>
> > And here is a question for you or Elizabeth or anyone else who cares to
> > answer: Part of the enigma of the original Strachey letter is that it
was
> > not published until 1625, by Purchas in his Pilgrims. I have seen people
> > suggest that it was banned in 1610 as the material in it was considered
too
> > damaging to print. Does anyone have a primary or even secondary source
for
> > this?
>
> Primary source: Elizabeth Weird, hallucination. Secondary source:
> Ibid.
I have now found that both Gayley and Wright suggest the Strachey account
was too negative to publish, but can find nothing to back up this assertion.
Lynne
>
> [...]
Elizabeth
Webb. I admit to a certain snottiness in bragging that I bested
Kathman in the Strachey debate but it's not on the moral order of your
unremitting character assassination over the course of thousands of
posts.
You seem to have missed an upbringing in the classical system of the
virtues.
The core assumption of the system of the virtues (still taught in Roman
Catholicism and certain New England denominations) is that some wrongs
are more wrong than other wrongs.
For example, plagiarizing is more wrong, especially when one lies about
it, than spelling 'plagiarizing' as 'plagerizing.'
Although it is hysterically funny that you got caught plagiarzing after
writing a thousand hysterical pissing posts on 'plagerizing.'
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Fryzer
Elizabeth
I've got Cockburn's book and I've cited Cockburn
numerous times in HLAS.
You're defending Webb but Webb, on the other hand,
has so far failed to mention the name of his source, the past
lives regressionist, Dr. Kathleen Jenks of mythinglinks.org.
Unlike Webb, Dr. Jenks got the right speech from Homer
and cites her source, Encarta Enclopedia.
Webb got the wrong speech from Homer and cited the
Loeb Classical Library Homer which translated the
Hera speech, not the Hephaestus speech in Webb's
excerpt.
I may have forgotten to cite a source but I've never
substituted an authoritative source for an unauthoritative
source.
You're defending Webb, right? I wouldn't want
to treat you like an object just to get to Webb.
Cordially,
Elizabeth.
CONCEALED POET: Prodigious Wit Known By Another Name
... If it proves of any worth,I'll send it along. In 1999 a Baconian
barrister, Nigel
Cockburn, compiled a fairly massive summation of the Baconian evidence.
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jul 31 2002, 2:39 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 26 messages - 8 authors
MISSING SOURCES: Adagia of Erasmus In Romeo And Juliet
... the fact that he has been rejected by Rosaline: Alas that love
whose view is muffled
still Should without eyes see pathways to his will Cockburn writes,
"Alas ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 11 2002, 2:18 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 1 message - 1 author
CONCEALED POET: Supreme Poet Unites Philosophy To Drama Says ...
... Cockburn says that a fine manuscript copy of the paraphrase signed
FB was found
among Bacon's close friend Sir Henry Wotton's manuscripts at Corpus
Christi ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 10 2002, 4:56 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 9 messages - 5 authors
Bacon Has Shakespeare Manuscripts, Your Candidate Doesn't
Name Witheld wrote in another forum: Elizabeth, I was intrigued by your
statement:
"I do agree with Cockburn that empirical evidence of Bacon's authorship
has ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 30 2001, 3:03 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 49 messages - 15 authors
CONCEALED POET: Prodigious Wit Known By Another Name
... If it proves of any worth,I'll send it along. In 1999 a Baconian
barrister, Nigel
Cockburn, compiled a fairly massive summation of the Baconian evidence.
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jul 30 2002, 3:58 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 26 messages - 8 authors
Weir's Foolish Investment in Moribund Baconian Theory
... [...] In 1999 a Baconian barrister, Nigel Cockburn, compiled a
fairly massive
summation of the Baconian evidence. Cockburn covered ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jan 13 2004, 6:53 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 240 messages - 23 authors
CONCEALED POET: Sir Henry Wotton Compares Jesuit Southwell's ...
... Cockburn addresses Feil's article, thinks that Feil is off by six
years and finds
reason to doubt that Mathew met Thomas Bacon before Lord Bacon died.
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 22 2002, 4:04 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 9 messages - 3 authors
BACON'S MACBETH: Parallels Kathman Likes Better Than ...
