EVIDENCE-BASED AUTHORSHIP: The Theory Is Not The Evidence
Elizabeth Weir
Kuhn (1989) has argued that the core relation in
scientific thinking is differentiating theory and
evidence and correctly evaluating evidence in relation
to theory.
Acquiring intellectual skills. M. Carretero, J.F. Voss, J. Wiley.
Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 46. 995. Page 155.
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
If evaluating evidence is so important, then it seems especially
crucial that Elizabeth begin actually presenting some evidence for her
inventions. She could begin by citing evidence for the assertion that
"The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
Failing that (this is the perishable internet, after all) she could
acknowledge merely having fabricated the above gem out of thin air.
Otherwise, what are to we to think of someone who extolls the importance
of evidence but doesn't furnish any?
Phil Innes
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:david.l.webb-2C4A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> In article <efbc3534.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
>
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Kuhn (1989) has argued that the core relation in
> > scientific thinking is differentiating theory and
> > evidence and correctly evaluating evidence in relation
> > to theory.
> >
> > Acquiring intellectual skills. M. Carretero, J.F. Voss, J. Wiley.
> > Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 46. 995. Page 155.
What does Kuhn say about Genius Loci which has nothing to do with acquired
intellectual skills? The idea of 'correctly evaluating evidence in relation
to theory' is the same idea which persecuted Galileo. Theory had it that the
Sun went round the earth, therefore his evidence was not wrong, but fitting
theory incorrectly. Right? And Gallileo had to subscribe to this logical
lunacy or burn.
This type of argument is of the genus: prescriptive.
> If evaluating evidence is so important, then it seems especially
> crucial that Elizabeth begin actually presenting some evidence for her
> inventions. She could begin by citing evidence for the assertion that
>
> "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
> factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
I have answered this question elsewhere, however: Does it have independent
significance?
> Failing that (this is the perishable internet, after all) she could
> acknowledge merely having fabricated the above gem out of thin air.
> Otherwise, what are to we to think of someone who extolls the importance
> of evidence but doesn't furnish any?
All these are cheap arguments, rhetoric, nothing else. They are not to do
with method.
Any evidence is the result of a process, right?
Any process is exploration within given fixed elements, right?
(please disagree with any aspect of this)
Achieving a result, [or 'evidence'] is the end of the process, right?
A result cannot exist independently of the process which resolved it, right?
And is inseparable from that process, right?
Kuhn's statement is not very liberal - it assumes 'theory' while there need
not be a theory to conduct an investigation - a minimum beginning in
scientific methodology is instead, anecdote! One needs at least one apple to
fall on one's head [even an apocryphal apple]. After which one may attempt
theory, but this would be unusual! Better to collect varieties of anecdotes,
and compare.
What is compared may become an insight into pattern, viz: a pattern of
experience. Patterns may/may not suggest ideas, theorems, hypothesis,
gravity?!
While I am en-garde after what I have heard of Elizabeth Weir, it is not
sufficient to reduce an insufficient approach by equally insufficient means.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Elizabeth Weir
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-2C4A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <efbc3534.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> >
> > > ___________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kuhn (1989) has argued that the core relation in
> > > scientific thinking is differentiating theory and
> > > evidence and correctly evaluating evidence in relation
> > > to theory.
> > >
> > > Acquiring intellectual skills. M. Carretero, J.F. Voss, J. Wiley.
> > > Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 46. 995. Page 155.
>
> What does Kuhn say about Genius Loci which has nothing to do with acquired
> intellectual skills?
Are you suggesting that Stratford was genius loci?
Cambridge in the 1570s and 1580s was a definite
genius loci since it produced Spenser, Marlowe, Harvey,
Nashe and Bacon but the Stratford maltster was never
situated in a genius loci.
> The idea of 'correctly evaluating evidence in relation
> to theory' is the same idea which persecuted Galileo.
The Inquisition concluded that Galileo's evidence of
helocentrism didn't describe the Roman Catholic
theology (theory) of geocentrism so Galileo was
compelled to deny his evidence.
I don't agree that Kuhn is describing the process
through which the Roman Catholic Church
persecuted Galileo. He's talking about science
or philosophy, not theology or ideology. Theology
and ideology really need no evidence at all and
in the case of Galileo's evidence, it merely served
to frighten the Church.
> Theory had it that the
> Sun went round the earth, therefore his evidence was not wrong, but fitting
> theory incorrectly. Right?
Galileo claimed to have made astronomical observations
(evidence) that proved Copernicus' theory.
> lunacy or burn.
>
> This type of argument is of the genus: prescriptive.
So what if it is. Prescriptive isn't a perjorative.
> > If evaluating evidence is so important, then it seems especially
> > crucial that Elizabeth begin actually presenting some evidence for her
> > inventions. She could begin by citing evidence for the assertion that
> >
> > "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
> > factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
>
> I have answered this question elsewhere, however: Does it have independent
> significance?
I discovered that Jonson referred to Greene's crow in
Epicoene but only in the quarto. Jonson's references to the
crow were removed from the 1616 folio. If Jonson's
reference is right, 'shake-scene' doesn't mean 'treading the
boards with tragedian boots' but I shall post on that
elsewhere.
> > Failing that (this is the perishable internet, after all) she could
> > acknowledge merely having fabricated the above gem out of thin air.
> > Otherwise, what are to we to think of someone who extolls the importance
> > of evidence but doesn't furnish any?
>
> All these are cheap arguments, rhetoric, nothing else. They are not to do
> with method.
>
> Any evidence is the result of a process, right?
Evidence is simply 'stuff' brought forward to be used
as a proof (of a theory). If it succeeds, then the evidence
becomes 'fact' which is used in the decision process.
The decision is made with logic.
> Any process is exploration within given fixed elements, right?
> (please disagree with any aspect of this)
A process can be normative. Exploration is not really
a scientific term.
> Achieving a result, [or 'evidence'] is the end of the process, right?
> A result cannot exist independently of the process which resolved it, right?
> And is inseparable from that process, right?
>
> Kuhn's statement is not very liberal - it assumes 'theory' while there need
> not be a theory to conduct an investigation -
Inductive reasoning is generalizing about observations but
it's more like coming to laws or rules about evidence but
with Popper's falsification in which the observer pays
more attention to the exceptions it takes on aspects
of a theory.
> a minimum beginning in
> scientific methodology is instead, anecdote! One needs at least one apple to
> fall on one's head [even an apocryphal apple]. After which one may attempt
> theory, but this would be unusual! Better to collect varieties of anecdotes,
> and compare.
That was Bacon's idea but he did include a final deductive
step (ignored by his critics). Bacon also came up with
falsification before Popper but who's keeping track.
> What is compared may become an insight into pattern, viz: a pattern of
> experience. Patterns may/may not suggest ideas, theorems, hypothesis,
> gravity?!
>
> While I am en-garde after what I have heard of Elizabeth Weir, it is not
> sufficient to reduce an insufficient approach by equally insufficient means.
Your speaking of yourself, of course.
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
of staying awake, I have bi-furcated our conversation.
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:<vjxqb.247$Re.1...@newshog.newsread.com>...
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:david.l.webb-2C4A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > > In article <efbc3534.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> > > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > >
> > > > ___________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kuhn (1989) has argued that the core relation in
> > > > scientific thinking is differentiating theory and
> > > > evidence and correctly evaluating evidence in relation
> > > > to theory.
> > > >
> > > > Acquiring intellectual skills. M. Carretero, J.F. Voss, J.
Wiley.
> > > > Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 46. 995. Page 155.
> >
> > What does Kuhn say about Genius Loci which has nothing to do with
acquired
> > intellectual skills?
>
> Are you suggesting that Stratford was genius loci?
Lets stay with Kuhn a moment :)
I am saying that Kuhn is abstracting and generalising, which is a functional
opposite of the idea 'genius loci.'
As is evident I did not evoke Stratford. I am merely noting the means of
inquiry.
> Cambridge in the 1570s and 1580s was a definite
> genius loci since it produced Spenser, Marlowe, Harvey,
> Nashe and Bacon but the Stratford maltster was never
> situated in a genius loci.
Nolens volens...
> > The idea of 'correctly evaluating evidence in relation
> > to theory' is the same idea which persecuted Galileo.
>
> The Inquisition concluded that Galileo's evidence of
> helocentrism didn't describe the Roman Catholic
> theology (theory) of geocentrism so Galileo was
> compelled to deny his evidence.
Yes
> I don't agree that Kuhn is describing the process
> through which the Roman Catholic Church
> persecuted Galileo. He's talking about science
> or philosophy, not theology or ideology. Theology
> and ideology really need no evidence at all and
> in the case of Galileo's evidence, it merely served
> to frighten the Church.
Yes, however, I should like not to VERE into subject matter a while longer,
but still consider the approach or method of inquiry.
> > Theory had it that the
> > Sun went round the earth, therefore his evidence was not wrong, but
fitting
> > theory incorrectly. Right?
>
> Galileo claimed to have made astronomical observations
> (evidence) that proved Copernicus' theory.
I take that as agreement.
> > lunacy or burn.
> >
> > This type of argument is of the genus: prescriptive.
>
> So what if it is. Prescriptive isn't a perjorative.
I never said so.
It is of a type however - I am saying what characterises this type.
Prescription neverthless subjects investigation to an -ology, nomatter what
name that -ology has [science,
philosophy, theology, ideology], the METHOD of the -ology is the same where
there is prescriptive inquiry.
And its method I addressed. The method is not the evidence; a method
produces a result. Prescriptive methods filter what may be put through the
filter. As you say, this is not a prejorative process, and may or may not be
actually useful in determining any result.
Therefore, one needs to examine the basis of whatever investigation has
taken place by describing its method, otherwise any 'evidence' is literally
unqualified. Agree?
I break off here since the second part of the post is content rather than
methodological.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Phil Innes
Elizabeth, Second Act:-
> > > "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
> > > factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
> >
> > I have answered this question elsewhere, however: Does it have
independent
> > significance?
>
> I discovered that Jonson referred to Greene's crow in
> Epicoene but only in the quarto. Jonson's references to the
> crow were removed from the 1616 folio. If Jonson's
> reference is right, 'shake-scene' doesn't mean 'treading the
> boards with tragedian boots' but I shall post on that
> elsewhere.
no comment
> > > Failing that (this is the perishable internet, after all) she could
> > > acknowledge merely having fabricated the above gem out of thin air.
> > > Otherwise, what are to we to think of someone who extolls the
importance
> > > of evidence but doesn't furnish any?
> >
> > All these are cheap arguments, rhetoric, nothing else. They are not to
do
> > with method.
> >
> > Any evidence is the result of a process, right?
>
> Evidence is simply 'stuff' brought forward to be used
> as a proof (of a theory). If it succeeds, then the evidence
> becomes 'fact' which is used in the decision process.
> The decision is made with logic.
I am unsure is that constitutes agreement. Is it really necessary to
introduce all these other terms, 'proof, theory, fact, logic...'
to qualify a simple proposition:-
"Process produces result"
> > Any process is exploration within given fixed elements, right?
> > (please disagree with any aspect of this)
>
> A process can be normative. Exploration is not really
> a scientific term.
'Scientific term?'
& Normative or not, I am making a very simple proposition that there will be
a number of fixed aspects to any process. You know, five different things to
do, or different kinds of things to do to check something out.
> > Achieving a result, [or 'evidence'] is the end of the process, right?
> > A result cannot exist independently of the process which resolved it,
right?
> > And is inseparable from that process, right?
I don't wish to plague you with questions on methodology if its not to your
interest. However, in order to make claims it is necessary to define a few
basic terms and axioms of investigation.
These may seem perfunctory, but if we cannot agree then whatever 'results'
will _not_ be normative, but idiosyncratic.
> > Kuhn's statement is not very liberal - it assumes 'theory' while there
need
> > not be a theory to conduct an investigation -
>
> Inductive reasoning is generalizing about observations but
> it's more like coming to laws or rules about evidence but
> with Popper's falsification in which the observer pays
> more attention to the exceptions it takes on aspects
> of a theory.
I am making a much simpler point. Is my point agreed, or do you think you
must have a theory of something before you can investigate it?
> > a minimum beginning in
> > scientific methodology is instead, anecdote! One needs at least one
apple to
> > fall on one's head [even an apocryphal apple]. After which one may
attempt
> > theory, but this would be unusual! Better to collect varieties of
anecdotes,
> > and compare.
>
> That was Bacon's idea
Newton's too. Its the basis of any investigation. To wit; the novel
experience (or anecdote) preceeds the theorum of such experiences.
> but he did include a final deductive
> step (ignored by his critics). Bacon also came up with
> falsification before Popper but who's keeping track.
?
> > What is compared may become an insight into pattern, viz: a pattern of
> > experience. Patterns may/may not suggest ideas, theorems, hypothesis,
> > gravity?!
> >
> > While I am en-garde after what I have heard of Elizabeth Weir, it is not
> > sufficient to reduce an insufficient approach by equally insufficient
means.
>
> Your speaking of yourself, of course.
Such as we are we display in our writing here.
Now have you become a little pissy, thinking perhaps that I have said
something disobliging about you? Rather than refer people who really have
said disobliging things of your writing -not to whatever results or
evidences you mutually contest- but to METHOD.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Elizabeth
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
[...]
> Are you suggesting that Stratford was genius loci?
Katherine Duncan-Jones, in the first chapter of her _Ungentle
Shakespeare_, notes that the English Midlands region was a remarkable
cradle of of the literary arts. In a section entitled "The bookish
Midlands," she notes that "Six counties encircle Warwickshire, and
during the Elizabethan period all of them bred major writers." Indeed,
Duncan-Jones begins the book with
There is no need to doubt whether a grammar-school boy from
Stratford-upon-Avon could grow up to write great, enduring plays
and poems. Indeed, in the late Elizabethan period the West
Midlands was much the likeliest region of England to produce a
major secular poet and playwright.
And in the next paragraph:
Strong traditions of drama and civic pageantry, rich and generous
local patrons and excellent local grammar schools all combined to
make the West Midlands as a whole, and Warwickshire in particular,
'another Eden,' a territory in which both learning and recreation
flourished....
> Cambridge in the 1570s and 1580s was a definite
> genius loci since it produced Spenser, Marlowe, Harvey,
> Nashe and Bacon but the Stratford maltster was never
> situated in a genius loci.
See above. Elizabeth appears to be blithely unaware of the social
and inellectual history of the region -- but then Elizabeth appears to
be blithely unaware of almost EVERYTHING, so this lapse comes as no
surprise.
> [...] Theology
> and ideology really need no evidence at all
Baconian nonsense is a perfect exemplar.
[...]
> > This type of argument is of the genus: prescriptive.
> So what if it is. Prescriptive isn't a perjorative [sic].
That's true vacuously, by virtue of the fact that "perjorative" is
not an English word.
[...]
> Evidence is simply 'stuff' brought forward to be used
> as a proof (of a theory). If it succeeds, then the evidence
> becomes 'fact' which is used in the decision process.
> The decision is made with logic.
Just when thinks that Elizabeth cannot possibly get any funnier, she
produces utterances like this!
[...]
> > While I am en-garde after what I have heard of Elizabeth Weir, it is not
> > sufficient to reduce an insufficient approach by equally insufficient
> > means.
> Your [sic] speaking of yourself, of course.
Elizabeth's reading comprehension evidently has not improved.
Phil Innes
>
> Elizabeth's reading comprehension evidently has not improved.
[sic] was noted, I was too polite and apissy.
