The psychological roots of Shakespeare denial
spinoza1111
years that somebody other than an alderman's son and later on property
owner of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare corpus.
What's interesting is that Shakespeare denial has like Holocaust
denial or creationism no traction among academics. What this means is
that SD is just false, for two reasons:
(1) Just as Creationism goes against the scientific, empirical
discoveries made by Darwin, and precisely as Holocaust denial goes
against the "facts" of the historian (the documentary record, which by
1944 included newsreels as wells as texts), Shakespeare goes against
the long-verified documentary evidence provided by Francis Meres,
Greene, Jonson, and others.
(2) On a more theoretical level, all three theories have to posit a
"vast conspiracy" amongst practicing scholars in biology, history, and
the history of literature to "cover up" the "truth".
The problem in (2) results directly from the anti-theory bias of
British and American universities, wherein humanities faculty at the
lower tier indeed try to ape what they understand to be the scientific
method.
Believing along with Dickens' Gradgrind that the scientific method
consists EXCLUSIVELY of inductive inference, inferior humanities
faculty tend to discourage theory formation and dissemination with the
result that responsible theorizing consistent with the documentary
record is hidden from view and then replaced, in the theorizing
instinct, by its hypostatized ersatz.
Psychologically, then, Shakespeare denial is a destructive impulse
that results from pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to
theorize. It seeks to smash in the name of Truth, Truth itself, which
is unmasked in the psychodrama as an almost-personal offensive against
the Shakespeare denier, himself a caricature of the bourgeois of the
19th century brought forward into an era of finance capital, where in
fact his normal desires for a decency that NO LONGER EXISTS at many
universities are constantly checked.
It conveniently forgets the paradox that IF an academic praxis and
theory consists ON THE WHOLE of efforts to cover up the "truth", no
platform exists upon which to proclaim any sort of novum organum, for
communicative rationality (the only rationality worth the name) is one
which is less globally skeptical than itself honest, and complementary
to this, trusting at a basic level that it is communicating with
interlocutors that share a basic committment to truth.
Many Shakespeare deniers here seem on the other hand to have been
ejected, or to have self-ejected (in pursuit of the dollar) from
academic pursuits into a corporate world in which truth is at a
discount and a vacuum instead of "personal freedom" is preached. Here,
it's understandable that they would forget that there's no point in
the literary historical enterprise to doing "alternative" literary
history...apart from efforts that are continuous in a responsible
fashion with the tradition, such as feminist or Third World literary
history...if the game heretofore has been rigged to create a false
"Shakespeare".
Responsible efforts to extend the canon in a fashion continuous with
older literary historiography are after all continually checked by
conservative forces, especially in American universities, which
counter illuminating efforts to read Shakespeare in a feminist
register with squallish discontent and "non placets" from latter day
Greenes. How much easier it is instead to just tear up a contract of
communicative rationality and mine Shakespeare clownishly for "clues"
and for "secret messages" that replay literary history as farce!
Edward G. Nilges
Art Neuendorffer
>
<<By Shakespeare denial, I mean the theories popular in rather
recent years that somebody other than an alderman's son and later
on property owner of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare corpus.
.
What's interesting is that Shakespeare denial has like Holocaust
denial or creationism no traction among academics. What this
means is that SD is just false, for two reasons:
(1) Just as Creationism goes against the scientific,
empirical discoveries made by Darwin,>>
Creationism is an extremely simple minded and untestable
explanation to a very complex situation (Panda thumbs,
finch beaks, fig wasp parasites, etc.)
.
Evolution & natural selection is an extremely simple
and testable explanation to a very complex situation
(Panda thumbs, finch beaks, fig wasp parasites, etc.)
.
However:
.
Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
discontinuous with older literary historiography are
continually checked by conservative forces"
---------------------------------------
Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
untestable explanation to a very complex situation
(Shake-speare written by a commoner
with an illiterate family.)
.
Oxfordianism is an extremely simple and
testable explanation to a complex situation
(Shakespeare written by a highly educated homosexual
noble in an environment full of secret societies.)
.
However:
.
Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
discontinuous with older literary historiography are
continually checked by conservative forces"
---------------------------------------
spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
<<and precisely as Holocaust denial goes against
the "facts" of the historian (the documentary record,
which by 1944 included newsreels as wells as texts),>>
Shakespeare (denial) goes against the long-verified
documentary evidence provided by Francis Meres,
Greene, Jonson, and others.
Holocaust denial goes against overwhelming
documentary and physical evidence including
thousands of detailed eyewitness accounts.
Shaksper denial goes against underwhelming
and highly ambiguous documentary evidence
along with a total lack of physical evidence
(readable sigNATUREs, much less, manuscripts)
or eyewitness accounts in specific reference
to any butcher's son from Stratford-upon-Avon.
---------------------------------------
spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
<<(2) On a more theoretical level, all three theories have to
posit a "vast conspiracy" amongst practicing scholars in biology,
history, and the history of literature to "cover up" the "truth".>>
All successful group efforts (both good & bad)
involve "conspiracy" of one sort or another.
Civilization would not exist without "conspiracies."
---------------------------------------
spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
<<The problem in (2) results directly from the anti-theory bias
of British and American universities, wherein humanities faculty
at the lower tier indeed try to ape what they understand to be
the scientific method. Believing along with Dickens' Gradgrind that the
scientific method consists EXCLUSIVELY of inductive inference, inferior
humanities faculty tend to discourage theory formation and dissemination
with the result that responsible theorizing consistent with the
documentary record is hidden from view and then replaced, in the
theorizing instinct, by its hypostatized ersatz. Psychologically, then,
Shakespeare denial is a destructive impulse that results from
pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to theorize. It seeks to
smash in the name of Truth, Truth itself, which is unmasked in the
psychodrama as an almost-personal offensive against the Shakespeare
denier, himself a caricature of the bourgeois of the 19th century
brought forward into an era of finance capital, where in fact his normal
desires for a decency that NO LONGER EXISTS at many universities are
constantly checked.>>
Stratfordianism, at this stage in history, is a destructive impulse
that results from pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to
theorize. It seeks to smash in the name of Tradition & Humanism,
Truth itself.
---------------------------------------
spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
<<It conveniently forgets the paradox that IF an academic praxis and
theory consists ON THE WHOLE of efforts to cover up the "truth", no
platform exists upon which to proclaim any sort of novum organum, for
communicative rationality (the only rationality worth the name) is one
which is less globally skeptical than itself honest, and complementary
to this, trusting at a basic level that it is communicating with
interlocutors that share a basic committment to truth.>>
Since academic praxis and theory consists ON THE WHOLE of efforts
to cover up the "truth", no platform exists upon which
to proclaim any sort of novum organum
---------------------------------------
spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
>
<<Many Shakespeare deniers here seem on the other hand to have been
ejected, or to have self-ejected (in pursuit of the dollar) from
academic pursuits into a corporate world in which truth is at a
discount and a vacuum instead of "personal freedom" is preached. Here,
it's understandable that they would forget that there's no point in
the literary historical enterprise to doing "alternative" literary
history...apart from efforts that are continuous in a responsible
fashion with the tradition, such as feminist or Third World
literary history...if the game heretofore has been rigged
to create a false "Shakespeare".>>
.
Many Stratfordians (like Santa Claus & Easter Bunny promoters) have
stiffled academic advancement (in pursuit of the dollar & pound).
---------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
MM:
Good post. It's amazing to me, the extent to which the Shakespeare
deniers will go. Just reject the obvious and replace it with any
fantasy, seems to be their favorite course.
It is a form of ego. We always like to feel in control. Since
Shakespeare was discussing mysticism, then it is antithetical to ego,
and inhibits our understanding of the canon. So, mind reverts to more
easier courses, including creating fantasy worlds, where the deniers
can have more ego, and more sense of control.
Shakespeare deniers are lost from the gitgo. They can't correlate his
humble background with the canon. They can't correlate learning
mysticism from an alleged atheist, Christopher Marlowe. So, suffering
the pangs of confusion, they resort to creating their own fatasies,
their own hypotheses. Then they feel more secure, sort of like
Charlie Brown with his favorite towel.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
wrote:
> spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> >
> <<By Shakespeare denial, I mean the theories popular in rather
> recent years that somebody other than an alderman's son and later
> on property owner of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare corpus.
> .
> What's interesting is that Shakespeare denial has like Holocaust
> denial or creationism no traction among academics. What this
> means is that SD is just false, for two reasons:
> .
> (1) Just as Creationism goes against the scientific,
> empirical discoveries made by Darwin,>>
> ---------------------------------------
> Creationism is an extremely simple minded and untestable
> explanation to a very complex situation (Panda thumbs,
> finch beaks, fig wasp parasites, etc.)
> .
> Evolution & natural selection is an extremely simple
> and testable explanation to a very complex situation
> (Panda thumbs, finch beaks, fig wasp parasites, etc.)
MM:
Neuendorffer doesn't carry it to its source. Evolution has a source.
It is Jove, God, or the Supreme Being. What we test here is like
testing the tip of an iceberg. Maybe Neuendorffer thinks Evolution
just came out of nowhere? Sort of like Oxfordianism coming out of
nowhere? Maybe we see a trend in Neuendorffer's denials? Sorry, Art,
but that simplified fantasy won't cut it for everyone. Some of us
actually like to get to the truth of the matter.
> However:
> .
> Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
> discontinuous with older literary historiography are
> continually checked by conservative forces"
> ---------------------------------------
> Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> with an illiterate family.)
MM:
Commoners have had many prominent disciples. Kabir, Ravi Das,
Marlowe, and Shakespeare, are links in a long line of such
occurrences. Jesus Christ, the son of a carpenter, was called "The
King of the Jews." Where have you been, Art? In denial, again?
> Oxfordianism is an extremely simple and
> testable explanation to a complex situation
> (Shakespeare written by a highly educated homosexual
> noble in an environment full of secret societies.)
MM:
What a ridiculous conclusion! Oxfordianism fails all the tests, in
particular, the writing styles. His death date fails the test.
> However:
> .
> Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
> discontinuous with older literary historiography are
> continually checked by conservative forces"
> ---------------------------------------
> spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> >
> <<and precisely as Holocaust denial goes against
> the "facts" of the historian (the documentary record,
> which by 1944 included newsreels as wells as texts),>>
>
> Shakespeare (denial) goes against the long-verified
> documentary evidence provided by Francis Meres,
> Greene, Jonson, and others.
>
> Holocaust denial goes against overwhelming
> documentary and physical evidence including
> thousands of detailed eyewitness accounts.
>
> Shaksper denial goes against underwhelming
> and highly ambiguous documentary evidence
MM:
If you can't understand the mystic implications of the canon, that is
your problem.
> along with a total lack of physical evidence
> (readable sigNATUREs, much less, manuscripts)
> or eyewitness accounts in specific reference
> to any butcher's son from Stratford-upon-Avon.
MM:
If somebody stold the evidence, it is not Shakespeare's fault, and
doesn't justify replacing him with Oxford. His signatures are
readable enough. Shakespeare was held in high esteem. Nobody would
have liked to try and tie him to his humble background. Your demand
for this type of evidence shows a lack of understanding of the
situation, back then.
> ---------------------------------------
> spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> >
> <<(2) On a more theoretical level, all three theories have to
> posit a "vast conspiracy" amongst practicing scholars in biology,
> history, and the history of literature to "cover up" the "truth".>>
>
> All successful group efforts (both good & bad)
> involve "conspiracy" of one sort or another.
> Civilization would not exist without "conspiracies."
MM:
Truth is truth, and we should be brave enough to face it, rather than
hiding in our carefully constructed fantasy worlds, such as Charlie
Brown with his towel. LOL
> ---------------------------------------
> spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> >
> <<The problem in (2) results directly from the anti-theory bias
> of British and American universities, wherein humanities faculty
> at the lower tier indeed try to ape what they understand to be
> the scientific method. Believing along with Dickens' Gradgrind that the
> scientific method consists EXCLUSIVELY of inductive inference, inferior
> humanities faculty tend to discourage theory formation and dissemination
> with the result that responsible theorizing consistent with the
> documentary record is hidden from view and then replaced, in the
> theorizing instinct, by its hypostatized ersatz. Psychologically, then,
> Shakespeare denial is a destructive impulse that results from
> pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to theorize.
MM:
Yes, it is a form of ego.
It seeks to
> smash in the name of Truth, Truth itself, which is unmasked in the
> psychodrama as an almost-personal offensive against the Shakespeare
> denier, himself a caricature of the bourgeois of the 19th century
> brought forward into an era of finance capital, where in fact his normal
> desires for a decency that NO LONGER EXISTS at many universities are
> constantly checked.>>
>
> Stratfordianism, at this stage in history, is a destructive impulse
> that results from pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to
> theorize. It seeks to smash in the name of Tradition & Humanism,
> Truth itself.
MM:
Look at the evidence, Art. Be brave and face it. Throw down that
Charlie Brown towel and try to face it. LOL
MM:
Spin, skate, and dodge. We Stratfordians are used to these Anti-Strat
tactics. Got your towel, Art? :-)
Michael Martin
nordicskiv2
> On Feb 9, 11:00?am, Art Neuendorffer <aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
But Joseph was *not* his father, according to scriptural accounts.
> was called "The
> King of the Jews." Where have you been, Art? In denial, again?
> > Oxfordianism is an extremely simple and
> > testable explanation to a complex situation
> > (Shakespeare written by a highly educated homosexual
> > noble in an environment full of secret societies.)
> MM:
> What a ridiculous conclusion! Oxfordianism fails all the tests, in
> particular, the writing styles. His death date fails the test.
That's no problem for Art and Mr. Streitz, who simply deny -- in
the absence of any documentary evidence -- that Oxford died on the
date that the historical record mandates. It's easy enough to
construct fantasy scenarios when one is free simply to disregard
inconvenient data, as Art and Mr. Streitz do.
> > However:
> > .
> > Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
> > discontinuous with older literary historiography are
> > continually checked by conservative forces"
> > ---------------------------------------
> > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > ?>
> > <<and precisely as Holocaust denial goes against
> > the "facts" of the historian (the documentary record,
> > which by 1944 included newsreels as wells as texts),>>
>
> > Shakespeare (denial) goes against the long-verified
> > documentary evidence provided by Francis Meres,
> > Greene, Jonson, and others.
>
> > Holocaust denial goes against overwhelming
> > documentary and physical evidence including
> > thousands of detailed eyewitness accounts.
>
> > Shaksper denial goes against underwhelming
> > and highly ambiguous documentary evidence
No more "underwhelming" or "ambiguous" than the documentary
evidence of extant for the activities of Shakespeare's peers (with the
exception of the relentlessly self-promoting Jonson), all of whom were
middle class playwrights who left scant paper trails.
> MM:
> If you can't understand the mystic implications of the canon, that is
> your problem.
> > along with a total lack of physical evidence
> > (readable sigNATUREs,
I realize that the feat of reading even modern printed matter is
not among your intellectual acquisitions, Art, so it comes as no
surprise that you are no palEOgrapher; howeVER, there *are* plenty of
people who *can* read period handwriting. You, of course, are not
among them, and since grepping is out of the question in this case,
your habitual methods fail you.
> > much less, manuscripts)
> > or eyewitness accounts in specific reference
> > to any butcher's son from Stratford-upon-Avon.
Why on earth should those interested in his authorial
accomplishments make any reference to his father's occupation, Art?
Do Stephen's professional colleagues eVER refer to his father's
delusional occupation? Well, perhaps they do, at that, but you're a
VERy special case, Art.
> MM:
> If somebody stold [sic] the evidence,
Lackpurity, by contrast, has stool'd his evidence.
> it is not Shakespeare's fault, and
> doesn't justify replacing him with Oxford. His signatures are
> readable enough. Shakespeare was held in high esteem. Nobody would
> have liked to try and tie him to his humble background. Your demand
> for this type of evidence shows a lack of understanding of the
> situation, back then.
> > ---------------------------------------
> > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > ?>
> > <<(2) On a more theoretical level, all three theories have to
> > posit a "vast conspiracy" amongst practicing scholars in biology,
> > history, and the history of literature to "cover up" the "truth".>>
>
> > All successful group efforts (both good & bad)
> > involve "conspiracy" of one sort or another.
The Galois theory of equations is an example of a successful group
effort that required no conspiracy, Art -- indeed, Galois carried out
his work alone and unaided. Harish-Chandra's work on discrete series
representations of semisimple Lie groups is another example of a
successful group effort that required no conspiracy.
> > Civilization would not exist without "conspiracies."
> MM:
> Truth is truth, and we should be brave enough to face it, rather than
> hiding in our carefully constructed fantasy worlds, such as Charlie
> Brown with his towel. LOL
It was Linus, not Charlie Brown. And it was a security *blanket*,
not a towel. While one would hope that mere cultural literacy would
suffice in such an instance, lackpurity could at least refer to the
texts in order to aid his dysfunctional memory.
However, there *is* a useful point to made in this context: the
prophecies of Oxfordians that their fantasy is on the VERge of taking
the world by storm is rather like Linus's annual nocturnal vigil,
patiently awaiting the advent of the Great Pumpkin.
> > ---------------------------------------
> > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > ?>
> > <<The problem in (2) results directly from the anti-theory bias
> > of British and American universities, wherein humanities faculty
> > at the lower tier indeed try to ape what they understand to be
> > the scientific method. Believing along with Dickens' Gradgrind that the
> > scientific method consists EXCLUSIVELY of inductive inference, inferior
> > humanities faculty tend to discourage theory formation and dissemination
> > with the result that responsible theorizing consistent with the
> > documentary record is hidden from view and then replaced, in the
> > theorizing instinct, by its hypostatized ersatz. Psychologically, then,
> > Shakespeare denial is a destructive impulse that results from
> > pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to theorize.
[...]
> > It seeks to
> > smash in the name of Truth, Truth itself, which is unmasked in the
> > psychodrama as an almost-personal offensive against the Shakespeare
> > denier, himself a caricature of the bourgeois of the 19th century
> > brought forward into an era of finance capital, where in fact his normal
> > desires for a decency that NO LONGER EXISTS at many universities are
> > constantly checked.>>
>
> > Stratfordianism, at this stage in history, is a destructive impulse
> > that results from pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to
> > theorize. It seeks to smash in the name of Tradition & Humanism,
> > Truth itself.
> MM:
> Look at the evidence, Art. Be brave and face it. Throw down that
> Charlie Brown towel and try to face it. LOL
Once again, it was Linus, not Charlie Brown. And it was a
blanket, not a towel. In any event, none of them can hold a candle to
Mafalda and her friends!
> > ---------------------------------------
> > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > ?>
> > <<It conveniently forgets the paradox that IF an academic praxis and
> > theory consists ON THE WHOLE of efforts to cover up the "truth", no
> > platform exists upon which to proclaim any sort of novum organum, for
> > communicative rationality (the only rationality worth the name) is one
> > which is less globally skeptical than itself honest, and complementary
> > to this, trusting at a basic level that it is communicating with
> > interlocutors that share a basic committment to truth.>>
>
> > Since academic praxis and theory consists ON THE WHOLE of efforts
> > to cover up the "truth", no platform exists upon which
> > to proclaim any sort of novum organum
> > ---------------------------------------
> > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > ?>
> > <<Many Shakespeare deniers here seem on the other hand to have been
> > ejected, or to have self-ejected (in pursuit of the dollar) from
> > academic pursuits into a corporate world in which truth is at a
> > discount and a vacuum instead of "personal freedom" is preached. Here,
> > it's understandable that they would forget that there's no point in
> > the literary historical enterprise to doing "alternative" literary
> > history...apart from efforts that are continuous in a responsible
> > fashion with the tradition, such as feminist or Third World
> > literary history...if the game heretofore has been rigged
> > to create a false "Shakespeare".>>
> > Many Stratfordians (like Santa Claus & Easter Bunny promoters) have
> > stiffled [sic] academic advancement
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> > (in pursuit of the dollar & pound).
Santa Claus appears to have amassed more pounds than dollars, Art.
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Art Neuendorffer
>
> MM:
> Spin, skate, and dodge. We Stratfordians are used to these Anti-Strat
> tactics. Got your towel, Art? :-)
Blanket.
