A theory about Christopher Marlowe.
Yogi Buchon
1. He converted to Catholicism in 1593
after befriending Southampton.
2. He faked his death in May 1593
with Southampton and Walsingham's help.
3. He traveled through France and Italy
from June to December 1593.
4. He lived in exile on the island of Malta
from December 1593 to June 1611.
5. He worked as a merchant under the alias
"William Watts" while on Malta.
6. He wrote all of the literary work attributed to
William Shakespeare.
7. He met Thomas Lodge, Caravaggio, and George Sandys
while in exile.
8. He left Malta with George Sandys in June 1611
ending his exile there.
9. He returned to England in 1612
and lived near Canterbury until 1621.
10. He collaborated with George Sandys
but wrote no more plays after 1611.
11. He sailed to Virginia Colony with George Sandys
in July 1621.
12. He died shortly after the Indian uprising at Jamestown
on March 22, 1622.
Truly,
Yogi Buchon
Neil Brennen
"Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:030420041642497042%skipsp...@charter.net...
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> Are you sure he wasn't also Jesus Christ, who never really died on the
> cross and moved to the south of France and then discovered about 500
> years later that England was cool? Just a theory...
I understand Peter Farey is going to search for a cryptogram in the Gospels
as proof....
Neil Brennen
--
...you can't know how miserably unbearable my life's become. It's but an
earthworm sandwich made with neither mayonnaise nor butter.
-Bob Grumman, "Werebird"
> In article <9251b822.04040...@posting.google.com>, Yogi
Yogi Buchon
--------------------
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message news:<XkJbc.9493$NL4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:030420041642497042%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > X-No-archive: yes
> >
> > Are you sure he wasn't also Jesus Christ, who never really died on the
> > cross and moved to the south of France and then discovered about 500
> > years later that England was cool? Just a theory...
>
> I understand Peter Farey is going to search for a cryptogram in the Gospels
> as proof....
>
> Neil Brennen
>
Skipper from skip-SPAM-LESS, and Neil from chess-NO-SPAM-news? What a
clever disguise. So, Neil aka Skipper, go defend your "Jesus Christ"
theory in front of a few high school English classes, and see how many
students will believe it? Of course, that wasn't the idea you had in
mind, now was it? I guess you just wanted to have a good laugh at my
expense? Cool.
So, allow me to give high school students a peek at the chess expert
who'll be coming to their class to defend a "Jesus Christ" theory
about Shakespearean authorship.
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
Ah yes, gluttony! Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Since your
paunch so huge is blown, like some woman pregnant grown, allow me to
quote from an old morality play by the German poet and dramatist, Hans
Sachs.
"For this is the Fool of Gluttony,
Who's dwelt much, much too long with thee
And made you excessive in food and drink,
Lusting for delicates; made you stink.
He sickened your body, dulled your mind,
In pocket left not one penny behind,
While he raised your paunch-and compost pile.
Why would you want a thing so vile?"
http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/spring/courses/cultciv1/hanssachsfoolssurgery.html
Good luck defending your theory!
Truly,
Yogi
Neil Brennen
"Yogi Buchon" <yogib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9251b822.04041...@posting.google.com...
> A theory about English dramatist and poet Christopher Marlowe:
> 1. He converted to Catholicism in 1593
> after befriending Southampton.
No evidence.
> 2. He faked his death in May 1593
> with Southampton and Walsingham's help.
No evidence.
> 3. He traveled through France and Italy
> from June to December 1593.
No evidence.
> 4. He lived in exile on the island of Malta
> from December 1593 to June 1611.
No evidence.
> 5. He worked as a merchant under the alias
> "William Watts" while on Malta.
No evidence
> 6. He wrote all of the literary work attributed to
> William Shakespeare.
No evidence
> 7. He met Thomas Lodge, Caravaggio, and George Sandys
> while in exile.
No evidence
> 8. He left Malta with George Sandys in June 1611
> ending his exile there.
No evidence
> 9. He returned to England in 1612
> and lived near Canterbury until 1621.
No evidence
> 10. He collaborated with George Sandys
> but wrote no more plays after 1611.
No evidence
> 11. He sailed to Virginia Colony with George Sandys
> in July 1621.
No evidence
> 12. He died shortly after the Indian uprising at Jamestown
> on March 22, 1622.
No evidence
>
> --------------------
>
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:<XkJbc.9493$NL4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:030420041642497042%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > > X-No-archive: yes
> > >
> > > Are you sure he wasn't also Jesus Christ, who never really died on the
> > > cross and moved to the south of France and then discovered about 500
> > > years later that England was cool? Just a theory...
> >
> > I understand Peter Farey is going to search for a cryptogram in the
Gospels
> > as proof....
> >
> > Neil Brennen
> >
>
> Skipper from skip-SPAM-LESS, and Neil from chess-NO-SPAM-news? What a
> clever disguise. So, Neil aka Skipper...
LOL! Whoever 'Skipper' is, I hope he finds it amusing.
go defend your "Jesus Christ"
> theory in front of a few high school English classes, and see how many
> students will believe it?
You mean you've taken this Marlovian wet-dream, with all the "evidence"
you've marshalled in support of it, in front of bored high school students?
What an intellectual battle that must have been!
Of course, that wasn't the idea you had in
> mind, now was it? I guess you just wanted to have a good laugh at my
> expense? Cool.
I hope it's cool, because we are doing it again now.
> So, allow me to give high school students a peek at the chess expert
> who'll be coming to their class to defend a "Jesus Christ" theory
> about Shakespearean authorship.
Actually, that's not my speculation, that was Skipper's. And it makes just
as much sense as your delusional ramblings.
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
> http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
Oh clever! You found my photograph online! And you posted nasty comments on
my obesity. BTW, I have bad eyesight, you should make fun of that too. That
might distract people from the fact your so-called "theory" of Marlowe's
faked death is without any evidence at all.
Best wishes,
Neil Brennen
Neil Brennen
"Yogi Bear" <yogib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9251b822.04041...@posting.google.com...
(Snip of drivel claiming I am another poster)
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
> http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
Since you found my review of Squares interesting enough to post the link,
you might want to visit the Chess Journalists of America website and read
the debate between myself and one of the flunkies for the publisher of
Squares.
Lynne
snip
>
> So, allow me to give high school students a peek at the chess expert
> who'll be coming to their class to defend a "Jesus Christ" theory
> about Shakespearean authorship.
>
> http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
> http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
>
> Ah yes, gluttony! Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Since your
> paunch so huge is blown, like some woman pregnant grown, allow me to
> quote from an old morality play by the German poet and dramatist, Hans
> Sachs.
That is beyond disgusting. Do you think it furthers your argument? Do
you, in fact, know how to argue without resorting to ad hominem
attacks? Writing garbage like this is a much greater sin than being
overweight, which actually, to my mind, is no sin at all.
LynnE
another anti-strat
Neil Brennen
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:cc19a094.04041...@posting.google.com...
> yogib...@yahoo.com (Yogi Buchon) wrote in message
news:<9251b822.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> snip
> >
> > So, allow me to give high school students a peek at the chess expert
> > who'll be coming to their class to defend a "Jesus Christ" theory
> > about Shakespearean authorship.
> >
> > http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
> > http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
> >
> > Ah yes, gluttony! Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Since your
> > paunch so huge is blown, like some woman pregnant grown, allow me to
> > quote from an old morality play by the German poet and dramatist, Hans
> > Sachs.
>
> That is beyond disgusting.
Oh come on, Lynne, I'm not THAT fat and ugly! Oh, you mean you meant...,
err, sorry.
Do you think it furthers your argument? Do
> you, in fact, know how to argue without resorting to ad hominem
> attacks? Writing garbage like this is a much greater sin than being
> overweight, which actually, to my mind, is no sin at all.
> LynnE
> another anti-strat
Lynne, I think you've finally gotten the hang of HLAS! :-)
Wow, who put the new Borax in you?
Neil Brennen
> It's funny reading the lunatic theories about Shakespeare on this
> group, but someone intuiting that you and I are the same person based
> on both of us having apparent spam-blocker email addresses... well,
> that's a higher lunacy indeed.
It's not the first time antiStrats have had such problems. Elizabeth Weir
thought David Webb was posting as Whitt Brantley.
> Nice "thinking" there Yogi - can I assume by your name you are an adept
> in yoga?
David L. Webb
lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> yogib...@yahoo.com (Yogi Buchon) wrote in message
> news:<9251b822.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> snip
> >
> > So, allow me to give high school students a peek at the chess expert
> > who'll be coming to their class to defend a "Jesus Christ" theory
> > about Shakespearean authorship.
> >
> > http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
> > http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
> >
> > Ah yes, gluttony! Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Since your
> > paunch so huge is blown, like some woman pregnant grown, allow me to
> > quote from an old morality play by the German poet and dramatist, Hans
> > Sachs.
> That is beyond disgusting.
I couldn't agree more.
> Do you think it furthers your argument?
What "argument"? Yogi initiated the thread by posting a list of
conjectures; as far as I am aware, he/she has not supported those
conjectures by *any* argument, let alone by any evidence.
> Do
> you, in fact, know how to argue without resorting to ad hominem
> attacks?
Judging by what I've seen of the thread thus far, the qualifying
phrase "without resorting..." seems superfluous; the question would have
been just as meaningful without it.
> Writing garbage like this is a much greater sin than being
> overweight, which actually, to my mind, is no sin at all.
I agree. However, I was amused by a grocery store chain that I
encountered in Canada called "Overwaitea" -- one wonders about the
psychological acumen of whomever bestowed the name.
> LynnE
> another anti-strat
A Tsar Is Born
> A theory about English dramatist and poet Christopher Marlowe:
> 1. He converted to Catholicism in 1593
> after befriending Southampton.
> 2. He faked his death in May 1593
> with Southampton and Walsingham's help.
Precisely WHY would Walsingham, presumably Marlowe's employer while he
(CM) was a spy, help Marlowe, now a renegade (TW was very Protestant),
to flee England?
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Laila Roth
English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
1. He was a Catholic.
2. He travelled through France and Italy and Germany and many other
countries during the 1580s.
3. He wrote all of the literary works commonly attributed to William
Shakespeare, Thomas Kyd and Christopher Marlowe and many others
besides.
4. He visited Malta already during the 1580s, which is why he was so
initiated in the Turkish assaults there.
5. He might have collaborated with George Sandys, as he collaborated
with Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere his father-in-law (only 11 years
older), with many others besides, and of course with his brother
Ferdinando Stanley, who launched his plays in the name of Christopher
Marlowe to start with.
6. He never went into exile since he was clever enough never to
publish his real name in his literary output. Nevertheless, some
fragments remain published in his name including some musical scores.
"Shakespeare" was well versed in music. None of the other candidates
(like Oxford, Bacon, Shakespeare and Marlowe) were.
There is much more to this than that, but let's just have this to
start with.
Laila Roth, Derbyite.
yogib...@yahoo.com (Yogi Buchon) wrote in message news:<9251b822.04040...@posting.google.com>...
Lorenzo4344
>From: lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth)
>Date: 4/14/2004
>A theory about the Oxfordian possibility of William Stanley as the
>English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
>6. He never went into exile since he was clever enough never to
>publish his real name in his literary output. Nevertheless, some
>fragments remain published in his name including some musical scores.
>"Shakespeare" was well versed in music. None of the other candidates
>(like Oxford, Bacon, Shakespeare and Marlowe) were.
"I haue presumed to tender these Madrigales onlie as remembrances of my seruice
and witnesse of your Lordships liberall hand, by which I haue so long liued,
and from your Honorable minde that so much haue loved all liberall Sciences: in
this I shall be most encouraged, if your Lordship vouchsafe the protection of
my first fruites, for that both for your greatnes you best can, and for your
iudgement in Musicke best may:for without flattrie be it spoken, those that
know your Lordship know this, that vsing this science as a recreation, your
Lordship haue ouergone most of them that make it a profession."
John Farmer: Dedication to Edward de Vere in "The First Set of English
Madrigals", 1599.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Jim KQKnave
> A theory about the Oxfordian possibility of William Stanley as the
> English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
Nonsense.
Here are some of the reasons that Shakespeare of Stratford
is believed to have written the works under his name:
Shakespeare's name on over forty title pages; his monument in
Stratford, which quite clearly states that he is a writer, and compares
his art to Virgil:
IVDICIO PYLIVM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET.
("In judgement a Nestor, in wit a Socrates, in
art a Virgil; the earth buries him, the people
mourn him, Olympus possesses him")
STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,
READ IF THOV GANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOME,
QVICK NATVRE DIDE WHOSE NAME, DOTH DECK YS TOMBE,
FAR MORE, THEN COST: SIEH ALL, YT HE HATH WRITT,
LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
("SIEH" is a typo for "Sith")
Robert Greene's attack on Shakespeare in Greene's Groatsworth
of Wit (1592), where he paraphrases a play by Shakespeare while
referring to "Shake-scene", a clear pun on his name; the
Parnassus plays (1598-1601), where Shakespeare is mentioned by name
and Venus and Adonis and Romeo & Juliet are parodied, and
where Shakespeare is said to have "put them [university playwrights]
all down, aye, and Ben Jonson too"; Gabriel Harvey (nlt 1603), who said
"The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus, &
Adonis: but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmarke, have it in them, to please the wiser sort," and who
called Shakespeare "one of our florishing metricians;" and
Francis Meres (1598), who said "...so the English tongue is mightily
enriched, and gorgeously invested in rare ornaments and
resplendent abiliments by sir Philip Sidney, Spencer, Daniel,
Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlow and Chapman...."
[notice that he distinguishes between Marlowe and Shakespeare
and mentions Oxenforde separately in another section as well]
and who also said that Shakespeare was one of England's
"best Lyrick Poets" and "our best for tragedie" and among the
"best Poets for Comedy" and "the most passionate among us
to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of Love;" and
Francis Beaumont (1608), who said "...here I would let slippe/
(If I had any in mee) schollershippe,/ And from all Learning keepe
these lines as cleere/ as Shakespeare's best are, which our
heires shall heare/ Preachers apte to their auditors to showe/
how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe/ by the dimme
light of Nature...;"
In 1604 appeared Antony Scolloker's "Diaphantus; or, the
Passions of Love." In his preface, telling us what an epistle
to the reader should be, Scolloker writes: "It should be like
the Never-too-well read Arcadia, where the Prose and verce
(Matters and Words) are like his Mistresses eyes, one still
excelling another and without Co-rivall: or to come home to
the vulgars Element, like Friendly Shakespeare's Tragedies,
where the Commedian rides, when the Tragedian stands on
tip-toe: Faith it should please all, like Prince Hamlet.
It's difficult to see how Scolloker could refer to Shakespeare as
"friendly" unless he knew him personally.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/price.html:
"a letter survives in the hand of Leonard Digges, who in 1613
compared the sonnets of Lope de Vega to those of "our Will Shakespeare"
- notice the use of the familiar "Will" by a close neighbor of Shakespeare's
in both Aldermarston and in London....Leonard Digges was the step-son
(from 1603) of Thomas Russell, a man who was not only a neighbor of
Shakespeare's both in London and in Stratford, but whom Shakespeare
remembered in his will, and indeed appointed one of the two overseers of
his will."
In addition:
That Jonson was acquainted with Shakespeare
personally is indisputable: Shakespeare's name
appears on the list of players who acted in
"Every Man in His Humour", and Jonson's
extended comments upon Shakespeare in his
"Timber" (see below) are proof of that: he
says that Shakespeare was "(indeed) honest,
and of an open, and free nature:" and that
he "loved the man". Jonson, moreover, was
familiar with many of the nobility and gentleman
of his time due to his close associations with
the court of King James, and would certainly
have heard any rumours involving the Earl
of Oxenforde if there had been any related
to playwrighting.
Jonson's comments on his contemporaries were
typically a mix of praise and censure. Here
are some examples from "Conversations with
William Drummond":
"Samuel Daniel was a good honest man, had no
children: but no poet."
"That Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion (if he had
performed what he promised to write, the deeds
of all the worthies) had been excellent: his
long verses pleased him not."
"He esteemeth John Donne the first poet in the
world, in some things: his verses of the lost
chain he hath by heart; and that passage of
'The Calm', that dust and feathers do not stir,
all was so quiet. Affirmeth Donne to have written
all his best pieces ere he was twenty-five
years old."
And many more. His comment on Shakespeare in
these conversations is quite typical:
"Shakespeare, in a play, brought in a number of men
saying they had suffered shipwreck in Bohemia, where there
is no sea near by some 100 miles."