But is this really typical of the level of Oxford 'research' - a research
where nothing is attempted to be discovered? Which has a perfunctory and
prescribed (!) method which can only produce one result, and be irresponsive
to what is left out? Why not deconstruct and thoroughly atomize A.A. Milne?
Surely one could obtain the same result.
Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only response,
but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception of
the Work as art, or in some other way?
It is surely an interesting puzzle, in an age of many puzzles and necessary
concealments, but substituting another personality in place of open Billy
explains nothing of how ANYONE could be the Author! What precedent is there?
What antecedent? Isn't this the greater, perhaps even unanswerable, mystery?
At least this newsgroup have provided a goodly commercial opportunity for me
in BARD WARZ, and I have to nip off and attend a séance right now where the
four John's have been commenting - John Dee, John Donne, John Deere & John
Doe. There is much talk about the characters I have proposed and 'making
them 12' especially the seventh which was left unfinished and should be
Jupiterian!
Cordially! Phil Innes
Bob Grumman
> > > Your [sic] speaking of yourself, of course.
> >
> > Elizabeth's reading comprehension evidently has not improved.
>
> [sic] was noted, I was too polite and apissy.
>
> But is this really typical of the level of Oxford 'research' - a research
> where nothing is attempted to be discovered? Which has a perfunctory and
> prescribed (!) method which can only produce one result, and be irresponsive
> to what is left out? Why not deconstruct and thoroughly atomize A.A. Milne?
> Surely one could obtain the same result.
>
> Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only response,
> but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception of
> the Work as art, or in some other way?
It has little to do with the work, although having a better-documented
author than Shakespeare would surely clear up some of the hazy areas
in the works. What establishing authorship has to do with, as I seem
to have to state at HLAS two or three times a year, is Literary
History. Literary history is important for the same reason any kind
of history is: it tells us how we've gotten to where we are, and what
we are. Determining authorship is particularly important for
determining the creative process. In this case, it can be revealing
as to whether or not one has to have to have tutors or the equivalent,
and close friends in the political establishment, to be able to write
great plays, for instance. It also can suggest how much importance
being an actor might have on writing plays. Much else.
--Bob G.
Lynne
> > > Your [sic] speaking of yourself, of course.
> >
> > Elizabeth's reading comprehension evidently has not improved.
>
> [sic] was noted, I was too polite and apissy.
>
> But is this really typical of the level of Oxford 'research' - a research
> where nothing is attempted to be discovered? Which has a perfunctory and
> prescribed (!) method which can only produce one result, and be irresponsive
> to what is left out? Why not deconstruct and thoroughly atomize A.A. Milne?
> Surely one could obtain the same result.
>
> Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only response,
> but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception of
> the Work as art, or in some other way?
Uncharacteristically vague for me, or for any Oxfordian? I can go into
it in much greater detail, of course. Or you could visit our website
and ask your question there.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth, since the matter of this post has two parts, and brevity the soul
> of staying awake, I have bi-furcated our conversation.
>
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
> news:<vjxqb.247$Re.1...@newshog.newsread.com>...
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:david.l.webb-2C4A...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > > > In article <efbc3534.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > So what if it is. Prescriptive isn't a perjorative.
>
> I never said so.
> It is of a type however - I am saying what characterises this type.
>
> Prescription neverthless subjects investigation to an -ology, nomatter what
> name that -ology has [science,
> philosophy, theology, ideology], the METHOD of the -ology is the same where
> there is prescriptive inquiry.
>
> And its method I addressed. The method is not the evidence; a method
> produces a result.
In quantum physics the method and the evidence interact
or at least the act of measuring changes the state of the
object so in some areas of science the method is incorporated
into the results.
> Prescriptive methods filter what may be put through the
> filter. As you say, this is not a prejorative process, and may or may not be
> actually useful in determining any result.
>
> Therefore, one needs to examine the basis of whatever investigation has
> taken place by describing its method, otherwise any 'evidence' is literally
> unqualified. Agree?
Bohr said something like the 'experiment is an opportunity
to tell others what has been done and what has been
earned.' That pretty much sums it up.
> I break off here since the second part of the post is content rather than
> methodological.
Thanks for the discussion.
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
> > Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> > establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only
response,
> > but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception
of
> > the Work as art, or in some other way?
>
> It has little to do with the work, although having a better-documented
> author than Shakespeare would surely clear up some of the hazy areas
> in the works. What establishing authorship has to do with, as I seem
> to have to state at HLAS two or three times a year, is Literary
> History. Literary history is important for the same reason any kind
> of history is: it tells us how we've gotten to where we are, and what
> we are. Determining authorship is particularly important for
> determining the creative process.
Bob, in short, this is my own interest in the subject...
> In this case, it can be revealing
> as to whether or not one has to have to have tutors or the equivalent,
> and close friends in the political establishment, to be able to write
> great plays, for instance. It also can suggest how much importance
> being an actor might have on writing plays. Much else.
>
> --Bob G.
... which I expressed here. Cordially, Phil
Phil Innes
> > produces a result.
>
> In quantum physics the method and the evidence interact
> or at least the act of measuring changes the state of the
> object so in some areas of science the method is incorporated
> into the results.
Elizabeth, Although I see you have received another response I myself would
agree with you [incidentally, no need to invoke esoterica such as quantum
theory or even a science, the same is axiomatic of C16th logic!], except
with greater differentiation; not only are method + result related, but they
are in _particular_ relationship. Describing that relationship qualifies the
extent of the inquiry, and indeed, qualifies the result.
Cordially, Phil Innes
~~~~~~~~~
> Elizabeth
Phil Innes
> > establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only
response,
> > but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception
of
> > the Work as art, or in some other way?
>
> Uncharacteristically vague for me, or for any Oxfordian? I can go into
> it in much greater detail, of course. Or you could visit our website
> and ask your question there.
Simply 'uncharacterised' personal interest. It is premature to look at group
(Oxfordian) regimen. It doesn't interest me to visit this subject in _the
way_ you suggest Lynne, I am already in contention with Elizabeth on post
hoc ergo... issues of method (the way of)
Although I seem to have read more than some Literats, I am but a poor
philosopher, wondering HOW people perceive information; then, as in the case
above of 'knowing the identity of the author', what any change in perception
constitutes. [I apologise if this is excruciating semiology.]
Technically, I am less interested in textual analysis, after all - the
Author is not a novelist, and the plays are not books, they are first,
performances. Some wag said that philosophy was rescuing the truth from
words.
If you will allow me all this, then when I ask "Does it really change the
perception of the Work as art, or in some other way?" I am not as much
interested in Yes/No as From/To. Without understanding the 'from'
particularly, the 'to' is less consequential.
Cordially, Phil
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> www.shakespearefellowship.org
lecolin
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message news:<Bg9rb.375$Re.3...@newshog.newsread.com>...
> > > > Your [sic] speaking of yourself, of course.
> > >
> > > Elizabeth's reading comprehension evidently has not improved.
> >
> > [sic] was noted, I was too polite and apissy.
> >
> > But is this really typical of the level of Oxford 'research' - a research
> > where nothing is attempted to be discovered? Which has a perfunctory and
> > prescribed (!) method which can only produce one result, and be irresponsive
> > to what is left out? Why not deconstruct and thoroughly atomize A.A. Milne?
> > Surely one could obtain the same result.
> >
> > Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> > establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only response,
> > but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception of
> > the Work as art, or in some other way?
>
So the question is one of utility? How "useful" is it to know who an
author was? While curiosity -- the desire for knowledge, for
understanding -- is sufficient justification in itself, let's look at
some utility answers.
All works of art are works of communication. If they move the viewer
(in thought or emotion), they are exerting power -- they are
manipulating the viewer at some level (I do not mean surreptitiously,
necessarily). Is it of no consequence who the manipulator is? what
their agenda is? what has informed their art which in turn is
affecting you? To me the answer is self-evident.
Another reason -- for example, consider "The Lord Of The Rings."
Would it matter if it had been written by a shopgirl in France trying
to ignore her daily grind? One could say no, because the work would
still be the same -- the same manuscript in front of us. But that
would be to miss the wealth that the right attribution gives: in
terms of sources, ideas, background knowledge, etc. And we would miss
other things. (I doubt, for instance, that it was pure coincidence
that the creation of Earth Day followed the paperback publication of
LOTR by about 5 years: though Carson's "Silent Spring" was the
informing source, Tolkien gave another kind of motivation.) And then,
too, think of all the positive explorations that have come from
knowing the author was Tolkien: in Middle English readings, and
looking at old myths, and thinking about the creation of languages,
etc. Who the author is, makes a difference.
> It has little to do with the work, although having a better-documented
> author than Shakespeare would surely clear up some of the hazy areas
> in the works. What establishing authorship has to do with, as I seem
> to have to state at HLAS two or three times a year, is Literary
> History. Literary history is important for the same reason any kind
> of history is: it tells us how we've gotten to where we are, and what
> we are. Determining authorship is particularly important for
> determining the creative process. In this case, it can be revealing
> as to whether or not one has to have to have tutors or the equivalent,
> and close friends in the political establishment, to be able to write
> great plays, for instance. It also can suggest how much importance
> being an actor might have on writing plays. Much else.
>
> --Bob G.
>
You had me until "Determining..." Then... this is perhaps the saddest
thing I have ever read on hlas:
" In this case, it can be revealing
> as to whether or not one has to have to have tutors or the equivalent,
> and close friends in the political establishment, to be able to write
> great plays, for instance. "
Revealing indeed. Who would argue that you need tutors or such
close friends to be able to write great plays? You don't need a
tremendous vocabulary, you don't need erudition past of what you
write. The possibilities for commoners are not lessened by
possibility of losing a peer (choice word, ha) in Shakespeare. Does
the "decision" on who wrote Shakespeare depend on our egotistical need
to imagine that we too could do the same? (No, please don't recite
yet once again the "concrete" "evidence" for Stratford Bill's
authorship. That's not your motivation anyway, you make quite clear.)
Phil Innes
> > > Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> > > establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only
response,
> > > but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the
perception of
> > > the Work as art, or in some other way?
> >
>
> So the question is one of utility? How "useful" is it to know who an
> author was?
Yes, certainly 'useful' is a criterion of the _result_. There are others.
However, one's sense and sensibility are valid qualifiers of the _process_
before we can ever appreciate any result, and sorry to go on and on, but
process and result are intimately connected:-
Example:-
I am looking at an object, rectangle, wooden boarder with stretched canvas,
and the name "Matisse" plus a date painted on it, there is also a
"Sotheby's" sticker with the title of the piece.
You, a connoiseur, are looking at the painting itself, and see a room with
seascape beyond the balcony, there are other paintings on the wall of the
picture, and a divan, the principal interior colours are warm, reds and
yellows, outside blues and greens. A vase of yellow-orange flowers sits on
an ornate crimson cloth in the foreground.
We both know different things about the object. We could both talk of the
same object! But - there are lots of buts...
Evidently if we could change positions we will both know as much as each
other about the object, though if you are admiring the painting purely on
its own merits will you appreciate it more by knowing the name of the
painter, or the apparent endorsement of an authority (Sotheby's)? This is an
open question - okay?
And for me, perhaps I have no interest in particular images, I am only
interested in the quantity of paintings produced by an artist in a given
period, it is an assignment I have to do and I first thought Matisse was a
member of Bon Jovi. Viewing the image itself does not increment my area of
study - okay again?
I do not characterise either my perspective nor yours without also knowing
why we are looking at the object.
If I am not much interested in the image side of the canvas, and besides
wear loud tasteless clothes, am completely inexpressive on any quality of
any thing and even state that I prefer photos of the Grateful Dead in
concert - in other words, I am a feckless slob rock and roll kid moderately
sober - you might wish to credit much more what I first saw, than any
sensitive impressions I had on what you first saw.
I am not a moron, I am only a tasteless slob who couldn't care less if he
was looking at wallpaper, and for that reason an unreliable reporter of your
side of the canvas.
This is why I want to know about the 'how' of any investigation.
I was amused where you write below on needing tutors et. ca. to write.
Several years ago a jobless single mother with young child in Edinborough
wrote a book that got more children reading than the billion dollar
education industry had.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Gary Kosinsky
>> Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
>> establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only response,
>> but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception of
>> the Work as art, or in some other way?
To listen to some of the anti-Strats in this group,
you cannot possibly understand the Works unless you know the
author was Oxford. Consider Paul Crowley as an extreme
example. He would, I think, argue that if you don't realize
the Sonnets were written by Oxford to Queen Elizabeth, you
will miss out on the important meaning of most of them. You
may gain an understanding of the superficial meaning of the
sonnets, which millions of people over the years have done.
But this, according to Crowley, is of little account in
comparison to the *real* meanings contained therein, real
meanings which are only known to Paul Crowley.
Now I happen to think Paul's interpetations are
nonsense. But he does illustrate an approach to the works
that stresses the importance of knowing who the author was.
There have been a few others who would claim that some of
the plays are actually slimly disguised commentaries on
happenings in the Elizabethan Court.
This raises the question: can we rip Shakespeare's
plays out of their historical context and still understand
and appreciate them? Millions, of course, would answer
"Yes!". Most playgoers today do not necessarily take a
course in Elizabethan history before seeing a Shakespeare
play. Does knowing that the character of Polonius may have
been based on William Cecil really increase our
understanding or enjoyment of "Hamlet"? I doubt it. Does
this mean that we get the full appreciation of the plays
that an Elizabethan playgoer would have received? That is a
bit more debatable. But clearly the plays can be treated as
ahistorical things. In which case, in terms of simply
enjoying the plays, the author is relatively unimportant.
Having said that, it should be said, as others have
said, that Shakespeare is not just Literature, he is also
History. And like any other historical figure, people are
going to be interested in the details of the author's life.
I have no idea whether any of this pertains to the
question you're asking, but thanks for the opportunity to
spout off.
- Gary Kosinsky
Greg Reynolds
> Does knowing that the character of Polonius may have
> been based on William Cecil really increase our
> understanding or enjoyment of "Hamlet"?
Enjoyment.
Bob Grumman
> > > establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only
> response,
> > > but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception
> of
> > > the Work as art, or in some other way?
> >
> > It has little to do with the work, although having a better-documented
> > author than Shakespeare would surely clear up some of the hazy areas
> > in the works. What establishing authorship has to do with, as I seem
> > to have to state at HLAS two or three times a year, is Literary
> > History. Literary history is important for the same reason any kind
> > of history is: it tells us how we've gotten to where we are, and what
> > we are. Determining authorship is particularly important for
> > determining the creative process.
>
> Bob, in short, this is my own interest in the subject...
>
> > In this case, it can be revealing
> > as to whether or not one has to have to have tutors or the equivalent,
> > and close friends in the political establishment, to be able to write
> > great plays, for instance. It also can suggest how much importance
> > being an actor might have on writing plays. Much else.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> ... which I expressed here. Cordially, Phil
Okay. I never saw it, but I get pretty confused when reading threads
Elizabeth is on. I also skip a lot.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> This raises the question: can we rip Shakespeare's
> plays out of their historical context and still understand
> and appreciate them?
Well, there's a difference between hysterical denial of Shakespeare's
bourgeois origins, on the one hand, and complete ignorance of his world,
on the other. (Of course, some Shakespeare denies achieve both, and
explain to us with exquisite condescension Neddie de Vere's unequivocal
stance anent Jeffersonian democracy.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Paul Crowley
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote:
>
> >> Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> >> establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only response,
> >> but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the perception of
> >> the Work as art, or in some other way?