You and Art are locked in one of the most amusing games of Dueling
Delusions to have graced the newsgroup recently.
> Michael Martin
gangleri
Here is a different take on the subject matter.
This morning, a friend forwarded to me an article by Canadian
climatologist Timothy Ball on "global warming".
Just now, I acknowledged receipt of the article as follows;
Thanks for forwarding this article - I had heard it mentioned but had
not seen it.
The world is a strange place, including its seats of "higher
learning"!
For me, the following statement by Timothy Ball rings a bell, loud and
clear:
"Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how
nasty people can be."
And it would have done so for Einstein as well - Oppenheimer declared
him "cuckoo" in 1935 for venturing to have a mind of his own with
respect to the interpretation of quantum mechanical observations.
And, of course, Einstein did not pull his punches either.
"To be a perfect member of a flock of sheep," he suggested, "one must
first of all be a sheep".
At root, the point at issue between Einstein and his QM peers
concerned epistemology - something which I didn't know existed until I
began to think for myself!
In 1949, Einstein wrote thereof in a piece entitled "Answer to
critics", inter alia, as follows:
"Science without epistemology is, insofar as it is thinkable at all,
primitive and muddled."
That seems to be the root cause of problems such as those encountered
by Timothy Ball and myself - for implicit in any challenge to "the
conventional wisdom" is the challenger's statement to the effect that
"the conventional wisdom" exemplifies "primitive and muddled" science!
And, of course, it takes "primitive and muddled" minds to practice and
form a consensus with respect to such stuff!
Art Neuendorffer
> On Feb 9, 2:16 pm, "lackpurity" <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > > ?>
> > > <<By Shakespeare denial, I mean the theories popular in rather
> > > recent years that somebody other than an alderman's son and later
> > > on property owner of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare corpus.
> > > .
> > > What's interesting is that Shakespeare denial has like Holocaust
> > > denial or creationism no traction among academics. What this
> > > means is that SD is just false, for two reasons:
> > > .
> > > (1) Just as Creationism goes against the scientific,
> > > empirical discoveries made by Darwin,>>
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > Creationism is an extremely simple minded and untestable
> > > explanation to a very complex situation (Panda thumbs,
> > > finch beaks, fig wasp parasites, etc.)
> > > .
> > > Evolution & natural selection is an extremely simple
> > > and testable explanation to a very complex situation
> > > (Panda thumbs, finch beaks, fig wasp parasites, etc.)
> > MM:
> > It is Jove, God, or the Supreme Being. What we test here is like
> > just came out of nowhere? Sort of like Oxfordianism coming out of
> > but that simplified fantasy won't cut it for everyone. Some of us
> > actually like to get to the truth of the matter.
> > > However:
> > > .
> > > Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
> > > discontinuous with older literary historiography are
> > > continually checked by conservative forces"
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> > > untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> > > (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> > > with an illiterate family.)
> > MM:
> > Commoners have had many prominent disciples. Kabir, Ravi Das,
> > Marlowe, and Shakespeare, are links in a long line of such
> > occurrences. Jesus Christ, the son of a carpenter,
>
> But Joseph was *not* his father, according to scriptural accounts.
>
.
> > was called "The
> > King of the Jews." Where have you been, Art? In denial, again?
> > > Oxfordianism is an extremely simple and
> > > testable explanation to a complex situation
> > > (Shakespeare written by a highly educated homosexual
> > > noble in an environment full of secret societies.)
> > MM:
> > What a ridiculous conclusion! Oxfordianism fails all the tests, in
> > particular, the writing styles. His death date fails the test.
>
> That's no problem for Art
That is no problem for Art
>
> > > However:
> > > .
> > > Responsible efforts to extend (KNOWledge) in a fashion
> > > discontinuous with older literary historiography are
> > > continually checked by conservative forces"
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > > ?>
> > > <<and precisely as Holocaust denial goes against
> > > the "facts" of the historian (the documentary record,
> > > which by 1944 included newsreels as wells as texts),>>
>
> > > Shakespeare (denial) goes against the long-verified
> > > documentary evidence provided by Francis Meres,
> > > Greene, Jonson, and others.
>
> > > Holocaust denial goes against overwhelming
> > > documentary and physical evidence including
> > > thousands of detailed eyewitness accounts.
>
> > > Shaksper denial goes against underwhelming
> > > and highly ambiguous documentary evidence
>
> No more "underwhelming" or "ambiguous" than the documentary
> evidence of extant for the activities of Shakespeare's peers (with the
> exception of the relentlessly self-promoting Jonson), all of whom were
> middle class playwrights who left scant paper trails.
>
Rosicrucians & Freemasons.
.
> > MM:
> > If you can't understand the mystic implications of the canon, that is
> > your problem.
> > > along with a total lack of physical evidence
> > > (readable sigNATUREs,
>
> I realize that the feat of reading even modern printed matter is
> not among your intellectual acquisitions, Art, so it comes as no
> surprise that you are no palEOgrapher; howeVER, there *are* plenty of
> people who *can* read period handwriting.
The illiterate Stratford boob could barely write a period.
>
> > > much less, manuscripts)
> > > or eyewitness accounts in specific reference
> > > to any butcher's son from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> Why on earth should those interested in his authorial
> accomplishments make any reference to his father's occupation, Art?
> Do Stephen's professional colleagues eVER refer to his father's
> delusional occupation? Well, perhaps they do, at that, but you're a
> VERy special case, Art.
>
I am special.
.
> > MM:
> > If somebody stold [sic] the evidence,
>
> Lackpurity, by contrast, has stool'd his evidence.
>
> > it is not Shakespeare's fault, and
> > doesn't justify replacing him with Oxford. His signatures are
> > readable enough. Shakespeare was held in high esteem. Nobody would
> > have liked to try and tie him to his humble background. Your demand
> > for this type of evidence shows a lack of understanding of the
> > situation, back then.
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> > > ?>
> > > <<(2) On a more theoretical level, all three theories have to
> > > posit a "vast conspiracy" amongst practicing scholars in biology,
> > > history, and the history of literature to "cover up" the "truth".>>
>
> > > All successful group efforts (both good & bad)
> > > involve "conspiracy" of one sort or another.
>
> The Galois theory of equations is an example of a successful group
> effort that required no conspiracy, Art -- indeed, Galois carried out
> his work alone and unaided.
I doubt it.
> Harish-Chandra's work on discrete series
> representations of semisimple Lie groups is another example of a
> successful group effort that required no conspiracy.
>
Some conspiracy groups Lie more than others.
.
> > > Civilization would not exist without "conspiracies."
> > MM:
> > Truth is truth, and we should be brave enough to face it, rather than
> > hiding in our carefully constructed fantasy worlds, such as Charlie
> > Brown with his towel. LOL
>
> It was Linus, not Charlie Brown. And it was a security *blanket*,
> not a towel. While one would hope that mere cultural literacy would
> suffice in such an instance, lackpurity could at least refer to the
> texts in order to aid his dysfunctional memory.
>
> However, there *is* a useful point to made in this context: the
> prophecies of Oxfordians that their fantasy is on the VERge of taking
> the world by storm is rather like Linus's annual nocturnal vigil,
> patiently awaiting the advent of the Great Pumpkin.
>
Or waiting for the Democrats to take back the House & Senate.
> > > (in pursuit of the dollar & pound).
>
> Santa Claus appears to have amassed more pounds than dollars, Art.
>
Just cause Santa's in the red doesn't mean that he's poor.
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > ArtNeuendorffer
Peter Groves
news:1171061311....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Remember, gangleri: they might have laughed at Christopher Columbus, but
they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Peter G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> For me, the following statement by Timothy Ball rings a bell, loud and
> clear:
>
> "Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how
> nasty people can be."
>
> And it would have done so for Einstein as well - Oppenheimer declared
> him "cuckoo" in 1935 for venturing to have a mind of his own with
> respect to the interpretation of quantum mechanical observations.
It'd have done pretty well for Velikovski and Edward Cayce (or
whateverhis name was), too.
--Bob G.
gangleri
wrote:
> "gangleri" <gunnar.tomas...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Peter.
Sorry to have cut too close to the bone.
Gangleri
gangleri
The name´s Groves.
lackpurity
MM:
Maybe he meant Edgar Cayce?
Michael Martin
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Feb 9, 9:13?pm, "gangleri" <gunnar.tomas...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:55 pm, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> > > > For me, the following statement by Timothy Ball rings a bell, loud and
> > > > clear:
>
> > > > "Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how
> > > > nasty people can be."
>
> > > > And it would have done so for Einstein as well - Oppenheimer declared
> > > > him "cuckoo" in 1935 for venturing to have a mind of his own with
> > > > respect to the interpretation of quantum mechanical observations.
>
> > > It'd have done pretty well for Velikovski and Edward Cayce (or
> > > whateverhis name was), too.
>
> > > --Bob G.
>
>
> MM:
> Maybe he meant Edgar Cayce?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, good work, LP--how you figured out I misremembered Edgar as
Edward I'll never fathom.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> > untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> > (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> > with an illiterate family.)
.
>
> ...who sent their son according to the documented record to a
> demanding grammar school in which Shakespeare learned the classics,
> and later on built on this knowledge by acquiring printed books.
.
What "documented record" is that?
.
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The aristocrats of Shakespeare's time were in many cases functional
> illiterates and in other case no more than poetasters, some of them
> not above stealing (as you steal) intellectual property.
I wasn't aware that Strats owned any intellectual property.
.
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What you call "Stratfordianism" (an illiterate name in itself) has in
> fact been tested and confirmed by generations of scholars since Dryden
> accessing the facts of the historian, which consists of the
> documentary record.
.
Oh, well, it's been tested then. Thank, God!
.
Art Neuendorffer
spinoza1111
<aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> ... a reply in which he appears to have deliberately fucked up line prefixes ...
Stop deliberately messing up the line prefixes so as to make my prose
appear to the casual reader to be your prose. This is plagiarism and
theft.
> spinoza1111 (Edward G. Nilges) wrote:
> Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> with an illiterate family.)
...who sent their son according to the documented record to a
demanding grammar school in which Shakespeare learned the classics,
and later on built on this knowledge by acquiring printed books.