In "Timber: or Discoveries", Jonson again mixes
criticism with praise:
"De Shakespeare Nostrat
I remember, the players have often
mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that
in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never
blotted out line. My answer hath been, would
he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought
a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity
this, but for their ignorance, who choose that
circumstance to commend their friend by,
wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine
own candour (for I loved the man, and do honour
his memory - on this side idolatry - as
much as any). He was (indeed) honest, and of
an open, and free nature: had an excellent
fancy; brave notions, and gentle expressions:
wherein he flowed with that facility, that
sometime it was necessary he should be
stopped: sufflaminandus erat; as Augustus said
of Haterius. His wit was in his own power;
would the rule of it had been so too. Many
times he fell into those things, could not escape
laughter: as when he said in the person of
Caesar, one speaking to him; "Caesar, thou
dost me wrong'. He replied: 'Caesar did never
wrong, but with just cause': and such like;
which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his
vices, with his virtues. There was ever more in
him to be praised, than to be pardoned."
Jonson clearly doesn't feel that the portrait
in the Folio does Shakespeare any justice
as far as portraying his wit, as his little poem
shows:
"This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face ; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke."
And finally, Jonson's masterful eulogy
for Shakespeare, where he seems to be
quite convinced that the man who acted in
his plays was a better playwright than
Marlowe, and worthy of Euripides and
Sophocles. Notice that he calls Shakespeare
the "sweet swan of Avon", not the "tempestuous
tin-miner of tuxbury" or some such:
"TO THE MEMORY OF MY BELOVED THE AUTHOR,
MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, AND WHAT HE
HATH LEFT US.
To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy book and fame;
While I confess thy writings to be such
As neither man nor muse can praise too much;
'Tis true, and all men's suffrage. But these ways
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise;
For seeliest ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but echoes right;
Or blind affection, which doth ne'er advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance;
Or crafty malice might pretend this praise,
And think to ruin, where it seem'd to raise.
These are, as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron; what could hurt her more?
But thou art proof against them, and indeed,
Above th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
I therefore will begin. Soul of the age!
The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage!
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room:
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still while thy book doth live
And we have wits to read and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so, my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportion'd Muses,
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seek
For names; but call forth thund'ring Aeschylus,
Euripides and Sophocles to us;
Pacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life again, to hear thy buskin tread,
And shake a stage; or, when thy socks were on,
Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
Triumph, my Britain, thou hast one to show
To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age but for all time!
And all the Muses still were in their prime,
When, like Apollo, he came forth to warm
Our ears, or like a Mercury to charm!
Nature herself was proud of his designs
And joy'd to wear the dressing of his lines,
Which were so richly spun, and woven so fit,
As, since, she will vouchsafe no other wit.
The merry Greek, tart Aristophanes,
Neat Terence, witty Plautus, now not please,
But antiquated and deserted lie,
As they were not of Nature's family.
Yet must I not give Nature all: thy art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.
For though the poet's matter nature be,
His art doth give the fashion; and, that he
Who casts to write a living line, must sweat,
(Such as thine are) and strike the second heat
Upon the Muses' anvil; turn the same
(And himself with it) that he thinks to frame,
Or, for the laurel, he may gain a scorn;
For a good poet's made, as well as born;
And such wert thou. Look how the father's face
Lives in his issue, even so the race
Of Shakespeare's mind and manners brightly shines
In his well-turned, and true-filed lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,
As brandish'd at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames,
That so did take Eliza and our James!
But stay, I see thee in the hemisphere
Advanc'd, and made a constellation there!
Shine forth, thou star of poets, and with rage
Or influence, chide or cheer the drooping stage;
Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourn'd like night,
And despairs day, but for thy volume's light."
On the other hand, here is how the Earl of Oxenforde
sounded (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson):
Oxford to Burghley; [30 October 1584] (W247-8;F320-1,332).
(In hand of amanuensis)
It is not vnknowne to your Lordship that I haue entred into a
greate nomber of bondes to suche, as haue purchasyd landes
of me, to discharge them of all Incombraunces: And bycause
I stande indebtid vnto her Maiestie (as your Lordship knowythe)
many of ye said purchasers do greatly feare somme troble likely
to fall vppon them, by reason of her Maiestyes said debt, &
espesially if the Bondes of ye Lord Darcy and Sir William Walgraue
should be extendyd for the same, who haue two seuerall statutes
of great sommes for their discharge Wheruppon [diu] many of ye
said purchasers haue ben suters vnto me to procuer the discharginge
of her Maiestyes said Debt, and do seme very willinge to beare the
burden therof, yf by my meanes the same might be stalled paiable
at some convenyent dayes / I haue therfore thought good to
acquaynte your Lordship with this their suyte, requierynge moste
earnestly your Lordships furtheraunce in this behalfe, wherby I
shalbe vnburdened of a greate care, which I haue for the savynge
of my honor, And shall by this meanes also vnburden my wyves
Ioincture of yat charge which might happen herafter to be ymposyd
vppon ye same, yf god should call your Lordship and me away before her. /
(Oxford's hand takes over)
Yowre Lordships
(signed) Edward Oxenford (sec. f; 4+7)
Doesn't sound much like Shakespeare, does he? In fact he seems
to be the very business man that Oxfordians like to claim William
Shakespeare must have been, which I find to be...well, ironic. Are
there any letters in Shakespeare's hand showing him to be
as interested in money and tin mining as Oxenforde's letters show?
No. In fact, the only document in Shakespeare's hand is part of
a play, ("Sir Thomas More") in his style, typical of his concerns
and in every way consistent with what we know about William
Shakespeare's writing.
As for Shakespeare not having the proper background to be
the author, he was the son of a wealthy middle class homeowner,
like most great writers. For example, here are most of the records
related to John Shakespeare, William's father. Even at the end of
his life, his estate was valued at 500 pounds, an enormous sum
at a time when 40 pounds could purchase a house with land.
1556 - purchased an estate with garden and croft in
Greenhill street
1556 - purchased a house with garden in Henley street.
1556 - chosen as one of two "ale-tasters" (inspector of
bread and beer makers)
1558 - sworn in as constable
1559 - witnessing the minutes of the Leet as an afeeror,
and appointed one of the town's 14 burgesses.
~1560-62 Inherited his father's property and either gave
or sold it to his brother-in-law.
1565 - Elected alderman
1568 - Elected bailiff*
1571 - Elected chief alderman and deputy to the new bailiff
1572 - Along with the bailiff, rode to London together on
borough business, with permission from the aldermen
and burgesses to proceed 'according to their discretions'.
1572 - awarded 50 pounds by a court for money owed to him
1575 - Bought two houses with garden and orchard for 40 pounds
1578 - raised 40 pounds by mortgaging a house and 56 acres in
Wilmcote that he owned. (He was unable to pay the
mortgage on time and lost the land).
~1580 - Paid the bail of Michael Price (10 pounds)
~1580 - Forfeited a bond of 10 pounds on behalf of a debt
incurred by his brother Henry. Escaped jail because
a friend (Alderman Hill) paid his bail.
1582 - Petitioned for sureties of the peace against 4 men,
one of whom was the bailiff, for 'fear of death
and mutilation of his limbs'. This may or may not
have had something to do with his financial troubles.
Before 1590 - sold the house on Greenhill street.
1592 - Twice called on to assist in making inventories of
deceased neighbors.
1596 - The grant of his coat-of-arms notes that he has
"land and tenements of good wealth and substance"
worth 500 pounds.
1597 - sold small plot of land (one-half yard by 28 yards)
at the Henley street property for 50 shillings
(equal to about 100 days pay for an artisan).
At about the same time he also sold a 17 by 17
foot piece of land on Henley street.
1601 - Richard Quiney rode to London to plead the borough's
cause, listing on a document the names of John
Shakespeare and other town worthies to the effect
that he (Quiney) was able to speak on behalf of
the borough.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Jim KQKnave
> "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:120420040756142770%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > It's funny reading the lunatic theories about Shakespeare on this
> > group, but someone intuiting that you and I are the same person based
> > on both of us having apparent spam-blocker email addresses... well,
> > that's a higher lunacy indeed.
>
> It's not the first time antiStrats have had such problems. Elizabeth Weir
> thought David Webb was posting as Whitt Brantley.
>
Yogi Buchon = John Baker
Lynne
> In article <cc19a094.04041...@posting.google.com>,
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > yogib...@yahoo.com (Yogi Buchon) wrote in message
> > news:<9251b822.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > snip
> > >
> > > So, allow me to give high school students a peek at the chess expert
> > > who'll be coming to their class to defend a "Jesus Christ" theory
> > > about Shakespearean authorship.
> > >
> > > http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm
> > > http://ccn.correspondencechess.com/neil.htm
> > >
> > > Ah yes, gluttony! Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Since your
> > > paunch so huge is blown, like some woman pregnant grown, allow me to
> > > quote from an old morality play by the German poet and dramatist, Hans
> > > Sachs.
>
> > That is beyond disgusting.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> > Do you think it furthers your argument?
>
> What "argument"? Yogi initiated the thread by posting a list of
> conjectures; as far as I am aware, he/she has not supported those
> conjectures by *any* argument, let alone by any evidence.
I was being somewhat polite.
>
> > Do
> > you, in fact, know how to argue without resorting to ad hominem
> > attacks?
>
> Judging by what I've seen of the thread thus far, the qualifying
> phrase "without resorting..." seems superfluous; the question would have
> been just as meaningful without it.
I was being somewhat polite.
>
> > Writing garbage like this is a much greater sin than being
> > overweight, which actually, to my mind, is no sin at all.
>
> I agree. However, I was amused by a grocery store chain that I
> encountered in Canada called "Overwaitea" -- one wonders about the
> psychological acumen of whomever bestowed the name.
Where was that, David? The only place I ever saw that chain was in
British Columbia. I was both amused and stunned by the name. "Come
here and get fat," seems to be the message. I have enough problems and
so stayed away.
LynnE, in cold and rainy Portland, Oregon, with a moment to spare,
waiting to speak to a class of creative writers. More creative than
Yogi Buchon, anyhow.
lyra
> >From: Laila Roth
> >A theory about the Oxfordian possibility of William Stanley as the
> >English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
>
> >6. He never went into exile since he was clever enough never to
> >publish his real name in his literary output. Nevertheless, some
> >fragments remain published in his name including some musical scores.
> >"Shakespeare" was well versed in music. None of the other candidates
> >(like Oxford, Bacon, Shakespeare and Marlowe) were.
Some say Marlowe was a choirboy, or had a music scholarship.
But William Stanley could be the
W.S. in the Robert Southwell (Jesuit priest)
letter,
as I have shown there is a close family link
between the two.
Neil Brennen
"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:716b251.04041...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:<lNFec.5151$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:120420040756142770%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > > It's funny reading the lunatic theories about Shakespeare on this
> > > group, but someone intuiting that you and I are the same person based
> > > on both of us having apparent spam-blocker email addresses... well,
> > > that's a higher lunacy indeed.
> >
> > It's not the first time antiStrats have had such problems. Elizabeth
Weir
> > thought David Webb was posting as Whitt Brantley.
> >
>
> Yogi Buchon = John Baker
Are you sure? Peter Farey also likes to play dress-up, according to you.
David L. Webb
...which is commendable. However, pointing out that Yogi had not
furnished any argument is not impolite; it is merely a neutral statement
of fact.
> > > Do
> > > you, in fact, know how to argue without resorting to ad hominem
> > > attacks?
> > Judging by what I've seen of the thread thus far, the qualifying
> > phrase "without resorting..." seems superfluous; the question would have
> > been just as meaningful without it.
> I was being somewhat polite.
See above.
> > > Writing garbage like this is a much greater sin than being
> > > overweight, which actually, to my mind, is no sin at all.
> > I agree. However, I was amused by a grocery store chain that I
> > encountered in Canada called "Overwaitea" -- one wonders about the
> > psychological acumen of whomever bestowed the name.
> Where was that, David?
In rural British Columbia (my friend and I loaded up on supplies
there before undertaking weekend hiking and biking trips).
> The only place I ever saw that chain was in
> British Columbia. I was both amused and stunned by the name.
That was my reaction as well.
> "Come
> here and get fat," seems to be the message. I have enough problems and
> so stayed away.
>
> LynnE, in cold and rainy Portland, Oregon, with a moment to spare,
Did you bring binoculars along?
> waiting to speak to a class of creative writers. More creative than
> Yogi Buchon, anyhow.
Many anti-Stratfordians are at least creative; regrettably, this one
appears to belong to the Willedever school of creative writing.
Laila Roth
> lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote in message news:<fb346be4.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > A theory about the Oxfordian possibility of William Stanley as the
> > English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Here are some of the reasons that Shakespeare of Stratford
> is believed to have written the works under his name:
>
> Shakespeare's name on over forty title pages; his monument in
> Stratford, which quite clearly states that he is a writer, and compares
I see the parrot is at large again, or rather the king of
blatherskites. Who let him loose this time?
Lorenzo and Lyra, you are perfectly right, both Oxford, Marlowe and
also Bacon were certainly not alien to music, but Stanley seems to
have been the formost expert of the lot, since he actually published
music of his own. Judging from what historical documents we have of Mr
William Shagsbeard, he was the least musicall of the lot, while the
plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind. At one point, the poet
even denounces those who are not musical as inferior beings, to which
category William Shagsbeard (judging from his business arrangements)
must have belonged.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
>snip of rest of KQKnave's parrot talk<
Neil Brennen
"Lala Bosh" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fb346be4.04041...@posting.google.com...
> kqk...@yahoo.co.uk (Jim KQKnave) wrote in message
news:<716b251.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote in message
news:<fb346be4.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > A theory about the Oxfordian possibility of William Stanley as the
> > > English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > Here are some of the reasons that Shakespeare of Stratford
> > is believed to have written the works under his name:
> >
> > Shakespeare's name on over forty title pages; his monument in
> > Stratford, which quite clearly states that he is a writer, and compares
> > his art to Virgil: blablablablablablablablablabla.....
>
> I see the parrot is at large again, or rather the king of
> blatherskites. Who let him loose this time?
I see the Queen of Nonsense is posting again. Who let her escape her padded
cell?
> Lorenzo and Lyra, you are perfectly right, both Oxford, Marlowe and
> also Bacon were certainly not alien to music, but Stanley seems to
> have been the formost expert of the lot, since he actually published
> music of his own. Judging from what historical documents we have of Mr
> William Shagsbeard, he was the least musicall of the lot, while the
> plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
I need a laugh, Ms. Bosh. Please describe this "muscial mind". Last I
checked, there was nothing remarkably musical about the Shakespeare canon.
At one point, the poet
> even denounces those who are not musical as inferior beings, to which
> category William Shagsbeard (judging from his business arrangements)
> must have belonged.
No doubt you would dismiss Charles Ives as a composer because he was in the
insurance business.
> Lala Bosh, Derbyite
John W. Kennedy
> while the
> plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
Speaking as someone who's probably performed and written more music, in
more different styles, than you've ever even heard, balderdash!
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Chess One
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:I5Ufc.18241$rV4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Laila Roth wrote:
> > while the
> > plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
>
> Speaking as someone who's probably performed and written more music, in
> more different styles, than you've ever even heard, balderdash!
I wonder John, if your correspondent means that the plays are written
analogously to music; in that they are essentailly symphonic, have rhythm,
varieties of texture, pitch, crescendo and decrescendo, tone, development,
and so on.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> --
> John W. Kennedy
Chess One
> X-No-archive: yes
>
> In article <LxVfc.740$2v....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, Chess One
> it is soothed?
Not if she's my of tribe. Instead she's take your throat, Saxon :)
Laila Roth
> "Lala Bosh" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fb346be4.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > kqk...@yahoo.co.uk (Jim KQKnave) wrote in message
> news:<716b251.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > lail...@yahoo.co.uk (Laila Roth) wrote in message
> news:<fb346be4.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > A theory about the Oxfordian possibility of William Stanley as the
> > > > English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare:
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > Here are some of the reasons that Shakespeare of Stratford
> > > is believed to have written the works under his name:
> > >
> > > Shakespeare's name on over forty title pages; his monument in
> > > Stratford, which quite clearly states that he is a writer, and compares
> > > his art to Virgil: blablablablablablablablablabla.....
> >
> > I see the parrot is at large again, or rather the king of
> > blatherskites. Who let him loose this time?
>
> I see the Queen of Nonsense is posting again. Who let her escape her padded
> cell?
>
I have no experience of padded cells, but apparently you do.
> > Lorenzo and Lyra, you are perfectly right, both Oxford, Marlowe and
> > also Bacon were certainly not alien to music, but Stanley seems to
> > have been the formost expert of the lot, since he actually published
> > music of his own. Judging from what historical documents we have of Mr
> > William Shagsbeard, he was the least musicall of the lot, while the
> > plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
>
> I need a laugh, Ms. Bosh. Please describe this "muscial mind". Last I
> checked, there was nothing remarkably musical about the Shakespeare canon.
Just make a google search, and you will find 33,300 stories about the
importance of music in Shakespeare. His production is as unthinkable
without a musical mind as it is without its rythms.
>
> At one point, the poet
> > even denounces those who are not musical as inferior beings, to which
> > category William Shagsbeard (judging from his business arrangements)
> > must have belonged.