>
> To listen to some of the anti-Strats in this group,
> you cannot possibly understand the Works unless you know the
> author was Oxford. Consider Paul Crowley as an extreme
> example. He would, I think, argue that if you don't realize
> the Sonnets were written by Oxford to Queen Elizabeth, you
> will miss out on the important meaning of most of them. You
> may gain an understanding of the superficial meaning of the
> sonnets, which millions of people over the years have done.
> But this, according to Crowley, is of little account in
> comparison to the *real* meanings contained therein, real
> meanings which are only known to Paul Crowley.
Not really. They are great poems, and that
can be appreciated without being aware of
the reasons they were written, or of the
immediate circumstances of the poet, or
many of the meanings he put into them for
his addressee and first reader (i.e Queen
Elizabeth). In fact, in some ways, I think,
an awareness of those aspects may well
detract from one's appreciation of the poem
-- as a poem.
I don't claim to understand all the issues,
but it may be like the difference between a
child's love of a nursery rhyme, (or, perhaps,
a story like Gulliver's travels) and an adult's
appreciation -- an adult who is aware of the
'real' reasons it was written: that it was a
comment upon, or satire of, political events
of the time.
While we may regret the 'loss of innocence',
as adults we have no choice. And, in fact,
we gain far more from a truer understanding
of reality. The story of Oxford, Queen
Elizabeth, the establishment of English (and
now World) theatre and literature, the
creation of 'freedom' and of the literary and
political foundation of the world in which all
of us now live -- is all so wonderful, that no
one who knows it could ever imagine wanting
to preserve the child's (i.e. the Stratfordian)
understanding.
> Now I happen to think Paul's interpetations are
> nonsense.
If they were, you'd be able to show it at the
level of each word, each phrase, each line
and each sonnet. You've never managed
that -- not even for one word.
> But he does illustrate an approach to the works
> that stresses the importance of knowing who the author was.
> There have been a few others who would claim that some of
> the plays are actually slimly disguised commentaries on
> happenings in the Elizabethan Court.
'Loves Labours Lost' cannot be understood
unless you appreciate, for a start, the meaning
of its name (and its multi-layered puns), and
that there was only one occasion for which
the play could have been written.
> This raises the question: can we rip Shakespeare's
> plays out of their historical context and still understand
> and appreciate them? Millions, of course, would answer
> "Yes!".
Millions of children have enjoyed "Gulliver's
Travels" and "Animal Farm" on much the
same basis.
> Most playgoers today do not necessarily take a
> course in Elizabethan history before seeing a Shakespeare
> play. Does knowing that the character of Polonius may have
> been based on William Cecil really increase our
> understanding or enjoyment of "Hamlet"? I doubt it.
Within the Stratfordian context, it makes no
significant difference. But when you see
the author as 'Hamlet' -- someone who did,
as a child, sit on the knees of players, who
did live in the house of Polonius and who
did marry his daughter -- and when you see
everything else -- you change your
understanding, nor merely of Hamlet, but
of English literature and of your civilisation,
of how it and you happen to exist and of
what it is and who you are.
Paul.
Phil Innes
> > "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Sorry to make the same remark again, but what is the consequence of
> > >> establishing, or re-establishing authorship? Lynne's was the only
response,
> > >> but was uncharacteristically vague. Does it really change the
perception of
> > >> the Work as art, or in some other way?
> >
> > To listen to some of the anti-Strats in this group,
> > you cannot possibly understand the Works unless you know the
> > author was Oxford. Consider Paul Crowley as an extreme
> > example. He would, I think, argue that if you don't realize
> > the Sonnets were written by Oxford to Queen Elizabeth, you
> > will miss out on the important meaning of most of them. You
> > may gain an understanding of the superficial meaning of the
> > sonnets, which millions of people over the years have done.
> > But this, according to Crowley, is of little account in
> > comparison to the *real* meanings contained therein, real
> > meanings which are only known to Paul Crowley.
Okay Gary, I clearly understand your commentary from this and the longer
post you made, same date of which it is an extract. Something interesting
for me happened reading between your text and Paul's - I've made a few
indexed comments below:-
> Not really. They are great poems, and that
> can be appreciated without being aware of
> the reasons they were written, or of the
> immediate circumstances of the poet,
(a) Alright - I also understand Paul's note above
> or
> many of the meanings he put into them for
> his addressee and first reader (i.e Queen
> Elizabeth).
(b) Aha! So here is the idea of sub-text introduced. For the moment let me
not mention meta-textual 'meanings' nor actually let that word 'meaning'
pass unnoticed.
> In fact, in some ways, I think,
> an awareness of those aspects may well
> detract from one's appreciation of the poem
> -- as a poem.
(c) All is clear.
> I don't claim to understand all the issues,
> but it may be like the difference between a
> child's love of a nursery rhyme, (or, perhaps,
> a story like Gulliver's travels) and an adult's
> appreciation -- an adult who is aware of the
> 'real' reasons it was written: that it was a
> comment upon, or satire of, political events
> of the time.
(d) Another point made. I should like to add 'not only' to "comment upon, or
satire of political events..." and, to be brief, simply note that the
Work-as-art may have other resonances; I would like to style these
resonances 'implicate' in addition to Paul's ex-cathedra ones.
> While we may regret the 'loss of innocence',
> as adults we have no choice. And, in fact,
> we gain far more from a truer understanding
> of reality. The story of Oxford, Queen
> Elizabeth, the establishment of English (and
> now World) theatre and literature,
(e) not to disagree, but to make an emphasis that this English drama was
quite different from any other European model, no? An admixture of the
serious and the comic, entwined. So that tragic Lear can ramble, while his
fool makes wise. This type of juxtaposition was uniquely English, and
Elizabethan rather than only Shakespearian.
> the
> creation of 'freedom' and of the literary and
> political foundation of the world in which all
> of us now live -- is all so wonderful, that no
> one who knows it could ever imagine wanting
> to preserve the child's (i.e. the Stratfordian)
> understanding.
(f) now this is a very interesting departure. In sensing, can I say that?
...Intuiting (?) there 'is more going on' than on its face, than a simple
rendering; more than a 'child's' understanding (do I understand?)
(g) If so, I am also guilty by this intercession of my intuition in reaction
to the plain text. I should like to pursue this further if you would both
substantially agree with the previous notes [though not of course with my
reservations where noted - since I didn't characterise them!]
This is the point in the interaction of texts Paul/Gary that most interested
me. For the moment I'll shut up or you'll suspect a Polonius in your midst.
<balance of comments snipped>
Cordially, Phil Innes
LynnE
What about the Commedia del Arte, Phil? I believe it exhibits some of the
same features and predates Shakespeare.
Lynne
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> > (e) not to disagree, but to make an emphasis that this English drama was
> > quite different from any other European model, no? An admixture of the
> > serious and the comic, entwined.
> What about the Commedia del Arte, Phil? I believe it exhibits some of the
> same features and predates Shakespeare.
The genre exhibits astonishing longevity -- it has sixteenth century
antecendents, yet it is still a very vibrant phenomenon. Indeed, the
Commedia del Art is one of the most consistently entertaining aspects of
h.l.a.s., except during those occasional dry spells when Art's wit seems
spent and he resorts to repeating old material. But I imagine that
being a parodic troll is rather like being a cARToonist -- it is very
difficult to be funny every day!
[...]
Phil Innes
borrowed from whom?
Now, let me contrast, in Shakespearean way, the comic with the other thing.
I think we make some assumptions that we already live in an age of cultural
enlightenment in the USA because sources of universal information are
potentially available to everyone, but where such things as we consider here
as electable matters of choice or opinion are actually matters which for
some constitute a crisis within one's life.
Today I must find a response to a student who wrote in November 2003, not
November 1003, on the non-intellectual drama which I think few of us have
had to negotiate, but is /really/ within the scope of our Author:-
""... I believe my life is what I make of it. I was the first female in my
extended family to attend undergraduate school as a resident, first to go
abroad and go abroad several times, and the first to pursue her Master's
degree. I have refused marriage especially an arranged marriage and plan on
being independent within the next two years.
I am a contradiction when it comes to being in the high end in
power distance. I am struggling to become independent bur crave hierarchy.
Power distance is how much a person accepts formal hierarchy in a society.
I have difficulty challenging people who are older than me since in my
culture elders are not challenged. I call all my professors by their titles
and last names. I call my parents everyday as I am instructed to. In
groups I wait until everyone has spoken their opinion and then I state mine.
I accept whatever or whomever is in authority and respect their rules.
I exhibit high uncertainty avoidance because I feel I am not
just responsible for myself but how I represent my culture, family, and
country. If I fail here at *** I will fail all of my younger female
cousins who are also trying to avoid marriage and pursue a higher education.
I will shame my family because they wasted their money and should have
married me off. I will be viewed as the girl who had too much fun and was
not raised well by her mother. My family will see me as someone who is
leaning towards my American side rather than my Pakistani side. I am only
concerned with my individualism and do not care about my family's way of
life which is collectivism.
In my final reflection I feel I have given any reader a lot but
still this is just the tip of the iceberg. My cultural identity is
something that I am still defining; it is evolving just as life is. I have
come to accept myself for who I am and I have learned that identity has many
roles. I can be a student, traveler, Indian, Pakistani, Muslim, American
and a daughter. Above all I know that I am a person, a human being just
like everybody else."
Cordially, Phil
Gary Kosinsky
.................I'm staggered!
Paul, you mean that you actually concede that the
Sonnets may have some worth even when taken at face value?
That's different from what you've said in the past. And
it's definitely a step in the right direction.
SNIP
>> This raises the question: can we rip Shakespeare's
>> plays out of their historical context and still understand
>> and appreciate them? Millions, of course, would answer
>> "Yes!".
>
>Millions of children have enjoyed "Gulliver's
>Travels" and "Animal Farm" on much the
>same basis.
We've gone through this before, Paul. I haven't
seen any persuasive interpretations which would lead me to
believe that the plays should be categorized with works like
"Gulliver's Travels" or "Animal Farm".
I'm still waiting for your book on the subject.
(And, BTW, if anyone *could* demonstrate that the plays were
of such a nature, I think he would be regarded as a genius.)
>> Most playgoers today do not necessarily take a
>> course in Elizabethan history before seeing a Shakespeare
>> play. Does knowing that the character of Polonius may have
>> been based on William Cecil really increase our
>> understanding or enjoyment of "Hamlet"? I doubt it.
>
>Within the Stratfordian context, it makes no
>significant difference. But when you see
>the author as 'Hamlet' -- someone who did,
>as a child, sit on the knees of players, who
>did live in the house of Polonius and who
>did marry his daughter -- and when you see
>everything else -- you change your
>understanding, nor merely of Hamlet, but
>of English literature and of your civilisation,
>of how it and you happen to exist and of
>what it is and who you are.
A very grandiose claim, Paul. May I ask how your
understanding of *yourself* changed when you realized that
Shakespeare was Oxford, and that the plays were veiled
autobiography?
- Gary Kosinsky
LynnE
> Lynne, I see that David has already answered the question - seriously, who
> borrowed from whom?
He has? Which question was that, the Comedy of Art question, which I don't
think was ever posed? Or are you talking of some other question?
>
> Now, let me contrast, in Shakespearean way, the comic with the other
thing.
Sorry, Phil, what Shakespearean way? What other thing? I'm getting very
confused.
> I think we make some assumptions that we already live in an age of
cultural
> enlightenment in the USA
I don't live in the USA or make those assumptions, I'm afraid.
>because sources of universal information are
> potentially available to everyone, but where such things as we consider
here
> as electable matters of choice or opinion are actually matters which for
> some constitute a crisis within one's life.
I'm afraid you've lost me. To be fair, I think that these days I am easily
lost. Perhaps you could explain to me what we're talking about and what the
student's essay below has to do with anything we were discussing. Or maybe
someone else could. Or perhaps I should adjust my medication.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Paul Crowley
> >They are great poems, and that
> >can be appreciated without being aware of
> >the reasons they were written, or of the
> >immediate circumstances of the poet, or
> >many of the meanings he put into them for
> >his addressee and first reader (i.e Queen
> >Elizabeth). In fact, in some ways, I think,
> >an awareness of those aspects may well
> >detract from one's appreciation of the poem
> >-- as a poem.
>
> .................I'm staggered!
>
> Paul, you mean that you actually concede that the
> Sonnets may have some worth even when taken at face value?
Since they've been valued as great poems
for the past 400 years or so, on the basis
of their 'face value', no one would be so
foolish as to deny that 'it' has some worth.
We understand much more than we can
articulate, and we can often sense the poet's
tone without understanding his meaning.
> That's different from what you've said in the past.
No. It is not.
> >> This raises the question: can we rip Shakespeare's
> >> plays out of their historical context and still understand
> >> and appreciate them? Millions, of course, would answer
> >> "Yes!".
> >
> >Millions of children have enjoyed "Gulliver's
> >Travels" and "Animal Farm" on much the
> >same basis.
>
> We've gone through this before, Paul. I haven't
> seen any persuasive interpretations which would lead me to
> believe that the plays should be categorized with works like
> "Gulliver's Travels" or "Animal Farm".
I do not suggest that. I was merely
making an analogy.
> >> Most playgoers today do not necessarily take a
> >> course in Elizabethan history before seeing a Shakespeare
> >> play. Does knowing that the character of Polonius may have
> >> been based on William Cecil really increase our
> >> understanding or enjoyment of "Hamlet"? I doubt it.
> >
> >Within the Stratfordian context, it makes no
> >significant difference. But when you see
> >the author as 'Hamlet' -- someone who did,
> >as a child, sit on the knees of players, who
> >did live in the house of Polonius and who
> >did marry his daughter -- and when you see
> >everything else -- you change your
> >understanding, nor merely of Hamlet, but
> >of English literature and of your civilisation,
> >of how it and you happen to exist and of
> >what it is and who you are.
>
> A very grandiose claim, Paul. May I ask how your
> understanding of *yourself* changed when you realized that
> Shakespeare was Oxford,
Firstly it is very much in progress; it
takes a lot of time. Secondly, it is not
something any individual can do on
their own; the whole society and its
institutions have to absorb the lessons.
All our history and literature since
around 1570 has to be re-examined in
the light of who Shakespeare really was,
and what he achieved. It will IMO take
at least a century -- even assuming that
it goes smoothly, and that all that
hideous 'post-modern' nonsense (and
its like) goes down the nearest drain --
a fate it so richly deserves.
> and that the plays were veiled autobiography?
They are no more 'veiled autobiography'
than the works of any other artist.
Paul.
Gary Kosinsky
Two quotes from yourself on the standard reading of
the face value of the sonnets:
>None of the above is to deny the standard
>shallow reading of this sonnet.
>Exactly. Zeroes are straight-forward. It's
>a nothing reading -- just like in all the
>commentaries. You might as well say that
>the poet wrote nothing about nothing.
(And what were you saying about no-one being "so
foolish" as to deny the worth of the sonnets taken at their
face-value?)
>> >> This raises the question: can we rip Shakespeare's
>> >> plays out of their historical context and still understand
>> >> and appreciate them? Millions, of course, would answer
>> >> "Yes!".
>> >
>> >Millions of children have enjoyed "Gulliver's
>> >Travels" and "Animal Farm" on much the
>> >same basis.
>>
>> We've gone through this before, Paul. I haven't
>> seen any persuasive interpretations which would lead me to
>> believe that the plays should be categorized with works like
>> "Gulliver's Travels" or "Animal Farm".
>
>I do not suggest that. I was merely
>making an analogy.