The aristocrats of Shakespeare's time were in many cases functional
illiterates and in other case no more than poetasters, some of them
not above stealing (as you steal) intellectual property.
What you call "Stratfordianism" (an illiterate name in itself) has in
fact been tested and confirmed by generations of scholars since
Dryden
accessing the facts of the historian, which consists of the
documentary record.
> .
> Oxfordianism is an extremely simple and
> testable explanation to a complex situation
> (Shakespeare written by a highly educated homosexual
> noble in an environment full of secret societies.)
To invoke "secrecy": to claim in order to make your feeble case that
there were vast conspiracies, is indeed unfalsifiable and thus is
pseudo-theory using Sir Karl Popper's criterion: that any theory that
is "proof" against disproof is without meaning or usability.
To assert "secrecy" is to use a deus, or demon, *ex machina*, to say
that "I am right about the authorship because there was a
conspiracy".
Unfortunately, for the same reason that the documentation of
Shakespeare as a playwright, as opposed to a property owner,
plaintiff
and church member, in slimmer than that for writers after the
Restoration, the documentation of a "conspiracy" will be *a fortiori*
untestable and has nothing more than the status of an assertion *ex
nihilo*.
Only idiot computer programmers reduce historical and literary
understanding to the vulgar, and non-falsifiable "decoding" of
secrets
because in the culture of the goddamn corporation, even the so-called
knowledge-based corporation, knowledge doesn't matter...only secrets
matter.
"Secrecy" is something you assert as a matter of convenience.
If so many conspiracies exist that the legacy of Shakespeare studies
is "all wrong", then there is no point in pursuing studies of this
sort further, since there could have been ANOTHER successful
conspiracy, and perhaps one behind that...to in principle infinity.
Just as a natural scientist has to assume the trustiness of his and
his coworkers' sensory apparatus to do science, the historian has to
believe that ON BALANCE the documentary record is created by people
other than conspiratiors, because the documentary record comprises
the
historians facts: his sense data. If Descartes had actually believed,
in a non-hypothetical way, in the Cartesian "evil genius" he would
never have found any foundation for science or any rational thought.
Of course, there are coverups and conspiracies. But a sufficiently
global conspiracy that critics starting with Dryden failed to smell
out would approach the scale of the "evil genius" and it casts doubt
on many other things we claim to know about Elizabethan England. And,
it renders valueless an accumulated corpus.
You probably don't give a shit about the latter, because as a
probable
failed academic seeking now as a post-modern courtier to suck up to
rich thugs in some corporation, your enterprise is destructive: we
don't need no water let the motherfucker burn.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "gangleri" <gunnar.tomas...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Sure, and if you spent your childhood parked in front of a television
set, then it's far more significant, to you, that "they laughed at
Bozo the Clown" than the fact that Beethoven's music was considered
unperformable by incompetent performers, because, in sitting in front
of the TV, you allowed corporations to define your reality.
>
> Peter G.- Hide quoted text -
Peter Groves
--
Peter G.
"spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171171547....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
spinoza1111
<aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > ArtNeuendorffer<aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> > > untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> > > (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> > > with an illiterate family.)
>
> ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...who sent their son according to the documented record to a
> > demanding grammar school in which Shakespeare learned the classics,
> > and later on built on this knowledge by acquiring printed books.
>
> .
> What "documented record" is that?
Dull fools demand an isomorphism between documents and facts, so
here's the record. It provides no isomorphism but has to be
interpreted to see that Shakespeare denial is foolish. Rotsa ruck,
dull fool.
"Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar School in
central Stratford.[10] While the quality of Elizabethan-era grammar
schools was uneven, the school probably would have provided an
intensive education in Latin grammar and literature. It is presumed
that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since as the son of a
prominent town official he was entitled to do so for free[11]
(although his attendance cannot be confirmed because the school's
records have not survived)."
Since Shakespeare worked in theatre, we know he was literate:
therefore the availability of King Edward VI grammar school renders it
probable he went, and other documentation indicates that in terms of
the requirements and state of knowledge of the times, King Edward VI
was more demanding than a typical university education today.
But, if he was literate, he knew how to write. The ability to write is
never acquired in a university class: the joke that almost any class
in "creative writing" is clearly indicates that writing at
Shakespeare's level is not and was never something that could be
taught.
The sort of dull fools who believe that you learn to write at
university are precisely the sort of dull fools who cannot themselves
write a complex sentence but all too willing to cover up their
inability to write by yapping about overcomplex speech.
Once one has learnt the letters and orthography (whether logical as in
Shakespeare's time or dictionary-fixed as in today), there is no
additional way to "learn to write" by definition since "writing" by
definition is the making of new well-formed sentences: a craft of the
mind, not to be confused with artisanship, but bearing artisanship's
relation to language as engineering bears to scientific reality.
The universities of Shakespeare's day weren't in the business of
churning out writers. Then as now, universities considered new writing
a necessary evil and a poisoned cure given the weight then and now of
tradition, which it was job one to understand and to preserve.
The fact that other members of Shakespeare's household did not read or
write simply made it more important for him to learn to do so at a
high level, since it was his way of supporting both aging relations
and his own household.
The sort of person who believes that Shakespeare had to be written by
an aristocrat is the same sort of dull fool who believes that
Presidents today write their own speeches, and that wealth confers
talent.
Given the record, there is just no need to hypothesize a conspiracy,
and positing a conspiracy unnecessarily tears a hole in a fabric of
facts, communicated from the past by the documentary record. The
unnecessary hole weakens the whole since if there's one conspiracy
here, there might, especially in the mind of the dull fool, be another
over there.
Before you know, history converges with fantasy and the powerful
elements of society are rewriting it.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > > > Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> > > > untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> > > > (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> > > > with an illiterate family.)
>
> > ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ...who sent their son according to the documented record to a
> > > demanding grammar school in which Shakespeare learned the classics,
> > > and later on built on this knowledge by acquiring printed books.
.
On Feb 11, 5:12 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dull fools demand an isomorphism between documents and facts, so
> here's the record. It provides no isomorphism but has to be
> interpreted to see that Shakespeare denial is foolish. Rotsa ruck,
> dull fool.
Shouldn't that be Rotsa ruck, durr foor?
.
On Feb 11, 5:12 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar School in
> central Stratford.[10] While the quality of Elizabethan-era grammar
> schools was uneven, the school probably would have provided an
> intensive education in Latin grammar and literature. It is presumed
> that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since as the son
> of a prominent town official he was entitled to do so for free[11]
> (although his attendance cannot be confirmed because
> the school's records have not survived)."
.
So it's a fantasized " documented record" then.
.
(To bad they didn't teach handwriting as well.)
.
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
MM:
Spinoza, it appears that Art prefers to live in his house of cards. I
know that's difficult to understand.
Michael Martin
Ms. Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> <aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > ArtNeuendorffer<aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> > > > untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> > > > (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> > > > with an illiterate family.)
>
> > ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ...who sent their son according to the documented record to a
> > > demanding grammar school in which Shakespeare learned the classics,
> > > and later on built on this knowledge by acquiring printed books.
>
> > .
> > What "documented record" is that?
>
> Dull fools demand an isomorphism between documents and facts,
Yes, if all scholars are dull fools.
>so
> here's the record. It provides no isomorphism but has to be
> interpreted to see that Shakespeare denial is foolish.
No one here is a Shakespeare Denier. Most of us love Shakespeare. I
certainly do. Some of us don't believe, however, that WS of Stratford
wrote the canon, which is an entirely different thing.
>Rotsa ruck,
> dull fool.
That sounds pretty racist to me.
>
> "Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar School in
> central Stratford.[10]
Probably?
>While the quality of Elizabethan-era grammar
> schools was uneven, the school probably would have provided an
> intensive education in Latin grammar and literature.
Probably?
>It is presumed
> that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since as the son of a
> prominent town official he was entitled to do so for free[11]
It is presumed?
> (although his attendance cannot be confirmed because the school's
> records have not survived)."
Cannot be confirmed?
You call this evidence?
>
> Since Shakespeare worked in theatre, we know he was literate:
Nope, not necessarily so, though I believe he was. Susan Hampshire,
for example, is terribly dyslexic, and has to learn her lines by
having them repeated to her. In addition, there is no evidence, as far
as I'm aware, that Shakespeare took large parts.
Perhaps you have some?
> therefore the availability of King Edward VI grammar school renders it
> probable he went,
Probable?
>and other documentation indicates that in terms of
> the requirements and state of knowledge of the times, King Edward VI
> was more demanding than a typical university education today.
>
> But, if he was literate,
If?
>he knew how to write.
Nope, not so. It's quite possible that he could read and not write.
After all, one has to be able to read before one can write. Sometimes
the process may end after learning to read.
>The ability to write is
> never acquired in a university class: the joke that almost any class
> in "creative writing" is clearly indicates that writing at
> Shakespeare's level is not and was never something that could be
> taught.
No kidding, but you haven't proved in any sense that the "Shakespeare"
who wrote the canon is the same WS who might or might not have gone to
grammar school.
>
> The sort of dull fools who believe that you learn to write at
> university are precisely the sort of dull fools who cannot themselves
> write a complex sentence but all too willing to cover up their
> inability to write by yapping about overcomplex speech.
>
> Once one has learnt the letters and orthography (whether logical as in
> Shakespeare's time or dictionary-fixed as in today), there is no
> additional way to "learn to write" by definition since "writing" by
> definition is the making of new well-formed sentences: a craft of the
> mind, not to be confused with artisanship, but bearing artisanship's
> relation to language as engineering bears to scientific reality.
>
> The universities of Shakespeare's day weren't in the business of
> churning out writers. Then as now, universities considered new writing
> a necessary evil and a poisoned cure given the weight then and now of
> tradition, which it was job one to understand and to preserve.
>
> The fact that other members of Shakespeare's household did not read or
> write simply made it more important for him to learn to do so at a
> high level, since it was his way of supporting both aging relations
> and his own household.
>
> The sort of person who believes that Shakespeare had to be written by
> an aristocrat is the same sort of dull fool who believes that
> Presidents today write their own speeches, and that wealth confers
> talent.