... I've looked at Edwin Reed's book with about six hundred parallels,
Cockburn lists
five hundred and I didn't see 'all parables.' The main statistical
argument ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Dec 22 2003, 1:08 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 32 messages - 10 authors
1616: King James Receives Unsolicited Inscription From Stratford ...
... set up against mortality"). (citations from Cockburn, The Bacon
Shakespeare
Question, London, 1999). Some earlier Strats including ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - May 1 2003, 12:23 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 3 messages - 3 authors
TROILUS & CRESSIDA: Written By A Lawyer For The Inns Of Court
Cockburn has proved that the Inns of Court never hired professional
outside playwrights
[the two Revels account notations "Shakespeare" indicate no payment for
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Feb 11 2003, 7:39 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 1 message - 1 author
THE NURSERY OF GENIUS: Lady Anne Bacon's IQ
... Jonson for Lady Mary Wroth. Is there one at all? Cockburn did a
chapter
on the sonnets. I haven't read it. IF he wrote them, then ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 28 2002, 11:32 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 33 messages - 10 authors
GRUMMAN: Bacon's Dialogue In The Promus *And* Romeo & Juliet ...
... I looked for the "'amen' one" in Cockburn and I also searched R &
J. I thought I
had a paraphrase but now I can't find it. Thanks, for the honesty. ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 17 2002, 9:39 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 274 messages - 27 authors
CONCEALED POET: Sir Henry Wotton Compares Jesuit Southwell's Books ...
... 7. Shakespeare Quarterly, p. 75. 8. Letters and Life, ed. ed. LP
Smith (1907) II,
393 in Cockburn, Shakespeare-Bacon Question, p 260 London, 1999. 9.
Ibid.
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 19 2002, 11:23 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 9 messages - 3 authors
BACON BAWDY BARD: He Had Been In The Midst of Spain Which Was ...
... to Stratford. Cockburn, Nigel, The Bacon-Shakespeare Question
(484-485),
London, 1999). Indeed, a very convincing parallel. Wasn ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 31 2002, 12:37 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 3 messages - 2 authors
BACON BAWDY BARD: He Had Been In The Midst of Spain Which Was A ...
... carried it down to Stratford. Cockburn, Nigel, The
Bacon-Shakespeare Question
(484-485), London, 1999). <<o====oOo====o>> Bacon ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 31 2002, 5:45 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 3 messages - 2 authors
MATCH THIS OXTRATS: Throw The Ministers Overboard
... I agree with Nigel Cockburn that Baconians would be better off to
dismiss the thousands
of direct and cross-referenced parallelisms between Bacon and the ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 31 2002, 12:39 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 9 messages - 2 authors
MATCH THIS OXSTRATS: Bacon & Burgher Flub Same Line in ...
... from Shakespeare's prose works. Cockburn, Nigel, The
Bacon-Shakespeare
Question (452-453, London, 1999). <<o====oOo====o>> Bacon ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 29 2002, 2:23 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 13 messages - 3 authors
KATHMAN SLAMS, LAUDS, MRS. HENRY POTT [Was Re: MATCH THIS OXSTRATS ...
... Baconians like Cockburn who know Latin are able to pull
parallelisms out of Bacon's
Latin works so there could be ten thousand or more Baconian
parallelisms in ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 28 2002, 3:07 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 9 messages - 4 authors
BACON BAWDY BARD: Amen When I Use It.
... Shakespeare works. <http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/promus2.gif>
Cockburn,
Nigel, The Bacon Shakespeare Question, London, 1999.
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 19 2002, 5:27 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 1 message - 1 author
'Heretical' Last Lines of 'Tempest' Eliminate Catholics Oxford ...
... Lately a British barrister, Nigel Cockburn, has published an
exaustively researched
'genealogy' on the Bacon family's relationship with the Shakespeares.
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Nov 15 2001, 8:25 pm by Elizabeth
Weir - 20 messages - 12 authors
Why Marlowe couldn't have
... Her analysis of the sonnets is almost water-proof while Cockburn is
content to explain
away the sonnets by discarding them is fantasies. I don't believe that.