You were making an analogy between Shakespeare's
works and "Animal Farm", but you weren't suggesting they
should be categorized together? I see. Then what the hell
were you doing?
SNIP
More grandiose claims. "All our history...since
around 1570 has to be re-examined in the light of who
Shakespeare really was, and what he achieved."
Again, what the hell is that supposed to mean,
exactly?
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
> >Since they've been valued as great poems
> >for the past 400 years or so, on the basis
> >of their 'face value', no one would be so
> >foolish as to deny that 'it' has some worth.
> >We understand much more than we can
> >articulate, and we can often sense the poet's
> >tone without understanding his meaning.
> >
> >> That's different from what you've said in the past.
> >
> >No. It is not.
>
> Two quotes from yourself on the standard reading of
> the face value of the sonnets:
>
> >None of the above is to deny the standard
> >shallow reading of this sonnet.
It is not deniable that the sonnets are read in
an extremely shallow manner -- which is NOT
to say that such readers cannot appreciate
(to a large extent) that the poetry is great.
It's possible to appreciate the greatness of
Michelangelo's David, and still say banal
things about it.
> >Exactly. Zeroes are straight-forward. It's
> >a nothing reading -- just like in all the
> >commentaries. You might as well say that
> >the poet wrote nothing about nothing.
These are quotes about particular interpretations
(i.e. yours) of particular sonnets -- the second is
about your interpretation of one word in one line
-- which was that 'green' meant 'Spring and all that'.
> (And what were you saying about no-one being "so
> foolish" as to deny the worth of the sonnets taken at their
> face-value?)
This is no contradiction. To say that most
exegetists (such as yourself) produce only
meaningless banality, is not to say that some
don't appreciate (at some level) the greatness
of the poetry.
> >> We've gone through this before, Paul. I haven't
> >> seen any persuasive interpretations which would lead me to
> >> believe that the plays should be categorized with works like
> >> "Gulliver's Travels" or "Animal Farm".
> >
> >I do not suggest that. I was merely
> >making an analogy.
>
> You were making an analogy between Shakespeare's
> works and "Animal Farm", but you weren't suggesting they
> should be categorized together? I see. Then what the hell
> were you doing?
I did worry that you might have difficulty
with the concept of 'analogy', but I hoped
that you might look up a dictionary first.
Elizabethan poets often made an analogy
between the sun and the monarch, or
between Elizabeth and the moon. But they
were not suggesting that they be categorised
together.
> More grandiose claims. "All our history...since
> around 1570 has to be re-examined in the light of who
> Shakespeare really was, and what he achieved."
>
> Again, what the hell is that supposed to mean,
> exactly?
It would take too long to explain -- even if
I could.
Paul.
Gary Kosinsky
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>Kosinsky wrote:
>> More grandiose claims. "All our history...since
>> around 1570 has to be re-examined in the light of who
>> Shakespeare really was, and what he achieved."
>>
>> Again, what the hell is that supposed to mean,
>> exactly?
>It would take too long to explain -- even if
>I could.
That's what I kinda figured.
- Gary Kosinsky
Willedever
>
> Example:-
>
> I am looking at an object, rectangle, wooden boarder with stretched canvas,
>
> You, a connoiseur, are looking at the painting itself, and see a room with
>
> We both know different things about the object. We could both talk of the
>
> Evidently if we could change positions we will both know as much as each
If the painting has the wrong name on it one of you - or both - is out
of luck. If you don't change sides one of you is deceived, if you do
change you're both deceived.
Phil Innes
"Willedever" <blags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b2c4476.0311...@posting.google.com...
True. And movover, true within a logical frame. What is absent from such
speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
proposed it, where neither side spoke false, yet either perspective is not
equivalent with the other.
So much depends on the veritas of the observer, no?
Cordially, Phil
KQKnave
<aong...@sover.net> writes:
>True. And movover, true within a logical frame. What is absent from such
>speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
>proposed it, where neither side spoke false, yet either perspective is not
>equivalent with the other.
>
Is anybody paying attention to this guy?
His sentences make little sense, either by themselves or in context
with his other sentences.
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
Willedever
> "Willedever" <blags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b2c4476.0311...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > of luck. If you don't change sides one of you is deceived, if you do
> > change you're both deceived.
>
> True. And movover, true within a logical frame.
Not so much a logical frame, more the frame of reality. Logic is a
human tool to assess the reality.
It is not "logical" - captain - that any painting should have any
particular name on it. A name that happens to appear is a premise,
from which logic may ensue, post hoc. Cart, horse.
> What is absent from such
> speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
> proposed it, where neither side spoke false, ...
But this is exactly at issue. On the authorship issue, one side is
speaking false.
>
> So much depends on the veritas of the observer, no?
Often, too much.
There is some "beauty" for the Stratfordians in their vision of
Will-Strat rising from the muck to become gold incomparable. They
like the artistry of that alchemy. They look at the painting, and see
the sea washing the shore in a swirl of pretty patterns and colors.
Oxfordians are looking at the name in the corner, doubtful it's
authentic. Sooo bourgeois, of them, sooo petty. Tsk tsk. A
"sensitive" person would buy a fake just because it's pretty!
It's the age-old conflict, beauty versus truth, the allure of the eye
versus the heresy of the mind. It's almost like being in love, where
we're all suckers for fakes and price is no object.
Phil Innes
> > speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
> > proposed it, where neither side spoke false, ...
>
> But this is exactly at issue. On the authorship issue, one side is
> speaking false.
I mean in the sense of the exchange with Gary Kozinski yesterday on the
subject of historical/to other analysis. It seems to me that both 'sides'
are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different determinations on
its provenance. It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship from
within the work itself.
> > So much depends on the veritas of the observer, no?
>
> Often, too much.
>
> There is some "beauty" for the Stratfordians in their vision of
> Will-Strat rising from the muck to become gold incomparable. They
> like the artistry of that alchemy. They look at the painting, and see
> the sea washing the shore in a swirl of pretty patterns and colors.
>
> Oxfordians are looking at the name in the corner, doubtful it's
> authentic. Sooo bourgeois, of them, sooo petty. Tsk tsk. A
> "sensitive" person would buy a fake just because it's pretty!
Al, I disagree with you here. As a relative newcomer I don't see so much
difference in method and perspective, as there would be if someone were
really speaking from an implicate aspect of the work.
You know, a test of this if you can be sufficiently impartial to assessing
result, is to take one side's criticism of the other and see if it also
applies to themselves. eg: in your text here the _reverse_ would be: Oxfords
are romantics who compulsively need to dress up the plainest of facts in
order to make them rentier-intellectual pretty.
Cordially, Phil
Tom Reedy
> > > What is absent from such
> > > speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
> > > proposed it, where neither side spoke false, ...
> >
> > But this is exactly at issue. On the authorship issue, one side is
> > speaking false.
>
> I mean in the sense of the exchange with Gary Kozinski yesterday on the
> subject of historical/to other analysis. It seems to me that both 'sides'
> are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different determinations on
> its provenance.
IN the case of the traditionally-accepted attribution, the "back of the
canvas" is the historical record. In the case of antistratfordians, the back
of the canvas is blank.
> It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
> of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship from
> within the work itself.
And what "issues of authorship" do you think are likely discernable from
within the work itself? Remember that whatever you come up with has to be
demonstrably true across literature, otherwise you end up with a list such
as Looney's loony personality profile of whom the author "must have been"
based on nothing more than not-so-unconscious bias.
>
> > > So much depends on the veritas of the observer, no?
> >
> > Often, too much.
> >
> > There is some "beauty" for the Stratfordians in their vision of
> > Will-Strat rising from the muck to become gold incomparable. They
> > like the artistry of that alchemy. They look at the painting, and see
> > the sea washing the shore in a swirl of pretty patterns and colors.
> >
> > Oxfordians are looking at the name in the corner, doubtful it's
> > authentic. Sooo bourgeois, of them, sooo petty. Tsk tsk. A
> > "sensitive" person would buy a fake just because it's pretty!
>
> Al, I disagree with you here. As a relative newcomer I don't see so much
> difference in method and perspective, as there would be if someone were
> really speaking from an implicate aspect of the work.
>
> You know, a test of this if you can be sufficiently impartial to assessing
> result, is to take one side's criticism of the other and see if it also
> applies to themselves.
Which has been done. The problem is that most antistratfordians have
psychological and cognitive problems that render them incapable of
understanding the results. The rest are frauds preying on the first group
for monetary gain.
TR
Tom Reedy
news:20031115170110...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> In article <0awtb.887$Re.9...@newshog.newsread.com>, "Phil Innes"
> <aong...@sover.net> writes:
>
> >True. And movover, true within a logical frame. What is absent from such
> >speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
> >proposed it, where neither side spoke false, yet either perspective is
not
> >equivalent with the other.
> >
>
> Is anybody paying attention to this guy?
>
> His sentences make little sense, either by themselves or in context
> with his other sentences.
Sometimes when he not completely distracted he comes up with an intriguing
way of looking at things, which could be a byproduct of his cultivated faux
literary style. Other times--most times--he's merely tedious, like most of
us here.
TR
Phil Innes
> > subject of historical/to other analysis. It seems to me that both
'sides'
> > are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different determinations
on
> > its provenance.
>
> IN the case of the traditionally-accepted attribution, the "back of the
> canvas" is the historical record. In the case of antistratfordians, the
back
> of the canvas is blank.
>
> > It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
> > of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship
from
> > within the work itself.
>
> And what "issues of authorship" do you think are likely discernable from
> within the work itself?
A much more difficult question! Not unanswerable, however it would require
an appreciation of the substructure of the work within the literature of the
past 300 years; a sense of what is hidden in plain sight, and a
transpersonal VERification that the mythology is sound.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HcPtb.2316$sb4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031115170110...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > In article <0awtb.887$Re.9...@newshog.newsread.com>, "Phil Innes"
> > <aong...@sover.net> writes:
> >
> > >True. And movover, true within a logical frame. What is absent from
such
> > >speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
> > >proposed it, where neither side spoke false, yet either perspective is
> not
> > >equivalent with the other.
> > >
> >
> > Is anybody paying attention to this guy?
okay, here goes in simple:
wot if 2 blokes look at the same thing
roight,
but one dont give a shit,
the other do
which one you goinna respect, init
phil
> > His sentences make little sense, either by themselves or in context
> > with his other sentences.
yor right bruce, should keep it simpul
doan take no risks, see
jus' say
'moron'
and such, init
wait til bleedin
marty amis cops this lot
> Sometimes when he not completely distracted he comes up with an intriguing
> way of looking at things, which could be a byproduct of his cultivated
faux
> literary style. Other times--most times--he's merely tedious, like most of
> us here.
ay, faux-phil, thats the blagh
cheers mateys! faux-phil
Spam Scone
> In article <0awtb.887$Re.9...@newshog.newsread.com>, "Phil Innes"
> <aong...@sover.net> writes:
>
> >True. And movover, true within a logical frame. What is absent from such
> >speculations as we visit, is the more complicated matter, as I first
> >proposed it, where neither side spoke false, yet either perspective is not
> >equivalent with the other.
>
> Is anybody paying attention to this guy?
> His sentences make little sense, either by themselves or in context
> with his other sentences.
lowercase dave thought enough of phil to invite him here. Need I say more? :-)
Seriously, phil isn't any worse than Janice Miller, or Art N.
KQKnave
<aong...@sover.net> writes:
I doubt Martin Amis gives a hoot.
This forum is for the exchange of ideas. If you don't express yourself clearly,
you can't communicate effectively. You can use the language of your own
hermetically sealed mental world if you want, but not many are likely to
pay attention.
>> Sometimes when he not completely distracted he comes up with an intriguing
>> way of looking at things, which could be a byproduct of his cultivated
>faux
>> literary style. Other times--most times--he's merely tedious, like most of
>> us here.
>
>ay, faux-phil, thats the blagh
>
>cheers mateys! faux-phil
I think Tom has over-rated you.
Tom Reedy
news:A_Ptb.952$Re.9...@newshog.newsread.com...
> > > I mean in the sense of the exchange with Gary Kozinski yesterday on
the
> > > subject of historical/to other analysis. It seems to me that both
> 'sides'
> > > are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different
determinations
> on
> > > its provenance.
> >
> > IN the case of the traditionally-accepted attribution, the "back of the
> > canvas" is the historical record. In the case of antistratfordians, the
> back
> > of the canvas is blank.
> >
> > > It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
> > > of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship
> from
> > > within the work itself.
> >
> > And what "issues of authorship" do you think are likely discernable from
> > within the work itself?
>
> A much more difficult question!
The question is not difficult. What is difficult for some people is
recognizing that the assumption upon which it is based -- "Authors always
write autobiography" -- is not true.
> Not unanswerable, however it would require
> an appreciation of the substructure of the work
What exactly do you mean when you say, "substructure of the work?"
within the literature of the
> past 300 years; a sense of what is hidden in plain sight,
What exactly is a "sense of what is hidden in plain sight?"
and a
> transpersonal VERification
What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
> that the mythology is sound.
How exactly would the "soundness of the mythology" help one to identify an
author from his or her writings?
Phil Innes
> > > > of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship
> > from
> > > > within the work itself.
> > >
> > > And what "issues of authorship" do you think are likely discernable
from
> > > within the work itself?
> >
> > A much more difficult question!
>
> The question is not difficult. What is difficult for some people is
> recognizing that the assumption upon which it is based -- "Authors always
> write autobiography" -- is not true.
Tom, what price a serious conversation on usenet?
> > Not unanswerable, however it would require
> > an appreciation of the substructure of the work
>
> What exactly do you mean when you say, "substructure of the work?"
I am using Hughes' phrase. Still wanna talk grown-up?
> within the literature of the
> > past 300 years; a sense of what is hidden in plain sight,
>
> What exactly is a "sense of what is hidden in plain sight?"
Do you mean you don't understand the term, or have never experienced it?
While you have made a few picks at my posts, your replies are not
particularly cogent, are they?
> and a
> > transpersonal VERification
>
> What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
<snort> what exactly don't you understand, is it either word, or the words
in combination?
> > that the mythology is sound.
>
> How exactly would the "soundness of the mythology" help one to identify an
> author from his or her writings?
Extraordinary comment! I admit that I read a lot.
Are these terms and comments really so novel to you?
We could go into it if you wish, but it will be necessary to refer to actual
texts. Start with Plath, jounrney through O'Brian and wind up with Jung? How
would you like me to reply?
Its all very well saying that other's ideas are less intelligible than, for
example,
your own single assertion of "is not true",
which is why I suggested we might better start with Pooh.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Phil Innes
issues that have arisen in this one. Phil Innes
Elizabeth Weir
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> waved his hands in message
> news:A_Ptb.952$Re.9...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> recognizing that the assumption upon which it is based -- "Authors always
> write autobiography" -- is not true.
In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
The reason that the Oxfordians are coming on strong is that
they have an authorship candidate with some biographical
similarities to the author but with the Strats, Reedy, it's a
case of
'authors NEVER write autobiography.'
because there is not a scintilla of the Shakespeare works
in the WS record that hasn't been forced into the
the WS biographies by the workers in that industry we
laughingly call Shakespearian biography.
> > Not unanswerable, however it would require
> > an appreciation of the substructure of the work
>
> What exactly do you mean when you say, "substructure of the work?"
Innes is guessing but the genius who wrote the Shakespeare
plays was foremostly a genius rhetorician and the plays
are rhetorically layered by the use of tropes. (The author
of the Shakespeare works has the whole vocabulary of
classical rehtorical devices at his command--where did the
Strat candidate get a university education in rhetoric?).