>
> No doubt you would dismiss Charles Ives as a composer because he was in the
> insurance business.
Certainly not, since he worked with music at all.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Neil Brennen
"Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fb346be4.04041...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:<4qOfc.8324$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > also Bacon were certainly not alien to music, but Stanley seems to
> > > have been the formost expert of the lot, since he actually published
> > > music of his own. Judging from what historical documents we have of Mr
> > > William Shagsbeard, he was the least musicall of the lot, while the
> > > plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
> >
> > I need a laugh, Ms. Bosh. Please describe this "muscial mind". Last I
> > checked, there was nothing remarkably musical about the Shakespeare
canon.
>
> Just make a google search, and you will find 33,300 stories about the
> importance of music in Shakespeare. His production is as unthinkable
> without a musical mind as it is without its rythms.
I knew someone would fill in for the Weir-bot and its inane Google searches.
You still haven't described, or attempted to define, a "musical mind".
John W. Kennedy
> Just make a google search, and you will find 33,300 stories about the
> importance of music in Shakespeare. His production is as unthinkable
> without a musical mind as it is without its rythms.
They've invented something new. It's called "reasoning". You might
want to try it.
>>No doubt you would dismiss Charles Ives as a composer because he was in the
>>insurance business.
> Certainly not, since he worked with music at all.
"Is this a statement that I see before me?"
-- Lewis Carroll: "A Tangled Tale"
Bob Grumman
says...
>
>Laila Roth wrote:
>> while the
>> plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
>
>Speaking as someone who's probably performed and written more music, in
>more different styles, than you've ever even heard, balderdash!
>
>--
>John W. Kennedy
Are you implying that Oxford did NOT write the works of J.S. Bach, John?
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c5uhg...@drn.newsguy.com...
And Telemann also.
But LaLa Bosh is talking about her beloved Derby, Bob, and not Oxenford.
Arindam Banerjee
> A theory about English dramatist and poet Christopher Marlowe:
Last night my family and I watched on ABC a program trying to show
that Shakespeare was Marlowe.
> 1. He converted to Catholicism in 1593
> after befriending Southampton.
Could be true. He wrote that all Protestants were hypocritical liars,
and that got him into trouble. He was also against all religions,
quite a modern thinker, so maybe his conversion was not that serious.
> 2. He faked his death in May 1593
> with Southampton and Walsingham's help.
Could be true. He spent the whole day plus 2 meals with 3 friends,
then tried to stab one of them by pulling out the friend's dagger,
while seated behind. The friend stabbed him in the eye, killing him,
and was pardoned by Elizabeth. All this is in the coroner's report,
and if we are to believe in literacy, etc. we should believe it. If
we don't then he could have run away.
> 3. He traveled through France and Italy
> from June to December 1593.
Or he could have been murdered outside the country by his "friends"
who did not want his arrested, tried, tortured and killed for his
heretical beliefs. He was a bit too popular. The British inquisition
was hard upon his heels, and his time was up.
> 4. He lived in exile on the island of Malta
> from December 1593 to June 1611.
> 5. He worked as a merchant under the alias
> "William Watts" while on Malta.
> 6. He wrote all of the literary work attributed to
> William Shakespeare.
One wise man said that Marlowe at 29 yrs was heaps better than
Shakespeare was at 29 yrs. If Marlowe was Shakespeare, Shakespeare
would be heaps better, with passing time.
Neil Brennen
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:890e65ea.0404...@posting.google.com...
> yogib...@yahoo.com (Yogi Buchon) wrote in message
news:<9251b822.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > A theory about English dramatist and poet Christopher Marlowe:
>
> Last night my family and I watched on ABC a program trying to show
> that Shakespeare was Marlowe.
Was it as amusing as Yogi's post?
> > 1. He converted to Catholicism in 1593
> > after befriending Southampton.
>
> Could be true. He wrote that all Protestants were hypocritical liars,
> and that got him into trouble. He was also against all religions,
> quite a modern thinker, so maybe his conversion was not that serious.
I don't see how denying God makes one a "modern thinker".
> > 2. He faked his death in May 1593
> > with Southampton and Walsingham's help.
>
> Could be true. He spent the whole day plus 2 meals with 3 friends,
> then tried to stab one of them by pulling out the friend's dagger,
> while seated behind. The friend stabbed him in the eye, killing him,
> and was pardoned by Elizabeth. All this is in the coroner's report,
> and if we are to believe in literacy, etc. we should believe it. If
> we don't then he could have run away.
>
> > 3. He traveled through France and Italy
> > from June to December 1593.
>
> Or he could have been murdered outside the country by his "friends"
> who did not want his arrested, tried, tortured and killed for his
> heretical beliefs. He was a bit too popular. The British inquisition
> was hard upon his heels, and his time was up.
Or he could have died at Deptford.
> > 4. He lived in exile on the island of Malta
> > from December 1593 to June 1611.
> > 5. He worked as a merchant under the alias
> > "William Watts" while on Malta.
> > 6. He wrote all of the literary work attributed to
> > William Shakespeare.
>
> One wise man said that Marlowe at 29 yrs was heaps better than
> Shakespeare was at 29 yrs. If Marlowe was Shakespeare, Shakespeare
> would be heaps better, with passing time.
Was a complete change of writing style part of the disguise?
Laila Roth
> I knew someone would fill in for the Weir-bot and its inane Google searches.
> You still haven't described, or attempted to define, a "musical mind".
I won't for some obvious reasons.
I won't describe or define what's all too obvious to me, which to
certain others apparently never can become obvious no matter how
meticulously you describe or define it. For instance, you can't teach
music to unmusical minds, just as you can't make colourblind people
comprehend the nature of colours. To most posters here on HLAS it's
all too obvious that Shakspere did not write Shakespeare, which to
those who are dumb enough to remain stratfordians it apparently is
impossible to ever make them comprehend.
LR
Barry Pocket
> One wise man said that Marlowe at 29 yrs was heaps better than
> Shakespeare was at 29 yrs. If Marlowe was Shakespeare, Shakespeare
> would be heaps better, with passing time.
>
Let me be the second wise man to say the same thing about Marlowe in
1592. Unfortunately, Marlowe had one of the worst qualifications for
being Shakespeare. He had no sense of humour. Couldn't do comedy.
Barry
Arindam Banerjee
Doing comedy successfully is very difficult. However, what comes
across as comedy owes a lot to the quality of the acting and of course
the direction. Mere reading is not sufficient.
Shakespeare's comedy is not as great as his tragedy, and given the
clumsy quality of his lines, I don't that much can be done. Often,
the laughter is forced, unless the acting is really great.
> Barry
Arindam Banerjee
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:890e65ea.0404...@posting.google.com...
> > yogib...@yahoo.com (Yogi Buchon) wrote in message
> news:<9251b822.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > A theory about English dramatist and poet Christopher Marlowe:
> >
> > Last night my family and I watched on ABC a program trying to show
> > that Shakespeare was Marlowe.
>
> Was it as amusing as Yogi's post?
It was not amusing. But we were all totally unconvinced about Marlowe
being Shakespeare.
> > > 1. He converted to Catholicism in 1593
> > > after befriending Southampton.
> >
> > Could be true. He wrote that all Protestants were hypocritical liars,
> > and that got him into trouble. He was also against all religions,
> > quite a modern thinker, so maybe his conversion was not that serious.
>
> I don't see how denying God makes one a "modern thinker".
Atheism manifesting as conscienceless secular hedonism is the temper
of our times. It wasn't so to this extent 400 years ago.
> > > 2. He faked his death in May 1593
> > > with Southampton and Walsingham's help.
> >
> > Could be true. He spent the whole day plus 2 meals with 3 friends,
> > then tried to stab one of them by pulling out the friend's dagger,
> > while seated behind. The friend stabbed him in the eye, killing him,
> > and was pardoned by Elizabeth. All this is in the coroner's report,
> > and if we are to believe in literacy, etc. we should believe it. If
> > we don't then he could have run away.
> >
> > > 3. He traveled through France and Italy
> > > from June to December 1593.
> >
> > Or he could have been murdered outside the country by his "friends"
> > who did not want his arrested, tried, tortured and killed for his
> > heretical beliefs. He was a bit too popular. The British inquisition
> > was hard upon his heels, and his time was up.
>
> Or he could have died at Deptford.
Or wherever.
> > > 4. He lived in exile on the island of Malta
> > > from December 1593 to June 1611.
> > > 5. He worked as a merchant under the alias
> > > "William Watts" while on Malta.
> > > 6. He wrote all of the literary work attributed to
> > > William Shakespeare.
> >
> > One wise man said that Marlowe at 29 yrs was heaps better than
> > Shakespeare was at 29 yrs. If Marlowe was Shakespeare, Shakespeare
> > would be heaps better, with passing time.
>
> Was a complete change of writing style part of the disguise?
They were trying to point out the similarities. Mainly, they stressed
upon the Italian settings of such plays as Romeo and Juliet, etc.
Marlowe was getting first-hand information about the background.
Also, Shakespeare could hardly write, and his daughters were
illiterate. Shakespeare did not have the learning necessary for the
writing of his plays, no classical eduction that Marlowe had.
But, they failed to get any manuscripts in Marlowe's hand, even after
they dug up Marlowe's patron, Walsingham's tomb. So they did not get
any proof at all, only the stinking liquid remains, after such effort.
John W. Kennedy
Translation: "I cannot produce a rational argument, so I'm going to
stamp my foot and say, 'Neener neener neener'. It's the best substitute
for a rational argument - and like most substitutes, nothing at all like
the real thing."
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
John W. Kennedy
> In article <I5Ufc.18241$rV4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, John W. Kennedy
> says...
>>Laila Roth wrote:
>>>while the
>>>plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
>>Speaking as someone who's probably performed and written more music, in
>>more different styles, than you've ever even heard, balderdash!
> Are you implying that Oxford did NOT write the works of J.S. Bach, John?
Professor Peter Schikele (Department of Musical Pathology, University of
Southern North Dakota at Hoople) reports a theory that Christopher
Marlowe wrote the works of P.D.Q. Bach.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
Laila Roth
> Laila Roth wrote:
>
> >>I knew someone would fill in for the Weir-bot and its inane Google searches.
> >>You still haven't described, or attempted to define, a "musical mind".
> >
> >
> > I won't for some obvious reasons.
> > I won't describe or define what's all too obvious to me, which to
> > certain others apparently never can become obvious no matter how
> > meticulously you describe or define it. For instance, you can't teach
> > music to unmusical minds, just as you can't make colourblind people
> > comprehend the nature of colours. To most posters here on HLAS it's
> > all too obvious that Shakspere did not write Shakespeare, which to
> > those who are dumb enough to remain stratfordians it apparently is
> > impossible to ever make them comprehend.
>
> Translation: "I cannot produce a rational argument, so I'm going to
> stamp my foot and say, 'Neener neener neener'. It's the best substitute
> for a rational argument - and like most substitutes, nothing at all like
> the real thing."
No, it's no translation. It's an alteration. There is no need to
translate from English into English unless you need to adapt the text
to your own limited faculties.
LR
Neil Brennen
LaLa Bosh is a strong contender for the title of Most Brainless AntiStrat.
Chess One
> > No, it's no translation. It's an alteration. There is no need to
> > translate from English into English unless you need to adapt the text
> > to your own limited faculties.
> >
> > LR
>
> LaLa Bosh is a strong contender for the title of Most Brainless AntiStrat.
Dilating LaLa's point above, the latter comments are thereby qualified.
Cordially, Phil
Lynne
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > In article <I5Ufc.18241$rV4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, John W. Kennedy
> > says...
> >>Laila Roth wrote:
> >>>while the
> >>>plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
>
> >>Speaking as someone who's probably performed and written more music, in
> >>more different styles, than you've ever even heard, balderdash!
>
> > Are you implying that Oxford did NOT write the works of J.S. Bach, John?
>
> Professor Peter Schikele (Department of Musical Pathology, University of
> Southern North Dakota at Hoople) reports a theory that Christopher
> Marlowe wrote the works of P.D.Q. Bach.
No doubt the Earl of Oxford also had a theory: that Shakespeare of
Stratford wrote the canon. You're in good company, John.
Best wishes,
LynnE
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
Plato's ideal poet could do both tragedy and comedy - see the closing
pages of the Symposium. Of course, this may just be Plato
congratulating himself on having written successful parts for both
Agathon and Aristophanes - if it is more than that, then it is that as
well.
But very few poets have done it. The Greeks wrote satyr plays which
seem to have been much like comedy without having the title. How many
others? Not Corneille, Racine,Moliere. Congreve?
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
John W. Kennedy
I wasn't translating from English to English, but from doubletalk to
English.
I am a musician. I have composed music, play over a dozen instruments
(none of them, I admit, very well, but well enough on many of them to
fill in in an emergency), and have performed in opera and operetta in
New York City as a low-level professional (including, on one occasion,
being the backstage conductor for a performance at Lincoln Center).
I've also played electric bass and saxophone in rock bands, performed in
musicals (most recently, four performances of "Godspell", last weekend),
and arranged all sorts of music for the Orpheus Club of Newark
(http://www.orpheusnewark.org). I also beta test for a well known
music-software maker.
You, on the other hand, have yet to show any musical credentials at all.
And I tell you that your claim that Shakespeare's plays display a
"musical mind" is poppycock, poppycock that you aren't even willing to
defend, yourself.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
John W. Kennedy
> But very few poets have done it. The Greeks wrote satyr plays which
> seem to have been much like comedy without having the title. How many
> others? Not Corneille, Racine,Moliere. Congreve?
Actually, it was pretty much the norm from the Renaissance until well
into the 20th century.
Shakespeare is unusual in that his whole damn output, aside from
"Cardenio", "Edward III", and the Thomas More play, continues to be in
active repertory (and "Edward III" seems to be moving there).
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Neil Brennen
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:w_8hc.11402$eK3....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Don't worry Philsy, there's a special award for Most Brainless Fencesitter
with your name on it.
Laila Roth
> Laila Roth wrote:
>
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<srZgc.66365$_g4.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >>Translation: "I cannot produce a rational argument, so I'm going to
> >>stamp my foot and say, 'Neener neener neener'. It's the best substitute
> >>for a rational argument - and like most substitutes, nothing at all like
> >>the real thing."
>
> > No, it's no translation. It's an alteration. There is no need to
> > translate from English into English unless you need to adapt the text
> > to your own limited faculties.
>
> I wasn't translating from English to English, but from doubletalk to
> English.
>
> I am a musician. I have composed music, play over a dozen instruments
> (none of them, I admit, very well, but well enough on many of them to
> fill in in an emergency), and have performed in opera and operetta in
> New York City as a low-level professional (including, on one occasion,
> being the backstage conductor for a performance at Lincoln Center).
> I've also played electric bass and saxophone in rock bands, performed in
> musicals (most recently, four performances of "Godspell", last weekend),
> and arranged all sorts of music for the Orpheus Club of Newark
> (http://www.orpheusnewark.org). I also beta test for a well known
> music-software maker.
>
> You, on the other hand, have yet to show any musical credentials at all.
>
> And I tell you that your claim that Shakespeare's plays display a
> "musical mind" is poppycock, poppycock that you aren't even willing to
> defend, yourself.
In case you didn't know, there are songs in Shakespeare, from the
first play to the last. Many of his poems contain elements more
musical than literary, which points to the fact that their music was
(partly at least) more important than their words. The sweet music of
his sonnets (the rhythms combined with their rhymes) is undeniable.
All this is self-evident, and I can't see why it would not be
self-evident to you, since apparently you are such an eminent
musician. Unlike you, I have no desire to expose or boast my musical
accomplishments but at least here prefer to simply recognize music
when I hear or see it.
LR
Laila Roth
> Laila Roth wrote:
>
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<srZgc.66365$_g4.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >>Translation: "I cannot produce a rational argument, so I'm going to
> >>stamp my foot and say, 'Neener neener neener'. It's the best substitute
> >>for a rational argument - and like most substitutes, nothing at all like
> >>the real thing."
>
> > No, it's no translation. It's an alteration. There is no need to
> > translate from English into English unless you need to adapt the text
> > to your own limited faculties.
>
> I wasn't translating from English to English, but from doubletalk to
> English.
>
> I am a musician. I have composed music, play over a dozen instruments
> (none of them, I admit, very well, but well enough on many of them to
> fill in in an emergency), and have performed in opera and operetta in
> New York City as a low-level professional (including, on one occasion,
> being the backstage conductor for a performance at Lincoln Center).
> I've also played electric bass and saxophone in rock bands, performed in
> musicals (most recently, four performances of "Godspell", last weekend),
> and arranged all sorts of music for the Orpheus Club of Newark
> (http://www.orpheusnewark.org). I also beta test for a well known
> music-software maker.
>
> You, on the other hand, have yet to show any musical credentials at all.
>
> And I tell you that your claim that Shakespeare's plays display a
> "musical mind" is poppycock, poppycock that you aren't even willing to
> defend, yourself.