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Dec 12 2002, 4:32 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 43 messages - 13 authors
CONCEALED POET: Sir Henry Wotton Compares Jesuit Southwell's ...
... Feil calls Thomas Bacon a "theogate" at Louvain in 1614 but
Cockburn cites the
Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu edited by Thomas Bacon's younger
brother ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 23 2002, 6:40 am by Elizabeth
Weir - 9 messages - 3 author
Sam Carmean
Elizabeth <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Fryzer wrote "Speaking of plagiarism."
>
> I've got Cockburn's book and I've cited Cockburn
> numerous times in HLAS.
>
> You're defending Webb but Webb, on the other hand,
> has so far failed to mention the name of his source, the past
> lives regressionist, Dr. Kathleen Jenks of mythinglinks.org.
>
> Unlike Webb, Dr. Jenks got the right speech from Homer
> and cites her source, Encarta Enclopedia.
>
> Webb got the wrong speech from Homer and cited the
> Loeb Classical Library Homer which translated the
> Hera speech, not the Hephaestus speech in Webb's
> excerpt.
>
> I may have forgotten to cite a source but I've never
> substituted an authoritative source for an unauthoritative
> source.
I can only imagine the glee you must have felt when you went to
mythinglinks.org and noticed that its recounting of a well-known
mythological tale was actually similar to David Webb's recounting of
the same tale. It's almost as if they *both* used classical literature
as their source, instead of relying on ignorant fabrications and
crack-brained inferences! Keep harping on this, Elizabeth, because
nothing less than your dignity as a Shakespearean scholar is at stake.
Elizabeth
'I'm harping?'
Webb has written a hundred and forty-two
posts on 'Agnes a gob.' He's written
countless titillting (to him) posts on
Southampton's dress.
Webb has tormented posters in this
forum, violating the hell out of the HLAS
Charter in the process, but Webb crossed the
line when he plagiarized (at least a hundred
posts on 'plagerize') from Dr. Kathleen Jenks
and then lied to cover it up.
Webb tripped himself up by faking the wrong
source, Hera's 'liar speech' from the Loeb
Classical Library when he should have faked
the Hephaestus' speech from Fitzgerald's translation.
There is a God.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Fryzer
shakespeares relationships with (1) the King JAmes (shakespeares troop
was known as the kings men, the king being their patron; shakespeare
purportedly wrote macbeth in honour of the king) and (2) Southampton
(Shakespeare dedicated Venus and Adonis AND LUcree to him; the sonnets,
at least in part are likely written to him).
James and Southampton were probably the most powerful in England in
Shakespeares time. Both had associations with the Virginia Compnay. Both
could have given Shakespeare access to the strachey letter (Perhaps even
specifically for the purpose of writing a play- to put a positive spin
on the vigrinia coy. After all Shakespeare had prevously worked in a
similar capacity, putting a positive spin on James ancestors in Macbeth.
INdeed, his work in Macbeth suggests he could be trusted to deeal with
opolitically sensitive matters with aplomb).
In any case there are plenty of other sources of the letter besides the
king and southampton. For instance:
(1) Through a copy of the letter. It is not a matter of record as to
whether the letter was circululated in copy (although it was apparently
not printed till 1625). Cockburn says that it is unlikely that the
letter, because of its length (20,000 words) and senstive nature would
be allowed to be copied and circulated. Neither the length of the latter
nor its sensitivity exclude the possibility that the letter may have
been circulated in a censored and abbreviated form.
(2) Through an unamed member of the virginia company. Even Cockburn
concedes that there were numerous shareholders of the virginia company
and that shakespeare was bound to "have known some of them".
In Conclusion: There is no way to establish the precise means by which
shakespeare accessed the strachey letter. There is however enough
evidence as to shakespeares associations (with the king , southampton,
strachey, digges etc) to suggest that he could have received the letter.
That is all that is required for proof. It is not necessary nor is it
possible to demonstrate these matters with apodictic certainty.
Frizer.