Steven Sohmer, Renaissance Studies, (Oxford, UCLA), has
discovered that Hamlet is constructed over the almanac
just as Immerito constructed the Shepheardes Calender
over the calendar.
> > within the literature of the
> > past 300 years; a sense of what is hidden in plain sight,
>
> What exactly is a "sense of what is hidden in plain sight?"
>
>> and a
> > transpersonal VERification
>
> What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
>
> > that the mythology is sound.
The mythology of Oxfordianism is unsound because
Looney was caught up by the Freudian craze that hit
the middle classes in the 1920s. Freudianism is a
branch of literary criticism, not medicine, so it functions
quite well in terms of pulling literary allusions out of
the plays and applying them to the psychoanalysis of
the author, expecially since Freud mined the Shakespeare
plays for his own literary allusions.
Oxfordianism is a branch of Freudianism.
The Baconians, mercifully, wrote before Freud hit.
> How exactly would the "soundness of the mythology" help one to identify an
> author from his or her writings?
I think we should consult Schoenbaum, et al, on
that question.
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Not unanswerable, however it would require
> > > an appreciation of the substructure of the work
> >
> > What exactly do you mean when you say, "substructure of the work?"
>
> Innes is guessing but the genius who wrote the Shakespeare
> plays was foremostly a genius rhetorician and the plays
> are rhetorically layered by the use of tropes.
Innes and Huhges are guessing, in this case - nevermind, fuck the poet
laureate!
And nevermind this titty-word 'rhetoric', not actually a term I used. I
learn that I am guessing it anyway.
> (The author
> of the Shakespeare works has the whole vocabulary of
> classical rehtorical devices at his command--where did the
> Strat candidate get a university education in rhetoric?).
ROFL!
Such a supposition! Though, I will respond to it. In my opinion, the best
writer of English language in the C20th was Eric Blair. Though this is not
his opinion. He thought his politcal polar opposite Evelyn Waugh was
superlative - in fact - at the end of his life Blair represented that he had
two projects that he would still like to pursue - on Joseph Conrad, and on
Waugh.
Waugh bugged out of college because he, in two different subjects, couldn't
stand the hypocracy and internal contradictions within them.
> Steven Sohmer, Renaissance Studies, (Oxford, UCLA), has
> discovered that Hamlet is constructed over the almanac
> just as Immerito constructed the Shepheardes Calender
> over the calendar.
apropos of nothing? ...
~~~~~~~~~
<snip>
> > What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
> >
> > > that the mythology is sound.
>
> The mythology of Oxfordianism is unsound because
> Looney was caught up by the Freudian craze that hit
> the middle classes in the 1920s. Freudianism is a
> branch of literary criticism, not medicine, so it functions
> quite well in terms of pulling literary allusions out of
> the plays and applying them to the psychoanalysis of
STOP!!
This phrase is precisely Jungian, and actually a cause of the spilt between
Jung and Freud. Not that this whirlwind of opinion will actually inquire
into it, but for any children reading here....
> the author, expecially since Freud mined the Shakespeare
> plays for his own literary allusions.
Which is true. Freud was equally interested in Shakespeare and Dostoyevski,
and, not incidentally in Dickens, of whom Dostoyevski also admired.
> Oxfordianism is a branch of Freudianism.
>
> The Baconians, mercifully, wrote before Freud hit.
A Freudian slut?
> > How exactly would the "soundness of the mythology" help one to identify
an
> > author from his or her writings?
>
> I think we should consult Schoenbaum, et al, on
> that question.
As before, inquire of Plath. You would like to know her book titles? Or are
you content to talk crony-to-crony as if your correspondent's subject is
beneath your contempt?
More art Madam, less matter!
Phil Innes
> Elizabeth
Bob Grumman
>> The question is not difficult. What is difficult for some people is
>> recognizing that the assumption upon which it is based -- "Authors always
>> write autobiography" -- is not true.
Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
That's correct, Paul: if we believe that a single author wrote a text that was
not autobiographical, it follows that we believe no author ever writes
autobiography.
--Bob G.
Gary Kosinsky
<Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
>
>>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
Do you think Elizabeth Weir and Paul Crowley are the
same person?
I thought Elizabeth Weir and John Baker were the
same person.
- Gary Kosinsky
Greg Reynolds
Weir (Baconian) is far brighter than either Crowley (Oxfordian) or
Baker (Marlite). And she has a genuine sense of humor.
Bob Grumman
Actually, I'm not sure who Elizabeth is. I doubt she's a real person, though.
I strongly suspect the person behind her is a man. But Paul is not really
Elizabeth--I was just insulting Elizabeth, without descending to, gasp,
name-calling, after her ludicrously Crowleyan statement about what we "Strats"
believe. If there's one subject that Shakespeare-deniers are more out of touch
with reality than they are about who wrote Shakespeare's works, it's what their
opponents believe.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2003 13:13:33 -0800, Bob Grumman
> <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
> >
> >>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
> Do you think Elizabeth Weir and Paul Crowley are the
> same person?
Both are science cranks as well as history cranks, Weir with her
"dystopian" relativity denial and Crowley with his aquatic apes, but the
two are easy to differentiate on stylistic grounds alone. Crowley never
writes gems like "plagerism," "equasions," "paritioners," "distain" for
"disdain," "prodigenous," etc.; in other words, there is at least *some*
indication that Crowley's native tongue is English. Crowley is of
course an insular monoglot whose smug certainty of the superiority of
the English language and its literature above all others effectively
precludes his exposure to any other literatures (after all, why go
slumming?), but to characterize Elizabeth as "monoglot" would be FAR too
generous -- indeed, while it would be more precise to characterize
Elizabeth as a semiglot, it is surely more accurate still to follow the
musicians' lead and style her as a hemidemisemiglot.
Another salient distinction can be found by considering that Mr.
Crowley, while hopelessly inept at attributions, as the "Ray Mignot"
sonnet demonstrated conclusively, is unlikely to fail to recognize his
own words. By contrast, Elizabeth has on several occasions attributed
her OWN WORDS to Peter Groves, to me, etc. -- indeed, on one recent
occasion she failed to recognize her own words and carried on a bizarre
online conversation with HERSELF! See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0310031723.51a0eb62%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bvqfb.135530%24bo1.61194%40news-ser
ver.bigpond.net.au&output=gplain>,
and indeed the whole hilarious thread -- it's an h.l.a.s. classic.
> I thought Elizabeth Weir and John Baker were the
> same person.
There is a much better match here -- after all, Faker's comic
characterization of his authorship beliefs as "hieratical," of himself
as an "armature," of Marlowe (I believe) as a child "progeny," etc.
could easily be mistaken for Elizabeth's ludicrous linguistic pratfalls.
Both are completely inept in mathematics and science as well. However,
Faker is at heart an exhibitionist, but one would never expect to see
Elizabeth boasting online about her sexual adventures with everything
from others' spouses to trees, as Faker does. Also, Elizabeth has not
thus far fabricated nonexistent academic credentials (at least, I don't
think that she has). Finally, Faker is at least a genial goof, and does
not habitually characterize his interlocutors as a**holes, Nazis,
sexists, racists, etc. groundlessly, as Elizabeth does. When one
recalls also that Faker has actually proposed marriage to Elizabeth
online, it seems certain that the two are not the same person --
although I suppose that it could be argued that proposing marriage to
oneself online is merely an extreme case of holding a conversation with
oneself online, as Elizabeth does.
Spam Scone
I think Our Ever-Posting Poet is trying to be amusing.
Elizabeth Weir
> In article <3fb95d3a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Gary Kosinsky says...
> >
> >On 17 Nov 2003 13:13:33 -0800, Bob Grumman
> ><Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
> >>
> >>>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
> >
> > Do you think Elizabeth Weir and Paul Crowley are the
> >same person?
> >
> > I thought Elizabeth Weir and John Baker were the
> >same person.
> >
> >
> >- Gary Kosinsky
>
> Actually, I'm not sure who Elizabeth is. I doubt she's a real person, though.
> I strongly suspect the person behind her is a man.
You're right for once, Grumman. The person behind me is a
man.
> Elizabeth--I was just insulting Elizabeth, without descending to, gasp,
> name-calling, after her ludicrously Crowleyan statement about what we "Strats"
> believe.
Which statement was that?
> If there's one subject that Shakespeare-deniers
Stop proving that Stratfordianism is a cult, Grumman.
> are more out of touch
> with reality than they are about who wrote Shakespeare's works, it's what their
> opponents believe.
I know exactly what Stratfordians believe, Grumman.
The problem for humanity is that it will not Know Itself.
We don't want to understand the susceptibilities or even
the capacities of our brain so we just muddle along like
so many indoctrinated sheep. Stratfordianism is just another
sheepfold.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> Tom Reedy:
>
> >> The question is not difficult. What is difficult for some people is
> >> recognizing that the assumption upon which it is based -- "Authors always
> >> write autobiography" -- is not true.
>
> Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
Crowley is a better writer than I am, Grumman.
> >In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
>
> That's correct, Paul: if we believe that a single author wrote a text that was
> not autobiographical, it follows that we believe no author ever writes
> autobiography.
Leaving the slippery world of logic behind, I don't think it is
likely that an author could write the thousand pages of the
First Folio without leaving an autobiographical imprint behind
and in fact he did and on every page but most of the time
it's a philosophical imprint. I don't understand why there's
so much hostility to philosophy.
Elizabeth
Bob Grumman
>> >
>> >>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
>
>> Do you think Elizabeth Weir and Paul Crowley are the
>> same person?
>
> Both are science cranks as well as history cranks, Weir with her
>"dystopian" relativity denial and Crowley with his aquatic apes, but the
>two are easy to differentiate on stylistic grounds alone.
You really think a major world-genius like Crowley couldn't change styles to
suit his authorial persona, David?
>Crowley never
>writes gems like "plagerism," "equasions," "paritioners," "distain" for
>"disdain," "prodigenous," etc.; in other words, there is at least *some*
>indication that Crowley's native tongue is English. Crowley is of
>course an insular monoglot whose smug certainty of the superiority of
>the English language and its literature above all others effectively
You're over-rating his breadth of literary sympathies, David. He doesn't give a
rap for English literature, only for Shakespeare (which he prizes not for its
literary value but for its supposed philosophical depth and its value for
telling us about the trivial doings of the court of his time.
>precludes his exposure to any other literatures
and to all but a hundredth of a percent of his own country's.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>likely that an author could write the thousand pages of the
>First Folio without leaving an autobiographical imprint behind
>and in fact he did and on every page
No doubt. But "leaving an autobiographical imprint behind" and "writing
autobiography" are two different things that few Shakespeare-deniers are able to
distinguish from one another.
>but most of the time
>it's a philosophical imprint. I don't understand why there's
>so much hostility to philosophy.
>
>Elizabeth
If I say American football is carried out without significant use of philosophy,
that does not make me hostile to philosophy, Elizabeth.
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
> >Leaving the slippery world of logic behind, I don't think it is
> >likely that an author could write the thousand pages of the
> >First Folio without leaving an autobiographical imprint behind
> >and in fact he did and on every page
>
> No doubt. But "leaving an autobiographical imprint behind" and "writing
> autobiography" are two different things that few Shakespeare-deniers are able to
> distinguish from one another.
Strats are necessarily ignorant of the Renaissance rhetoric
in the Shakespeare plays, Grumman, which allowed the author
to leave more autobiography than 'autobiographical imprint,'
a fact that has totally confounded Oxfordians. But thanks
for defining your terms at the end of the debate.
> >but most of the time
> >it's a philosophical imprint. I don't understand why there's
> >so much hostility to philosophy.
> >
> >Elizabeth
>
> If I say American football is carried out without significant use of philosophy,
> that does not make me hostile to philosophy, Elizabeth.
Football is a fit metaphor for head-banging Stratfordianism,
Grumman, just as a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta is
a fit metaphor for the silly artifice of Oxfordianism.
Elizabeth
Gary Kosinsky
(Spam Scone) wrote:
You're right. He was. I missed it. D'OH!
But I still think Elizabeth Weir and John Baker are
probably the same person. Not that it's important. If they
are the same person, I'm sure John has his reasons for it -
probably to explore two variations of anti-Stratfordianism.
And if they're not the same person - my apologies to both.
- Gary Kosinsky
Tom Reedy
> > > > > It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
> > > > > of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of
authorship
> > > from
> > > > > within the work itself.
> > > >
> > > > And what "issues of authorship" do you think are likely discernable
> from
> > > > within the work itself?
> > >
> > > A much more difficult question!
> >
> > The question is not difficult. What is difficult for some people is
> > recognizing that the assumption upon which it is based -- "Authors
always
> > write autobiography" -- is not true.
>
> Tom, what price a serious conversation on usenet?
>
> > > Not unanswerable, however it would require
> > > an appreciation of the substructure of the work
> >
> > What exactly do you mean when you say, "substructure of the work?"
>
> I am using Hughes' phrase. Still wanna talk grown-up?
I am not much interested in obscure and esoteric terms from literary
criticism, and I doubt very many other people are, either. Suffice to say,
at one time I believed that the knowledgable use of such specialized terms
while engaged in the discussion of complicated and affected ideas indicated
my superior intellect, a stance that appears to be similar to your current
one. As I have grown older and (I hope) wiser, I now recognize pretentious
posturing when I see it. I now believe that the use of simple terms to
explain complicated ideas makes for not only more effective communication,
but requires a suppleness of mind that will always elude those with an
excessive regard for their own abilities.
In addition, your answer is nonsensical and irrelevant to my question.
>
> > within the literature of the
> > > past 300 years; a sense of what is hidden in plain sight,
> >
> > What exactly is a "sense of what is hidden in plain sight?"
>
> Do you mean you don't understand the term, or have never experienced it?
I don't understand your use of the term in the context of the discussion.
Either you can explain it or you can't. So far your track record isn't very
good.
> While you have made a few picks at my posts, your replies are not
> particularly cogent, are they?
Apparently your definition of *cogent* differs from that of most people.
>
> > and a
> > > transpersonal VERification
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
>
> <snort> what exactly don't you understand, is it either word, or the words
> in combination?
Yes, I can see how amused you are. As far as I can tell, you are talking
about objectiveness in assessing the truth of a matter. But once more, your
use of the term in the context of your sentence seems to indicate you don't
really have an answer and believe some hand-waving will impress the people
reading it.
So can you answer my question or can't you?
>
> > > that the mythology is sound.
> >
> > How exactly would the "soundness of the mythology" help one to identify
an
> > author from his or her writings?
>
> Extraordinary comment! I admit that I read a lot.
So do I.
> Are these terms and comments really so novel to you?
Most people I talk with and respect try to avoid "terms and comments" such
as yours.
>
> We could go into it if you wish, but it will be necessary to refer to
actual
> texts. Start with Plath, jounrney through O'Brian and wind up with Jung?
How
> would you like me to reply?
>
> Its all very well saying that other's ideas are less intelligible than,
for
> example,
> your own single assertion of "is not true",
> which is why I suggested we might better start with Pooh.
My original question, "And what 'issues of authorship' do you think are
likely discernable from within the work itself?" would be a good start. You
failed to answer it, if you recall, and have spent a good deal of effort
avoiding it.
I don't believe it is necessary to use a specialized vocabulary to answer
it, unless your poverty of thought forces you to rely upon pre-digested
ideas. The only thing Crowley is right about is that a goodly percentage of
the "educated elite" is incapable of thought (which doesn't qualify him as
capable of it, either).
TR
Elizabeth Weir
> On 17 Nov 2003 21:37:51 -0800, tartak...@hotmail.com
> (Spam Scone) wrote:
>
> >gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<3fb95d3a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> >> On 17 Nov 2003 13:13:33 -0800, Bob Grumman
> >> <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
> >> >
> >> >>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
> >>
> >> Do you think Elizabeth Weir and Paul Crowley are the
> >> same person?
> >> I thought Elizabeth Weir and John Baker were the
> >> same person.
I don't understand this Strat obsession with 'same person.'
I do understand the classic propaganda technique of
'association' which is used to smear one person with
the alleged negative traits of another by always coupling
their names. 'Association' has been used with devastating
success by the HLAS resident propagandist but I don't
think that's what Strats in HLAS mean by 'same person.'
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
> >
> > > > Not unanswerable, however it would require
> > > > an appreciation of the substructure of the work
> > >
> > > What exactly do you mean when you say, "substructure of the work?"
> >
> > I am using Hughes' phrase. Still wanna talk grown-up?
>
> I am not much interested in obscure and esoteric terms
'substructure' is obscure?
> from literary
> criticism, and I doubt very many other people are, either.
O, okay then, I forgot we got an audience <yikes>
> Suffice to say,
> at one time I believed that the knowledgable use of such specialized terms
> while engaged in the discussion of complicated and affected ideas
indicated
> my superior intellect, a stance that appears to be similar to your current
> one.
structure is a simple contrast of mode to atomising little bits of text
> As I have grown older and (I hope) wiser, I now recognize pretentious
> posturing when I see it. I now believe that the use of simple terms to
> explain complicated ideas makes for not only more effective communication,
> but requires a suppleness of mind that will always elude those with an
> excessive regard for their own abilities.
to take your own advice from the above para, you would say:- render the
abstruse simply?
> In addition, your answer is nonsensical and irrelevant to my question.
Your replies, replete with gratuitous and confused ad hominem, seems to
accuse itself.
~~~~~~`
> Apparently your definition of *cogent* differs from that of most people.
I think you cant be bothered to have a civil conversation. If you don't know
what someone means you could always ask them - right.
> > > and a
> > > > transpersonal VERification
> > >
> > > What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
> >
> > <snort> what exactly don't you understand, is it either word, or the
words
> > in combination?
>
> Yes, I can see how amused you are. As far as I can tell, you are talking
> about objectiveness in assessing the truth of a matter.
The exact opposite. Trans-personal; via one's subjective response.
> But once more, your
> use of the term in the context of your sentence seems to indicate you
don't
> really have an answer and believe some hand-waving will impress the people
> reading it.
You are very conscious of the gallery, no? These are simple words, as you
recommended above. I think you fall over your own verbose advice Sir.
> So can you answer my question or can't you?
I asked you to clarify what you didn't understand - it was apparently the
term 'transpersonal'. You could always try a dictionary if stuck.
> >
> > > > that the mythology is sound.
> > >
> > > How exactly would the "soundness of the mythology" help one to
identify
> an
> > > author from his or her writings?
> >
> > Extraordinary comment! I admit that I read a lot.
>
> So do I.
>
> > Are these terms and comments really so novel to you?
>
> Most people I talk with and respect try to avoid "terms and comments" such
> as yours.
I suppose I must be more careful here! Thank you for your advice. Who would
ever want to upset most people?
> >
> > We could go into it if you wish, but it will be necessary to refer to
> actual
> > texts. Start with Plath, jounrney through O'Brian and wind up with Jung?
> How
> > would you like me to reply?
> >
> > Its all very well saying that other's ideas are less intelligible than,
> for
> > example,
> > your own single assertion of "is not true",
> > which is why I suggested we might better start with Pooh.
>
> My original question, "And what 'issues of authorship' do you think are
> likely discernable from within the work itself?" would be a good start.
You
> failed to answer it, if you recall, and have spent a good deal of effort
> avoiding it.
BUT I wrote an entirely new thread on Donne which I singnalled to you was an
answer! I am beginning to suspect I may not be as pathetic as you say, and
wonder if this could be something about you, too?
Can you read the post on Donne and make any comments yourself. I will gladly
do so, but would rather talk with someone who is interested in doing so. I
mean - is it clear what sort of personality Donne has? Is he an interesting
counterpoint to Shakespeare? Any other thoughts?
> I don't believe it is necessary to use a specialized vocabulary to answer
> it, unless your poverty of thought forces you to rely upon pre-digested
> ideas. The only thing Crowley is right about is that a goodly percentage
of
> the "educated elite" is incapable of thought (which doesn't qualify him as
> capable of it, either).
Charmingly put. You spot this terrible trend in writers to offer advice of
which they are not capable themselves of fulfilling.
Cordially, Phil
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message
> news:<3fbad851...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> > On 17 Nov 2003 21:37:51 -0800, tartak...@hotmail.com
> > (Spam Scone) wrote:
> >
> > >gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message
> > >news:<3fb95d3a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> > >> On 17 Nov 2003 13:13:33 -0800, Bob Grumman
> > >> <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Paul Crowley, writing under a pseudonym:
> > >> >
> > >> >>In the case of Strats it's 'authors never write autobiography.'
> > >>
> > >> Do you think Elizabeth Weir and Paul Crowley are the
> > >> same person?
> > >> I thought Elizabeth Weir and John Baker were the
> > >> same person.
> I don't understand this Strat obsession with 'same person.'
>
> I do understand the classic propaganda technique of
> 'association' which is used to smear one person with
> the alleged negative traits of another by always coupling
> their names. 'Association' has been used with devastating
> success by the HLAS resident propagandist but I don't
> think that's what Strats in HLAS mean by 'same person.'
Coming from someone who dismissed Whitt Brantley as merely one of my
alter egos, this complaint is rather amusing.
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Phil Innes wrote:
<snip>
> > > > and a
> > > > > transpersonal VERification
> > > >
> > > > What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
> > >
> > > <snort> what exactly don't you understand, is it either word, or the
> words
> > > in combination?
> >
> > Yes, I can see how amused you are. As far as I can tell, you are talking
> > about objectiveness in assessing the truth of a matter.
>
> The exact opposite. Trans-personal; via one's subjective response.
Going beyond personal verification by way of one's subjective
response?
I don't think a dictionary is going to help me with
that concept.
<snip>
Rob
Tom Reedy
news:mOJub.1216$Ob3.1...@monger.newsread.com...
I think you can't be bothered to give a substantive response.
> If you don't know
> what someone means you could always ask them - right.
>
> > > > and a
> > > > > transpersonal VERification
> > > >
> > > > What exactly do you mean by the term, "transpersonal verification?"
> > >
> > > <snort> what exactly don't you understand, is it either word, or the
> words
> > > in combination?
> >
> > Yes, I can see how amused you are. As far as I can tell, you are talking
> > about objectiveness in assessing the truth of a matter.
>
> The exact opposite. Trans-personal; via one's subjective response.
>
> > But once more, your
> > use of the term in the context of your sentence seems to indicate you
> don't
> > really have an answer and believe some hand-waving will impress the
people
> > reading it.
>
> You are very conscious of the gallery, no? These are simple words, as you
> recommended above. I think you fall over your own verbose advice Sir.
>
> > So can you answer my question or can't you?
>
> I asked you to clarify what you didn't understand - it was apparently the
> term 'transpersonal'. You could always try a dictionary if stuck.
I see. Do you think I haven't? As I stated earlier (and it isn't good
manners to clip context without a good reason, such as clearing up redundant
matter), apparently words have different meanings for you than they do for
the rest of us. "Transpersonal" is a good example here.
trans搆er新on戢l
Pronunciation: (")tran(t)s-'p&rs-n&l, -'p&r-s&-n&l
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1906
1 : extending or going beyond the personal or individual
2 : of, relating to, or being psychology concerned especially with esoteric
mental experience (as mysticism and altered states of consciousness) beyond
the usual limits of ego and personality
I will seek out your thread. Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending upon
how you look at it, I don't consistently have a lot of time to spend wanking
on this newsgroup, so it may be a few days before I do so and reply.
> Can you read the post on Donne and make any comments yourself. I will
gladly
> do so, but would rather talk with someone who is interested in doing so. I
> mean - is it clear what sort of personality Donne has?
Finally--a lucid question. So I take it you believe the personality of the
writer can be discerned through reading that writer's works. Have I stated
your belief correctly?
> Is he an interesting
> counterpoint to Shakespeare? Any other thoughts?
>
> > I don't believe it is necessary to use a specialized vocabulary to
answer
> > it, unless your poverty of thought forces you to rely upon pre-digested
> > ideas. The only thing Crowley is right about is that a goodly percentage
> of
> > the "educated elite" is incapable of thought (which doesn't qualify him
as
> > capable of it, either).
>
> Charmingly put. You spot this terrible trend in writers to offer advice of
> which they are not capable themselves of fulfilling.
The trend I spot in academe is the use of jargon to cover up a paucity of
thought, and I am certainly not the first to do so.
Although I'm aware of your intended irony, try pointing out where my
comments are as cryptic as yours. You might try polling the readers here.
The irony I see is your professed admiration for Eric Blair, one of the
clearest and best writers of English prose of the last century. You might
try emulating him.
Phil Innes
Elizabeth, do you think he can possibly be teasing you about this identity
thing?
> I do understand the classic propaganda technique of
> 'association' which is used to smear one person with
> the alleged negative traits of another by always coupling
> their names. 'Association' has been used with devastating
> success by the HLAS resident propagandist but I don't
> think that's what Strats in HLAS mean by 'same person.'
You could write a paper "On The Impossibility of Proving Who You Are".
I strongly suggest that you employ the terms Eristics and Maieutics in it,
going on to quote the German author Dyroff in his 1966, "Lorca Ein Beitrag
zum Duendegeschichte als Flamencowissenschaft" as a pre-emptive measure
against any and EVERy comment by David Webb...
Being prepared to instantly fling at him; "being-in-death-rooted-like-love,
wherin the spirit of the time is named REVEaling itself to itself through
funereal danced cadences under an Andalusian sky."
And if he says he doesn't understand it, to ask him then if he understands
Jazz?
Sophrosyne, Phil Innes
> Elizabeth
Phil Innes
talking
> > > about objectiveness in assessing the truth of a matter.
> >
> > The exact opposite. Trans-personal; via one's subjective response.
>
> Going beyond personal verification by way of one's subjective
> response?
Sure. Or more simply; through one's own responsiveness.
[The context of this little discussion was the means of Plath's
acknowledgement of a Shakespearean Idea.]
> I don't think a dictionary is going to help me with
> that concept.
Its probably necessary to take baby-steps. (1) trans (2) personal
I note that Webster has per=through and sonare=to sound. Both origins are
Latin. The word Person is already transcendent (the 'through')! Sadly, we
modern people have lost that sense of it, being presumably more opaque
people these days, and have to tack on the emphatic prefix: 'trans'.
Websters has about 150 words beginning trans- from which an astute reader
could claw his way to some understanding of the dang thing.
Cordially, Phil
Phil Innes
The Rascal ENTERS THREAD:
What you think, Sir, may not be helping you. I ask you to note what I wrote,
and how much you did. Attributing less substance to me is obscure, no?
Have you truly never heard that word?
I made another reply elsewhere.
> As I stated earlier (and it isn't good
> manners to clip context without a good reason, such as clearing up
redundant
> matter), apparently words have different meanings for you than they do for
> the rest of us. "Transpersonal" is a good example here.
>
> trans搆er新on戢l
> Pronunciation: (")tran(t)s-'p&rs-n&l, -'p&r-s&-n&l
> Function: adjective
> Date: circa 1906
> 1 : extending or going beyond the personal or individual
> 2 : of, relating to, or being psychology concerned especially with
esoteric
> mental experience (as mysticism and altered states of consciousness)
beyond
> the usual limits of ego and personality
Consider getting a good dictionary, otherwise you are subject to these
blather-definitions which give no etymology, and are in any case poor. I
would in this case think 'supra-' a better prefix for those definitions.
This is indeed a poor place to practice onanism. I hope you find a more
suitable environment, and will look forward to your reply in a few days.
> > Can you read the post on Donne and make any comments yourself. I will
> gladly
> > do so, but would rather talk with someone who is interested in doing so.
I
> > mean - is it clear what sort of personality Donne has?
>
> Finally--a lucid question. So I take it you believe the personality of the
> writer can be discerned through reading that writer's works. Have I stated
> your belief correctly?
I have not yet mentioned any beliefs I may have. But I will write some
things in the Donne thread, as I already mentioned. This one is like
tide-wrack.
> > Is he an interesting
> > counterpoint to Shakespeare? Any other thoughts?
> >
> > > I don't believe it is necessary to use a specialized vocabulary to
> answer
> > > it, unless your poverty of thought forces you to rely upon
pre-digested
> > > ideas. The only thing Crowley is right about is that a goodly
percentage
> > of
> > > the "educated elite" is incapable of thought (which doesn't qualify
him
> as
> > > capable of it, either).
> >
> > Charmingly put. You spot this terrible trend in writers to offer advice
of
> > which they are not capable themselves of fulfilling.
>
> The trend I spot in academe is the use of jargon to cover up a paucity of
> thought, and I am certainly not the first to do so.
Certainly not. I applaud you. As a philosopher - as one Wit. had it -
Philopophy is rescuing the Truth from words.
> Although I'm aware of your intended irony, try pointing out where my
> comments are as cryptic as yours. You might try polling the readers here.
But I am really more interested in the quality of the SUBJECT of
conversation, not who is saying it or how well, nor who's listening.
> The irony I see is your professed admiration for Eric Blair, one of the
> clearest and best writers of English prose of the last century. You might
> try emulating him.
Do not abuse youself in thinking that someone who may write an essay taking
such time and cares as are seeming to properly convey his thought, is the
least similar activity to an interogatory bash on usenet.
Cordially, Phil
John W. Kennedy
>>>>Yes, I can see how amused you are. As far as I can tell, you are
>
> talking
>
>>>>about objectiveness in assessing the truth of a matter.
>>>
>>>The exact opposite. Trans-personal; via one's subjective response.
>>
>>Going beyond personal verification by way of one's subjective
>>response?
>
>
> Sure. Or more simply; through one's own responsiveness.
>
> [The context of this little discussion was the means of Plath's
> acknowledgement of a Shakespearean Idea.]
>
>
>>I don't think a dictionary is going to help me with
>>that concept.
>
>
> Its probably necessary to take baby-steps. (1) trans (2) personal
>
> I note that Webster has per=through and sonare=to sound. Both origins are
> Latin. The word Person is already transcendent (the 'through')! Sadly, we
> modern people have lost that sense of it, being presumably more opaque
> people these days, and have to tack on the emphatic prefix: 'trans'.
Ummm.... You _do_ know that the meaning of L. "persona" is "actor's mask"?
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
John W. Kennedy
> I don't understand this Strat obsession with 'same person.'
It's just our desperate hope that the ratio of insane persons to sane
may be not so high as it superficially appears to be.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote: I don't understand this Strat obsession with 'same person.'
>
> It's just our desperate hope that the ratio of insane persons to sane
> may be not so high as it superficially appears to be.
This obsession with 'dual personalities' is so persistent
in HLAS, John, I can only believe that it's symptomatic of
the clinical disorder Stratzophrenia.
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<%pMub.7470$nE6.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote: I don't understand this Strat obsession with 'same
> > person.'
Coming from someone who dismissed Whitt Brantley as merely one of my
alter egos, Elizabeth's complaints about ostensible obsessions with
identity are uproariously funny.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cd15e95a.0108282106.59d9222f%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cd15e95a.0108271355.3e4add4%40posti
ng.google.com&output=gplain>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0201311605.62deeed9%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cd15e95a.0109090035.59601db%40posti
ng.google.com&output=gplain>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cd15e95a.0108231708.4280a9af%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>
> > It's just our desperate hope that the ratio of insane persons to sane
> > may be not so high as it superficially appears to be.
> This obsession with 'dual personalities' is so persistent
> in HLAS, John, I can only believe that it's symptomatic of
> the clinical disorder Stratzophrenia.
Coming from someone who holds online conversations with herself in
this newsgroup, such a neologism is pretty amusing.
John W. Kennedy
Oh look! ANOTHER subject that Lizzie talks about without knowing the
basics.
Bob Grumman
Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com says...
Well, "trans-" means "beyond," and "personal" means having to do with a single
person. Ergo, I'd guess the word meant "social." I have no problem with it,
seing as I'm probably the kind of jargoneer (oops, is that a non-simplity
wordism?) Tom is criticizing. I'll only say that jargon is absolutely necessary
for the most refined verosophy, but--like everything else--it is more abused
than not. (Which I'm sometimes guilty of, my own self.)
--Bob G.
Phil Innes
are
> > Latin. The word Person is already transcendent (the 'through')! Sadly,
we
> > modern people have lost that sense of it, being presumably more opaque
> > people these days, and have to tack on the emphatic prefix: 'trans'.
>
> Ummm.... You _do_ know that the meaning of L. "persona" is "actor's
mask"?
I believe I replied to Art on guise and disguise some days ago.
I know no source which relates a Latin aspersion of person(a) specifically
to "actor's mask" though it seems congruent with the Latin compound. I
suspect however that a sense of person-hood is invoked beyond stage-acting.
We should find the fons et origo in the Greek, no?
Cordially, Phil
Peter Groves
> > > I note that Webster has per=through and sonare=to sound. Both origins
> are
> > > Latin. The word Person is already transcendent (the 'through')!
Sadly,
> we
> > > modern people have lost that sense of it, being presumably more opaque
> > > people these days, and have to tack on the emphatic prefix: 'trans'.
> >
> > Ummm.... You _do_ know that the meaning of L. "persona" is "actor's
> mask"?
>
> I believe I replied to Art on guise and disguise some days ago.
>
> I know no source which relates a Latin aspersion of person(a) specifically
> to "actor's mask"
Try a common reference work, such as the OED:
person ... [a. OF. persone (12th c. in Littré), mod.F. personne, a
personage, a person, a man or woman, = Pr., It. per'sona:-L. persona a mask
used by a player ...]
Come to think of it, a dictionary could help you with all sorts of words you
appear to have difficulty with, such as "transcendent", "aspersion", and so
on.
Peter G.
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:<%pMub.7470$nE6.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >>Elizabeth Weir wrote: I don't understand this Strat obsession with 'same
> >>person.'
> >>It's just our desperate hope that the ratio of insane persons to sane
> >>may be not so high as it superficially appears to be.
> > This obsession with 'dual personalities' is so persistent
> > in HLAS, John, I can only believe that it's symptomatic of
> > the clinical disorder Stratzophrenia.
> Oh look! ANOTHER subject that Lizzie talks about without knowing the
> basics.
I've inquired about this before -- does Elizabeth know the basics of
ANY subject? So far she has displayed no evidence of even rudimentary
comprehension of any subject. Certainly one can decisively rule out
mathematics, physics, foreign languages, English history, the English
language, and even the Marx brothers.
John W. Kennedy
> I know no source which relates a Latin aspersion of person(a) specifically
> to "actor's mask" though it seems congruent with the Latin compound. I
> suspect however that a sense of person-hood is invoked beyond stage-acting.
I have no idea what you suppose "aspersion" to mean, but "actor's mask"
is the primary meaning of L. "persona", as you can verify in any Latin
dictionary or any decent English dictionary. "Sound through" -- "mask
-- get it? From "mask" it extended to "rôle", "position in life",
"human agent [in the philosophical sense of 'agent']", "non-slave", and
finally to the sense of E. "person".
> We should find the fons et origo in the Greek, no?
No, the Greek word is προσωπον (prosôpon), which runs through very
nearly the same semantic range as "persona", but is not the same word.
(Such parallel developments are not unheard of. See C. S. Lewis's
"Studies in Words".)
Phil Innes
you will see my response to another post you have made on the same subject.
> I have no idea what you suppose "aspersion" to mean, but "actor's mask"
> is the primary meaning of L. "persona", as you can verify in any Latin
> dictionary or any decent English dictionary.
Veritas! No sir! You cannot.
You can only _verify_ it by citing the context in which the word is used;
/ibidem/. Should disctionaries disagree, then where are you?
> "Sound through" -- "mask
> -- get it?
Yes I...
What is a trope?
That this is a figure of speech in English does not verify that it is, or is
ONLY, the same Latin figure of speech.
Can there be other senses of sounding through a mask? As the soul (psyche)
through the 'personality', eg. A precisely Greek idea.
and so to...
> From "mask" it extended to "rôle", "position in life",
> "human agent [in the philosophical sense of 'agent']", "non-slave", and
> finally to the sense of E. "person".
sure, by extrapolation, all these things. The question however, as I
remember it, was if its sole origin was 'acting-mask'.
this definition is objectionable because of other Latin definitions which
include 'persona', examples;
persona ficta; a fictious person
persona grata; an acceptable person
persona gratissima; a most acceptable person
persona muta; a silent actor
I think this last term absolutely qualifies /a/ use of persona as 'actor'
> > We should find the fons et origo in the Greek, no?
>
> No, the Greek word is ???????? (prosôpon), which runs through very
> nearly the same semantic range as "persona", but is not the same word.
Of course it isn't the same word stem. I was suggesting however that the
Greek /sense/ of 'person' has a transcendant aspect to it, before those
magpie Latins adopted the /same/ sense.
> (Such parallel developments are not unheard of. See C. S. Lewis's
> "Studies in Words".)
And me and he
at Tolkien's knee
:)
in silvam ligna ferre, Phil
Willedever
>
> It seems to me that both 'sides'
> are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different determinations on
> its provenance. It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
> of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship from
> within the work itself.
The evidence of the works, themselves, is where Oxfordians find their
foundation. The works of S imply a person older than William of
Stratford, a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
who had trained in the law, etc. The portrait so drawn looks much
more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
Phil Innes
below.
> > > This obsession with 'dual personalities' is so persistent
> > > in HLAS, John, I can only believe that it's symptomatic of
> > > the clinical disorder Stratzophrenia.
>
> > Oh look! ANOTHER subject that Lizzie talks about without knowing the
> > basics.
aside - A Dollymath?
> I've inquired about this before -- does Elizabeth know the basics of
> ANY subject? So far she has displayed no evidence of even rudimentary
> comprehension of any subject. Certainly one can decisively rule out
> mathematics, physics, foreign languages, English history, the English
> language, and even the Marx brothers.
What seems ungenerous here, is in appreciating _how_ individuals respond to
poetry, and beyond that, to other fecund elements in Shakespeare's Work.
It is very proper, isn't it, to propose oneself as having a rational
response to all one's actions and expressions, however I would suggest to
you, without deprecating it whatever, that non-rational responses are also
valid. I make an especially strong plea in this instance [without citing
Hamlet] since both the poetic and the mythic elements of the Work have a
deep pull - an intentionally deep pull.
A complication which obscures the basis of response is when one rationalises
one's otherwise response.
If someone, for example, chooses to write about being persecuted by a twin,
or alternate personage, then we might directly visit Hughes' treatise on the
same. That such persecution is, on the face of it, nonsense, rather
substantiates my point of non-rational stimulation by one's own mythic
imagination.
Will you think on this a moment, and allow its possibility from your own
experience?
Cordially, Phil Innes
Phil Innes
you will have to do better than this!
> > > Ummm.... You _do_ know that the meaning of L. "persona" is "actor's
> > mask"?
> >
> > I believe I replied to Art on guise and disguise some days ago.
> >
> > I know no source which relates a Latin aspersion of person(a)
specifically
> > to "actor's mask"
>
> Try a common reference work, such as the OED:
> person ... [a. OF. persone (12th c. in Littré), mod.F. personne, a
> personage, a person, a man or woman, = Pr., It. per'sona:-L. persona a
mask
> used by a player ...]
When someone talks of sourcing CITE the Latin text, not the dictionary that
refers to it. You understand what a source is?
Source text <---hint
What I wrote above simply says that I don't know of such a Latin text which
makes such a specific and limiting definition, rather than as a trope.
Perhaps you do? Perhaps you use some other method of deciding what words
indicate in a text and are too shy to write that method here?
> Come to think of it, a dictionary could help you with all sorts of words
you
> appear to have difficulty with, such as "transcendent", "aspersion", and
so
> on.
I have already (!) quoted the Latin formation of the word 'person' from a
dictionary with a higher definition than your own. What you have written
here defines nothing at all while asserting an unprovidenced definition, and
is besides, snooty and disobliging , 'could help', 'you appear to have
difficulty', 'and so on'.
This level of gratuitous usenet-blagh is your standard not mine.
Didn't you see this?:-
(1) trans (2) personal
I note that Webster has per=through and sonare=to sound. Both origins are
Latin. The word Person is already transcendent (the 'through')! Sadly, we
modern people have lost that sense of it, being presumably more opaque
people these days, and have to tack on the emphatic prefix: 'trans'.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
"Willedever" <blags...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b2c4476.03112...@posting.google.com...
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:<seKtb.985$Ob3.1...@monger.newsread.com>...
> >
> > It seems to me that both 'sides'
> > are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different determinations
on
> > its provenance. It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the
front
> > of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship
from
> > within the work itself.
>
> The evidence of the works, themselves, is where Oxfordians find their
> foundation.
Okay,
> The works of S imply a person older than William of
> Stratford,
hoo-hah. Older than Lazarus!
> a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
> who had trained in the law, etc.
Can you say Will, where this is implicit in the text?
> The portrait so drawn looks much
> more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
Coincidentally I have been reading on the same. Maybe we can compare
varieties of opinions?
Cordially, Phil Innes
Willedever
>
> ... In my opinion, the best
> writer of English language in the C20th was Eric Blair.
Nonsense. He couldn't hold a candle to George Orwell.
;)
Peter Groves
> Dear Peter G,
>
> you will have to do better than this!
>
> > > > Ummm.... You _do_ know that the meaning of L. "persona" is "actor's
> > > mask"?
> > >
> > > I believe I replied to Art on guise and disguise some days ago.
> > >
> > > I know no source which relates a Latin aspersion of person(a)
> specifically
> > > to "actor's mask"
> >
> > Try a common reference work, such as the OED:
> > person ... [a. OF. persone (12th c. in Littré), mod.F. personne, a
> > personage, a person, a man or woman, = Pr., It. per'sona:-L. persona a
> mask
> > used by a player ...]
>
> When someone talks of sourcing CITE the Latin text, not the dictionary
that
> refers to it. You understand what a source is?
> Source text <---hint
>
> What I wrote above simply says that I don't know of such a Latin text
which
> makes such a specific and limiting definition, rather than as a trope.
> Perhaps you do?
Yes (see below). That's because I can use a dictionary.
> Perhaps you use some other method of deciding what words
> indicate in a text and are too shy to write that method here?
If you imagine (for some reason) that the editors of the OED were in the
habit of making things up you can find citations of sources for the literal
meaning ("actor's mask") from Cicero, Lucretius, Virgil and Juvenal in any
large Latin dictionary.
>
> > Come to think of it, a dictionary could help you with all sorts of words
> you
> > appear to have difficulty with, such as "transcendent", "aspersion", and
> so
> > on.
>
> I have already (!) quoted the Latin formation of the word 'person' from a
> dictionary with a higher definition
?A finer font? Or what?
> than your own. What you have written
> here defines nothing at all while asserting an unprovidenced
"unprovidenced"? Are you *sure* you're not Elizabeth Weir? Don't you think
it's a little precious of you to express these doubts about normal attested
meanings in Latin when you have such problems with what I take to be your
mother tongue?
> definition, and
> is besides, snooty and disobliging , 'could help', 'you appear to have
> difficulty', 'and so on'.
>
> This level of gratuitous usenet-blagh is your standard not mine.
>
> Didn't you see this?:-
>
> (1) trans (2) personal
>
> I note that Webster has per=through and sonare=to sound. Both origins are
> Latin. The word Person is already transcendent
As I've already pointed out, this doesn't make sense (except perhaps in
German metaphysics).
Peter G.
Tom Reedy
news:CEavb.19405$aT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I don't believe he's a native English speaker, and I think the text he used
to learn it was probably a J.P. Donleavy novel. That would explain his style
of third- or fourth-hand Joycian imitation.
TR
Tom Reedy
And the evidence of your words "imply" a person who has contracted some kind
of brain disease by eating shit.
TR
Phil Innes
Dear Peter Groves,
You asked for a definition from a dictionary, not noticing that I had
already provided one. Now you want to talk trash about the quality of the
dictionary because it is not the same as your dictionary.
I have no idea who you hang out with, or what is considered normal in your
circle, and I have no idea why you should feel so put out by this:
per=through and sonare=to sound. You do not seem to understand why a
dictionary should record that.
At the end of your message you make yet another little personal dig. Such
excitements! Perhaps this is also normal in your circles? Try to get out
more.
> > Didn't you see this?:-
> >
> > (1) trans (2) personal
> >
> > I note that Webster has per=through and sonare=to sound. Both origins
are
> > Latin. The word Person is already transcendent
>
> As I've already pointed out, this doesn't make sense (except perhaps in
> German metaphysics).
You have gone to so much trouble too! How ungrateful I must seem.
Phil Innes
Phil Innes
> > foundation. The works of S imply a person older than William of
> > Stratford, a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
> > who had trained in the law, etc. The portrait so drawn looks much
> > more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
>
> And the evidence of your words "imply" a person who has contracted some
kind
> of brain disease by eating shit.
Dear Tom Reedy, while you are content to deprecate others by speculating on
their command of English and are ever ready to commit defamations for the
cause, I note you modestly preserve the extent of your own expressive
powers. If so, then all's well. If not it is almost certainly coincidental,
and not to worry about it. Cordially, Phil Innes
> TR
>
>
Phil Innes
St George would never let anyone hold a candle for him - that was his
problem. And Eric let too many ladies hold his - another problem. Cordially,
Phil
> ;)
Phil Innes
continued below...
David, I feel that you are being ungenerous in this specific case, pls see
below.
> > > This obsession with 'dual personalities' is so persistent
> > > in HLAS, John, I can only believe that it's symptomatic of
> > > the clinical disorder Stratzophrenia.
>
> > Oh look! ANOTHER subject that Lizzie talks about without knowing the
> > basics.
aside - A Dollymath?
> I've inquired about this before -- does Elizabeth know the basics of
> ANY subject? So far she has displayed no evidence of even rudimentary
> comprehension of any subject. Certainly one can decisively rule out
> mathematics, physics, foreign languages, English history, the English
> language, and even the Marx brothers.
What seems ungenerous here, is in appreciating _how_ individuals respond to
Elizabeth Weir
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message news:<seKtb.985$Ob3.1...@monger.newsread.com>...
> >
> > It seems to me that both 'sides'
> > are viewing the back of the canvas, and making different determinations on
> > its provenance. It would be properly analagous for anyone viewing the front
> > of the canvas, the painted surface, to speak to issues of authorship from
> > within the work itself.
>
> The evidence of the works, themselves, is where Oxfordians find their
> foundation.
That's precisely the Stratfordian argument that we
see in Kathman and Reedy's demonstration of Aristotle's
Fourth Fallacy in 'How We Know Shakespeare Wrote
Shakespeare.'
The Oxfordian argument reads the same:
The Shakespeare plays are Oxford's works so
we will use the Shakespeare works prove that
Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works.'
Strats in the Shakespeare vocabulary thread are
currently wallowing in the petitio principii argument.
There's no evidence that the Stratford ringer had
more than a two-word vocabulary ('by me') so Strats
simply claim the 29,000 lemma of the Shakespeare
works to 'show' that the Stratford fraud had a genius
vocabulary. (Then they discuss it as if they actually
had something).
> The works of S imply a person older than William of
> Stratford, a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
> who had trained in the law, etc. The portrait so drawn looks much
> more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
Oxfordianism is a case of mistaken identity. Oxford's
genius cousin Francis Bacon was also raised by Lord Burghley,
lived on the Continent for several years, spoke fluent Italian
and flawless French, was a legal scholar, jurist and philosopher.
Oxford married Bacon's first cousin Anne Cecil.
Oxford was dead when topical material went into the
plays written after 1604, for example The Winter's Tale
which scholars believe was written for the marriage
of the Palatine Elector and Princess Elizabeth but has
references derived from the marriage negotiations
which took place several years earlier. Bacon was
not only a member of Queen Anne's inner circle
but on the Privy Council that deliberated the marriage
negotiations.
In addition, Kathman has successfully used
Charles Mills Gayley's Strachey letter proof (the
Strachey letter was really a classified 20,000-word
report to the Council of the Virginia Company) to
disprove the Oxfordian claim.
As counsel to the Virginia Company, Sir Francis Bacon
had possession of the Strachey letter.
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
> The Oxfordian argument reads the same:
>
> The Shakespeare plays are Oxford's works so
> we will use the Shakespeare works prove that
> Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works.'
>
> Strats in the Shakespeare vocabulary thread are
> currently wallowing in the petitio principii argument.
Although from this philosophical pedestal I feel that I have mocked you, or
rather a method of inquiry, it is also evident as you protest, some Strats
have not appreciated their own phallusy, to coin a term...
> There's no evidence that the Stratford ringer had
> more than a two-word vocabulary ('by me') so Strats
> simply claim the 29,000 lemma of the Shakespeare
> works to 'show' that the Stratford fraud had a genius
> vocabulary. (Then they discuss it as if they actually
> had something).
An honest statement! I would like to reply to it at length, and will gather
material to do so from another Grammar School boy, as I was myself.
> > The works of S imply a person older than William of
> > Stratford, a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
> > who had trained in the law, etc. The portrait so drawn looks much
> > more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
>
> Oxfordianism is a case of mistaken identity. Oxford's
> genius cousin Francis Bacon was also raised by Lord Burghley,
> lived on the Continent for several years, spoke fluent Italian
> and flawless French, was a legal scholar, jurist and philosopher.
> Oxford married Bacon's first cousin Anne Cecil.
This is so, so... Sobran. (sorry, I am old fart, have read everything)
> Oxford was dead when topical material went into the
> plays written after 1604, for example The Winter's Tale
> which scholars believe was written for the marriage
> of the Palatine Elector
but you have not read Yates Occult Philosophy of Eliz. Age, and maybe not
Political Philosophy of the Elizabethan Age neither?
This Palatine stuff is right up Bacon's er, alley, no? More than any Proddy
prospectus, and wee Elizabeth would have worn a more rosy crown. But this is
very complicated stuff, which Chapman had a go at with:-
Mens faces glitter, and their hearts are blacke,
But thou (great Mistresse of heuens gloomie rack)
Art blacke in face, and glitterst in thy heart.
There is they glorie, riches, force, and Art.
[aside - apparently Mr. Neuendorffer was famous, even then]
> and Princess Elizabeth but has
> references derived from the marriage negotiations
> which took place several years earlier. Bacon was
> not only a member of Queen Anne's inner circle
> but on the Privy Council that deliberated the marriage
> negotiations.
>
> In addition, Kathman has successfully used
> Charles Mills Gayley's Strachey letter proof (the
> Strachey letter was really a classified 20,000-word
> report to the Council of the Virginia Company) to
> disprove the Oxfordian claim.
>
> As counsel to the Virginia Company, Sir Francis Bacon
> had possession of the Strachey letter.
Well, I had better do my homework and represent to you.
Cordially, Phil
> Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth, I snipped preamble:-
That Strats and Oxfordians are trapped in the
same *form* of the argument was my point, not
my preamble.
> > The Oxfordian argument reads the same:
> >
> > The Shakespeare plays are Oxford's works so
> > we will use the Shakespeare works prove that
> > Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works.'
> >
> > Strats in the Shakespeare vocabulary thread are
> > currently wallowing in the petitio principii argument.
>
> Although from this philosophical pedestal I feel that I have mocked you, or
> rather a method of inquiry, it is also evident as you protest, some Strats
> have not appreciated their own phallusy, to coin a term...
I'm not really getting your drift although I did like your
reference to Lorca and Flamencowissenschaft. Not that
I plan to use it.
> > There's no evidence that the Stratford ringer had
> > more than a two-word vocabulary ('by me') so Strats
> > simply claim the 29,000 lemma of the Shakespeare
> > works to 'show' that the Stratford fraud had a genius
> > vocabulary. (Then they discuss it as if they actually
> > had something).
>
> An honest statement! I would like to reply to it at length, and will gather
> material to do so from another Grammar School boy, as I was myself.
Oxfordians do the same thing. While Reed estimates that
the Stratford scammer had a vocabulary of about a thousand
words (I think that his Stratford vocabulary was about 1,000
but Reed may not be taking into consideration
his pandering, hustling, usering, acting London vocabulary
so I would put it at closer to 2,000 words) Oxford had no
exceptional vocabulary.
> > > The works of S imply a person older than William of
> > > Stratford, a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
> > > who had trained in the law, etc. The portrait so drawn looks much
> > > more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
> >
> > Oxfordianism is a case of mistaken identity. Oxford's
> > genius cousin Francis Bacon was also raised by Lord Burghley,
> > lived on the Continent for several years, spoke fluent Italian
> > and flawless French, was a legal scholar, jurist and philosopher.
> > Oxford married Bacon's first cousin Anne Cecil.
>
> This is so, so... Sobran. (sorry, I am old fart, have read everything)
I haven't read Sobran.
> > Oxford was dead when topical material went into the
> > plays written after 1604, for example The Winter's Tale
> > which scholars believe was written for the marriage
> > of the Palatine Elector
>
> but you have not read Yates Occult Philosophy of Eliz. Age, and maybe not
> Political Philosophy of the Elizabethan Age neither?
I'm fairly familiar with the political philosophies of the
Elizabethan Age. All were knitted to religion. Bacon and
his relatives the Sidney-Herberts plus Devereaux
were Anglican-Puritan/Ciceronian republicans. Thanks to
blanket stupidity Strats have laid over the Elizabethan
era, scholars can't notice this.
> This Palatine stuff is right up Bacon's er, alley, no?
If that's a reference to the RCC, no. The Anglican-Puritans
were 'pure' Catholics who started with Clement and stopped
their doctrine after Augustine. The next
thousand years of Roman Catholicism was 'papist.'
There was also some nostalgia for the English See of the
Anglo-Saxon period. That did seem to be a sort of benign
Catholicism and in fact there is now a movement in the
Anglican Church to return to the Westminster era.
> More than any Proddy
> prospectus,
I just read a scholarly article that seemed to suggest
that Caliban is Shakespeare's satire of man reduced to
groveling slave by Calvinism with Prospero as Calvin's
pitiless diety. In Spanish Calvin is almost pronounced
Caliban. I don't know how the Catholic actor from
Stratford would know enough about Calivinism to
satirize it. Bacon's mother was probably a Calvinist.
She translated Beza from Greek to Latin and Beza
dedication his Meditations to her.
> and wee Elizabeth would have worn a more rosy crown. But this is
> very complicated stuff, which Chapman had a go at with:-
>
> Mens faces glitter, and their hearts are blacke,
> But thou (great Mistresse of heuens gloomie rack)
> Art blacke in face, and glitterst in thy heart.
> There is they glorie, riches, force, and Art.
Elizabeth is sometimes portrayed as Selene.
I'm not sure why Chapman would say that
Elizabeth was 'black in face' which I take as
scowling or depression but it's a strong line about
'glorie, riches, force and art' in her glittering
heart.
> [aside - apparently Mr. Neuendorffer was famous, even then]
I'm not aware that Mr. Neuendorffer is famous even now.
Elizabeth
Phil Innes
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.0311...@posting.google.com...
> "Phil Innes" <aong...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:<IYvvb.1387$Ob3.1...@monger.newsread.com>...
> > Elizabeth, I snipped preamble:-
>
> That Strats and Oxfordians are trapped in the
> same *form* of the argument was my point, not
> my preamble.
I agree.
~~~~~~~
> > Although from this philosophical pedestal I feel that I have mocked you,
or
> > rather a method of inquiry, it is also evident as you protest, some
Strats
> > have not appreciated their own phallusy, to coin a term...
>
> I'm not really getting your drift although I did like your
> reference to Lorca and Flamencowissenschaft. Not that
> I plan to use it.
O go on. It'll throw David, the key word there is "Duende" which is a great
thing to throw at anyone.
> > > There's no evidence that the Stratford ringer had
> > > more than a two-word vocabulary ('by me') so Strats
> > > simply claim the 29,000 lemma of the Shakespeare
> > > works to 'show' that the Stratford fraud had a genius
> > > vocabulary. (Then they discuss it as if they actually
> > > had something).
> >
> > An honest statement! I would like to reply to it at length, and will
gather
> > material to do so from another Grammar School boy, as I was myself.
I have made selection : will post here.
I am engaged reading article on Kevin Kline as Falstaff [Henry IV is at the
Vivian Beaumont Theater currently]
> Oxfordians do the same thing. While Reed estimates that
> the Stratford scammer had a vocabulary of about a thousand
> words (I think that his Stratford vocabulary was about 1,000
> but Reed may not be taking into consideration
> his pandering, hustling, usering, acting London vocabulary
> so I would put it at closer to 2,000 words) Oxford had no
> exceptional vocabulary.
I recently asked David his opinion of current univ. students of 'the
information age' - if he could guestimate actual word _use_ [rather than
words understood] - my guess is about 2,000 on average but this is only a
guess.
~~~~~~~~~~
> > This is so, so... Sobran. (sorry, I am old fart, have read everything)
>
> I haven't read Sobran.
He is as magpie as Author ;)
~~~~~~~~
> > More than any Proddy
> > prospectus,
>
> I just read a scholarly article that seemed to suggest
> that Caliban is Shakespeare's satire of man reduced to
> groveling slave by Calvinism with Prospero as Calvin's
> pitiless diety.
Laugh. Sounds like written by William Blake turned sour Marxist.
~~~~~`
>
> > and wee Elizabeth would have worn a more rosy crown. But this is
> > very complicated stuff, which Chapman had a go at with:-
> >
> > Mens faces glitter, and their hearts are blacke,
> > But thou (great Mistresse of heuens gloomie rack)
> > Art blacke in face, and glitterst in thy heart.
> > There is they glorie, riches, force, and Art.
>
> Elizabeth is sometimes portrayed as Selene.
> I'm not sure why Chapman would say that
> Elizabeth was 'black in face'
I think this is a big wink, an allusion to the Dark Woman. Not the same one
as the sonnets, but of her Idea.
> which I take as
> scowling or depression but it's a strong line about
> 'glorie, riches, force and art' in her glittering
> heart.
>
> > [aside - apparently Mr. Neuendorffer was famous, even then]
>
> I'm not aware that Mr. Neuendorffer is famous even now.
Fame is overrated, it becomes stale after a while.
The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured,
And the sad augers mock their own presage.
Fame is better visited, and not the kind of love you can keep?
Many a time and oft
Have you climbed up to walls and battlements,
To towers and windows, yea, to chimney tops,
Cordially, Phil
> Elizabeth
Phil Innes
articles there. Cordially, Phil
Willedever
>
> St George would never let anyone hold a candle for him - that was his
> problem. And Eric let too many ladies hold his - another problem.
Sounds like there was burning at both ends, and not just the candle.
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
[...]
> I haven't read Sobran.
That's not surprising. Elizabeth evidently hasn't even read any of
the sources that she cites -- Poincaré, Einstein, Hsu, Akrigg, etc. --
so surely nobody would expect her to have read texts that she does NOT
mention.
> > > Oxford was dead when topical material went into the
> > > plays written after 1604, for example The Winter's Tale
> > > which scholars believe was written for the marriage
> > > of the Palatine Elector
> > but you have not read Yates Occult Philosophy of Eliz. Age, and maybe not
> > Political Philosophy of the Elizabethan Age neither?
> I'm fairly familiar with the political philosophies of the
> Elizabethan Age. All were knitted to religion. Bacon and
> his relatives the Sidney-Herberts plus Devereaux
> were Anglican-Puritan/Ciceronian republicans.
...who doubtless spoke East Anglian-Oxford-Cambridge-Chancery-
London-Chaucerian-Shakespearean Dane-inflected university English.
Elizabeth's hyphenated hybrids are a consistent source of merriment.
[...]
> I just read a scholarly article that seemed to suggest
> that Caliban is Shakespeare's satire of man reduced to
> groveling slave by Calvinism with Prospero as Calvin's
> pitiless diety [sic].
One wasn't aware of Calvin's weight problem.
> In Spanish Calvin is almost pronounced
> Caliban.
In Spanish Calvin is almost pronounced Kelvin. No doubt Elizabeth or
Art will now bring Lord Kelvin into the picture as well.
> I don't know how the Catholic actor from
> Stratford would know enough about Calivinism to
> satirize it.
The actor from Stratford could probably READ -- but in view of
Elizabeth's demonstrable deficiencies in that regard, it is little
wonder that she doesn't know how anyone else comes to know such things.
> Bacon's mother was probably a Calvinist.
> She translated Beza from Greek to Latin and Beza
> dedication [sic] his Meditations to her.
Beza dedication his Meditations to her? That has a nice ring to it.
[...]
> Elizabeth is sometimes portrayed as Selene.
> I'm not sure why Chapman would say that
> Elizabeth was 'black in face' which I take as
> scowling or depression but it's a strong line about
> 'glorie, riches, force and art' in her glittering
> heart.
> > [aside - apparently Mr. Neuendorffer was famous, even then]
> I'm not aware that Mr. Neuendorffer is famous even now.
Don't underestimate Art. He may not be as well known as Hugh Troy
yet, but his comedic career is still in full flower.
Willedever
>
> > The works of S imply a person older than William of
> > Stratford,
>
> hoo-hah. Older than Lazarus!
No, older than Will-Strat.
>
> > a person of high birth, someone who had traveled to Italy,
> > who had trained in the law, etc.
>
> Can you say Will, where this is implicit in the text?
You bet. But not in a sentence or two. Where do you want to start?
>
> > The portrait so drawn looks much
> > more like Oxford than Will-Strat.
>
> Coincidentally I have been reading on the same. Maybe we can compare
> varieties of opinions?
Sure.