Neil Brennen
In case you didn't know, Shakespeare was a poet. Writing lyrics is something
some poets do.
Many of his poems contain elements more
> musical than literary, which points to the fact that their music was
> (partly at least) more important than their words.
This claim makes even less sense than your previous ones. Please cite
examples, and pray make them improbable.
The sweet music of
> his sonnets (the rhythms combined with their rhymes) is undeniable.
Many people deny it. Mr. Grumman, who knows more about poetry than most of
us, for example.
> All this is self-evident, and I can't see why it would not be
> self-evident to you, since apparently you are such an eminent
> musician.
Not a claim Mr. Kennedy made. He explained he is a working musician with a
wide variety of experience, but never claimed to be 'eminent'. Why is it
AntiStrats cannot imagine an in-between, but must always choose an extreme?
>Unlike you, I have no desire to expose ....
Thought so. Best to hide what you don't have.
or boast my musical
> accomplishments but at least here prefer to simply recognize music
> when I hear or see it.
So, when you read Two Gentlemen of Verona, and come across "Who is Sylvia",
whose music do you hear? Schubert's? How about "Hark hark the lark", "Fear
no more the heat of the sun", or the end of A Midsummer's Night's Dream? Do
you hear Schubert, Sondheim, and Mendelssohn? Wouldn't a sane person think
it was the composers who had a "musical mind", and not the poet? Think about
it when you are between Victoria Cartland novels...
Chess One
> > > You, on the other hand, have yet to show any musical credentials at
all.
> > >
> > > And I tell you that your claim that Shakespeare's plays display a
> > > "musical mind" is poppycock, poppycock that you aren't even willing to
> > > defend, yourself.
This is a most common non-sequitor in logical process. Whether its true or
not has nothing to do with if anyone has 'proved it' true or can. This is an
axiom. This should be evident from the folowing:-
In this case the writer is being asked to 'defend' a statement, but couched
in terms which require not only presentation of information but which is
confounded with 'credentials,' and a secondary and more serious illusion of
worth is that the suggestion is that this would suffice of itself, rather
than a dependancy on the interlocuter to absorb that information.
> > In case you didn't know, there are songs in Shakespeare, from the
> > first play to the last.
>
> In case you didn't know, Shakespeare was a poet. Writing lyrics is
something
> some poets do.
What is particularly poetical is of a particular type of English
alliterative lyricism which depends on sound. Of course the plays are
intended for hearing, rather than reading [they are not novels], and this is
also evident in the Sonnets. The lyricism is therefore of a type similar to
music, no?
> Many of his poems contain elements more
> > musical than literary, which points to the fact that their music was
> > (partly at least) more important than their words.
>
> This claim makes even less sense than your previous ones. Please cite
> examples, and pray make them improbable.
>
> The sweet music of
> > his sonnets (the rhythms combined with their rhymes) is undeniable.
>
> Many people deny it. Mr. Grumman, who knows more about poetry than most of
> us, for example.
Perhaps Mr. Grumman knows more than Mr. Hughes? I don't know, except that
they are not in agreement with each other.
It sometimes amuses me to read such stuff whichever way any conclusion lies.
What is the basis of Elizabethan speech? A corpus of Middle-English,
coloured by late French and Italian, Latin tags, surviving Anglo Saxon, &c,
however, many people do not even recognise this as the fact of the time,
have not read Middle English works [maybe other than untypical Chaucer] nor
credit the natural reading material of the time that was not Latin as source
material, either linguistically or as mytholog.
> > All this is self-evident, and I can't see why it would not be
> > self-evident to you, since apparently you are such an eminent
> > musician.
>
> Not a claim Mr. Kennedy made. He explained he is a working musician with a
> wide variety of experience, but never claimed to be 'eminent'. Why is it
> AntiStrats cannot imagine an in-between, but must always choose an
extreme?
I depart this missive at this point, since we have encountered a certain
tendency to deplore a new and apparently threatening idea by a corresponding
level of personalising the issue and of 'camps'.
Cordially, Phil Innes
The Hippocampus,
Vermont
John W. Kennedy
> This is a most common non-sequitor in logical process. Whether its true or
> not has nothing to do with if anyone has 'proved it' true or can. This is an
> axiom. This should be evident from the folowing:-
Laila is the one making an affirmative statement; she, consequently,
bears the burden of proof.
> In this case the writer is being asked to 'defend' a statement, but couched
> in terms which require not only presentation of information but which is
> confounded with 'credentials,' and a secondary and more serious illusion of
> worth is that the suggestion is that this would suffice of itself, rather
> than a dependancy on the interlocuter to absorb that information.
It was Laila who took up the line that she just /knows/ that Shakespeare
had a 'musical mind', and doesn't need to explain it. As I expected,
she has gone on since then to prove that she has no right to an opinion.
> What is particularly poetical is of a particular type of English
> alliterative lyricism which depends on sound. Of course the plays are
> intended for hearing, rather than reading [they are not novels], and this is
> also evident in the Sonnets. The lyricism is therefore of a type similar to
> music, no?
No. Musical and lyrical abilities are quite distinct. For every
Wagner, Boito, Berlin, or Porter, there are a dozen da Pontes and
Mozarts, Piaves and Verdis, Gershwin brothers, and Hammersteins and
Rodgers. (Indeed, even possession of both is no guarantee that one can
do both at once. I can write decent poetry and decent music, but have
never succeeded in combining the two, apart from a handful of tossed-off
Renaissance-Faire ditties.)
> It sometimes amuses me to read such stuff whichever way any conclusion lies.
> What is the basis of Elizabethan speech? A corpus of Middle-English,
> coloured by late French and Italian, Latin tags, surviving Anglo Saxon, &c,
> however, many people do not even recognise this as the fact of the time,
> have not read Middle English works [maybe other than untypical Chaucer] nor
> credit the natural reading material of the time that was not Latin as source
> material, either linguistically or as mytholog.
"Is this a statement that I see before me?"
-- Lewis Carroll, "A Tangled Tale"
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
> > This is a most common non-sequitor in logical process. Whether its true
or
> > not has nothing to do with if anyone has 'proved it' true or can. This
is an
> > axiom. This should be evident from the folowing:-
>
> Laila is the one making an affirmative statement; she, consequently,
> bears the burden of proof.
Agreed John. Except she hasn't quite couched it in terms of requiring
'proof,' but advanced her sense of something she perceives or intuits in the
Work.
More formal - and rara avis for any 'side' of anything in this newsgroup -
are 'proofs.'
The point of logic that I make rests outside of any proof, however.
Planets have ellibtical orbits, no? They did not begin to have them
following Kepler's intuition of that state, nor even after he spent 17 years
writing a not very good proof. Nolens volens, his intuition was correct,
even though he could not very well prove it so. The /fact/ of elliptical
orbits does not depend on someone writing nor requiring a proof, and what to
conclude philosophically but that things not proven may still be other than
our received view, and will continue to be as they are independently of our
appreciation of them?
> > In this case the writer is being asked to 'defend' a statement, but
couched
> > in terms which require not only presentation of information but which is
> > confounded with 'credentials,' and a secondary and more serious illusion
of
> > worth is that the suggestion is that this would suffice of itself,
rather
> > than a dependancy on the interlocuter to absorb that information.
>
> It was Laila who took up the line that she just /knows/ that Shakespeare
> had a 'musical mind', and doesn't need to explain it.
As a statement containing two phrases, the first imposes no moral or logical
imperative upon the second. It may not make for very engaging conversation,
but the second phrase in this instance has more to do with her own
motivation and interest in debating the issue, and is no dependent clause
upon the first.
> As I expected,
> she has gone on since then to prove that she has no right to an opinion.
? I thought it was both in the American and British constitutions that one
always has a right to an opinion. Of course, the opinion may not be correct,
and without a fair amount of civil discourse it may not be possible to
establish any /objective/ basis for it. Neverthless, choosing to share it or
not neither lessens nor elevates an opinion.
> > What is particularly poetical is of a particular type of English
> > alliterative lyricism which depends on sound. Of course the plays are
> > intended for hearing, rather than reading [they are not novels], and
this is
> > also evident in the Sonnets. The lyricism is therefore of a type similar
to
> > music, no?
>
> No. Musical and lyrical abilities are quite distinct. For every
> Wagner, Boito, Berlin, or Porter, there are a dozen da Pontes and
> Mozarts, Piaves and Verdis, Gershwin brothers, and Hammersteins and
> Rodgers. (Indeed, even possession of both is no guarantee that one can
> do both at once. I can write decent poetry and decent music, but have
> never succeeded in combining the two, apart from a handful of tossed-off
> Renaissance-Faire ditties.)
Perhaps we cavil over terms? I only took Laila's original comment to mean
nothing much more than there were elements in the Work that were similar to
elements in music. This is by no means a novel comment! At the basest level
of comparison they are both sound-based, which is what I tried to write
above, in contradistinction to comparing the Work with the Novel, eg.
> > It sometimes amuses me to read such stuff whichever way any conclusion
lies.
> > What is the basis of Elizabethan speech? A corpus of Middle-English,
> > coloured by late French and Italian, Latin tags, surviving Anglo Saxon,
&c,
> > however, many people do not even recognise this as the fact of the time,
> > have not read Middle English works [maybe other than untypical Chaucer]
nor
> > credit the natural reading material of the time that was not Latin as
source
> > material, either linguistically or as mytholog.
>
> "Is this a statement that I see before me?"
> -- Lewis Carroll, "A Tangled Tale"
Hardly more than Snark-scat.
Cordially, Phil
The guards indeed more defenceless
More terribly naked needing
The music more
/TH
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:aOvhc.81419$_g4.17...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>Chess One wrote:
> Agreed John. Except she hasn't quite couched it in terms of requiring
> 'proof,' but advanced her sense of something she perceives or intuits in the
> Work.
In which case she needs to demonstrate that she is qualified to have an
opinion. She doesn't.
> Planets have ellibtical orbits, no? They did not begin to have them
> following Kepler's intuition of that state, nor even after he spent 17 years
> writing a not very good proof. Nolens volens, his intuition was correct,
> even though he could not very well prove it so. The /fact/ of elliptical
> orbits does not depend on someone writing nor requiring a proof, and what to
> conclude philosophically but that things not proven may still be other than
> our received view, and will continue to be as they are independently of our
> appreciation of them?
Kepler's hypothesis of elliptical orbits preserved the appearances --
i.e., it was based on data, viz., about thousands of years of planetary
observations.
> Perhaps we cavil over terms? I only took Laila's original comment to mean
> nothing much more than there were elements in the Work that were similar to
> elements in music.
No, she was using it as "evidence" for her demented theories about the
so-called "authorship question".
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:aOvhc.81419$_g4.17...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >>Chess One wrote:
> > Agreed John. Except she hasn't quite couched it in terms of requiring
> > 'proof,' but advanced her sense of something she perceives or intuits in
the
> > Work.
>
> In which case she needs to demonstrate that she is qualified to have an
> opinion. She doesn't.
I'm sorry John, I do not hail from the old Soviet Union, neither am I fond
of requiring of anyone that they justify an intuition.
Why on Earth this huge anxiety about unexplained opinion? Does anything,
anthing at all, depend on it?
> > Perhaps we cavil over terms? I only took Laila's original comment to
mean
> > nothing much more than there were elements in the Work that were similar
to
> > elements in music.
>
> No, she was using it as "evidence" for her demented theories about the
> so-called "authorship question".
Is that word "evidence" in inverted commas, her's or yours? Could it be as
well, "supposition."
Kepler had no proof /before/ his intuition, right? That came 17 years later.
Neverthless, he was not wrong for the lack of any proof. Should he have
stayed silent in case the good Burghers, sausage-makers and varieties of
reactionary of the town, took offence?
You yourself invoke dementia. Are you qualified in any way to argue that
clinical distinction to a proof, based on nothing other than half a dozen
newsnet representations, representing as it does points of view to which you
hold antithetical views? Is your opinion of demented theories also an
unqualified supposition? Or just some lose talk on usenet?
Which I think it is, and could be extended to others who want to speak-easy.
Maybe they would voluntarily say more if the atmosphere was more congenial
rather than judgemental?
Cordially, Phil
John W. Kennedy
> You yourself invoke dementia. Are you qualified in any way to argue that
> clinical distinction to a proof, based on nothing other than half a dozen
> newsnet representations, representing as it does points of view to which you
> hold antithetical views?
No, to which I and the rest of the world possess antithetical /knowledge/.
Attack Reason as you will, she still stands. Laila is a lunatic, and so
are you.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
Chess One
> Chess One wrote:
> > You yourself invoke dementia. Are you qualified in any way to argue that
> > clinical distinction to a proof, based on nothing other than half a
dozen
> > newsnet representations, representing as it does points of view to which
you
> > hold antithetical views?
>
> No, to which I and the rest of the world possess antithetical /knowledge/.
You are a coward Kennedy. You duck the point entirely.
You demand proofs from others, yet you employ terms you do not even
understand as abusive rhetoric, and pass over why you are so evidently
panicked by such a little thing as the suggestion that the author has a
musical mind.
> Attack Reason as you will, she still stands. Laila is a lunatic, and so
> are you.
Attack reason? All I have attempted is to reason. You are ranting man. You
demand what you call reason from someone else, and ignore the same basis in
your own writing - you can't even answer anything I wrote in my last post
and snip the challenge to reason because you are trapped in your hypocracy.
Gosh for a bunch apparent literats your team here resorts so quickly to the
top three items of internet abuse, and the first is always of [other's]
mental or psychological health.
If you cannot hold a civil conversation, nor attain any pliability in your
thought, or benevolence in your heart, nor cannot restrain yourself from a
little fascisme on what other's should or should not do...
Why on Earth do you study Shakespeare? Perhaps you just know a lot and
understanding just a little?
Heuch! Phil Innes
Robert Stonehouse
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>> But very few poets have done it. The Greeks wrote satyr plays which
>> seem to have been much like comedy without having the title. How many
>> others? Not Corneille, Racine,Moliere. Congreve?
>
>Actually, it was pretty much the norm from the Renaissance until well
>into the 20th century.
Come on then, let's have some names! Not Wycherley, Farquhar,
Etherege, Vanbrugh etc., not Otway, not Sheridan. Dryden perhaps, with
All for Love: not sure about the status of Aurengzebe and the rest.
(But also Cleomenes etc.).Not Pinero (I think), Wilde, or Maugham. In
the twentieth century the genres tend to disintegrate: Shaw wrote
comedies - is anything of his really tragic?
>
>Shakespeare is unusual in that his whole damn output, aside from
>"Cardenio", "Edward III", and the Thomas More play, continues to be in
>active repertory (and "Edward III" seems to be moving there).
--
John W. Kennedy
> You are a coward Kennedy.
No, I am merely rational, whereas you are hard-pressed to write coherent
prose for more than a dozen words at a time.
> You duck the point entirely.
That's a lie.
> You demand proofs from others,
Indeed I do.
> yet you employ terms you do not even
> understand as abusive rhetoric,
That's a lie.
> and pass over why you are so evidently
> panicked by such a little thing as the suggestion that the author has a
> musical mind.
And that's another lie, one of the standard lies employed by the insane
to attack the sane.
I am not "panicked" at all. I am simply disgusted by nonsense and lies
presented as fact. I realize that to psychotics such as yourself, who
have difficulty with the entire concept of truth, that is hard to grasp,
but as long as you continue to live in denial about your illness,
there's nothing I can do about that.
> Attack reason? All I have attempted is to reason.
And that is the biggest lie of all. You obfuscate, dodge, befog, throw
insults, but you do not reason.
*PLONK*
--
John W. Kennedy
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:42:25 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>>
>>>But very few poets have done it. The Greeks wrote satyr plays which
>>>seem to have been much like comedy without having the title. How many
>>>others? Not Corneille, Racine,Moliere. Congreve?
>>
>>Actually, it was pretty much the norm from the Renaissance until well
>>into the 20th century.
>
>
> Come on then, let's have some names!
From Behn ("Abdelazar") to Sardou ("Divorçons") to Wilde ("Salome") to
Eugene O'Neill ("Ah, Wilderness!"), it was quite ordinary for
playwrights to do both. Shakespeare is unusual, perhaps, in having
enjoyed many lasting successes both ways.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
Laila Roth
pissed off by the fact that I am no Stratfordian, so I am simply
outlawed, which in their opinion allows them to pour any shit on LaLa
Bosh, whoever she is. Maybe they got my name wrong somehow or just
cannot spell. It's amazing how all the nice people here tend to be of
the anti-stratfordian side, while you find all the gloomy tyrants in
Stratford, who also in impeccable continuity display a constant
absence of any sense of humour. All we can do is to pity them and
laugh at them.
Mlle LR.
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<nMAhc.12300$eK3...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
Laila Roth
> Many of his poems contain elements more
> > musical than literary, which points to the fact that their music was
> > (partly at least) more important than their words.
>
> This claim makes even less sense than your previous ones. Please cite
> examples, and pray make them improbable.
>
A few samples:
"Weaving spiders, come not here:
Hence, you long-legged spinners, hence!
Beetles black, approach not near;
Worm, nor snail, do no offence.
Philomel, with melody,
sing in our sweet lullaby:
lulla, lulla, lullaby; lulla, lulla, lullaby."
"When icicles hang by the wall
and Dick the shepherd blows his nail,
and Tom bears logs into the hall,
and milk comes frozen home in pail;
When blood is nipt, and ways be foul,
then nightly sings the staring owl
Tu-whoo!
To-whit, Tu-whoo! A merry note!
While greasy Joan doth keel the pot."
"It was a lover and his lass
with a hey, and a ho, and a hey nonino,
that o'er the green corn field did pass
in the spring-time, the only pretty ring-time,
when birds do sing, hey ding a ding, ding;
sweet lovers love the spring."
There are lots of other poems with related stuff like 'hey nonny,
nonny," "ring-a-ding ding", "fa-la-la-la-lalla" or "Heigh-ho! the
holly! This life is most jolly!" and so forth. Just don't tell me they
are serious poetry who have nothing to do with music.
> The sweet music of
> > his sonnets (the rhythms combined with their rhymes) is undeniable.
>
> Many people deny it. Mr. Grumman, who knows more about poetry than most of
> us, for example.
What a comparison! If he is THE expert, what does that make of the lot
of you?
>
> > All this is self-evident, and I can't see why it would not be
> > self-evident to you, since apparently you are such an eminent
> > musician.
>
> Not a claim Mr. Kennedy made. He explained he is a working musician with a
> wide variety of experience, but never claimed to be 'eminent'. Why is it
> AntiStrats cannot imagine an in-between, but must always choose an extreme?
>
> >Unlike you, I have no desire to expose ....
>
> Thought so. Best to hide what you don't have.
And what exactly do you know about what I might be hiding?
>
> or boast my musical
> > accomplishments but at least here prefer to simply recognize music
> > when I hear or see it.
>
> So, when you read Two Gentlemen of Verona, and come across "Who is Sylvia",
> whose music do you hear? Schubert's? How about "Hark hark the lark", "Fear
> no more the heat of the sun", or the end of A Midsummer's Night's Dream? Do
> you hear Schubert, Sondheim, and Mendelssohn? Wouldn't a sane person think
> it was the composers who had a "musical mind", and not the poet? Think about
> it when you are between Victoria Cartland novels...
Nothing of the sort. It's self evident that most of Shakespeare's
songs had music, which unfortunately is lost today. So even I can't
hear it. But I can recognize its being there.
I never read Victoria Cartland. Pray no prejudice. Or is that too much
to ask of a Stratfordian?
LR
Chess One
> pissed off by the fact that I am no Stratfordian, so I am simply
> outlawed, which in their opinion allows them to pour any shit on LaLa
> Bosh, whoever she is. Maybe they got my name wrong somehow or just
> cannot spell. It's amazing how all the nice people here tend to be of
> the anti-stratfordian side, while you find all the gloomy tyrants in
> Stratford,
Dust on my head
Helpless to fit the pieces of water
A needle of many Norths
Ark of blood
Which is the magic baggage old men open
And find useless, at the great moment of need
Error on error
Perfumed
With a ribbon of fury
> who also in impeccable continuity display a constant
> absence of any sense of humour. All we can do is to pity them and
> laugh at them.
...And take upon's the mystery of things
As if we were God's spies; and we'll wear out
In a walled prison, packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by th' moon.
j'y suis, j'y reste
Phil
> Mlle LR.
Lynne
> Don't get sore with the poor Stratford boys, Phil. They are just
> pissed off by the fact that I am no Stratfordian, so I am simply
> outlawed, which in their opinion allows them to pour any shit on LaLa
> Bosh, whoever she is. Maybe they got my name wrong somehow or just
> cannot spell. It's amazing how all the nice people here tend to be of
> the anti-stratfordian side, while you find all the gloomy tyrants in
> Stratford, who also in impeccable continuity display a constant
> absence of any sense of humour. All we can do is to pity them and
> laugh at them.
>
> Mlle LR.
It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
reasonably sensibly, you'll find that most people welcome you,
traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many on
the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
LynnE
Lynne
Answering everyone at once. It's kind of like juggling.
> >
> > Many of his poems contain elements more
> > > musical than literary, which points to the fact that their music was
> > > (partly at least) more important than their words.
There is indeed a lilting musicality to much of Shakespeare's verse,
but that by no means suggests that the lyricism of it is more
important than the words themselves.
Have you ever wondered if some of the simpler "songs" predate
Shakespeare? I have. And I also wonder whether he uses words such as
those in your para above to signal us to stand well back on the
platform, there's a song coming.
>
>
> > The sweet music of
> > > his sonnets (the rhythms combined with their rhymes) is undeniable.
> >
> > Many people deny it. Mr. Grumman, who knows more about poetry than most of
> > us, for example.
Bob does know much about poetry, but I would disagree with him to some
extent.
>
> What a comparison! If he is THE expert, what does that make of the lot
> of you?
Well, Laila, Bob *is* an expert. He's an excellent published poet. As
to the "lot of us," some are more expert than others in this field.
You shouldn't underestimate anyone here or lump us all together. We
have writers, musicians, actors, and scholars on board. By the way,
like Bob, I am a published poet. What are your credentials in this
area?
>
> >
> > > All this is self-evident, and I can't see why it would not be
> > > self-evident to you, since apparently you are such an eminent
> > > musician.
> >
> > Not a claim Mr. Kennedy made. He explained he is a working musician with a
> > wide variety of experience, but never claimed to be 'eminent'. Why is it
> > AntiStrats cannot imagine an in-between, but must always choose an extreme?
Dear, dear. Is that really the case? Why is it that some
traditionalists are so extreme as to call all anti-Strats extreme? ;)
> >
> > >Unlike you, I have no desire to expose ....
> >
> > Thought so. Best to hide what you don't have.
A good rule all round.
>
> And what exactly do you know about what I might be hiding?
>
> >
> > or boast my musical
> > > accomplishments but at least here prefer to simply recognize music
> > > when I hear or see it.
> >
> > So, when you read Two Gentlemen of Verona, and come across "Who is Sylvia",
> > whose music do you hear? Schubert's? How about "Hark hark the lark", "Fear
> > no more the heat of the sun", or the end of A Midsummer's Night's Dream? Do
> > you hear Schubert, Sondheim, and Mendelssohn? Wouldn't a sane person think
> > it was the composers who had a "musical mind", and not the poet? Think about
> > it when you are between Victoria Cartland novels...
It's possible for poetry to have a musicality that is separate from a
musical setting. Think of Sonnet 18, or the beautiful poetry when
Romeo meets Juliet. It lilts. I imagine that's the kind of thing that
Laila is talking about. It is not music in the strictest sense, and
yet to my mind it is musical.
Best wishes,
LynnE
Neil Brennen
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:cc19a094.04042...@posting.google.com...
> It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
> reasonably sensibly,
Something that Ms. Roth has neVER been able to do.
you'll find that most people welcome you,
> traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many on
> the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
>
> LynnE
Some of us are rather cheerful, wouldn't you say, LynnE? I understand you
were singing Gilbert and Sullivan with a STRAT in downtown Baltimore
yesterday.
Neil Brennen
with a
> > > wide variety of experience, but never claimed to be 'eminent'. Why is
it
> > > AntiStrats cannot imagine an in-between, but must always choose an
extreme?
>
> Dear, dear. Is that really the case? Why is it that some
> traditionalists are so extreme as to call all anti-Strats extreme? ;)
Rumor has it you were seen with a Stratfordian yesterday.
http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a040422.htm
Lynne
I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Laila Roth
I'll try to answer both your answers to me at once, although they
can't be satisfactory to everyone.
You ask for my credentials. My only credentials to be proud of is that
I have been working hard all my life. For further details, I'll mail
you personally, and you'll understand what I can't discuss in public.
The main argument here was the musical mind of "Shakespeare". My
argument was, that all the candidates, that is Oxford, Derby, Bacon
and Marlowe, are proved to have had musical involvements. Only
Shakspere has no proved connection at all with any kind of music but
only connections with business. This can't be disproved.
The reason for my obstinate sticking to Derby for THE candidate is,
that I find him at least as good as any of the other three, and
although I am not alone in that, there is no one else here in HLAS to
take a stand for him. Also, in connection with music, he did prove the
deepest musical mind of the four, since he published qualified music
of his own. None of the others did.
There is lots of music in Shakespeare, not only the causal songs.
There are mussical reminders everywhere. "Twelfth Night" sets a
mussical tone from the beginning, and even in "Henry VIII" there is
Orpheus singing. The author must have been thoroughly immersed in
music.
We are told that Bacon always had music playing at home. Marlowe was a
choir boy. Oxford is praised for his musical accomplishments. Only in
Shakspere we find no music but only business.
This is of course no proof that Shakspere did not write Shakespeare.
It's just another of an infinity of arguments that he probably didn't.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote in message news:<cc19a094.04042...@posting.google.com>...
Bob knows a great lot about MODERN poetry. He knows nothing about real
poetry.
> > What a comparison! If he is THE expert, what does that make of the lot
> > of you?
>
> Well, Laila, Bob *is* an expert. He's an excellent published poet. As
> to the "lot of us," some are more expert than others in this field.
> You shouldn't underestimate anyone here or lump us all together.
Sorry about the generalisation. I actually only had in mind those
stratfordians who suffer from chronical negativism concerning any
possible alternative to the sanctity of the Shakspere icon.
We
> have writers, musicians, actors, and scholars on board. By the way,
> like Bob, I am a published poet. What are your credentials in this
> area?
I hope you will answer my personal letter.
snip of the rest
Best wishes to you too
from Laila Roth, Derbyite
Neil Brennen
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:cc19a094.04042...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
news:<kNZhc.18928$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:cc19a094.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
> > > reasonably sensibly,
> >
> > Something that Ms. Roth has neVER been able to do.
> >
> > you'll find that most people welcome you,
> > > traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many on
> > > the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
> > >
> > > LynnE
> >
> > Some of us are rather cheerful, wouldn't you say, LynnE? I understand
you
> > were singing Gilbert and Sullivan with a STRAT in downtown Baltimore
> > yesterday.
>
> I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
It was no worse than your singing of "Oh Canada".
Neil Brennen
>
> I'll try to answer both your answers to me at once, although they
> can't be satisfactory to everyone.
>
> You ask for my credentials. My only credentials to be proud of is that
> I have been working hard all my life.
You have also been posting nonsense for a few years now; don't you take
pride in that?
For further details, I'll mail
> you personally, and you'll understand what I can't discuss in public.
>
> The main argument here was the musical mind of "Shakespeare". My
> argument was, that all the candidates, that is Oxford, Derby, Bacon
> and Marlowe, are proved to have had musical involvements. Only
> Shakspere has no proved connection at all with any kind of music but
> only connections with business. This can't be disproved.
But we are discussing POETRY, not MUSIC.
> The reason for my obstinate sticking to Derby for THE candidate is,
> that I find him at least as good as any of the other three, and
> although I am not alone in that, there is no one else here in HLAS to
> take a stand for him. Also, in connection with music, he did prove the
> deepest musical mind of the four, since he published qualified music
> of his own. None of the others did.
Do you have anything to go on for your Derby attribution aside from your
personal feelings? Say, perhaps, a Folio devoted to Shakespeare's canon,
with Derby's name as author?
> There is lots of music in Shakespeare, not only the causal songs.
> There are mussical reminders everywhere. "Twelfth Night" sets a
> mussical tone from the beginning, and even in "Henry VIII" there is
> Orpheus singing. The author must have been thoroughly immersed in
> music.
>
Or knew that music was popular with audiences, so he used it in the plays.
> We are told that Bacon always had music playing at home. Marlowe was a
> choir boy. Oxford is praised for his musical accomplishments. Only in
> Shakspere we find no music but only business.
>
> This is of course no proof that Shakspere did not write Shakespeare.
A glimmer of sunlight breaks through Laila's deluded mind.
Lynne
> "Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:cc19a094.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<kNZhc.18928$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:cc19a094.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > > It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
> > > > reasonably sensibly,
> > >
> > > Something that Ms. Roth has neVER been able to do.
> > >
> > > you'll find that most people welcome you,
> > > > traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many on
> > > > the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
> > > >
> > > > LynnE
> > >
> > > Some of us are rather cheerful, wouldn't you say, LynnE? I understand
> you
> > > were singing Gilbert and Sullivan with a STRAT in downtown Baltimore
> > > yesterday.
> >
> > I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
>
> It was no worse than your singing of "Oh Canada".
I also once drew an astoundingly good picture and the woman sitting
next to me said: "Stick to writing." So I can guess your meaning.
tin-eared mouse
Christian Lanciai
> being Shakespeare. He had no sense of humour. Couldn't do comedy.
>
> Barry
I must disagree with you here. For instance, in "The Massacre at
Paris" you'll find a striking change into comedy just at the peak of
the murder atrocities, when a soldier enters with a sudden burst into
prose:
"Sir, to you, sir, that dares make the duke a cuckold, and use a
counterfeit key to his privy-chamber-door; and although you take out
nothing but your own, yet you put in that which displeaseth him, and
so forestall his market, and set up your standing where you should
not; and whereas he is your landlord, you will take upon you to be
his, and till the ground that he himself should occupy, which is his
own free land; if it be not too free - there's the question; and
though I come not to take possession (as I would I might) yet I mean
to keep you out; which I will, if this gear hold."
The above is of course all bawdy talk, the soldier comparing
Mugeroun's trespassing on his lord's wife with common practices. Then
suddenly enter Mugeroun, and the soldier kills him and leaves the
stage to never appear again.
It's the first and only prose piece of the play and totally breaks off
the whole solemnity in a surprising burst of good humour.
A curious parallel you find in Macbeth, act II scene 3, when at the
height of Macbeth's bloody murders a porter suddenly breaks off the
solemnity with a prose soliloquy about all the knockings going about.
This is the first prose piece of the play (apart from a letter from
her husband that Lady Macbeth reads aloud) with a perfectly similar
effect - a total break in a dramatic climax of atrocities to make room
for an instance of plain fun. It's the same kind of humour, the same
dramatic trick, the same knack - here Marlowe and Shakespeare are
perfectly identical.
Chris
Neil Brennen
"Christian Lanciai" <clan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e67b43b.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > Unfortunately, Marlowe had one of the worst qualifications for
> > being Shakespeare. He had no sense of humour. Couldn't do comedy.
> >
> > Barry
>
> I must disagree with you here. For instance, in "The Massacre at
> Paris" you'll find a striking change into comedy just at the peak of
> the murder atrocities, when a soldier enters with a sudden burst into
> prose:
>
> "Sir, to you, sir, that dares make the duke a cuckold, and use a
> counterfeit key to his privy-chamber-door; and although you take out
> nothing but your own, yet you put in that which displeaseth him, and
> so forestall his market, and set up your standing where you should
> not; and whereas he is your landlord, you will take upon you to be
> his, and till the ground that he himself should occupy, which is his
> own free land; if it be not too free - there's the question; and
> though I come not to take possession (as I would I might) yet I mean
> to keep you out; which I will, if this gear hold."
>
> The above is of course all bawdy talk, the soldier comparing
> Mugeroun's trespassing on his lord's wife with common practices. Then
> suddenly enter Mugeroun, and the soldier kills him and leaves the
> stage to never appear again.
>
> It's the first and only prose piece of the play and totally breaks off
> the whole solemnity in a surprising burst of good humour.
Yes, an on-stage murder is always funny, Christian.
> A curious parallel you find in Macbeth, act II scene 3, when at the
> height of Macbeth's bloody murders a porter suddenly breaks off the
> solemnity with a prose soliloquy about all the knockings going about.
The porter serves several purposes:
1. It allows the audience to take a breath after the murder (single, not
plural - who else was killed aside from Duncan?) by taking them from a
serious scene to a relatively lighter one;
2. It increases the tension by delaying the discovery of the murder;
3. It allows Macbeth and Lady Macbeth time to wash the blood from their
hands and change costumes;
4. The Porter and others say some fine things in the scene, and they are
worth having in themselves.
> This is the first prose piece of the play (apart from a letter from
> her husband that Lady Macbeth reads aloud) with a perfectly similar
> effect - a total break in a dramatic climax of atrocities to make room
> for an instance of plain fun.
It's hardly "plain fun".
It's the same kind of humour, the same
> dramatic trick, the same knack - here Marlowe and Shakespeare are
> perfectly identical.
It never ceases to amaze me how little understanding some of the antiStrats
have of Shakespeare. Marlowe's scene is completely different from the Porter
scene in Macbeth.