You know what? I know that presidents don't write their own speeches.
An old acquaintance of mine used to write Bush's speeches, to my
chagrin. I think, however, that Shakespeare had to be written by
someone of the upper classes because of the point of view, nothing to
do with wealth conferring talent. I also believe some of the most
talented Elizabethan writers were not wealthy, and certainly not
aristocrats, so you can't play the old "snob" routine with me.
>
> Given the record,
What record is that? So far you haven't provided any.
>there is just no need to hypothesize a conspiracy,
> and positing a conspiracy unnecessarily tears a hole in a fabric of
> facts, communicated from the past by the documentary record. The
> unnecessary hole weakens the whole since if there's one conspiracy
> here, there might, especially in the mind of the dull fool, be another
> over there.
>
> Before you know, history converges with fantasy and the powerful
> elements of society are rewriting it.
No kidding. Just like the powerful elements rewrote history to try to
show that Strachey influenced Shakespeare.
I take great exception, Spinoza, to being compared with a Holocaust
Denier in your earlier post simply because I believe someone other
than WS of Stratford wrote the canon. My extended family were killed
in the Holocaust.
This place has become totally ridiculous. It's time for me to leave.
I'll shut the door on my way out.
L.
>
>
>
> > .
>
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The aristocrats of Shakespeare's time were in many cases functional
> > > illiterates and in other case no more than poetasters, some of them
> > > not above stealing (as you steal) intellectual property.
>
> > I wasn't aware that Strats owned any intellectual property.
> > ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What you call "Stratfordianism" (an illiterate name in itself) has in
> > > fact been tested and confirmed by generations of scholars since Dryden
> > > accessing the facts of the historian, which consists of the
> > > documentary record.
>
> > .
> > Oh, well, it's been tested then. Thank, God!
> > .
> > Art Neuendorffer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Paul Crowley
news:1171219858.5...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 5:12 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar School in
>> central Stratford.[10]
I like the 'central Stratford' bit. He makes it
sound like a modern metropolis: "central
Gotham City". In fact the place had 217 houses,
and almost all of it was as 'central' as the
school.
Secondly the "King Edward VI Grammar
School" consisted of one room with one
teacher, trying to maintain order over
different age-groups between 7 and 13.
>>While the quality of Elizabethan-era grammar
>> schools was uneven, the school probably would have provided an
>> intensive education in Latin grammar and literature.
Elizabethan-era grammar schools were
notorious for the disorder. The rapid
turnover of the teachers in the 1570s was
a reliable indication that none amounted
to much.
>>It is presumed
>> that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since as the son of a
>> prominent town official he was entitled to do so for free[11]
So were all the other young boys of the
town, and the surrounding countryside.
Statistically there's about a one in six chance
that the Stratman went to school, but since
his father was illiterate, we should make that
about 20 to one.
>> Since Shakespeare worked in theatre, we know he was literate:
>
> Nope, not necessarily so, though I believe he was. Susan Hampshire,
> for example, is terribly dyslexic, and has to learn her lines by
> having them repeated to her. In addition, there is no evidence, as far
> as I'm aware, that Shakespeare took large parts.
Only Stratfordian fools (and quasi-Strat
fools) believe that the Stratman was an
actor. He was chosen for one reason only:
his name. It roughly matched the pseudonym
of the poet -- one that is a glorious Elizabethan
pun. Each syllable has dozens of meanings --
many of them bawdy.
> Nope, not so. It's quite possible that he could read and not write.
> After all, one has to be able to read before one can write.
Lynne, I see that you are still on medication.
Did you learn to read before you learnt to
write?
>>The ability to write is
>> never acquired in a university class: the joke that almost any class
>> in "creative writing" is clearly indicates that writing at
>> Shakespeare's level is not and was never something that could be
>> taught.
Our real poet became so great because his
father (and before that his grandfather) had
their own company of actors, living in their
own house, putting on plays throughout the
winter. Our poet learnt about plays, actors
and acting, he took in the milk of the wet-
nurse.
>> The sort of dull fools who believe that you learn to write at
>> university are precisely the sort of dull fools who cannot themselves
>> write a complex sentence but all too willing to cover up their
>> inability to write by yapping about overcomplex speech.
You've got something right. The real poet
did, in fact, attend university -- but that was
only for a year or so when he was eight, and
that would have been so that he could continue
receiving private education from his tutors.
>> The sort of person who believes that Shakespeare had to be written by
>> an aristocrat is the same sort of dull fool who believes that
>> Presidents today write their own speeches, and that wealth confers
>> talent.
The aristocrat, Winston Churchill, wrote all
his own speeches. He was so eloquent and
prolific that, at times, he kept four secretaries
occupied -- dictating all manner of work to
them. Oxford almost certainly worked in the
same way.
Paul.
spinoza1111
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171219858.5...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 11, 5:12 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar School in
> >> central Stratford.[10]
>
> I like the 'central Stratford' bit. He makes it
> sound like a modern metropolis: "central
> Gotham City". In fact the place had 217 houses,
> and almost all of it was as 'central' as the
> school.
>
> Secondly the "King Edward VI Grammar
> School" consisted of one room with one
> teacher, trying to maintain order over
> different age-groups between 7 and 13.
...and teaching them more effectively than the modern school or
university professor...
>
> >>While the quality of Elizabethan-era grammar
> >> schools was uneven, the school probably would have provided an
> >> intensive education in Latin grammar and literature.
>
> Elizabethan-era grammar schools were
> notorious for the disorder. The rapid
> turnover of the teachers in the 1570s was
> a reliable indication that none amounted
> to much.
Of course, this neglects the fact that a student is also an agent and
can get a good education in difficult circumstances, while this ng
demonstrates aporias in education of people privileged to attend, and
be mollycoddled at, expensive and lavish institutions.
>
> >>It is presumed
> >> that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since as the son of a
> >> prominent town official he was entitled to do so for free[11]
>
> So were all the other young boys of the
> town, and the surrounding countryside.
> Statistically there's about a one in six chance
> that the Stratman went to school, but since
> his father was illiterate, we should make that
> about 20 to one.
Shakespeare's father wasn't illiterate, and, applying statistics to
the behavior of historical agents during a period of rapid change, and
of the Tudor-sponsored rise of the middle classes as an ally against
the upper class twits and upper class thugs is PROFOUNDLY not
scientific.
>
> >> Since Shakespeare worked in theatre, we know he was literate:
>
> > Nope, not necessarily so, though I believe he was. Susan Hampshire,
> > for example, is terribly dyslexic, and has to learn her lines by
> > having them repeated to her. In addition, there is no evidence, as far
> > as I'm aware, that Shakespeare took large parts.
>
> Only Stratfordian fools (and quasi-Strat
> fools) believe that the Stratman was an
> actor. He was chosen for one reason only:
> his name. It roughly matched the pseudonym
> of the poet -- one that is a glorious Elizabethan
> pun. Each syllable has dozens of meanings --
> many of them bawdy.
This is just false, and verifiably so. News fa lash, ape: you don't
become a documented part owner of a theater without first contributing
as a LITERATE actor and most probably a LITERATE playwright.
oooooo tutors. A collection of ignorant men.
>
> >> The sort of person who believes that Shakespeare had to be written by
> >> an aristocrat is the same sort of dull fool who believes that
> >> Presidents today write their own speeches, and that wealth confers
> >> talent.
>
> The aristocrat, Winston Churchill, wrote all
> his own speeches. He was so eloquent and
> prolific that, at times, he kept four secretaries
> occupied -- dictating all manner of work to
> them. Oxford almost certainly worked in the
> same way.
...and his output consists of a flatulent and failed attempt to keep
the British empire alive. People who dictate nearly always cannot
WRITE, and their secretaries usually have to silently clean their crap
up.
As a worker, you're like a dull fool merely participating in the THEFT
of production, and the THEFT of the tools of production, from the
producing classes because YOU are a suck-up to people who, in Elvis
Costello's words, have feasts on the backsides of beasts. I have
already shown that YOU are destroying culture because YOU replace
KNOWLEDGE by SECRETS.
Knock it the fuck off.
>
> Paul.
spinoza1111
> On Feb 11, 5:12 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 8:02 am, "Art Neuendorffer"
>
> > <aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > ArtNeuendorffer<aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Stratfordianism is an extremely simple minded and
> > > > > untestable explanation to a very complex situation
> > > > > (Shake-speare written by a commoner
> > > > > with an illiterate family.)
>
> > > ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ...who sent their son according to the documented record to a
> > > > demanding grammar school in which Shakespeare learned the classics,
> > > > and later on built on this knowledge by acquiring printed books.
>
> > > .
> > > What "documented record" is that?
>
> > Dull fools demand an isomorphism between documents and facts,
>
> Yes, if all scholars are dull fools.
No, only dull fools who pretend to be scholars when in fact they are
corporate slaves stealing network facilities.
>
> >so
> > here's the record. It provides no isomorphism but has to be
> > interpreted to see that Shakespeare denial is foolish.
>
> No one here is a Shakespeare Denier. Most of us love Shakespeare. I
> certainly do. Some of us don't believe, however, that WS of Stratford
> wrote the canon, which is an entirely different thing.
No, it is a destructive and infantile campaign waged by lower middle
class outsiders who have been genuinely enraged by a classist
university system, but who inappropriately and ineffectually, with
what British historian calls the failure-anarchism of the lower middle
class, destroy civilization: by advancing theories so resting upon
conspiracies as to render the entire documentary corpus globally
untrustworthy.
>
> >Rotsa ruck,
> > dull fool.
>
> That sounds pretty racist to me.
Only in the crudest sense in which language is scanned humorlessly for
keywords out of context and nothing else is taken into account.
>
>
>
> > "Shakespeare probably attended King Edward VI Grammar School in
> > central Stratford.[10]
>
> Probably?
Perhaps he was an autodidact. If so, *litera scripta manet*: the plays
he so obviously WROTE on Burbage's demand because he and Burbage would
starve in a ditch had he not done so were written, if S didn't attend
grammar school, by an heroic man of the middle class who'd taught
himself to read, and, unencumbered by the ignorance of teachers,
unencumbered by class arrogance, became more educated than any upper
class twit could dream of being, said upper class twit being
distracted, in the manner of British upper class twits, by horses,
women, dogs, strong drink, sodomy, and the lash.