Sam Carmean
Elizabeth <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
Let me be blunt: your desperation for ammunition to use against David
Webb is apparent. You have not remotely made the case, in this or any
other thread, that he plagiarized a well-known mythological tale from a
website you happened to stumble across. Your smoking gun, in the
paragraph that begins "Webb tripped himself up," is thoroughly
inscrutable, although you're undoubtedly wise not to elaborate on it.
And your recurring talk of civility rings hollow when you're willing to
grasp at straws to call someone a plagiarist and a liar; maybe you
should change your mantra to "It's all Webb's fault."
LynnE
"Fryzer" <fri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:422f7...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Friz, I'm going to ask you the same question I'm asking everyone else who is
pontificating about Strachey's True Repertory. Have you actually read it?
Lynne
Spam Scone
But Lynne, the "Strachey Letter" is like Pimpernel Smith. You are only
allowed to comment on it if you haven't seen it!
Fryzer
Bitz and pieces...
[snip]
Elizabeth
> Reviewing Cockburn I note that he, like yourself, fails to
acknowledge
> shakespeares relationships with (1) the King JAmes (shakespeares
troop
> was known as the kings men, the king being their patron; shakespeare
> purportedly wrote macbeth in honour of the king) and
I haven't studied the public theatres because 'Shakespeare'
didn't write for the public theatres. Manuscripts gravitated
out of private coteries to the public theatre companies via
'crows' like Shake-scene.
I do know that the Bacons had a connection to the Burbages
in Herts. Dame Daphne DuMaurier, who wrote two books on
the Bacons, hired professional researchers who dug up the
records.
The Shakespeare works weren't written to 'honor' the
worst king Britain ever had, they were written, as one
scholar put it 'to educate a king.'
One of the very first things the paranoid fool did after
he was made king of England was to enact laws against
'witches.' Bacon, who knew James well from his travels
to Scotland on behalf of a commission to merge Scottish
and English law, knew James I was capable of burning
women.
Ultimately, only two women were convicted but that was
after the Puritans gained control of Parliament and the
common law Courts.
In regard to the Garnet case which furnishes themes
and lines for Macbeth, the Oxfordians are going
to have to deal with another 'Strachey letter.'
Bacon himself wrote a source for Macbeth at the same time
the play was being written. Oxford was dead in1606
and the actor could not have gotten access to it. Here's
the title page from Bacon's pamphlet:
"A True and Perfect Relation of the proceedings at
the several Arraignments of the Late Most
Barbarous Traitors. It had James I's ornament
opposite the title page and was 'imprinted at
London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most
Excellent Maiestie. Anno 1606.'"
I'm citing Henry Paul, The Royal Play of Macbeth, Macmillan,
New York. 1950.
I'll have to respond to your long post in sections.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
LynnE
> In article <uVsXd.14408$fW4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:david.l.webb-C9D6...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > > In article <vBlXd.12405$fW4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > And actually, although I'm not Art,
> > >
> > > > > Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could
> > possibly
> > > > > confuse the two of you.
>
> > > > Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that
there's
> > > > anything wrong with Art,
>
> > > There isn't? You're *sure*, Lynne? This he *is* just trolling, as
I
> > > suspected? Did he confide this to you?
>
> > No, but he was quite delightful, a pleasure to drink tea with.
>
> I've never heard of the DTeas.
I was drinking the tea, David. I can't be trusted with alcohol.
>
> > He seemed
> > VERy sane, but who am I to judge?
>
> I was going to ask the same question, but you very obligingly saved
> me the trouble. :-)
I am generally very obliging to traditionalists when speaking about myself.
>
> > > > of course. But he's a good bit taller than I
>
> > > Art is a head taller in one respect, but a head short in another
> > > sense.
>
> > > > and
> > > > has no paws.
>
> > > Art has had no pause for some years now, ever since he discoVERed
> > > h.l.a.s.; indeed, his output is an unprecedented, uninterrupted
effusion
> > > of VERbal diarrhea.
>
> > I thought of the pun, but was too polite to mention it.
>
> I am not constrained by such reticence. :-)
We noticed. ;)
> Where do they say that?
I don't have the Gayley here so I can't tell you. The reference was passed
on to me after I asked about sources. I will need to check when I can get
out to a library (it's freezing here, too freezing to stand at a bus stop).