Art Neuendorffer
> > Don't get sore with the poor Stratford boys, Phil. They are just
> > pissed off by the fact that I am no Stratfordian, so I am simply
> > outlawed, which in their opinion allows them to pour any shit on LaLa
> > Bosh, whoever she is. Maybe they got my name wrong somehow or just
> > cannot spell. It's amazing how all the nice people here tend to be of
> > the anti-stratfordian side, while you find all the gloomy tyrants in
> > Stratford, who also in impeccable continuity display a constant
> > absence of any sense of humour. All we can do is
> > to pity them and laugh at them.
> >
> > Mlle LR.
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
> reasonably sensibly, you'll find that most people welcome you,
> traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many
> on the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
But your experience is:
1) take the heat
2) respond reasonably sensibly,
AND
3) meet with many of the Goon Squad personally.
------------------------------------------------
Of these I suspect that the third
is probably the most important.
Art (who hardly EVER responds reasonably sensibly)
P.S., and as for Webb: [sic] Semper Tyrannis.
Art Neuendorffer
>> > > Some of us are rather cheerful, wouldn't you say, LynnE?
>> > > I understand you were singing Gilbert and Sullivan
>> > > with a STRAT in downtown Baltimore yesterday.
> > "Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > > I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
> "Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote
> > It was no worse than your singing of "Oh Canada".
"Lynne" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> I also once drew an astoundingly good picture and the woman sitting
> next to me said: "Stick to writing." So I can guess your meaning.
>
> tin-eared mouse
http://www.toonopedia.com/koko.htm
Ko-Ko: Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and EVERy country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And "who doesn't think she dances, but would rather like to try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist --
I do think she'd be missed -- I'm sure she would be missed!
Art
Art Neuendorffer
> > You ask for my credentials. My only credentials to be proud of is that
> > I have been working hard all my life.
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote
> You have also been posting nonsense for a few years now;
> don't you take pride in that?
Take care of the sounds and the sense will take care of itself.
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > The reason for my obstinate sticking to Derby for THE candidate is,
> > that I find him at least as good as any of the other three, and
> > although I am not alone in that, there is no one else here in HLAS to
> > take a stand for him. Also, in connection with music, he did prove the
> > deepest musical mind of the four, since he published qualified music
> > of his own. None of the others did.
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote
> Do you have anything to go on for your Derby attribution aside from your
> personal feelings? Say, perhaps, a Folio devoted to Shakespeare's canon,
> with Derby's name as author?
Derby's initials at least.
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > There is lots of music in Shakespeare, not only the causal songs.
> > There are mussical reminders everywhere. "Twelfth Night" sets a
> > mussical tone from the beginning, and even in "Henry VIII" there is
> > Orpheus singing. The author must have been thoroughly immersed in
> > music.
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote
> Or knew that music was popular with audiences, so he used it in the plays.
Another real crowd pleaser for the groundlings:
---------------------------------------------------
King Henry V Act 1, Scene 2
CANTERBURY Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers,
That owe yourselves, your lives and services
To this imperial throne. There is no bar
To make against your highness' claim to France
But this, which they produce from Pharamond,
'In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant:'
'No woman shall succeed in Salique land:'
Which Salique land the French unjustly gloze
To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this law and female bar.
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe;
Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
There left behind and settled certain French;
Who, holding in disdain the German women
For some dishonest manners of their life,
Establish'd then this law; to wit, no female
Should be inheritrix in Salique land:
Which Salique, as I said, 'twixt Elbe and Sala,
Is at this day in Germany call'd Meisen.
Then doth it well appear that Salique law
Was not devised for the realm of France:
Nor did the French possess the Salique land
Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond,
Idly supposed the founder of this law;
Who died within the year of our redemption
Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
Subdued the Saxons, and did seat the French
Beyond the river Sala, in the year
Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did, as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
To find his title with some shows of truth,
'Through, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught,
Convey'd himself as heir to the Lady Lingare,
Daughter to Charlemain, who was the son
To Lewis the emperor, and Lewis the son
Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine:
By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
Was re-united to the crown of France.
So that, as clear as is the summer's sun.
King Pepin's title and Hugh Capet's claim,
King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
To hold in right and title of the female:
So do the kings of France unto this day;
Howbeit they would hold up this Salique law
To bar your highness claiming from the female,
And rather choose to hide them in a net
Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
Usurp'd from you and your progenitors.
---------------------------------------------------
> "Laila Roth" <lail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > We are told that Bacon always had music playing at home. Marlowe
> > was a choir boy. Oxford is praised for his musical accomplishments.
> > Only in Shakspere we find no music but only business.
> >
> > This is of course no proof that Shakspere did not write Shakespeare.
"Neil Brennen" <chessno...@mindnospamspring.com> wrote
> A glimmer of sunlight breaks through Laila's deluded mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------
<<I see, or rather hear, the Shakespeare family sitting aroung the table
in the drawing room of New Place, with one of those madrigal scores
open before them. These were printed in such a way that a part was
readable from any one of for angles. Susanna, I think, was a clear
soprano, a clever sight-reader. Judith had not much of a voice and
was so slow at picking up a part that she became a dumb listener.
Hall, the son-in-law, was a bass. Anne was a grave contralto.
Will was certainly a tenor.>>
- Shakespeare (p.230, Anthony Burgess)
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is of course a typical example of "proof"
that Shakspere did write Shakespeare.
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Zenner
> Unfortunately, Marlowe had one of the worst qualifications for
> being Shakespeare. He had no sense of humour. Couldn't do comedy.
and wrote --
>I must disagree with you here. [etc]
Hello Chris; nice to see that you are still around. You are right to
disagree about the comedy. The author known as 'Shakespeare'
and (nowadays) as 'Marlowe' was also a professional comedian.
He started using the name 'Christopher Morley' whilst he was at
Trinity College, Cambridge, under the name 'William Kempe'
and you know the reputation of 'Will Kempe' don't you?
'Shakespeare' HAD been a teacher in the country -- he was master
of Plymouth Grammar School.
--
Peter Zenner
Visit my web-site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk
Peter Zenner
>It never ceases to amaze me how little understanding some of the antiStrats
>have of Shakespeare. Marlowe's scene is completely different from the
Porter
>scene in Macbeth.
and again proves that goons add nothing. Like babies with building
blocks, they have to knock down just for the sake of knocking down.
As people mature, they usually become more constructive and less
destructive. Ah well...
Lynne
I'm doing the Royal tour. Seriously though (if one can be here), I
travel a lot and like to meet the people I speak to on the net, be
they traditionalist or anti-Strat. It's interesting to see how polite
and intelligent they are. And as it happens, my experience has been
that most hlasers became rather friendly before meeting me. I think
it's my habit of apologising profusely for my many un-sensible
mistakes.
>
> Art (who hardly EVER responds reasonably sensibly)
True. Do you think "stare-cross'd glover" would have been as good, now
I'm thinking about it?
>
> P.S., and as for Webb: [sic] Semper Tyrannis.
Oh dear, and I was hoping to get him to our conference in Baltimore.
L.
Christian Lanciai
> > It's the first and only prose piece of the play and totally breaks off
> > the whole solemnity in a surprising burst of good humour.
>
> Yes, an on-stage murder is always funny, Christian.
>
Especially when there heaps of it galore, as in Marlowe and early
Shakespeare.
> > A curious parallel you find in Macbeth, act II scene 3, when at the
> > height of Macbeth's bloody murders a porter suddenly breaks off the
> > solemnity with a prose soliloquy about all the knockings going about.
>
> The porter serves several purposes:
> 1. It allows the audience to take a breath after the murder (single, not
> plural - who else was killed aside from Duncan?) by taking them from a
> serious scene to a relatively lighter one;
> 2. It increases the tension by delaying the discovery of the murder;
> 3. It allows Macbeth and Lady Macbeth time to wash the blood from their
> hands and change costumes;
> 4. The Porter and others say some fine things in the scene, and they are
> worth having in themselves.
Yes, all this is correct, but you ignore the main argument. Great
tragedy is brusquely interrupted by a flash of comedy - in Orson
Welles' film version the porter even goes for a pee in his monologue,
which is perfectly fitting. It's a prose comedy intermission in a
bloody tragical drama, designed exactly in the same way as the
soldier's comic prose interruption in "The Massacre". The parallel
can't be denied. The differfence is, that Marlowe's whim is of a
youngster and much more daring and funnier, while Macbeth's copy 15
years later shows the colours of a much more experienced and thorough,
slower and deliberate playwright, but the idea is dramaturgically
identical.
>
> > This is the first prose piece of the play (apart from a letter from
> > her husband that Lady Macbeth reads aloud) with a perfectly similar
> > effect - a total break in a dramatic climax of atrocities to make room
> > for an instance of plain fun.
>
> It's hardly "plain fun".
>
Then you don't have any sense of humour.
> It's the same kind of humour, the same
> > dramatic trick, the same knack - here Marlowe and Shakespeare are
> > perfectly identical.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how little understanding some of the antiStrats
> have of Shakespeare. Marlowe's scene is completely different from the Porter
> scene in Macbeth.
I have pointed out the difference, which is merely superficial. The
construction design and its dramarturgic trick is the same.
Chris
Art Neuendorffer
>I travel a lot and like to meet the people I speak to on the net,
>be they traditionalist or anti-Strat. It's interesting to see
>how polite and intelligent they are. And as it happens,
> my experience has been that most hlasers became rather
> friendly before meeting me. I think it's my habit of
> apologising profusely for my many un-sensible mistakes.
------------------------------------------------------------
Grovel, v. i. [From OE. grovelinge, grufelinge, adv., on the face,
prone, which was misunderstood as a p. pr.; cf. OE. gruf, groff, in
the same sense; of Scand. origin, cf. Icel. gr[=u]fa, in [=a] gr[=u]fu
on the face, prone, gr[=u]fa to grovel.] 1. To creep on the earth,
or with the face to the ground; to lie prone, or move uneasily
with the body prostrate on the earth; to lie fiat on one's belly,
expressive of abjectness; to crawl.
------------------------------------------------------------
> Art wrote:
>> Art (who hardly EVER responds reasonably sensibly)
Lynne wrote:
> True.
--------------------------------------------------------
OTHELLO: STARE not, masters: it is TRUE, indeed.
---------------------------------------------------------
Finnegans Wake (penultimate page)
<<I thought you were all glittering with
the noblest of carriage. You're only a bumpkin.>>
http://gifts24.com/g/i/item.html?theId=49&rev=%2Fg%2Fb%2Fbrowse.html%3FvId%3D37%26bId%3D8
---------------------------------------------------------
Lynne:
> Do you think "stare-cross'd glover" would have
> been as good, now I'm thinking about it?
---------------------------------------------------------
<<I thought you the great in all things, in guilt and in glory.
You're but a puny.>> - Finnegans Wake (punultimate page)
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> >>>while the plays certainly reveal a very muscial mind.
> > John W. Kennedy says...
> >>Speaking as someone who's probably performed and written more music, in
> >>more different styles, than you've ever even heard, balderdash!
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > Are you implying that Oxford did NOT write the works of J.S. Bach, John?
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Professor Peter Schikele (Department of Musical Pathology,
> University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople) reports a theory
> that Christopher Marlowe wrote the works of P.D.Q. Bach.
Marlowe was not stabbed in the Bach!
He also lived long before (or perhaps after?) P.D.Q.:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<P.D.Q. Bach was buried in a sumptuous mausoleum on the
outskirts of Baden-Baden-Baden, and it was on this tomb that
the controversial dates 1807-1742 were inscribed, along with
an epitaph presumably composed by the local doggerel-catcher:
[H]ere lies a man with sundry flaws
And numerous sins upon his head;
[W]e buried him today because
As far as we can tell, he's dead.
Eventually P.D.Q. Bach's family was successful in having
him moved to an unmarked pauper's grave.
However, Betty-Sue Bach paid to erect a suitable monument
to the memory of her cousin. The monument still stands,
and on its plaque one may still read the poem:
He lies in death, as lie he did in life,
Oblivious to worldly cares and strife;
No base distraction rile his sodden brain,
And odious Ambition waits in vain
For him to *R I S E*; sweet Gabriel, play on!
You'll nothing rouse, except perhaps a yawn;
For P.D.Q. will waken when he WILL,
And even God must wait that day until.>> - Peter Schickele
--------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, (Skoal & Buns member) Schickele would never
have gained tenure without sticking to the Stratfordian line:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DeppityBob (deppi...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Nobody remembers the real director
Newsgroups: alt.movies.monster
Date: 1998/05/26
. . . it reminds me of some shtick that Peter Schickele did about his
creation, PDQ Bach, supposedly the worst composer in history;
it referred, actually, to the debate over whether Christopher Marlowe
actually wrote Shakespeare's plays. I hope I am close to quoting it
accurately:
"There is some suspicion that some of these works were actually
written by Christopher Marlowe. Aside from the...*stylistic*
differences...I'm sure Marlowe could've done a better job."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Liebeslieder [Lovesong] polkas: S. 2/4,
for mixed chorus and piano (5 hands);
Twelve quite heavenly songs : (arie proprio zodicale, S. 16),
for bargain counter tenor, basso blotto, & keyboards / P.D.Q. Bach
1. To His Coy Mistress
Andrew Marvell; Adapted by P.D.Q. Bach
2. To the Virgin, to make Much of Time
Robert Herrick; Adapted by P.D.Q. Bach
3. The Passionate Shepherd to His Love
Christopher Marlowe; Adapted by P.D.Q. Bach
4. Why so Pale and Wan, Fond Lover? Sir John Suckling
5. It Was a Lover and His Lass William Shakespeare
6. The Constant Lover Sir John Suckling
7. Song to Celia
Ben Jonson; Adapted by P.D.Q.
8. Interlude
9. Farewell, Ungrateful Traitor John Dryden
10. Who is Sylvia?
William Shakespeare, Adapted by P.D.Q. Bach
http://www.presser.com/pdqbach.html
http://www.sflc.org/concerts/programs/songsprogram.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000000ELT/classicalstudio/103-2276227-0823862
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Christian Lanciai
> Christian Lanciai quoted from Barry Somebody --
> > Unfortunately, Marlowe had one of the worst qualifications for
> > being Shakespeare. He had no sense of humour. Couldn't do comedy.
>
> and wrote --
> >I must disagree with you here. [etc]
>
> Hello Chris; nice to see that you are still around. You are right to
> disagree about the comedy. The author known as 'Shakespeare'
> and (nowadays) as 'Marlowe' was also a professional comedian.
> He started using the name 'Christopher Morley' whilst he was at
> Trinity College, Cambridge, under the name 'William Kempe'
> and you know the reputation of 'Will Kempe' don't you?
This is fascinating. Kemp was one of the grass root actors from
beginning to end and one of the uniquely privileged actors who were
invited to the royal court of Denmark I think in 1586 to enact was is
believed to have been the original 'Hamlet'. Kemp remained a leading
actor all the way to the end and had deep roots in Cambridge. What I
don't know is when he was born and when he died. Does anyone know?
More information about him would be most appreciated.
Chris
BCD
> This is fascinating. Kemp was one of the grass root actors from
> beginning to end and one of the uniquely privileged actors who were
> invited to the royal court of Denmark I think in 1586 to enact was is
> believed to have been the original 'Hamlet'. Kemp remained a leading
> actor all the way to the end and had deep roots in Cambridge. What I
> don't know is when he was born and when he died. Does anyone know?
> More information about him would be most appreciated.
***For one thing, Kempe footed it frolickly from London to Norwich
over a period of nine days--that is, he danced the Morris Dance from
the Lord Mayor's residence in London to the Lord Mayor's residence in
Norwich. I managed to be at both ends of the journey, alas a little
too late to catch his efforts.
***See:
http://www.philpreen.co.uk/folk/morris/kempfull.htm
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
BCD
Best Wishes,
--BCD
lyra
> Oops, just posted about Kemp, managing to mis-spell it "Kempe." Pardon!
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> --BCD
Either spelling is fine, an e was
often added to words and names in those days.
Robert Stonehouse
"We do not know whether he is the 'Kempe, a man' who was buried in
Southwark on 2 November 1603." Peter Thomson, "Shakespeare's
Professional Career".
Apart from the use of 'unique': the court of Denmark was generally
hospitable to artists from other countries, such as Dowland. Kemp went
to the Netherlands in 1585 with Leicester, as one of Leicester's men;
I don't know if Leicester visited Denmark, or if Kemp (perhaps with
others) went on his travels independently. The sentence in Diana
Poulton's 'John Dowland' (ch. II, page 169 2nd edn.) is ambiguous.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Peter Zenner
>This is fascinating.
Thank you Chris.
>Kemp was one of the grass root actors from
>beginning to end and one of the uniquely privileged actors who were
>invited to the royal court of Denmark I think in 1586 to enact was is
>believed to have been the original 'Hamlet'.
He played the lute as well -- but of course he used another name for
that. Guess who.
>Kemp remained a leading
>actor all the way to the end and had deep roots in Cambridge.
Yup -- he migrated to Trinity College after matriculating at Christ's
College. Who was known as the lady of Christ's? John Milton. Who
else went to Trinity? Francis Bacon and Christopher Morley (not
Marley)
>What I
>don't know is when he was born and when he died. Does anyone know?
He was born on September 29th, 1561, and he died on November 8th,
1674. (I said he was a freak). He made his will on July 24th, 1601, and
it was proved on November 18th of the same year. That was the end of
his role as a teacher, so he killed that one off (the Phoenix, remember?)
But he had a loan from Henslowe in 1602 and was listed as one of
Worcester's Men in August, 1603. As Robert Stonehouse wrote, 'a man'
called William Kempe was buried on November 2nd. 1603, in the church
of St. Saviour, Southwark. It seems that this was him finally laying that
name to rest. But then he came back as Robert Armin.....
>More information about him would be most appreciated.
There is an essay on the net by Donato Colucci. Just copy that name into
Google. That's the official version of course -- if you want the whole story
you will have to wait a couple of years until I have finished :-)
Laila Roth
Who is this prank? Another egg magician? He certainly knows the art of
pulling legs. We don't know for sure whether the William Kemp buried
1603 was our Kemp, but he could have been. More important is the fact,
that he definitely was in Denmark in June 13th 1585 with another group
of English actors on the invitation of king Frederick II, who on that
very day inaugurated the celebrated castle at Elsinore! The first
production of Hamlet might very well have been the treat of the day!
The king was so enthusiastic about the performance, so he invited
those very actors to come back next year, which they did, seven of
them, one of which was Kemp, another Bryan, there was a third
celebrated name which I don't recall at the moment. BUT the most
important thing of all, one of the 1585 party was most probably
WILLIAM STANLEY, the younger brother of Ferdinando, heir to the title
of Earl of Derby, a royal cousin, heirs to the throne as legally as
king James of Scotland, but they were Catholics.
You all know my argument. William Stanley was Shakespeare. He was one
of the first to play a part in Hamlet, a play which became the
feuilleton and story of his life, and the first night was on June 13th
at Elsinore for the inauguration of the celebrated castle, and
Frederick II was the king who fired a cannon for every sip he took of
his wine.
So there!
Laila Roth, Derbyite
David L. Webb
lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
[...]
> > > It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
> > > reasonably sensibly, you'll find that most people welcome you,
> > > traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many
> > > on the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
> > But your experience is:
> >
> > 1) take the heat
> > 2) respond reasonably sensibly,
Art should try it some time.
> > AND
> >
> > 3) meet with many of the Goon Squad personally.
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Of these I suspect that the third
> > is probably the most important.
> I'm doing the Royal tour. Seriously though (if one can be here), I
> travel a lot and like to meet the people I speak to on the net, be
> they traditionalist or anti-Strat. It's interesting to see how polite
> and intelligent they are. And as it happens, my experience has been
> that most hlasers became rather friendly before meeting me. I think
> it's my habit of apologising profusely for my many un-sensible
> mistakes.
> > Art (who hardly EVER responds reasonably sensibly)
> True. Do you think "stare-cross'd glover" would have been as good, now
> I'm thinking about it?
I see now that you beat me to it indeed. Oh well, there is still the
possibility of Stratbismus.
> > P.S., and as for Webb: [sic] Semper Tyrannis.
> Oh dear, and I was hoping to get him to our conference in Baltimore.
If you can arrange the debate Tom proposed (among Elizabeth Weird,
Senator Streitz, "Dr." Faker, and Zenner), I might be unable to resist
attending.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > It's a baptism by fire, Laila. If you can take the heat and respond
> > > > reasonably sensibly, you'll find that most people welcome you,
> > > > traditionalists and anti-Strats alike. My experience is that many
> > > > on the traditionalist side aren't gloomy or tyrannical at all.
>> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > But your experience is:
> > >
> > > 1) take the heat
> > > 2) respond reasonably sensibly,
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Art should try it some time.
I can take the heat!
> > > AND
> > >
> > > 3) meet with many of the Goon Squad personally.
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Of these I suspect that the third
> > > is probably the most important.
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> > Do you think "stare-cross'd glover" would have been as good,
> > now I'm thinking about it?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I see now that you beat me to it indeed.
> Oh well, there is still the possibility of Stratbismus.
http://gifts24.com/g/i/item.html?theId=49&rev=%2Fg%2Fb%2Fbrowse.html%3FvId%3D37%26bId%3D8
------------------------------------------------------
A thoroughgoing Stratbismus Will:
------------------------------------------------------
<<A thoroughgoing business man's will. It named in minute detail
every item of property he owned in the world--houses,
lands, sword, silver-gilt bowl, and so on--all the way
down to his "second-best bed" and its furniture.
It was eminently & conspicuously a business man's will, not a poet's.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
> > > P.S., and as for Webb: [sic] Semper Tyrannis.
> lynnek...@sympatico.ca (Lynne) wrote:
> > Oh dear, and I was hoping to get him to our conference in Baltimore.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> If you can arrange the debate Tom proposed (among
> Elizabeth Weird, Senator Streitz, "Dr." Faker, and Zenner),
> I might be unable to resist attending.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps at your Zenner die-ode reckoning doltage:
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.americanmicrosemi.com/tutorials/zener.htm
<<The Zenner die-ode finds its greatest application as a doltage regulator
for small rooms. As the reVERsE doltage is increased St. Tavy's leekage
current remains essentially constant until the reckoning doltage is reached
(at which point the current increases comedically). This reckoning doltage
is known as the "Zenner doltage" for Zenner die-odes. For conventional
Baltimore recktaliers it is aperitif to operate on Marlow at this doltage.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Zenner
>the most
>important thing of all, one of the 1585 party was most probably
>WILLIAM STANLEY
Hey come off it Laila. You started your posting off with an attack
on me personally and I will have you know that I have never done
a trick with an egg in my life.
You seem very much akin to the Goon Squad in your attacking
without knowing. In the above quote you used the word 'probably'.
William Kempe DID go -- there is evidence for that which you
obviously accept -- and he was a leading member of all the acting
companies which come into the story.
When I first started on this quest for truth, I had a look at the case
for William Stanley -- and I found nothing apart from one mention
that he was writing plays. No mention of him touring as an actor
or being involved with the companies.
I am sure that William Stanley was well aware of who was the man
writing the 'Shakespeare' plays. His cousin was Edward Stanley,
the Fair Man. His father-in-law was Edward de Vere, who seems to
have been the literary agent, if my reading of Ward's book is correct.
And yes, Kempe was a member of his brother's company, as was
Shakeshaft -- the upstart crow who was the company's Johannes
factotum
I am not going on the offensive to demolish your claim for Stanley; I
am concerned only with finding the truth about my little man. He was
a 'concealed poet' for a reason and he used 'counterfeyt names' for
that reason. I now know that reason....
--
Peter Zenner
(er -- Pierconian? Maidstonian? Kempian? Take your pick. His mother
was a Kempe who was married to a Philip Pierce but he was illegitimate.
Will Kempe or Will Pierce? He referred to himself as Philip's son in 1593,
not long after the incident in Deptford -- "Philip's son can, with his
finger,
hide his scar it is so little". So I shall continue to refer to him as
William
Pierce.)
Neil Brennen
> Peter Zenner
> (er -- Pierconian? Maidstonian? Kempian? Take your pick.
"Nutcase" makes a better fit.
Laila Roth
manage to have you defined, and your being a total stranger to me I
had some orientation difficulties in your "zenigma" world - mind you,
it was you who produced that reference to that Italian Egg Magician.
We certainly have enough insults here from the Stratfordian League,
which constantly mud-flinging fraction we should rise above, being too
good for that mob, since we know better, don't we? In fact, we have
very much in common since our main interest is the truth, while the
only interest of the Stratfordian lot seems to be to dispense with the
truth. I trust we are equally sure about William Stanley's key
position in the enigma, that if he was not the poet himself he at
least was on very intimate terms with him, whether he was Oxford or
Marlowe (Morley) or Bacon. The only excluded candidate is the First
Stratfordian, whose only interest in the business was his own bag of
money.
At the moment I suffer from a series of hang-overs, (there has been
considerable celebrations these last days about seven former Soviet
satellites now being incorporated into Europe in total freedom of
thought, expression and travel, so they can just give their former
oppressors the Russians the boot, that monster nation now being
reduced to some developing state,) but in due time I will provide you
with further evidence. Let's both stick together against the
Stratfordian Goon Squad and keep it up! Let's triumph like Eastern
Europe!
LR
"Peter Zenner" <p...@zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c71kgd$ne5$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Peter Zenner
>Sorry, Peter, I didn't want to be rude or insulting. I just didn't
>manage to have you defined, and your being a total stranger to me
I accept your apology but don't understand why you attacked me.
The American fundamentalists are the attackers on this forum --
you're a Brit aren't you? We give others a fair hearing.
>I had some orientation difficulties in your "zenigma" world - mind you,
>it was you who produced that reference to that Italian Egg Magician.
Sorry? Who? There was a chap called Albini and he invented the
famous Egg Bag trick -- but he was a Polish Jew called Abraham
Laski. Magicans aren't the only ones to use 'counterfeyt names';
authors use them also. Strange how the fundamentalists believe
that, because a name appears on a book cover, then someone
with a similar name MUST have written it.
>We certainly have enough insults here from the Stratfordian League,
>which constantly mud-flinging fraction we should rise above, being too
>good for that mob, since we know better, don't we?
I thought so. I was very pleased with the English dictionary's definition
of a goon as being a 'stupid person' or a 'person hired by racketeers,
etc., to terrorize workers'. Messrs TR[ashman], Nil Bren-gun and Dubya
Kennedy seem to be the leaders of this gang of terrorists and they
appear to have a group of feeble-minded yes men as back-up. I really
don't think that Messrs Kathman & Ross are actually racketeers, so they
must be 'etc'. The 'workers' are obviously the non-Strats. We are the
only ones producing anything -- the fundamentalists can only curse and
swear whilst strapped in their self-imposed restraints.
>In fact, we have
>very much in common since our main interest is the truth, while the
>only interest of the Stratfordian lot seems to be to dispense with the
>truth.
The goons have appointed themselves as the guardians of the Strat
Myth, just as Americans have appointed themselves as sheriffs of the
world. They don't stop to think "Are we right", they just drop bombs
mindlessly. Unfortunately, weak-minded individuals believe THEIR lies
and accuse rational people of being liars instead!
>I trust we are equally sure about William Stanley's key
>position in the enigma, that if he was not the poet himself he at
>least was on very intimate terms with him, whether he was Oxford or
>Marlowe (Morley) or Bacon.
The little man who wrote just about everything was on intimate terms
with just about everybody of note during his time on earth. He used
the names 'Morley' and 'Bacon' and, as 'John Lyly' he was secretary
to Oxford. He knew Henry Stanley (4th Earl) and he knew the kids,
Ferdinando and WIlliam. Ferdinando married Alice Spencer from
Althorpe and William married Oxford's daughter, Elizabeth. As
'Edmund Spenser' the little man wrote about the Spencer girls and
claimed to be related to them and as 'John Lyly' he would have surely
known Oxford's daughter -- he worked for Oxford as his secretary
until something better came along.
Yes I can understand why the 'usual suspects' are on the list. I couldn't
understand why the little man used so many pseudonyms until Art posted
about Odin and his massive number of supposed aliases. I knew that
he referred to himself as 'Mercury' but I didn't know that 'Odin' was
another name for 'Mercury' until Art's posting. We CAN learn from each
other, if we can get past the flaming from the goon squad (Small case
represents my opinion of them.)
>The only excluded candidate is the First
>Stratfordian, whose only interest in the business was his own bag of
>money.
Don't forget the booze -- he loved his booze! It appears from 'A Funeral
Elegy' that the booze was loosening his tongue about the Shakespeare
Invention and that's why he had to go. It got too much, so the little man,
(under the name 'Michael Drayton') and his henchman, Ben Jonson, took
him out for a drink and slipped him a Mickey Finn. Bye-bye Shakspere!
<snip the bit about Eastern Europe. I am apprehensive about them>
>Let's both stick together against the Stratfordian Goon Squad and
>keep it up!
I have only returned out of curiosity. Things haven't changed since my last
visit. As with a merry-go-round, you can get on and off but it still only
goes in circles and gets nowhere. The time wasted in presenting your
ideas to the goons can be used far more productively in doing actual
research. If you have any new evidence for Stanley's involvement, I should
be pleased to correspond with you privately. We don't need mindless
goons sniping at us and contributing sweet FA to the debate.
--
Peter Zenner
Laila Roth
many intriguing misunderstandings, and they keep multiplying.
"Peter Zenner" <p...@zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c7dkuq$q1d$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Laila Roth wrote --
> >Sorry, Peter, I didn't want to be rude or insulting. I just didn't
> >manage to have you defined, and your being a total stranger to me
>
> I accept your apology but don't understand why you attacked me.
I did not attack you, at least not purposely. I am the one who is
being attacked here, at the moment mainly by Neil Brennen, but he
seems to have buzzed off at the moment, leaving me to defend myself
against your accusations of my having attacked you. Wonderful!
> The American fundamentalists are the attackers on this forum --
> you're a Brit aren't you? We give others a fair hearing.
>
I can assure you that I am neither a Brit nor a fundamentalist of any
kind. I am from a remote and extremely northern eastern European
country, which I hope won't disappoint you. On the other hand, your
calling me a Brit I take as a flattering compliment. I am used to
being called other names, especially as a foreigner among too many
racist Englishmen.
> >I had some orientation difficulties in your "zenigma" world - mind you,
> >it was you who produced that reference to that Italian Egg Magician.
>
> Sorry? Who? There was a chap called Albini and he invented the
> famous Egg Bag trick -- but he was a Polish Jew called Abraham
> Laski. Magicans aren't the only ones to use 'counterfeyt names';
> authors use them also. Strange how the fundamentalists believe
> that, because a name appears on a book cover, then someone
> with a similar name MUST have written it.
And how on earth could I have known that an Egg Magician with an
Italian name had no connection at all with Italy? You must understand
that I was easily deceived on this issue.
>
> >We certainly have enough insults here from the Stratfordian League,
> >which constantly mud-flinging fraction we should rise above, being too
> >good for that mob, since we know better, don't we?
>
> I thought so. I was very pleased with the English dictionary's definition
> of a goon as being a 'stupid person' or a 'person hired by racketeers,
> etc., to terrorize workers'. Messrs TR[ashman], Nil Bren-gun and Dubya
> Kennedy seem to be the leaders of this gang of terrorists and they
> appear to have a group of feeble-minded yes men as back-up. I really
> don't think that Messrs Kathman & Ross are actually racketeers, so they
> must be 'etc'. The 'workers' are obviously the non-Strats. We are the
> only ones producing anything -- the fundamentalists can only curse and
> swear whilst strapped in their self-imposed restraints.
I couldn't agree more.
>
> >In fact, we have
> >very much in common since our main interest is the truth, while the
> >only interest of the Stratfordian lot seems to be to dispense with the
> >truth.
>
> The goons have appointed themselves as the guardians of the Strat
> Myth, just as Americans have appointed themselves as sheriffs of the
> world.
I had some intriguing exchanges of thought with Elizabeth Weir on this
issue concerning Einstein and the American Atomic Bomb Dropping
Complex some year ago. Einstein was the only American innocent,
although he felt the most guilty.
They don't stop to think "Are we right", they just drop bombs
> mindlessly.
And treat war prisoners like dogs or worse, just for the fun of it.
They even document it by taking pictures of it, just like the Pol Pot
regime meticulously documented all their atrocities against their own
people, for the sake of governmental bureaucracy. Isn't it a wonderful
world?
Unfortunately, weak-minded individuals believe THEIR lies
> and accuse rational people of being liars instead!
>
Of course, since they can't accuse themselves of their own lies and
can't get rid of their multiplying lies hanging over them and
eventually crushing them when all else prove innocent.
> >I trust we are equally sure about William Stanley's key
> >position in the enigma, that if he was not the poet himself he at
> >least was on very intimate terms with him, whether he was Oxford or
> >Marlowe (Morley) or Bacon.
>
> The little man who wrote just about everything was on intimate terms
> with just about everybody of note during his time on earth. He used
> the names 'Morley' and 'Bacon' and, as 'John Lyly' he was secretary
> to Oxford. He knew Henry Stanley (4th Earl) and he knew the kids,
> Ferdinando and WIlliam. Ferdinando married Alice Spencer from
> Althorpe and William married Oxford's daughter, Elizabeth. As
> 'Edmund Spenser' the little man wrote about the Spencer girls and
> claimed to be related to them and as 'John Lyly' he would have surely
> known Oxford's daughter -- he worked for Oxford as his secretary
> until something better came along.
>
The little man wasn't by any chance Charlie Chaplin? Sorry, just
trying to cheer you up. Of course, Charlie Chaplin confessed all his
own crimes in his autobiography, so he couldn't have been the little
man of the 16th century. This stuff about Jonh Lyly is intriguing. I
know next to nothing about him. I must look him up sometime.
> Yes I can understand why the 'usual suspects' are on the list. I couldn't
> understand why the little man used so many pseudonyms until Art posted
> about Odin and his massive number of supposed aliases. I knew that
> he referred to himself as 'Mercury' but I didn't know that 'Odin' was
> another name for 'Mercury' until Art's posting. We CAN learn from each
> other, if we can get past the flaming from the goon squad (Small case
> represents my opinion of them.)
>
Art is wrong. Odin was one-eyed and associated with two black ravens.
Mercury needed both his eyes, never lost anyone of them and never
associated with ravens - only eagles. So he couldn't have been Odin,
who came much later. We Nordics invented our mythology when the Greek
one ran out or was put out by Christianity. Unfortunately, our Nordic
mythology was also put out by Christianity, but there are still some
bloaters around, especially in Iceland, ('bloating' here meaning
sacrificing human victims to their ravenous gods - real freaky stuff,
but gloriously heathen, like "Macbeth".)
> >The only excluded candidate is the First
> >Stratfordian, whose only interest in the business was his own bag of
> >money.
>
> Don't forget the booze -- he loved his booze! It appears from 'A Funeral
> Elegy' that the booze was loosening his tongue about the Shakespeare
> Invention and that's why he had to go. It got too much, so the little man,
> (under the name 'Michael Drayton') and his henchman, Ben Jonson, took
> him out for a drink and slipped him a Mickey Finn. Bye-bye Shakspere!
>
So Shakepere couldn't have been Shakespeare, since Shakespeare could
take any amount of booze, as is proven by all the carousals in his
plays, which activity never ends, until it resorts to "The Anatomy of
Melancholy", by which time the merry booze gets immersed and drowned
in dismally religious afterthought - the prelude to the Puritan
Revolution.
> <snip the bit about Eastern Europe. I am apprehensive about them>
>
> >Let's both stick together against the Stratfordian Goon Squad and
> >keep it up!
>
> I have only returned out of curiosity. Things haven't changed since my last
> visit. As with a merry-go-round, you can get on and off but it still only
> goes in circles and gets nowhere.
Wrong. It always gets somewhere around.
The time wasted in presenting your
> ideas to the goons can be used far more productively in doing actual
> research.
Perfectly true.
If you have any new evidence for Stanley's involvement, I should
> be pleased to correspond with you privately. We don't need mindless
> goons sniping at us and contributing sweet FA to the debate.
I have a special knack with the goons. Some of them must be afraid of
me, since they never returned after some of my bites. I must be
poisonous against goons suffering from Stratfordian folly. Maybe that
could be of some advantage to some of you.
with compliments,
Laila Roth, - perfectly alien and enjoying it
Peter Zenner
>It's a pleasure exchanging profundities with you since there are so
>many intriguing misunderstandings, and they keep multiplying.
Isn't it the same with any subject? The more you learn, the more
you realise you don't know.
>I did not attack you, at least not purposely.
You seemed to be taking the proverbial Michael. I am used to the
antics of the Grain-dealerites but it came as a bit of a shock to be
castigated by a non-grain-dealerite. Such as we do have something
to say, whereas the fundamentalists show their frustration by hitting
out blindly.
>I am the one who is being attacked here,
Oh no you're not! Anyone who doesn't conform to the religion of those
bigots is destined for their weapons of mass destruction. Just keep
ducking and diving.
>at the moment mainly by Neil Brennen, but he
>seems to have buzzed off at the moment, leaving me to defend myself
>against your accusations of my having attacked you. Wonderful!
'Buzzed' is the right word. Imagine him as TR[ashman]'s pet meat-fly.
I accepted your apology and made light of your comments. Let's move
on.
>I can assure you that I am neither a Brit nor a fundamentalist of any
>kind. I am from a remote and extremely northern eastern European
>country, which I hope won't disappoint you.
I gathered that you are already domiciled here and assumed that you
are a naturalised Brit.
>On the other hand, your
>calling me a Brit I take as a flattering compliment. I am used to
>being called other names, especially as a foreigner among too many
>racist Englishmen.
Oh? Of course you will find racists everywhere, but your typical racist
Englishmen seem to reserve their remarks for those of a darker
complexion than those whose ancestral home is in Europe. Some of
the older ones have yet to find a good word for the Germans but I am
pleased to say that I have friends all over the place -- yes, even in
America! I don't judge others by their origins; I judge them as individuals.
We are told not to "judge" anybody, of course, but self preservation is
an in-built instinct.
>And how on earth could I have known that an Egg Magician with an
>Italian name had no connection at all with Italy? You must understand
>that I was easily deceived on this issue.
No, no -- YOU are trying to deceive ME. You took a look at my web-site,
which has no references to 'Egg Magicians', and called me an 'Egg
Magician'. I took advantage of the reference to point out that magicians
aren't the only ones to use false names. Let's forget the episode....
<snip>
>The little man wasn't by any chance Charlie Chaplin?
The little man was a comedian: a lot of comedians are small. Humour
is one way of deflecting the bullies -- haven't you noticed? Our chap was
the comedian of his day -- WILL KEMPE -- but there was much more to
him than that. Different names for different games.
>Sorry, just trying to cheer you up.
Unnecessary, my dear Laila. I am having fun running my fingers along the
bars of the goon cage and listening to them growl :-)
>Of course, Charlie Chaplin confessed all his
>own crimes in his autobiography, so he couldn't have been the little
>man of the 16th century.
Everything ended up in a play, a novel or a poem. The only diifference
was that 'our' little man used many different names. He even took the
circumstances of his older sister's birth and wrote it up as 'The Winter's
Tale'. His own birth was the basis for 'The Birth of Merlin' and there is a
woodcut of him as 'Merlin' sitting in the grounds of Tong Castle. What
evidence is there of the 'real' Merlin ever being associated with Tong
Castle? In case you weren't around when I told hlasers about Tong, that
is where Edward & Lucy Stanley lived. I still maintain that they were the
Fair Man and the Dark Lady and that the little man's remains are in the
Stanley crypt at Tong.
>This stuff about Jonh Lyly is intriguing. I know next to nothing about him.
>I must look him up sometime.
If you are interested in the man who was 'Shakespeare' then you will HAVE
to learn about 'John Lyly'. When the llittle man's mother dumped him, a wet
nurse was found and her name was later used as a pseudonym.
>Art is wrong. Odin was one-eyed and associated with two black ravens.
>Mercury needed both his eyes, never lost anyone of them and never
>associated with ravens - only eagles. So he couldn't have been Odin,
>who came much later.
Don't blame Art, Laila. 'Twas Herodotus who wrote of the Germans and
explained that they worshipped Odin and that he was their equivalent of
Mercury and Hermes. Neither Herodotus nor the little man had access
to Google.
>We Nordics invented our mythology when the Greek
>one ran out or was put out by Christianity. Unfortunately, our Nordic
>mythology was also put out by Christianity, but there are still some
>bloaters around, especially in Iceland, ('bloating' here meaning
>sacrificing human victims to their ravenous gods - real freaky stuff,
>but gloriously heathen, like "Macbeth".)
I don't recall anything about the little man going back to source material
about you Nordics. He did have access to works by and about the Greeks
and the Romans though -- he probably took his info from Herodotus.
<snip>
>So Shakepere couldn't have been Shakespeare, since Shakespeare could
>take any amount of booze, as is proven by all the carousals in his
>plays, which activity never ends,
The man who wrote the 'Shakespeare' works could take his booze alright.
He was "a morning bookeworm" and an "afternoone maltworm". He was
even a publican for a while and had a pub on Phoenix Alley which he called
'The Poet's Head'. (Phoenix Alley is still there but it has been re-named
Hanover Place)
>until it resorts to "The Anatomy of Melancholy",
By Democritus Junior? Strange how that book is now attributed to Robert
Burton just because the author used his books and annotated them. (Bit
like the annotated bible belonging to Oxford.) Messrs Keen & Lubbock
wrote about 'The Annotator', based on their copy of Halle's Chronicle. The
little man should not have scribbled in other people's books; it has led
'scholars' to make false attributions.
>by which time the merry booze gets immersed and drowned
>in dismally religious afterthought - the prelude to the Puritan
>Revolution.
The little man did suffer from depression. He called it his "doleful dumps".
See the little man with the big 'melancholy hat"? That's him....
<snip>
>I have a special knack with the goons. Some of them must be afraid of
>me, since they never returned after some of my bites. I must be
>poisonous against goons suffering from Stratfordian folly. Maybe that
>could be of some advantage to some of you.
Give the goons enough rope and they will hang themselves. When Greg
published that list of links the other day, I had a look at the Rogues
Gallery. Check that picture of 'Dubya' (don't forget the dubya) Kennedy.
His eyes are shut. Methinks that all of the goons have their eyes shut and
their fingers in their ears -- and that their vile outpourings are the
equivalent of babies going "la-la-la" when they don't want to hear what
you are saying.
The poor souls are so far down their own roads that they cannot afford
to agree with anything that might show them wrong. No U turns for them.
There's an old saying -- "When you find that you have dug yourself into
a hole, stop digging!" Perhaps a few of them secretly doubt their old
beliefs but are too afraid to come out of the closet -- future openings
in Academia might be closed to them.
>Laila Roth, - perfectly alien and enjoying it
Good for you.
All the best
Chess One
> Everything ended up in a play, a novel or a poem. The only diifference
> was that 'our' little man used many different names. He even took the
> circumstances of his older sister's birth and wrote it up as 'The Winter's
> Tale'. His own birth was the basis for 'The Birth of Merlin' and there is
a
> woodcut of him as 'Merlin' sitting in the grounds of Tong Castle. What
> evidence is there of the 'real' Merlin ever being associated with Tong
> Castle? In case you weren't around when I told hlasers about Tong, that
> is where Edward & Lucy Stanley lived. I still maintain that they were the
> Fair Man and the Dark Lady and that the little man's remains are in the
> Stanley crypt at Tong.
Peter, "Tong" is a Dorset word, and only a Dorset word. It is some part of a
plough. I had a friend, a Hardy scholar with Tong as Surname. There is one
other and perhaps older meaning, also West-country; To toll a bell. There is
a very rare meaning located only to Exmoor, meaning; A spinning wheel.
TON means: The One, and is A.S.
The erle of Lancastur is the ton,
And the erle of Waryn sir Johnne.
/MS Cantab. Ff. v.48, f. 52
Phil
John Saran
> >at the moment mainly by Neil Brennen, but he
> >seems to have buzzed off at the moment, leaving me to defend myself
> >against your accusations of my having attacked you. Wonderful!
>
> 'Buzzed' is the right word. Imagine him as TR[ashman]'s pet meat-fly.
> I accepted your apology and made light of your comments. Let's move
> on.
Peter, I greatly respect your research.
So don't bring in the name of Brennen
the so-called chess historian. He doesn't
know anything about Shakespeare or chess.
If it were important for me to know how
the horsey moves, I would consult Phil
Innes, who is more articulate and more
willing to answer questions.
Yes, lets move on, and not discuss
Brennen the so-called chess historian.
You were right to call him a fly, only
it is a gadfly and not a meat-fly. A
meat fly has some meat to it. Brennen's
ribs may be well-padded, but there is no
meat to his posts. He could never write
one of your posts, even if he tried.
Out of a sense of altruism we will
refrain from discussing Brennen the
so-called chess historian. And when I
chide you for discussing Brennen the
so-called chess historian, it is out
of a sense of altruism. I hope it is
taken in the spirit it is offered.
Personally I can't understand why
anyone would want to write about
Brennen the so-called chess historian.
I always ignore him and never say
anything about him myself.
John Saran
Read the HLAS FAQ, but do as I say.
Peter Zenner
>Peter, "Tong" is a Dorset word, and only a Dorset word. It is some part of
a
>plough. I had a friend, a Hardy scholar with Tong as Surname. There is one
>other and perhaps older meaning, also West-country; To toll a bell. There
is
>a very rare meaning located only to Exmoor, meaning; A spinning wheel.
Tong is a village in Shropshire, Phil, and it has been there since before
the Doomsday Book The first owner of which there is a record was Leofric,
the Earl of Leicester. He married Lady Godiva (yes THE Lady Godiva). The
spelling has varied but this has always been the more usual one.
There is also a Tong in Yorkshire and the Isle of Lewis, a Tonge in
Leicestershire, and a Tongue on the very, very, northern coast of Scotland.
It seems that the various places are on a piece of land which sticks out --
like a TONGUE.
Have a look at Sonnet 69 and then ponder the French for that number.
Notice the references to 'tongues' in that Sonnet and the mood change
from the previous Sonnets. The little man has just moved in with Edward
& Lucy Stanley at Tong Castle, Shropshire. Edward was a homosexual
and his wife was not getting serviced at home -- hence the "bastard
shame". All of her children were illegitimate. The man who was known
as 'Shakespeare' had his wicked way with both of them and they have
gone down in history as the Fair Man and the Dark Lady.
The Bawdy Bard was playing with the word 'Tongue'.
Cheers,
Chess One
> Phil wrote --
> >Peter, "Tong" is a Dorset word, and only a Dorset word. It is some part
of
> a
> >plough. I had a friend, a Hardy scholar with Tong as Surname. There is
one
> >other and perhaps older meaning, also West-country; To toll a bell. There
> is
> >a very rare meaning located only to Exmoor, meaning; A spinning wheel.
>
> Tong is a village in Shropshire, Phil, and it has been there since before
> the Doomsday Book The first owner of which there is a record was Leofric,
> the Earl of Leicester. He married Lady Godiva (yes THE Lady Godiva). The
> spelling has varied but this has always been the more usual one.
<desperately>... but these aren't words as such, they are Proper Nouns, and
and...
> There is also a Tong in Yorkshire and the Isle of Lewis, a Tonge in
> Leicestershire, and a Tongue on the very, very, northern coast of
Scotland.
> It seems that the various places are on a piece of land which sticks
out --
> like a TONGUE.
>
> Have a look at Sonnet 69 and then ponder the French for that number.
I too am a child of the sixties, though admittedly none of us spoke much
French then and usually said Croissant-Nuff possible confusing it with
'crumpet'.
> Notice the references to 'tongues' in that Sonnet and the mood change
> from the previous Sonnets. The little man has just moved in with Edward
> & Lucy Stanley at Tong Castle, Shropshire. Edward was a homosexual
> and his wife was not getting serviced at home -- hence the "bastard
> shame". All of her children were illegitimate. The man who was known
> as 'Shakespeare' had his wicked way with both of them and they have
> gone down in history as the Fair Man and the Dark Lady.
How innocent I have been!
> The Bawdy Bard was playing with the word 'Tongue'.
The Dark Lady of this household has just asked me what I was doing. Meaning
of course, what was I not doing? I replied that I couldn't build the steps
because of the rain, and she remarked quick as a flash that it stopped
raining some time ago... So I said it was a review book I was reading, and
she immediatly rejoined that she wasn't aware that I reviewed books on wine.
Any port in a storm, I said, equally fast.
Well, back to it.
Phil
Christian Lanciai
> bigots is destined for their weapons of mass destruction. Just keep
> ducking and diving.
>
I just happened to came across some lines relating to this issue:
"According to the following media release, yet another new cult has
emerged with the aim of making life miserable for Westerners,
particularly children of school age. (In fact this one seems to have
already succeeded beyond its wildest dreams):
Yesterday, at New York's Kennedy airport, an individual was arrested
when he tried to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a
protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, US Attorney General John Ashcroft said
he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He
is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of maths
instruction.
"Al-gebra is an odd cult whose leader is believed to be a cosine of
Osama Bin Laden," Ashcroft said. "There are several divisions and they
are prepared to use a wide variety of means to achieve solutions. The
members sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values. In
addition, they use secret code names such as 'x' and 'y' and refer to
themselves as 'unknowns', but we are positive that they belong to a
common denominator known as the 'Axis of Even', with coordinates in
many countries.
"As the Greek natural philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are
three sides to every triangle," Ashcroft declared.
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said: "If God had
wanted us to have better weapons of maths instruction, He would have
given us more fingers and toes.
"I am gratified that our government has given us a sine that it is
intent on protracting us from those who are willing to disintegrate us
with calculus disregard. Under the circumferences, and factoring in
all
the variables, I believe that we must maintain unity and draw the
line,
cos divided we fall."
President Bush also warned: "These weapons of maths instruction have
the potential to decimal our society on a scalene never before seen,
unless we become exponents of a Higher Power and rid the world of this
entirely negative organisation."
The President concluded: "Read my ellipse. Here is one principle we
are not uncertainty of--though they continue to multiply, we are
circling
in ever closer, and their days are numbered as the hypotenuse tightens
around their necks."
from the documentary wisdom of Anne of Canberra
Cheers!
Chris