>
> >While the quality of Elizabethan-era grammar
> > schools was uneven, the school probably would have provided an
> > intensive education in Latin grammar and literature.
>
> Probably?
Probably. Indirectly-documented PROBABLY is preferable to the
hypothesizing *ex nihilo* of conspiracies comforting to the theorist
but destructive of the communicative rationality of the historical
community.
Reputable books about S not published by goddamn vanity presses simply
don't even fucking mention the antiS community for the SAME reason
biology books don't discuss Creationism, and for the SAME reason
physics textbook don't mention ether: the entertainment of highly
improbable theories that rest upon the assumption of (unverifiable and
unfalsifiable) conspiracies, or a G-d who created the world in seven
days means there is no point in the university venture.
>
> >It is presumed
> > that the young Shakespeare attended this school, since as the son of a
> > prominent town official he was entitled to do so for free[11]
>
> It is presumed?
>
> > (although his attendance cannot be confirmed because the school's
> > records have not survived)."
>
> Cannot be confirmed?
>
> You call this evidence?
Yes. That's the nature of the evidence. I call this responsible
interpretation and evidence UNENCUMBERED with a lower middle class
rage to have their "Shakespeare" not share their miseries, because
Shakespeare's accomplishment merely highlights the culture of failure
that is the lower middle class.
Nor do I have to. THREE HUNDRED YEARS of scholars starting with Dryden
have already done so.
Nor do I have to. Go to the library.
>
> >there is just no need to hypothesize a conspiracy,
> > and positing a conspiracy unnecessarily tears a hole in a fabric of
> > facts, communicated from the past by the documentary record. The
> > unnecessary hole weakens the whole since if there's one conspiracy
> > here, there might, especially in the mind of the dull fool, be another
> > over there.
>
> > Before you know, history converges with fantasy and the powerful
> > elements of society are rewriting it.
>
> No kidding. Just like the powerful elements rewrote history to try to
> show that Strachey influenced Shakespeare.
The lower middle class is unable to make common cause with those
smelly yob workers, and their targets have consequently to be straw
men. Yes, the powerful write the history books. But they get the facts
right because of cross-checking.
>
> I take great exception, Spinoza, to being compared with a Holocaust
> Denier in your earlier post simply because I believe someone other
> than WS of Stratford wrote the canon. My extended family were killed
> in the Holocaust.
I called you no such thing, of course, merely pointed out the
cognitive parallels between two causes which destroy memory by the use
not of knowledge but of unearned doubt. But typically of the lower
middle class, we now fall into a snit.
Don't we.
>
> This place has become totally ridiculous. It's time for me to leave.
> I'll shut the door on my way out.
You do that.
spinoza1111
This was unduly harsh. Please understand that I am lower middle class,
and not happy about it. If I'm being immiserated ever so gradually I'd
rather not pass Go and head straight for the bottom, because I was
raised in the "affluent" society of America of the 1950s and 1960s
where there were almost no social classes.
It happens to be unutterably painful for me to meet, in the US, old
friends from the 1960s who used to have long hair and shiny eyes, who
are now dying of breast cancer or prostate cancer because they cannot
afford medical care, and who are working at temp jobs while living in
motels.
To return to the world of Aldous Huxley's short story Half Holiday in
my declining years sucks on a spiritual level, because what I've seen
has been the devolution of smart people to people screeching at each
other across mean kitchen tables because they can't pay their bills:
people who in France leave feminist communes to vote for Le Pen
because their commune was taken over by ENS and ENA bitches (cf.
Bourdieu, THE WEIGHT OF THE WORLD).
I simply refuse to enter the register of what my Daddy did, or what
happened to great-aunt Gretel, in the War. If my homeboy Lincoln was
right, that we cannot consecrate, we cannot dedicate, we cannot
hallow, then *a fortiori* we cannot borrow unearned strength for a
weak argument from the boneyard or the sacrophagus.
It is infantile.
I in no way "called" you a Holocaust denier. However, I pointed out
second-order links between the epistemology of Shakespeare denial and
the epistemology of Holocaust denial and Creationism.
Shakespeare and Holocaust denial unnecessarily posit conspiracies and
thus tear holes into the communicative rationality of historical
studies, which have to be based on a mild trust of the written record,
a trust that is of course appropriately skeptical, but does NOT, does
NOT, howl like American senator Joseph McCarthy, under the influence
in an abandoned chamber of the Senate, that it's a vast conspiracy, a
vast cover up.
Creationism posits a deus ex machina to incompetently resolve the
miracle, the fucking miracle, of existence because Creationists live
in a destroyed world.
You are neither a Creationist nor a Holocaust denier, and I am very
sad you lost relatives in the Holocaust. Well, if you'd keep their
memory alive, lay off Shakespeare, because there is NO REASON to deny
his authorship.
>
> Don't we.
>
>
>
> > This place has become totally ridiculous. It's time for me to leave.
> > I'll shut the door on my way out.
>
> You do that.
>
>
>
>
>
> > L.
>
> > > > .
>
> > > > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The aristocrats of Shakespeare's time were in many cases functional
> > > > > illiterates and in other case no more than poetasters, some of them
> > > > > not above stealing (as you steal) intellectual property.
>
> > > > I wasn't aware that Strats owned any intellectual property.
> > > > ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What you call "Stratfordianism" (an illiterate name in itself) has in
> > > > > fact been tested and confirmed by generations of scholars since Dryden
> > > > > accessing the facts of the historian, which consists of the
> > > > > documentary record.
>
> > > > .
> > > > Oh, well, it's been tested then. Thank, God!
> > > > .
> > > > Art Neuendorffer- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>> I take great exception, Spinoza, to being compared with a Holocaust
>> Denier in your earlier post simply because I believe someone
>> other than WS of Stratford wrote the canon. My extended family
>> were killed in the Holocaust.
> spinoza1111 wrote:
.
> I called you no such thing, of course, merely pointed out the
> cognitive parallels between two causes which destroy memory by
> the use not of knowledge but of unearned doubt. But typically
> of the lower middle class, we now fall into a snit.
.
>This was unduly harsh. Please understand that I am lower middle class,
>and not happy about it. If I'm being immiserated ever so gradually
>I'd rather not pass Go and head straight for the bottom, because
> I was raised in the "affluent" society of America of
> the 1950s and 1960s where there were almost no social classes.
Tell that to Martin Luther King.
.
>It happens to be unutterably painful for me to meet, in the US, old
>friends from the 1960s who used to have long hair and shiny eyes, who
>are now dying of breast cancer or prostate cancer because they cannot
>afford medical care, and who are working at temp jobs while living in
>motels.
Lynne is a Canadian where it is easier to get medical care.
.
>I simply refuse to enter the register of what my Daddy did, or what
>happened to great-aunt Gretel, in the War. If my homeboy Lincoln was
>right, that we cannot consecrate, we cannot dedicate, we cannot
>hallow, then *a fortiori* we cannot borrow unearned strength for
> a weak argument from the boneyard or the sacrophagus.
What ever happened to great-aunt Gretel?
(Is a gingerbread house involved?)
.
.
>I in no way "called" you a Holocaust denier. However, I pointed out
>second-order links between the epistemology of Shakespeare denial
>and the epistemology of Holocaust denial and Creationism.
In one way you are equating Lynne's stance on Shakespeare
with that of Holocaust deniers.
.
>Shakespeare and Holocaust denial unnecessarily posit conspiracies
>and thus tear holes into the communicative rationality of historical
>studies, which have to be based on a mild trust of the written record,
>a trust that is of course appropriately skeptical, but does NOT, does
>NOT, howl like American senator Joseph McCarthy, under the influence
>in an abandoned chamber of the Senate, that it's a vast conspiracy,
> a vast cover up.
A vast rightwing conspiracy has prevented your hippie friends
from getting medical attention.
.
>Creationism posits a deus ex machina to incompetently resolve the
>miracle, the fucking miracle, of existence because Creationists
>live in a destroyed world.
Stratfordians posit a deus ex machina to incompetently resolve
the miracle of Shaksper writing the canon.
.
>You are neither a Creationist nor a Holocaust denier, and I am
> very sad you lost relatives in the Holocaust. Well, if you'd
> keep their memory alive, lay off Shakespeare, because there
>is NO REASON to deny his authorship.
What's Shaksper to you or you to Shaksper
that you should weep for him?
-----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
spinoza1111
wrote:
> > Lynne wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I take great exception, Spinoza, to being compared with a Holocaust
> >> Denier in your earlier post simply because I believe someone
> >> other than WS of Stratford wrote the canon. My extended family
> >> were killed in the Holocaust.
> . >spinoza1111wrote:
>
> .
> > I called you no such thing, of course, merely pointed out the
> > cognitive parallels between two causes which destroy memory by
> > the use not of knowledge but of unearned doubt. But typically
> > of the lower middle class, we now fall into a snit.
> .
> >This was unduly harsh. Please understand that I am lower middle class,
> >and not happy about it. If I'm being immiserated ever so gradually
> >I'd rather not pass Go and head straight for the bottom, because
> > I was raised in the "affluent" society of America of
> > the 1950s and 1960s where there were almost no social classes.
> .
> Tell that to Martin Luther King.
Yes, social classes were replaced as in pre-1970s Australia and
pre-1990s South Africa by apartheid in pre-1960s America.
But it makes no sense to get rid of racism and replace it by the
complete dominance of society by a bunch of ignorant rich
people...nearly all of whom are white males.
> .
> >It happens to be unutterably painful for me to meet, in the US, old
> >friends from the 1960s who used to have long hair and shiny eyes, who
> >are now dying of breast cancer or prostate cancer because they cannot
> >afford medical care, and who are working at temp jobs while living in
> >motels.
> .
> Lynne is a Canadian where it is easier to get medical care.
Well good for her. And this is an argument how?
> .
> >I simply refuse to enter the register of what my Daddy did, or what
> >happened to great-aunt Gretel, in the War. If my homeboy Lincoln was
> >right, that we cannot consecrate, we cannot dedicate, we cannot
> >hallow, then *a fortiori* we cannot borrow unearned strength for
> > a weak argument from the boneyard or the sacrophagus.