But LouisWright says it in the introduction to True Repertory, and I must
have found this para about ten minutes after I asked the question:
"Nor did [Strachey] gloss over unpleasant details. His narration of the
shortcomings of some of the group and the mutinies that nearly ruined their
prospects of escaping from the Bermudas were not matters that the Virginia
company would want to publish abroad. These comments are sufficient to
explain whey Strachey's report had to wait until 1625 to see print. That
does not mean, however, that the officials of the company did not read
carefully all that he had written and give heed to the implications between
the lines. Strachey makes clear that the quality of some of the immigrants
helped to explain the difficulties experienced in trying to establish a
successful base at Jamestown. The mutinies...also provided suggestions to
Shakespeare for the mutinous sailors in The Tempest."
I may have mistyped a word or two there. Copied in haste.
Lynne
>
> [...]
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-C9D6...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <vBlXd.12405$fW4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > > And actually, although I'm not Art,
> >
> > > > Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could
> possibly
> > > > confuse the two of you.
> > > Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that there's
> > > anything wrong with Art,
> > There isn't? You're *sure*, Lynne? This he *is* just trolling, as I
> > suspected? Did he confide this to you?
> No, but he was quite delightful, a pleasure to drink tea with.
Are you certain that that was really tea that he was drinking, Lynne?
I've never heard of the DTeas.
> He seemed
> VERy sane, but who am I to judge?
I was going to ask the same question, but you very obligingly saved
me the trouble. :-)
> > > of course. But he's a good bit taller than I
> > Art is a head taller in one respect, but a head short in another
> > sense.
> > > and
> > > has no paws.
> > Art has had no pause for some years now, ever since he discoVERed
> > h.l.a.s.; indeed, his output is an unprecedented, uninterrupted effusion
> > of VERbal diarrhea.
> I thought of the pun, but was too polite to mention it.
I am not constrained by such reticence. :-)
> > > > > I'd like to say I have read Madame
Where do they say that?
[...]
Fryzer
>
>
> mhtgfjgv
>
>
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
>> Fryzer wrote:
>>
>>> Reviewing Cockburn I note that he, like yourself, fails to
>>
>>
>> acknowledge
>>
>>> shakespeares relationships with (1) the King JAmes (shakespeares
>>
>>
>> troop
>>
>>> was known as the kings men, the king being their patron; shakespeare
>>> purportedly wrote macbeth in honour of the king) and
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't studied the public theatres because 'Shakespeare'
>> didn't write for the public theatres. Manuscripts gravitated
>> out of private coteries to the public theatre companies via
>> 'crows' like Shake-scene.
There is no evidence for this.
You allude above to your interpretation of greenes groatsworth. You
contend that greene calls shakspeare a crow - a playbroker selling
stolen plays. However as has been pointed out to you previously, your
reading of the groatsworth relies primarily on a strained and obscure
reading of the word 'suppose' (as well as incidently a failure to
recognise 'crow' as an allusion to aesop). The small ambiguity present
in greenes groatworth is removed when it is placed in the context of
other evidence that clearly states that will shakespeare of stratford on
avon was the renaissance genius- will shakespeare poet.
>>
>> I do know that the Bacons had a connection to the Burbages
>> in Herts. Dame Daphne DuMaurier, who wrote two books on
>> the Bacons, hired professional researchers who dug up the
>> records.
Will shakepseare had a very clear association with burbage, as you well
know.
>> The Shakespeare works weren't written to 'honor' the
>> worst king Britain ever had, they were written, as one
>> scholar put it 'to educate a king.'
James didn't need bacons 'education'. He had already published a
respected treatise on kingship in 1598.
>> One of the very first things the paranoid fool did after
>> he was made king of England was to enact laws against
>> 'witches.' Bacon, who knew James well from his travels
>> to Scotland on behalf of a commission to merge Scottish
>> and English law, knew James I was capable of burning
>> women.
Really, well what the witches in Macbeth say actually comes true... so
are we to suppose that bacon supported james' witch hunt?
>> Ultimately, only two women were convicted but that was
>> after the Puritans gained control of Parliament and the
>> common law Courts.
>> In regard to the Garnet case which furnishes themes
>> and lines for Macbeth, the Oxfordians are going
>> to have to deal with another 'Strachey letter.'
>>
>> Bacon himself wrote a source for Macbeth at the same time
>> the play was being written. Oxford was dead in1606
>> and the actor could not have gotten access to it.
HOw do you know he could not have accessed it (assuming it is even a
source), he was a leading player in the KINGS MEN and the scottish play
was obviously written for the KING.
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-152A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <uVsXd.14408$fW4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:david.l.webb-C9D6...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > > > In article <vBlXd.12405$fW4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > > And actually, although I'm not Art,
> > > > > > Don't worry, Lynne; nobody (except perhaps Elizabeth) could
> > > possibly
> > > > > > confuse the two of you.
> > > > > Oh my ears and whiskers. I'm very grateful for that. Not that
> there's
> > > > > anything wrong with Art,
> > > > There isn't? You're *sure*, Lynne? This he *is* just trolling, as
> I
> > > > suspected? Did he confide this to you?
> > > No, but he was quite delightful, a pleasure to drink tea with.
> > Are you certain that that was really tea that he was drinking, Lynne?
> > I've never heard of the DTeas.
> I was drinking the tea, David. I can't be trusted with alcohol.
I see -- then Art's DTs were occasioned by stronger drink than tea,
as I suspected.
> > > He seemed
> > > VERy sane, but who am I to judge?
> > I was going to ask the same question, but you very obligingly saved
> > me the trouble. :-)
> I am generally very obliging to traditionalists when speaking about myself.
> > > > > of course. But he's a good bit taller than I
> > > > Art is a head taller in one respect, but a head short in another
> > > > sense.
> > > > > and
> > > > > has no paws.
> > > > Art has had no pause for some years now, ever since he discoVERed
> > > > h.l.a.s.; indeed, his output is an unprecedented, uninterrupted
> effusion
> > > > of VERbal diarrhea.
> > > I thought of the pun, but was too polite to mention it.
> > I am not constrained by such reticence. :-)
> We noticed. ;)
Are you using the pluralis majestatis, Lynne?
Thank you.
> Lynne
>
> >
> > [...]
>
>
LynnE
snip.
> Are you using the pluralis majestatis, Lynne?
We are not amused, David.
Lynne and Mouse
Chess One
"> Really, well what the witches in Macbeth say actually comes true... so
> are we to suppose that bacon supported james' witch hunt?
If we allow the 'Mac' for colour then the BETH, which is Anglo Saxon means:
'ye be' - which is an admonition and a forecast, indeed, another old word
for the 'Weird' sisters, has a meaning of 'the fates'.
> >> Bacon himself wrote a source for Macbeth at the same time
> >> the play was being written. Oxford was dead in1606
> >> and the actor could not have gotten access to it.
>
> HOw do you know he could not have accessed it (assuming it is even a
> source), he was a leading player in the KINGS MEN and the scottish play
> was obviously written for the KING.
About the fate of the King who rejects the feminine [in fact, a king who
would burn women, no?] ~/Hughes
> > Here's
> >> the title page from Bacon's pamphlet:
> >>
> >> "A True and Perfect Relation of the proceedings at
> >> the several Arraignments of the Late Most
> >> Barbarous Traitors. It had James I's ornament
> >> opposite the title page and was 'imprinted at
> >> London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most
> >> Excellent Maiestie. Anno 1606.'"
> >>
> >> I'm citing Henry Paul, The Royal Play of Macbeth, Macmillan,
> >> New York. 1950.
For sources, is there not something about Macbeth's murder of Duncan that
reminds one irresistibly of Tarquin's rape of Lucrece: here is the dark
warrior, his dreadful apprehension, his uncontrollable 'lust' to commit the
crime that he abhors, his approach through the castle, in the night towards
his sleeping victim. In fact, feeling and atmosphere, and even in such
details as the notion of murdering the grooms and putting the blame on them,
Macbeth's act is a more grandly orchestrated reprise of Tarquin's. As he
crosses the paving stones, appalled at the sound of his own foorfalls, he
recognizes it in himself:
Now... witchcraft celebrates
Pale Hecate's offerings; and wither'd murder,
Alarum'd by his sentinel, the wolf,
Whose howl's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace,
With Tarquin's ravishing strides, toward his design
Moves like a ghost...
/Macbeth, II, i. 51-6
And [continues Hughes] one sees that within Shakespeare's algebra, where
Crown and Lucrece are interchangeable, Macbeth's role perfectly fulfils the
second part of the Equation, and in so far as the Crown is the 'soul' of
order in this work, Macbeth is a Tarquin, and Duncan incorporates Lucrece.
[TH,SATGOCB, 241]
To contine with Hughes comments at this point would no doubt allow an
insight into the psychological aspect of this Mythos in action - as enacted
by the Players of the Play and by the Players of the Time.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Chess One
> where Crown and Lucrece are interchangeable, Macbeth's role perfectly
> fulfils the second part of the Equation, and in so far as the Crown is the
> 'soul' of order in this work, Macbeth is a Tarquin, and Duncan
> incorporates Lucrece. [TH,SATGOCB, 241]
>
> To contine with Hughes comments at this point would no doubt allow an
> insight into the psychological aspect of this Mythos in action - as
> enacted by the Players of the Play and by the Players of the Time.
So he is playing, as it were, two roles. He is the irrational usurping
inferior in the pattern of the Rival Brothers, but he is also, it seems, the
Tarquin in at least the second half of the Equation, where Adonis meets the
Boar, since according to the Equation's basic algebra Tarquin = Adonis +
Boar.
And clearly enough, at the opening of the play, Macbeth was an Adonis,
and exemplary Adonis, the admired representative of the moral order which
united him not only with Banquo and King Duncan, whose virtues were
'angels', but with Malcolm, who stands 'in the right hand of God', with
Macduff, who is the touchstone of Malcolm's virtues (and who, saying of
Macbeth's transformation,
Not in the legions
Of horrid hell can come a devil more damn'd
In evils to top Macbeth...
will be the one - 'not born of woman' - to kill him) and with the English
King into whose 'hand' Heaven has given such 'sanctity that with a touch he
cures 'the Evil'. The great composite Adonis, of whom, as I say, Macbeth is
originally the champion persona, assuredly, like Adonis in the poem, would
reject the Goddess on the least suspicion of 'lust' (and would defiantly set
the Tragic equation ticking thereby.).
---------
And so in these matter of historical allegory, or poesy, I do not find that
people who would guess after author, or find only historical allusions or
poetic conceits rendered into great art; to suspect enough!
Perhaps one might suspect that the Author was illustrating an underlying
theme of the life of the times, playing out on a small stage what others did
in the greater arena?
--------
The clue to what happens in the play is that from the very first moment
the Witches and Lady Macbeth (in other words, the Female) appear as the
Queen of Hell in blatant, unmistakable form. According to every other play
in the sequence, within Shakespeare's universe the Female is Goddess
Complete /until/ she is divided by the Adonis hero's Puritan spectacles, by
his loathing terror of that portion of her which his Reformation lenses
separate out as the Queen of Hell. And so, since here in Macbeth the Queen
of Hell actually opens the first scene, it follows that the Female element
must have been divided /before the play starts./ ~TH
Of course, James was fascinated/horrified by witchcraft, and his book is
perhaps the best known thing about him [Daemonologie, 1599]. But in all
these matters, it is possible to adduce not only a transcendent aspect in
the play, rendering the Mythos of the Equation new to that time and that
society, but also to this greater stage of historical characters who
rendered the Equation large in their lives by enacting it, and for /our/
times.
Phil Innes
David L. Webb
wrote:
[...]
> >> The Shakespeare works weren't written to 'honor' the
> >> worst king Britain ever had, they were written, as one
> >> scholar put it
Which scholar was that?
> >>'to educate a king.'
> James didn't need bacons 'education'. He had already published a
> respected treatise on kingship in 1598.
Don't confuse Elizabeth with facts; her mind (such as it is) is made
up.
> >> One of the very first things the paranoid fool did after
> >> he was made king of England was to enact laws against
> >> 'witches.' Bacon, who knew James well from his travels
> >> to Scotland on behalf of a commission to merge Scottish
> >> and English law, knew James I was capable of burning
> >> women.
> Really, well what the witches in Macbeth say actually comes true... so
> are we to suppose that bacon supported james' witch hunt?
You have an unfair advantage -- Elizabeth has never read _Macbeth_.
[...]
> >> Bacon himself wrote a source for Macbeth at the same time
> >> the play was being written. Oxford was dead in1606
> >> and the actor could not have gotten access to it.
> HOw do you know he could not have accessed it
Hallucination, of course. Elizabeth is routinely vouchsafed the most
remarkable insights into even the most obscure details of the lives of
prominent Elizabethan and Jacobean figures.
[...]
John
What of Tamora (titus andronicus), goneril and regan (king lear), queen
margaret (henry vi), daughter of antiochus (pericles) (there might be
others)... are these not also the queens of hell, as the action begins...
> by
> his loathing terror of that portion of her which his Reformation lenses
> separate out as the Queen of Hell. And so, since here in Macbeth the Queen
> of Hell actually opens the first scene, it follows that the Female element
> must have been divided /before the play starts./ ~TH
>
> Of course, James was fascinated/horrified by witchcraft, and his book is
> perhaps the best known thing about him [Daemonologie, 1599]. But in all
> these matters, it is possible to adduce not only a transcendent aspect in
> the play, rendering the Mythos of the Equation new to that time and that
> society, but also to this greater stage of historical characters who
> rendered the Equation large in their lives by enacting it, and for /our/
> times.
I am afraid, Mr Innes, that i belong to something of an old school that
sees value in art only in its creation, performance or experience- over
critical analysis tends to strike me as a little unrefined...
Fryer
Chess One
>>
>> The clue to what happens in the play is that from the very first
>> moment the Witches and Lady Macbeth (in other words, the Female) appear
>> as the Queen of Hell in blatant, unmistakable form. According to every
>> other play in the sequence, within Shakespeare's universe the Female is
>> Goddess Complete /until/ she is divided by the Adonis hero's Puritan
>> spectacles,
>
> What of Tamora (titus andronicus), goneril and regan (king lear), queen
> margaret (henry vi), daughter of antiochus (pericles) (there might be
> others)... are these not also the queens of hell, as the action begins...
Hughes traces the Author's fascination with this topic from the early poems,
Venus and Adonis [1593] which might find a root in Ovid from the secularised
version of Metamorphoses; and also from The Rape of Lucrece; as embodying
two great myths of the archaic world.
He examines various stages of its exploration, in fact formally attributing
stages to 'The Tragic Equation', and traces the development of the Author's
expression of the Tragic Equation throughout the plays. These do not appear
to me to be metaphysical superstructures imposed on the Work from above as
it were, but rather an identification of the internal girder system
supporting and sustaining it.
Certainly you found the 3 sister motif again in Lear, and they are each
rejected by Lear overtime, and by a Lear who is also conscious of something
progressively radical happening within his orb of consciousness as a result
---------
> I am afraid, Mr Innes, that i belong to something of an old school that
> sees value in art only in its creation, performance or experience- over
> critical analysis tends to strike me as a little unrefined...
I would share your general disinclination to adopt overly-analysed material,
deconstructed to the degree that it can no longer be cogently reformed :)
Fortunately Hughes was perhaps the best animist poet of the C20th, and as
entirely sympatico with the process of the original Author/Poet as one might
hope for. People's experience of reading Hughes' own poems are rarely, if
ever, described as becoming bemused by over-refinement - there is more often
a frisson, a shock, resulting in a superior connectivity with whatever the
topic.
It has seemed to me that an over active investigation of the name of the
Author has quelled a decent interest in the character of the author - and
should one find this treatise substantiated, some considerable insight might
be gained to the creative forces in the Work.
For it is those which are of greater interest to us, rather than whoever
Will Stratford 'was' or some combinative form of other candidate authors,
writing singly or behind the mask of the lead poet and crow of his times.
I have in fact not read a single reason in this newsgroup why the identity
of the author would enable anyone's greater understanding of the Work.
Cordially, Phil Innes