> .
> What ever happened to great-aunt Gretel?
> (Is a gingerbread house involved?)
You can't even read. Scram.
> .
> .
> >I in no way "called" you a Holocaust denier. However, I pointed out
> >second-order links between the epistemology of Shakespeare denial
> >and the epistemology of Holocaust denial and Creationism.
> .
> In one way you are equating Lynne's stance on Shakespeare
> with that of Holocaust deniers.
If you meant what, I just said in what way. What part of "second-order
epistemology" don't you understand? Oh never mind...
> .
> >Shakespeare and Holocaust denial unnecessarily posit conspiracies
> >and thus tear holes into the communicative rationality of historical
> >studies, which have to be based on a mild trust of the written record,
> >a trust that is of course appropriately skeptical, but does NOT, does
> >NOT, howl like American senator Joseph McCarthy, under the influence
> >in an abandoned chamber of the Senate, that it's a vast conspiracy,
> > a vast cover up.
> .
> A vast rightwing conspiracy has prevented your hippie friends
> from getting medical attention.
That's about right, in fact. And it's just wrong. My hippie friends,
and people of color, and poor people, have been systematically screwed
by a vast right-wing coordinated movement to swap the end of American
apartheid for a return to classist barbarity, and you were fooled by
this world-historical three-card Monte, and I wasn't.
> .
> >Creationism posits a deus ex machina to incompetently resolve the
> >miracle, the fucking miracle, of existence because Creationists
> >live in a destroyed world.
> .
> Stratfordians posit a deus ex machina to incompetently resolve
> the miracle of Shaksper writing the canon.
If you don't read, if you've been ejected by the public library as a
nuisance, then almost anything seems occult, a deus ex machina, and
voices in the air.
> .
> >You are neither a Creationist nor a Holocaust denier, and I am
> > very sad you lost relatives in the Holocaust. Well, if you'd
> > keep their memory alive, lay off Shakespeare, because there
> >is NO REASON to deny his authorship.
> .
> What's Shaksper to you or you to Shaksper
> that you should weep for him?
He represents memory as opposed to a sort of false memory syndrome in
which a reified "memory" which satisfies irrational and indeed
narcissistic needs replaces a more generalized awareness, and then is
reinforced if not turbocharged by this technology.
> -----------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > >You are neither a Creationist nor a Holocaust denier, and I am
> > > very sad you lost relatives in the Holocaust. Well, if you'd
> > > keep their memory alive, lay off Shakespeare, because there
> > >is NO REASON to deny his authorship.
>
> > .
> > What's Shaksper to you or you to Shaksper
> > that you should weep for him?
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> He represents memory as opposed to a sort of false memory syndrome in
> which a reified "memory" which satisfies irrational and indeed
> narcissistic needs replaces a more generalized awareness, and then is
> reinforced if not turbocharged by this technology.
"(To the m)[eMOry of my beloVED]"
"(To them) [my OM, by fo(DEVere)ol]"
---------------------------------------------
"Dear son of *MEMORY*, great HEIR of FAME" - Milton
.
. One of the original 3 Greek HELICONS
. *MNEME* is the MUSE of MEMORY
-------------------------------------------------
"MNEME RITER"
...............................................
.
. TOT ___ HEONL ____ IEBE
. GET ___ TEROF ____ THES
. EIN ______ SVING __- [S] ONN
_- ETS_ [M] [R] WHA __ [L] LHA
__-- PPI_ [N] [E] SS____- E[A] NDT
_ HAT_ [E] [T] ER_____- N[I] TIE
. PRO_ [M]_ [I] ____ [S]_ ED[B] YOV
_. REV_ [E] [R] _L___ [I]__ V[I] NGP
. OET_ _ WISH___[E]_ [T] HTH
. EWE __ LLWI[S.]_[H.] _ ING
. ADV __ ENTV[R.]_[E.] _ RIN
. SET ____ TING[F.]_[O.] _ RTH
---------------------------------------------------
"Endves tibials" = Dons the Order of the Garter
_____________ [H]enry [E]arl of [O]xford
-------------------------------------------------------------
RITE, n. [L. ritus; cf. Skr. r[=i]ti a STREAM, a running, way,
. manner, ri TO FLOW: cf. F. rit, RITE.] A formal act
. of religion or other solemn duty; a solemn observance;
. a ceremony; as, the *RITES* of FREEMASONRY.
----------------------------------------------------------
. Much Ado About Nothing Act 4, Scene 1
.
FRIAR FRANCIS Let her awhile be secretly kept in,
. And publish it that she is dead indeed;
. Maintain a mourning ostentation
. And on your family's old monument
. Hang mournful epitaphs and DO ALL *RITES*
. That appertain unto a burial.
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Muses: These Greek deities of art and inspiration are among
the most familiar of the ancient divinities. Originally there
were only three, at Mount *HELICON*: Melete, *MNEME*, & Aoide.
--------------------------------------------------------------
. Spenser dedication in Fairie Queene (1590)
.
. To the right Honourable the Earle of Oxenford,
. Lord high Chamberlayne of England. &c.
.
. *Vnder a shady VELE is therein writ* ,
. And eke thine owne long *liuing MEMORY* ,
. Succeeding them in TRUE nobility:
.
. And also for the loue, which thou doest beare
. *To th'HELICONian YMPs* , and they to thee,
. They vnto thee, and thou to them most deare:
--------------------------------------------------------
. The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 1, Scene 3
.
PISTOL: *Shall DUNGHILL curs confront the HELICONS* ?
. And shall good news be baffled?
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
spinoza1111
Then, Pistol, lay thy head in Furies' lap....
Sorry, Mr. Neuendorffer. Precisely because this appears to be a copy
and paste job with purely orthographical and typographical alterations
at random, it strikes me as "a tale told by an idiot, signifying
nothing".
I'd rather hear someone MISQUOTE Shakespeare but from memory, and
devise new sentences interpreting Shakespeare, Besonian.
There is a reason why all Shakespeare denial texts are in a genre to
which few references are made from the canonical texts. It is because
to base a theory on a posited conspiracy is to start with mistrust.
Mistrust comes later, and only after knowledge can it be at all
dignified as skepticism.
Ancient Pistol misquotes bad tragedy: but today's Internet pistols
quote accuracy and flame misquoting since they can cut, and paste,
wielding knowledge THEY DID NOT CREATE and CANNOT CREATE like a
pikestaff.. He's a blowhard and a *miles gloriosus*. As Henry V
observed, the name sorts you well.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > .
> > > > What's Shaksper to you or you to Shaksper
> > > > that you should weep for him?
>
> > ."spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > He represents memory as opposed to a sort of false memory syndrome
> > > in which a reified "memory" which satisfies irrational and indeed
> > > narcissistic needs replaces a more generalized awareness,
> > > and then is reinforced if not turbocharged by this technology.
> and paste job with purely orthographical and typographical alterations
> at random, it strikes me as "a tale told by an idiot, signifying
> nothing".
*Nothing WILL come of nothing*
------------------------------------------------------
<<John Adams visited [Stratford] with Thomas Jefferson
in April, 1786, and recorded his impressions:
.
<<Stratford upon Avon is interesting as it is the Scaene of the Birth,
Death and Sepulture of Shakespeare. Three doors from Inn, is the House
where he was born, as small and mean, as you can conceive. They shew
Us
an old Wooden Chair in the Chimney Corner, where He sat. We cut off a
Chip according to the Custom. A Mulberry Tree that he planted has been
cut down, and is carefully *PRESERVED* for Sale. The House where he
died has been taken down and the Spot is now only Yard or Garden. The
Curse upon him who should removed his Bones, which is written on his
Grave Stone, alludes to a Pile of some Thousands of human Bones, which
lie exposed in that Church. There is *NOTHING PRESERVED* of this great
Genius which is worth knowing and; *NOTHING* which might inform Us
what
Educations, what Company, what Accident turned his Mind to Letters and
the Drama. His name is not even on his Grave Stone. An ill sculptured
Head is sett up by his Wife, by the Side of his Grave in the Church.
But paintings and Sculpture would be thrown away upon his Fame. His
Wit
and Fancy, his Taste and Judgment, His Knowledge of Nature, of Life
and
Character, are immortal.>>
...............................................
>From a letter when John Adams & Thomas Jefferson visited
Stratford-upon-Avon. Jefferson wrote *NOTHING*
about the occasion except a record of his expenses.
--------------------------------------
P
R
EREVED
S.
2
.
P
R
EREVED
S.
3
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward deVere died on the Feast day of John the Baptist:
.
. June 24, 1604 o.s.
. = July 4, 1604 n.s.
.
. On July 4, 1826 (222 years later!)
Thomas Jefferson & John Adams died simultaneously
on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
-------------------------------------------------
Lear: *Nothing WILL come of nothing*
-------------------------------------------------
Ulysses 590.1: The unsympathetic indifference of previously amiable
females, the contempt of muscular males, the acceptance of fragments
of bread, the simulated ignorance of casual acquaintances,
the latration of illegitimate unlicensed *VAGABOND DOGS* ,
the infantile discharge of decomposed vegetable missiles,
*worth little or nothing, nothing or less than nothing*
--------------------------------------------
_Elizabethan Review_ article by Warren Hope
_Lear's Cordelia, Oxford's Susan, and Manningham's Diary_
. http://www.jmucci.com/ER/articles/lear.htm
............................................
<<Nelson drew attention to a couplet recorded in the Diary of
John Manningham of the Middle Temple 1602- 1603 that was used
as part of a courtly entertainment before the Queen in the
summer of 1602. Ladies of the court drew lots and each gift
was accompanied by a couplet. Manningham recorded the verses
along with the names of the ladies who received them and
the nature of the accompanying gifts. Manningham wrote:
.
. Blank: LA[DY] Susan Vere
.
*Nothing's your lott* , that's more then can be told
. For nothing is more precious then gold.
.
Susan Vere is the recipient of a priceless gift one that
is both *more then can be told* & *more precious then gold*
a very special kind of "nothing" indeed. The couplet is in fact
a riddle, awarding Susan Vere an inexpressible & precious gift
that merely appears to be "nothing." What could that be?
.
. A look at the text of King Lear unravels the riddle.
.
In the first scene of King Lear, the scene that precipitates the
action of the play, a kind of drawing of lots take place. Lear divides
his kingdom and announces the "dowers" or dowries to be awarded to his
three daughters. He gives equal portions of the realm to Goneril and
Regan and their respective husbands, Albany and Cornwall. He reserves
the largest portion of the kingdom for his youngest daughter, the
unmarried Cordelia. To be awarded this portion, she is to declare
publicly her love for her father in terms that will please him
no doubt by renouncing marriage in her father's lifetime.
The dialogue, beginning with the words of Lear, runs:
.
. what can you say to draw
. A third more opulent than your sisters?
.
. Speak.
.
Cordelia: *Nothing, my lord*
.
Lear: *Nothing* ?
.
Cordelia: *Nothing* .
.
Lear: *Nothing WILL come of nothing*
---------------------------------------
.
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'd rather hear someone MISQUOTE Shakespeare but from memory,
> and devise new sentences interpreting Shakespeare, Besonian.
Do bee or not do bee.
.
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There is a reason why all Shakespeare denial texts are in a genre to
> which few references are made from the canonical texts. It is because
> to base a theory on a posited conspiracy is to start with mistrust.
> Mistrust comes later, and only after knowledge can it be at all
> dignified as skepticism.
.
Miss Trust: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Miss_Trust-8.png
.
"spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ancient Pistol misquotes bad tragedy: but today's Internet pistols
> quote accuracy and flame misquoting since they can cut, and paste,
> wielding knowledge THEY DID NOT CREATE and CANNOT CREATE like a
> pikestaff.. He's a blowhard and a *miles gloriosus*. As Henry V
> observed, the name sorts you well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"And SAM knows MILES bettern me how to work the miracle."
. -- _Finnegans Wake_ p.461
.
_The Maltese Falcon_ : "Miles [ARCHER] hadn't many BRAINS . . ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LINES WRITTEN BY [Pooh] A BEAR OF VERY LITTLE BRAIN
"Now is it TRUE, or is it not,"
"That what is which and which is what?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"[but MILES ARCHER] had too many years' experience as a detective
to be caught like that by a man he was shadowing. . . .
He couldn't have tricked MILES into the alley like that, ... [but]
he'd
have gone up there with you, angel. . . . He'd've looked you up & down
and licked his lips and gone grinning from ear to ear--and then you
could've stood close to him in the dark and put a hole through him . .
"
<<In [Dashiell HAMMETT's] The Maltese Falcon, SAM Spade arrives
at the murder scene of his partner, MILES ARCHER (Jerome COWAN).
Spade is told ARCHER was shot with an 8 shot Webley-Fosberry
(the .38 ACP model). Yet when an officer holds up
the revolver, it is clearly the 6 shot, .455 model.>>
-- http://www.recguns.com/MGM-TMF.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
. JEROME COWAN was born in NYC on Roger Manners'
. 321th birthday [October 6, 1897]
------------------------------------------------------------------
_Othello_ was licensed "under the handes of
Sir GEORGE BUC & Master SWIN(how)E WARDEN" October 6, 1621,
Roger Manners' 45th birthday
Henry Wriothesley's 48th birthday
--------------------------------------------------------------
. MILES CoVERdale died on January 19, 1568.
.
Miles Coverdale, publisher of the first printed English Bible.
He completed the translation of the Old Testament which
William Tyndale had left unfinished at his death in 1536.
.
. http://www.malory.net/pt1_txt.htm
.
Although "the original tombstone was destroyed, ... its inscription
survives in this early sixteenth-century transcript, which calls
[Malory] valens MILES ('a valiant knight') of the parish of
Monks Kirby in Warwickshire & says he died on 14 March 1470.
------------------------------------------------------------------
. St. Fillian's day January 19
.
. St. Fillian was a Scottish abbot who treated the insane by
dunking them in a holy well & tying them by the foot to his bed.
.
January 19, 570, Islamic prophet Mohammed was born.
.
January 19, 1568, MILES CoVERdale (1st English Bible) dies.
.
January 19, 1547, Henry Howard, earl of Surrey (& Ed Vere's uncle),
. beheaded at age 29
. because of his enmity with the Seymours.
. Surrey & Thomas W(y)att introduced the sonnet into English verse.
.
January 19, 1576, Hans Sachs(cobbler/meistersinger) dies.
.
January 19, 1729, William CON(g)REVE, restoration dramatist, dies
.
January 19, 1736, James Watt born.
.
January 19, 1813, Poe's *WILLIAM WILSON* born.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17, 1579 marriage of
. "William WILLSONNE and Anne HATHAWAY of Shotterye."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/vc04.html
.
. preserved letters of GEORGE SANDYS:
.
Letter to Sir SAM(uel) Sandys. March 30, 1623.
Letter to Sir MILES Sandys. March 30, 1623.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
> By Shakespeare denial, I mean the theories popular in rather recent
> years that somebody other than an alderman's son and later on property
> owner of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare corpus.
>
> denial or creationism no traction among academics. What this means is
> that SD is just false, for two reasons:
>
> against the "facts" of the historian (the documentary record, which by
> the long-verified documentary evidence provided by Francis Meres,
> Greene, Jonson, and others.
>
> "vast conspiracy" amongst practicing scholars in biology, history, and
> the history of literature to "cover up" the "truth".
>
> British and American universities, wherein humanities faculty at the
> lower tier indeed try to ape what they understand to be the scientific
> method.
>
> Believing along with Dickens' Gradgrind that the scientific method
> consists EXCLUSIVELY of inductive inference, inferior humanities
> faculty tend to discourage theory formation and dissemination with the
> result that responsible theorizing consistent with the documentary
> record is hidden from view and then replaced, in the theorizing
> instinct, by its hypostatized ersatz.
>
> Psychologically, then, Shakespeare denial is a destructive impulse
> that results from pre-existing cancellation of a normal instinct to
> is unmasked in the psychodrama as an almost-personal offensive against
> the Shakespeare denier, himself a caricature of the bourgeois of the
> 19th century brought forward into an era of finance capital, where in
> fact his normal desires for a decency that NO LONGER EXISTS at many
> universities are constantly checked.
>
> theory consists ON THE WHOLE of efforts to cover up the "truth", no
> platform exists upon which to proclaim any sort of novum organum, for
> communicative rationality (the only rationality worth the name) is one
> which is less globally skeptical than itself honest, and complementary
> to this, trusting at a basic level that it is communicating with
> interlocutors that share a basic committment to truth.
>
> ejected, or to have self-ejected (in pursuit of the dollar) from
> academic pursuits into a corporate world in which truth is at a
> discount and a vacuum instead of "personal freedom" is preached. Here,
> it's understandable that they would forget that there's no point in
> the literary historical enterprise to doing "alternative" literary
> history...apart from efforts that are continuous in a responsible
> fashion with the tradition, such as feminist or Third World literary
> history...if the game heretofore has been rigged to create a false
> "Shakespeare".
>
> older literary historiography are after all continually checked by
> conservative forces, especially in American universities, which
> counter illuminating efforts to read Shakespeare in a feminist
> register with squallish discontent and "non placets" from latter day
> Greenes. How much easier it is instead to just tear up a contract of
> communicative rationality and mine Shakespeare clownishly for "clues"
> and for "secret messages" that replay literary history as farce!
>
> Edward G. Nilges
MM:
Mind is predominately negative. It's habits tend to enforce ego and
scattering of the mind. During the Golden Age, there was peace and
harmony. Gradually, ego crept in and disharmony has been on the
increase for ages. Since we are lost souls, having no recollection
where our peaceful True Home is, then mind is frantically searching
for peace in all the wrong places.
The problem with Shakespeare denial is plain ignorance in the first
place, primarily ignorance regarding mysticism. The cryptic way in
which Shakespeare wrote doesn't help much to dispel that ignorance,
either. So, what do many people do? As I mentioned, mind not knowing
where peace and happiness lie, in the truth, is the problem. So, if
certain people are unable to have faith in the truth, then they decide
that they will create their own truth.
People have been doing that for ages, not just regarding Shakespeare.
The decline of morality is so severe, than many do not know right from
wrong. This is why God sends us the Saints. Unfortunately, the
average person will not have faith in a Living Master. Incredibly, he
will be more likely to have faith in some Master, who lived centuries
ago, and whom he has never met.
There are many factors in Shakespeare denial, but it boils down to
ego, ignorance, lack of faith in history, and lack of faith in those
who know the truth.
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
wrote:
Hey JERKOFF, stop reposting what I wrote with line prefixes changed so
as to make it look like you wrote it.
Asshole.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> Hey JERKOFF, stop reposting what I wrote with line prefixes
> changed so as to make it look like you wrote it.
FW 563.20 *WhatEVER* do you mean with bleak?
With pale blake *I write TINTIN-G-face* . O, you do?
And with steelwhite and blackmail I ha'scint for my sweet
an anemone's letter with a gold of my bridest hair betied.
Donatus his mark, address as follows. So you did? From the
*CAT* and Cage. O, I see and see! In the *INK* of his sweat
he will find it yet. What Gipsy *DEVEREux* vowed to Lylian
and why the elm and how the stone. You nEVER may know in the
preterite all *PERHAPS* that you would not believe that you
*EVER even SAW* to be about to. *PERHAPS* But they are
two VERy blizky little portereens after their bredscrums,
*JERKOFF* and Eatsup, as for my part opinion indeed.
They would be born so, coSTARred, *puck and PrIG* ,
the maryboy at Donnybrook Fair, the goDOLPHINglad in
the Hoy's Court. How frilled one shall be as at taledold of
Formio and Cigalette ! What folly innocents ! Theirs whet pep
of puppyhood! Both barmhearts shall become yeastcake by their
brackfest. I will to leave a my copperwise blessing between
the pair of them, for rosengorge, for *GREENafang* .
*Blech and TIN soldies* , weals in a sniffbox. Som's wholed,
all's parted. Weeping shouldst not thou be when man falls
but that divine scheming EVER adoring be. So you be either
man or mouse and you be neither fish nor flesh.>>
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer