The Kinds of Evidence Against Shakespeare

[Bob Grumman]

ME: "Paul, I think you've done it--found a way to say your absence of evidence
is the only evidence that matters where the authorship of the Shakespeare works is concerned."

PAUL: "I argue no such thing. There is a huge amount
of evidence against the Stratman and more in
favour of Oxford. Of course, the latter does not
consist of explicit written statements made at
the time -- which seem to be your only criteria
for 'evidence'".

Okay, Paul, name two or three pieces of evidence
against Shakespeare that cannot sensibly be described
as absence of evidence for him--that do not, in other
words, amount to indications that he lacked something
you believe a great poet would have to have had--
such as literate parents.

Explicit documentary evidence is, of course, the ONLY
kind of evidence available to either of us, by the way.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 24/10/2012 16:18, Bob Grumman wrote:

> ME: "Paul, I think you've done it--found a way to say your absence of evidence
> is the only evidence that matters where the authorship of the Shakespeare works is concerned."
>
> PAUL: "I argue no such thing. There is a huge amount
> of evidence against the Stratman and more in
> favour of Oxford. Of course, the latter does not
> consist of explicit written statements made at
> the time -- which seem to be your only criteria
> for 'evidence'".
>
> Okay, Paul, name two or three pieces of evidence
> against Shakespeare that cannot sensibly be described
> as absence of evidence for him--that do not, in other
> words, amount to indications that he lacked something
> you believe a great poet would have to have had--
> such as literate parents.

An absurd request. The whole point of the Stratman
is that he was a nobody. Pick anyone off the street
and you have as plausible a candidate. How about
Tom Smith, a tanner of Cheapside? We know
almost nothing about him. So let me put the SAME
question to you:

Name two or three pieces of evidence against
Tom Smith that cannot sensibly be described as

absence of evidence for him--that do not, in other
words, amount to indications that he lacked
something you believe a great poet would have to
have had--such as literate parents.

You see how it works? There were around three
million people in England at the time. Assuming
that Shake-speare was English, you can just as
well pick any other person and ask what is the
evidence AGAINST that person.

I might just as well accuse you of assassinating
JFK. Do you have a good alibi? Of course, to
make a comparison with the England of the 1580s
we'd have to rule out nearly every record on which
you might rely for that alibi.

> Explicit documentary evidence is, of course, the ONLY
> kind of evidence available to either of us, by the way.

Ridiculous. There is very little written evidence
about all kinds of matters -- such as (say) their
defecatory habits. So can we conclude that they
rarely went 'to the bathroom' ? (I'm using an
Americanism to save you embarrassment.) In
many matters we have to make large assumptions
based on modern human experience, modified by
numerous aspects of human knowledge, which
has been built up in all sorts of ways, and modified
again by hints from written records at the time.
Those assumptions may well be wrong.


Paul.

[marco]

so called queen Elizabeth obviously
wasn't running the show in England

she was just a front for the powers -
the religious cabal

marc

[John W Kennedy]

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Bob Grumman]

> > ME: "Paul, I think you've done it--found a way to say your absence of evidence
>
> > is the only evidence that matters where the authorship of the Shakespeare works is concerned."
>
> >
>
> > PAUL: "I argue no such thing. There is a huge amount
> > of evidence against the Stratman and more in
> > favour of Oxford. Of course, the latter does not
> > consist of explicit written statements made at
> > the time -- which seem to be your only criteria
> > for 'evidence'".
>
> > Okay, Paul, name two or three pieces of evidence
> > against Shakespeare that cannot sensibly be described
> > as absence of evidence for him--that do not, in other
> > words, amount to indications that he lacked something
> > you believe a great poet would have to have had--
> > such as literate parents.
>
> An absurd request.

Okay, name the positive evidence against Shakespeare, such
as someone's saying in a letter of the time that he was
illiterate, or that Oxford wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream.

My point is that you can only name negative evidence against
him. That would be worth doing if there were little or no
positive evidence for him, especially if much or all of that
evidence were directly contradicted by other evidence (for
instance, if Digges' were said somethere to have lied about
Shakespeare) but it is not--you have NO direct evidence that
contradicts any of the direct evidence for Shakespeare.

> The whole point of the Stratman
> is that he was a nobody. Pick anyone off the street
> and you have as plausible a candidate. How about
> Tom Smith, a tanner of Cheapside? We know
> almost nothing about him.

But we know a great deal about Shakespeare, such
as his having had a monument put up to him which
speaks of "all he hath writ."

> So let me put the SAME
> question to you:
>
> Name two or three pieces of evidence against
> Tom Smith that cannot sensibly be described as
> absence of evidence for him--that do not, in other
> words, amount to indications that he lacked
> something you believe a great poet would have to
> have had--such as literate parents.

(1) Tom Smith had a name unlike the name on the works
of William Shakespeare.

(2) Tom Smith had an occupation not connected to play-writing.

(3) Tom Smith lived in Cheapside whereas there is evidence that
Shakespeare lived elsewhere

Only (1) is strong evidence BUT you supply us with much less data
about him than we have for Shakespeare.

> You see how it works?

I've always seen how it works for you, Paul: reject all
hard evidence for Shakespeare as fraudulent, and focus
on evidence you say should exist for him but doesn't.

> There were around three
> million people in England at the time. Assuming
> that Shake-speare was English, you can just as
> well pick any other person and ask what is the
> evidence AGAINST that person.

Step back and think for a minute or two, Paul. You're
being near-infinitely ridiculous.

None of these had the right name and title, "Mr. William
Shakespeare." Many of them, researched, could be
shown by occupation,residence or something else not
likely to have written the plays. They could even
be shown to have signed with a mark, which you would
take as conclusive evidence of illiteracy.

Aside from that, there would be no reason to suspect them
of having been Shakespeare whereas there is EVIDENCE FOR
the actual Shakespeare.

> I might just as well accuse you of assassinating
> JFK. Do you have a good alibi? Of course, to
> make a comparison with the England of the 1580s
> we'd have to rule out nearly every record on which
> you might rely for that alibi.

You're proving how stupid your theory is, you wackissimus!
Good grief, you're saying that I, who certainly did not
kill JFK, was just as likely to have as Shakespeare was to
have NOT written the works attributed to him because any evidence
that I didn't kill JFK could be faked by the government just as
any evidence Shakespeare DID write the works attributed to him
could have been faked by the government.

I do have a pretty good alibi for the JFK killing, by the way:
I was in the Air Force station in the Azores at the time. There's
no evidence I was in Texas, but none I wasn't, if you reject all
the evidence that I wasn't. Great way of pinning down a Great Truth.

> > Explicit documentary evidence is, of course, the ONLY
> > kind of evidence available to either of us, by the way.
>
> Ridiculous. There is very little written evidence
> about all kinds of matters -- such as (say) their

> defacatory habits. So can we conclude that they

> rarely went 'to the bathroom'? (I'm using an
> Americanism to save you embarrassment.)

(And ignoring the evidence against your insane belief in
this case, which is my admiration for the work of Henry
Miller and R. Crumb, because no evidence about any of
your beliefs once you choose it means anything to you.)

> In many matters we have to make large assumptions
> based on modern human experience, modified by
> numerous aspects of human knowledge, which
> has been built up in all sorts of ways, and modified
> again by hints from written records at the time.
> Those assumptions may well be wrong.

Explicit documentary evidence is all either of us
has for THIS question, which is about who wrote
certain plays and poems.

You say Shakespeare did not because of the documentary
evidence you believe indicates his parents were illiterate,
for instance.

I, however, have DIRECT documentary evidence for Shakespeare;
his name on title-pages, for instance, DIRECTLY indicates
that a man with his name wrote the books containing those
title-pages.


That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
much better REAL evidence than anything you have for Oxford.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 26/10/2012 14:27, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> PAUL: "I argue no such thing. There is a huge amount
>>> of evidence against the Stratman and more in
>>> favour of Oxford. Of course, the latter does not
>>> consist of explicit written statements made at
>>> the time -- which seem to be your only criteria
>>> for 'evidence'".
>>
>>> Okay, Paul, name two or three pieces of evidence
>>> against Shakespeare that cannot sensibly be described
>>> as absence of evidence for him--that do not, in other
>>> words, amount to indications that he lacked something
>>> you believe a great poet would have to have had--
>>> such as literate parents.
>>
>> An absurd request.
>
> Okay, name the positive evidence against Shakespeare, such
> as someone's saying in a letter of the time that he was
> illiterate, or that Oxford wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream.
>
> My point is that you can only name negative evidence against
> him.

The search for 'categories of evidence' is a mark
of a defeated paradigm. You have long ceased
to be able to present reasonable arguments on
obvious issues, so you have to select some fake
category, under which you think you can win.
You will notice that it is Strats here that adopt
this strategy -- whether it is talking about 'direct'
and 'indirect', or hard and soft or 'prima facie' or
whatever. Strats can't win in any ordinary
discussion, so feel that there must be a better
way, some set of 'golden rules' that would enable
them to prevail.

Think of some issues in the past, some where
the new way of thinking worked, some where it
didn't, and was recognised to be false. The
Copernican, or the Germ theory of disease,
or (for arguments that failed) the Spiritualists,
or Phrenologists, or any messianic end-of-the-
world cases, . No one now takes any interest
in the 'categories of evidence' either side used
then, or failed to use. If anyone at the time
took such an interest in such meta-discussions,
they were, at best, wasting their breath. The
issues would never have been resolved by
considering 'categories of evidence'.

> That would be worth doing if there were little or no
> positive evidence for him, especially if much or all of that
> evidence were directly contradicted by other evidence (for
> instance, if Digges' were said somethere to have lied about
> Shakespeare) but it is not--you have NO direct evidence that
> contradicts any of the direct evidence for Shakespeare.

Yawn. Do you have some hierarchy -- like
hands in poker? Does positive indirect soft
unreal prima-facie evidence come higher or lower
than negative direct hard real evidence?

>> The whole point of the Stratman
>> is that he was a nobody. Pick anyone off the street
>> and you have as plausible a candidate. How about
>> Tom Smith, a tanner of Cheapside? We know
>> almost nothing about him.
>
> But we know a great deal about Shakespeare, such
> as his having had a monument put up to him which
> speaks of "all he hath writ."

Answered time and time and time again.
"All that he hath writ" is, of course, -- in
respect of the Stratman -- ZERO, a big fat
ZERO.

Sixty years ago no one could have imagined
DNA, and that DNA studies could show so much.
Similarly no one (or very few) could have imagined
computers doing what they can do today. Let's
say that in another sixty, or two-hundred and sixty,
years some new and now-unimaginable technique
arrives, proving the issue one way or the other.
The Stratman is confirmed as the author, and
Oxfordians et al, are shown to be deluded OR
the Stratman is proved to be a stooge.

Footling issues about the "kinds of evidence"
(the sort of 'discussion' Strats here, like you
and Dominic Hughes, enjoy so much) will never
be mentioned.

In either case, people will look back and say
that one side or the other was close to insane
(or utterly stupid) to believe as they did. One
of two belief-systems will rule:

(A) Strats will be seen to be utter fools to have
been taken in by so absurd a story -- and utter
amazement will be expressed as to how Oxford
was not seen as the author soon after the full
extent of Collier's forgeries was realised

OR (B) Strats will be seen to have been right --
and how could anyone have ever doubted that
the Stratman was the author -- so manifest is
his presence in the plays and poems?

Which will it be?

To put it in over-simplified terms (and take
Oxfordians as the only serious anti-Strats)
the issues are
(A) Are Oxfordians insane? OR
(B) Are Strats remarkably stupid?

For a Strat to honestly attempt to justify his
beliefs, he must
a) confess that it is, in principle, a wholly unlikely
scenario (given the background of illiteracy, etc.);
b) admit that that there are some extraordinary
gaps in the record (e.g. no letters from him).
c) show how (a) and (b) above were not unlikely;
d) explain how there are no records of 'natural
occasions' (such as meetings in the street,
or accounts of the actor on stage, or verses
commemorating public matters, such as the
death of the Queen, or of Prince Henry)
which support their case;
e) justify the fact that the few natural records
about the Stratman that do exist (his conversation
with his lawyer, the meeting of James Cooke with
his daughter, inscriptions on tombstones) go
against their case;
f) demonstrate how Oxfordian theories are quite
absurd;
g) show that records indicating that the Stratman
was either an actor or a writer were unlikely to
have been contrived by those planning the
cover-up;
h) prove that claims by Oxfordians to explain
particular Sonnets, or particular plays and
the characters (and characterisations)
within them are either so vague as to be
meaningless, or -- when those claims are
precise -- show how they are wholly wrong,
fitting neither the words of the work, nor the
history of the times.

. . . . Do you think Strats do this?

. . . . Or is my list anywhere at fault?


Oxfordians can escape the charge of insanity
only if they can provide a reasonable explanation
of why there was a such a peculiar cover-up, and
how and why those who mounted it had the
motivation, the capacity and the means. (To say
a lot in a few words -- each aspect must be set
out in detail.)

They must be able to show that every example
of 'proof' of the Stratfordian case is either false,
or not unlikely to have been contrived by those
planning the cover-up.

They must also be able to show how the canon,
and its place in English history, and in European
literature, are much better understood when their
candidate is seen as its author. This must apply
both in general terms and to particular characters,
scenes and lines in a variety of plays and poems.

No authorship theory (including the Stratfordian)
should be taken seriously unless it can provide
a good explanation of the Sonnets

. . . . Do you think that Oxfordians do this?

. . . . Or is my list anywhere at fault?


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

A simple question for you, Paul, that I've asked before without getting a response: who determines whether a theory is valid or not? The person advancing it or some other party?

Oh, another: given that you can claim that the fact that all the evidence for Shakespeare may have been fraudulent makes it irrational to claim that that theory is valid, why shouldn't my claim that all the evidence missing if favor of Shakespeare, such as his law degree from Oxford, may have been destroyed by government conspirators trying to make it seem Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare have equal standing.

Meanwhile, I must say that if you're a real person, you must be the most irrational person in the history of the world.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 29/10/2012 21:23, Bob Grumman wrote:

> A simple question for you, Paul, that I've asked before
> without getting a response: who determines whether a theory
> is valid or not? The person advancing it or some other party?

It's an extremely complicated question, Ask the
same one about theories in the past: I gave you
a small list. Who decided that the Copernican
Theory and the Germ Theory of Disease were
right, and that the Spiritualists, Phrenologists,
or the messianic end-of-the-world theories were
wrong? You can extend the list to thousands of
issues.

The answers emerged over time -- or maybe the
'wrong' answers just went out of fashion (say, for
Spiritualism) and might come back into fashion again.
Sometimes new evidence (like DNA) emerged, which
settled the question. Only rarely are the answers
obvious to the bulk of the educated population soon
after the questions are raised.

> Oh, another: given that you can claim that the fact that all the
> evidence for Shakespeare

All the evidence? The whole anti-Strat case
is based on its paucity.
> may have been fraudulent

'Contrived' is better. There is very little that
could be said to be fraudulent. Is a practical
joke 'fraudulent'? Was the April 1 story about
the Swiss Spaghetti harvest fraudulent? The
ignorant populace was vaguely pointed in the
direction of Stratford, and it swallowed the
bait without a thought,

> makes it irrational to claim that that theory is valid,
> why shouldn't my claim that all the evidence missing if
> favor of Shakespeare, such as his law degree from
> Oxford, may have been destroyed by government
> conspirators trying to make it seem Oxford wrote the
> works of Shakespeare have equal standing.

No one begins to suggest that the Stratman
might have had a law degree from Oxford (one
reason being that they did not teach Law) --
nor anything like it. And I am lost about the
nature of the 'theory' you are putting forward
here. But if it was a serious one, anyone
could point out its faults. Good theories --
that are both reasonably plausible and
match the facts of history -- are virtually
impossible to devise.

> Meanwhile, I must say that if you're a real person,
> you must be the most irrational person in the history
> of the world.

Thank you for the great detail in your
relevant and logical argument.


Paul.

[Sabrina Feldman]

Hi Bob -- as you know, I've found HLAS to be so antagonistic towards authorship skeptics that I swore off posting here, but in your case, my friend and friendly adversary, I wish to make an exception. You write:

"I, however, have DIRECT documentary evidence for Shakespeare;
his name on title-pages, for instance, DIRECTLY indicates
that a man with his name wrote the books containing those
title-pages.

That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
much better REAL evidence than anything you have for Oxford."

Bob, this argument is not nearly as effective in 2012 as it once was!!! As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year and more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT documentary evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of numerous apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or in some cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been produced by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with his name wrote the books containing those title-pages.

That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain

much better REAL evidence than anything you have for anyone else as the author of these apocryphal plays and bad quartos.

Yes, there is still Meres to contend with, along with the Stratford Monument, 1623 First Folio, and Jonson's "De Shakespeare Nostrati"...but if William Shakespeare served as a front man for the true Bard, that *could* explain why William Shakespeare was so often attacked by his contemporaries as an incompetent and/or plagiaristic writer who plausibly wrote or adapted many apocryphal plays and bad quartos.

--Sabrina (http://www.apocryphalshakespeare.com)

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

Sabrina Feldman <sabrinamariefeld...@gmail.com> wrote:

<<As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year and
more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT documentary
evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of numerous
apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or in some
cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been produced
by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with his name
wrote the books containing those title-pages.>>

Poppycock!

Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<56c33089-9ed5-4341...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,

Could you elaborate, Art? I don't mean with one of your delusional
defecatory dumps of crackpot cryptography and nutcase numerology;
rather, I'd like to see you articulate what your point is (if any) and
what evidence there is to support it (if any).

> Art Neuendorffer

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>> Sabrina Feldman <sabrinamariefeld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <<As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year and
>> more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT documentary
>> evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of numerous
>> apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or in some
>> cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been produced
>> by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with his name
>> wrote the books containing those title-pages.>>

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>>
>> Poppycock!

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Could you elaborate, Art?  I don't mean with one of your delusional
> defecatory dumps of crackpot cryptography and nutcase numerology;
> rather, I'd like to see you articulate what your point is (if any)
> and what evidence there is to support it (if any).

Sabrina is trying to play the Stratfordian Shuffle:

Shake-speare's name on the title page is *CLEAR DIRECT* evidence
that the illiterate boob wrote *SOME* of the works
but *NOT ALL* of the works.

It nEVER made any sense when Stratfordians proposed it
and it certainly doesn't make sense when Sabrina proposes it.

The illiterate Stratford boob couldn't write his own name.

Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<6c7acf13-6e0a-43ae...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> >> Sabrina Feldman <sabrinamariefeld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <<As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year and
> >> more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT documentary
> >> evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of numerous
> >> apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or in some
> >> cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been produced
> >> by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with his name
> >> wrote the books containing those title-pages.>>

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >>
> >> Poppycock!

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Could you elaborate, Art?  I don't mean with one of your delusional
> > defecatory dumps of crackpot cryptography and nutcase numerology;
> > rather, I'd like to see you articulate what your point is (if any)
> > and what evidence there is to support it (if any).

> Sabrina is trying to play the Stratfordian Shuffle:
>
> Shake-speare's name on the title page is *CLEAR DIRECT* evidence
> that the illiterate boob wrote *SOME* of the works
> but *NOT ALL* of the works.

Shakespeare's name on title pages *is* clear direct evidence of his
authorship of most of the works, Art. There are other corroborating
forms of evidence as well. MoreoVER, the evidence for Shakespeare's
authorship of the works attributed to him is much stronger than that for
his contemporary playwrights, with the sole exception of the
relentlessly self-promoting Jonson.

> It nEVER made any sense when Stratfordians proposed it

"Stratfordians" didn't "propose" it, Art; Shakespeare's authorship
was widely accepted by eVERyone when the plays were first performed, and
it has continued to be VERy widely accepted (among the sane, at any
rate) eVER since.

> and it certainly doesn't make sense when Sabrina proposes it.
>
> The illiterate Stratford boob

William Shakespeare of Stratford was *not* illiterate, Art.

> couldn't write his own name.

Not only *could* he, he *did* -- in fact, seVERal of his signatures
survive, a circumstance relatively unusual for middle-class playwrights
of the period. Haven't you learned *anything* in the years that you've
been deluging h.l.a.s. with your crackpot crap, Art?!

> Art Neuendorffer

[Bob Grumman]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:20:33 AM UTC-4, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> Hi Bob -- as you know, I've found HLAS to be so antagonistic towards authorship skeptics that I swore off posting here, but in your case, my friend and friendly adversary, I wish to make an exception. You write:
>
>
>
> "I, however, have DIRECT documentary evidence for Shakespeare;
>
> his name on title-pages, for instance, DIRECTLY indicates
>
> that a man with his name wrote the books containing those
>
> title-pages.
>
>
>
> That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
>
> much better REAL evidence than anything you have for Oxford."
>
>
>
> Bob, this argument is not nearly as effective in 2012 as it once was!!!

Sure it is

As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year and more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT documentary evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of numerous apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or in some cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been produced by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with his name wrote the books containing those title-pages.
>
>
>
> That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
>
> much better REAL evidence than anything you have for anyone else as the author of these apocryphal plays and bad quartos.
>
>
>
> Yes, there is still Meres to contend with, along with the Stratford Monument, 1623 First Folio, and Jonson's "De Shakespeare Nostrati"...but if William Shakespeare served as a front man for the true Bard, that *could* explain why William Shakespeare was so often attacked by his contemporaries as an incompetent and/or plagiaristic writer who plausibly wrote or adapted many apocryphal plays and bad quartos.
>
>
>
> --Sabrina (http://www.apocryphalshakespeare.com)

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:20:33 AM UTC-4, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> Hi Bob -- as you know, I've found HLAS to be so antagonistic towards authorship skeptics that I swore off posting here, but in your case, my friend and friendly adversary, I wish to make an exception. You write:
>
>
>
> "I, however, have DIRECT documentary evidence for Shakespeare;
>
> his name on title-pages, for instance, DIRECTLY indicates
>
> that a man with his name wrote the books containing those
>
> title-pages.
>
>
>
> That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
>
> much better REAL evidence than anything you have for Oxford."
>
>
>
> Bob, this argument is not nearly as effective in 2012 as it once was!!!

Sure, it is, Sabrina.

As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year and more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT documentary evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of numerous apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or in some cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been produced by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with his name wrote the books containing those title-pages.

Right. Your title-page evidence that Shakespeare wrote the apocryphal plays, by itself, equals my title-page evidence that he wrote the plays in the First Folio. (Except that much of my title-page evidence is stronger because, in effect, testified to as accurate by more people--multiple copies of plays, for instance, and the fact that many people were involved with the First Folio, and its size and expense gives it more evidentiary weight than any of the minor publications your title-page attributions are in. The First folio attribution is also validated by testimony it contains, and a picture of its author--which means those of the time could easily check its veracity, having much more than a name to go by.)

> That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
>
> much better REAL evidence than anything you have for anyone else as the author of these apocryphal plays and bad quartos.

That's hard to say, assuming you would accept "Not-Shakespeare" as a candidate. Otherwise, you're basing your case merely on the fact that we have just about no evidence but the title-page attributions to find authors with. We have stylometric studies to show that Not-Shakespeare wrote them, though. We have Heminges's and Condell's testimony for that author, too. As you know (noting some below), there are other complications. Right now, I'm too busy with other matters to get into it again. Semi-burned out on the authorship question, too.

But I hope someone else can step on for me here.

[Bob Grumman]

My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your theory is wrong. I don't think there's any way you would. You wouldn't accept any decision on the matter against you.

I believe there is a rational way to determine whether a theory is valid or not but it's too complicated to go into, and you wouldn't agree with it.

--Bob

[Edward A. Falk]

In article <k69kdq$tuv$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Paul Crowley <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>
>An absurd request. The whole point of the Stratman

>is that he was a nobody. ...

I've heard similar arguments. They all boil down to
"you can't be a great writer without an upper-class
education, and he only had a middle-class education."

Not buying it.

>Pick anyone off the street
>and you have as plausible a candidate.

You mean other than, you know, all those plays going back hundreds
of years with his name on them? Or mentions of him?

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name3.html
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511704260&cid=CBO9780511704260A013

--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[metri...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 17:20:33 UTC+11, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> Hi Bob -- as you know, I've found HLAS to be so antagonistic towards authorship skeptics

A sceptic is someone who tests belief with evidence and reason. The only hostility to sceptics here is from credulous fools like Crowley and Art.

Peter G.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Sabrina Feldman <sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:640d2ccc-6bbc-43ad...@googlegroups.com:

> Hi Bob -- as you know, I've found HLAS to be so antagonistic towards
> authorship skeptics that I swore off posting here, but in your case,
> my friend and friendly adversary, I wish to make an exception. You
> write:
>
> "I, however, have DIRECT documentary evidence for Shakespeare;
> his name on title-pages, for instance, DIRECTLY indicates
> that a man with his name wrote the books containing those
> title-pages.
>
> That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
> much better REAL evidence than anything you have for Oxford."
>
> Bob, this argument is not nearly as effective in 2012 as it once
> was!!! As Dennis McCarthy and I have pointed out over the last year
> and more (though from different viewpoints), there is DIRECT
> documentary evidence for William Shakespeare as the main author of
> numerous apocryphal plays and bad quartos; his name on title-pages (or
> in some cases his initials, with a declaration that the play had been
> produced by his theatre company) DIRECTLY indicates that a man with
> his name wrote the books containing those title-pages.

Though I fear I am one of those unfriendly adversaries who alarm you so,
I believe I have solved the mystery of the attributions on the
apocryphal plays and bad quartos, and to do both you and Mr. McCarthy
credit, you are quite right about the significance of the fact that no
other playwright of Shakespeare's time had his name put on plays that he
manifestly did not write.

Given that, I suggest that the next logical step is to look at the known
facts about Shakespeare and the other playwrights of his time and see
what, if anything, was unique about him besides these puzzling
attributions. Without getting too heavily into the minutiae, I believe
the key lies in the fact that no other playwright besides Shakespeare
was a shareholder, actor, and play-doctor for his own theater company.
Thus no other playwright was in a position to be associated with works
besides the ones he actually wrote.

I submit that the likelihood that the apocryphal plays were
misattributed to Shakespeare due to confusion between his roles as a
playwright and a play-producer is somewhat greater than the likelihood
that Shakespeare wrote the apocryphal plays and did NOT write the 37-
plus plays, 150-plus sonnets, erotic verse epics, and minor poems such
as 'Let the bird of loudest lay' that were generally attributed to him
during his lifetime or shortly afterwards and remain attributed to him
to this day.

> That the names could be lies or mistakes is possible; they remain
> much better REAL evidence than anything you have for anyone else as
> the author of these apocryphal plays and bad quartos.
>
> Yes, there is still Meres to contend with, along with the Stratford
> Monument, 1623 First Folio, and Jonson's "De Shakespeare
> Nostrati"...but if William Shakespeare served as a front man for the
> true Bard, that *could* explain why William Shakespeare was so often
> attacked by his contemporaries as an incompetent and/or plagiaristic
> writer who plausibly wrote or adapted many apocryphal plays and bad
> quartos.

Unfortunately, the number of Early Modern playwrights who can be shown
to have served as front men is exactly zero.
--
S.O.P.

[Paul Crowley]

On 30/10/2012 21:39, Edward A. Falk wrote:

>> An absurd request. The whole point of the Stratman
>> is that he was a nobody. ...
>
> I've heard similar arguments. They all boil down to
> "you can't be a great writer without an upper-class
> education, and he only had a middle-class education."
>
> Not buying it.

Nor should you. No one with any historical knowledge
would make such a claim. There was no such thing as
the 'middle class' when the Stratman would have been
at school (~1574) assuming that he attended one.

The term 'middle-class' is hopelessly anachronistic.
The first record of its use is in 1766,and then the
Queen Caroline felt it necessary to explain its
meaning to her correspondent.

1766 Queen Caroline Matilda of Denmark Let. 25 Dec. in Mem.
Unfortunate Queen (1776) 21 There is no such thing here as
a middle class of people living in affluence and independence.

The Stratman came from the yeomanry -- a class
now extinct, but then indicating respectable, hard-
working ILLiterate farming people, with some legal
rights (usually a tenancy) in some land. The core
difference that concerns us is that they were
universally illiterate, whereas a defining term of the
modern 'middle-class' is literacy.

To use the term 'middle-class' in respect of the
Stratman (or his supposed education) is either
to display massive historical ignorance or an
intention to deceive or both.

The Stratman came from a background of illiteracy
and he passed it on to his daughters. Admittedly he
made so much money that both were able to marry
literate husbands, and his one grand-daughter was
fully literate.

> I've heard similar arguments. They all boil down to
> "you can't be a great writer without an upper-class
> education, and he only had a middle-class education."

It is exceedingly difficult to become a writer if you
grow up in an illiterate household. Name one
author who did.

Naming the Stratman as author was a far-fetched
joke -- relying on the vague similarity of his name
to the pseudonym adopted by the author long
before he ever heard of the Stratman. It was meant
to take in only the profoundly ignorant -- those with
no grasp of Elizabethan literature, and no sense of
its humour. The effectiveness (and, indeed, the
beauty) of this practical joke rested in the fact that
such people would be quite incapable of under-
standing the plays and the poems in any event.
They could see them only as fairy tales and the
rough equivalent of nursery rhymes. At that level
they could quite enjoy them. To allow them to see
the full meaning and context would have been
dangerous to the State and its ruling aristocratic
class. Putting them out over the name "William
Shake-speare" was a stroke of brilliance. It meant
that they would be in print, and would live to the
end of time.

So everyone was happy.


Paul.

[Sabrina Feldman]

S. O. P.,

You write, “Unfortunately, the number of Early Modern playwrights who can be shown to have served as front men is exactly zero.”

This is not true: the author of the apocryphal play Fair Em served as a literary front man. In Farewell to Folly [1591], Robert Greene attacked Fair Em’s for being a “Batillus” – willing to put his name on other men’s writings. Fair Em was bound with two other apocryphal plays, Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, in a volume titled “Shakespeare Vol. 1” belonging to the library of King Charles II. So there is positive evidence that William Shakespeare wrote Fair Em, and no evidence that anyone else did.

Here’s more background on Greene’s attack on Fair Em's author.

Greene first accuses this man of being an incompetent writer, then criticizes him for using religious precepts in vain in Fair Em. The attack begins:

"Others will flout and over-read every line with a frump, and say 'tis scurvy, when they themselves are such scabbed jades that they are like to die of the fazion; but if they come to write, or publish anything in print, it is either distilled out of ballads, or borrowed of Theological poets, which, for their calling and gravity being loathe to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other Batillus to set his name to their verses. Thus is the ass made proud by this underhand brokery. And he that cannot write true English without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make himself the father of interludes [stage plays]. O 'tis a jolly matter when a man hath a familiar style, and can endite [write] a whole year, and never be beholding to art."

In other words, according to Greene, Fair Em’s author tended not to generate his own plot ideas. Instead he took his stories from ballads or put his name to other man’s verses. Since part of Fair Em’s plot is taken from the 1581 ballad “The Miller’s Daughter of Manchester,” this is the first clue that Greene had Fair Em’s author in mind. Evidently this man sometimes pretended to have written works that were actually written by “theological poets” of higher social rank who were too embarrassed to present their verses under their own names. By serving as a front man, Fair Em’s author was like the unscrupulous Roman poet Batillus who put his name to Virgil’s verses. Greene first mentioned Batillus in his 1584 pamphlet The Mirror of Modesty while defending himself from suspicions of plagiary. In a dedication to Lady Margaret, Countess of Derby, Greene wrote: “But your Honour may think I play like Aesop’s crow, which decked herself with others’ feathers, or like the proud poet Batillus, which subscribed his name to Virgil’s verses, and yet presented them to Augustus.”

Greene’s next phrase, “Thus is the ass made proud by this underhand brokery,” establishes that by 1591 Fair Em’s author had achieved enough success as a writer to carry himself with pride. In Greene’s opinion he didn’t deserve his success because it was based on underhanded tricks like putting his name to verses he didn’t write. The author’s association with “brokery” might mean he was a play broker for a theatrical company. He had no more than a grammar school education; otherwise Greene would not have said he needed parish clerks to help him write true English. He was a playwright, a “father of interludes,” who wrote in a “familiar style,” meaning that play audiences found his works to be accessible. Yet he could write for a year and never once create art, if Greene can be believed. This man bears a familial resemblance to “Shake-scene,” the upstart crow whom Greene accused of being an incompetent poet and plagiarist in 1592, and who is widely identified as William Shakespeare.

Before turning to the second half of Greene’s attack on Fair Em’s author, it is worth noting how casually Greene wrote about “Theological poets, which, for their calling and gravity being loathe to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other Batillus to set his name to their verses.” He found it natural that a man of high social rank might choose to write under another man’s name. A specific example of an Elizabethan writer who used a front man can be found in John Marston’s 1598 Scourge of Villanie. Marston criticized a writer whom he dubbed “Matho” for singing his own praises in pamphlets printed under someone else’s name:

"Shall Matho raise his fame
By printing pamphlets in another’s name,
And in them praise himself, his wit, his might,
All to be deem’d his country’s lanthorn-light?"

“Matho” has nothing to do with Robert Greene, Fair Em, or Shakespeare. Nonetheless he provides a valuable illustration of an Elizabethan writer who wrote popular works under another man’s name without being widely detected. Although Marston disapproved of Matho’s use of a front man to glorify himself, he took the ruse in stride. Queen Elizabeth’s reign produced an abundance of writers who did not wish to publish under their own names.

Returning to Farewell to Folly, after Greene accused Fair Em’s author of literary fraud, he objected to the author’s use of biblical quotations in Fair Em.

"But to bring scripture to prove anything he says, and kill it dead with the text in a trifling subject of love, I tell you is no small piece of cunning. As, for example, two lovers on the stage arguing one another of unkindness, his Mistress runs over him with this canonical sentence, “A man's conscience is a thousand witnesses,” and her knight again excuses himself with that saying of the Apostle, “Love covereth the multitude of sins.” I think this was simple abusing of Scripture…But not to dwell on the imperfection of these dunces, or trouble you with a long commentary of such witless cockscombs, Gentlemen…I shall rest yours, as I have ever done, Robert Greene."

Greene is pointedly alluding to two episodes from Fair Em, as the scholar Richard Simpson discovered in 1878. In the first of these episodes, Em’s disloyal suitor Manville is asked whether he pledged his love to Em or Elinor first. He says it was to Em first, but Elinor argues, “Yes, Manville, but there was no witness by.” “Thy conscience is a thousand witnesses,” Em chides Manville. In the second episode, the Princess Blanche asks her father to forgive her for running away with William the Conqueror. He replies that although she deserves punishment, “Yet love, that covers multitude of sins, makes love in parents wink at children’s faults.” These clear allusions to Fair Em make it clear that it was Fair Em's author whom Greene viewed as a Batillus, and not some other man.

[jaelsheargold]

Claptrap.


SB.

[jaelsheargold]

On Oct 31, 3:04 pm, Sabrina Feldman <sabrinamariefeld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Must be some telepathy at work here, Sabrina, because this was the
very thing I was about to bring up (I do have your book,BTW, but
haven't had chance to read it all yet).

My own candidate for the 'father of interludes' in Farewell to Folly
is Anthony Munday. This is a reproduction of a post I wrote here about
twelve months ago:

From the preface of Farewell to Folly:

'Others... if they come or write or publish anything in print, it is
either distilled out of ballads or borrowed of theological poets which
for their calling and gravity being loth to have any prophane

pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other Batillus to set his
name to their verses. Thus is the ass made proud by this underhand

brokery'.

Anthony Munday was mocked for being a ballad-maker (Anthony Balladino
etc;) and there was a ballad called Faire Em from 1581, which may have
been a source for the play.

Munday was associated with Robert Crowley the Puritan preacher,
writer, and poet, who was vicar of St Giles-without-Cripplegate until
his death in 1588. Farewell to Folly - at least a version of it - was
entered in the Stationers Register in 1587, when Crowley was still
alive. Greene may have been accusing Munday of being allowed to take
credit for some of Crowley's works, or those of other theologians.
Whether this is true or not is another matter.

'And he that cannot write true English, without the help of clerks of
parish churches...'

This could well be a hit at Munday as a 'trivial translator', whom
Greene was mocking for inadeqaucy in his native tongue, never mind
those of other lands.

'will needs make himself the father of interludes'.

Some anti-Strats have tried to make out that Greene's victim is
accused of being a frontman here, but I don't see it that way. It's
somebody who already has his fingers in a dozen pies, but now is
trying his hand as a playwright, too. This applies to Munday exactly,
who was a draper, a printer's apprentice, a pursuivant, a translator,
an actor, a pamphleteer, a balladeer - in fact a real Johannes
Factotum.

Certain anti-Strats have also alleged that Faire Em was really the
work of a nobleman in the Catholic circle of the Earl of Derby and it
was acquired by Will Shakspere to pass off as his own. But if it was a
'stolen' work then Munday was a prime candidate. He was a pursuivant
and was accused of stealing from the homes of Catholic families that
he raided.

Further, John Jowett writes on a possible source for the play Sir
Thomas More:

'Michael A. Anderegg suggests how Munday could have obtained a copy of
his main source for Sir Thomas More, Nicholas Harpsfield's biography,
which existed only in manuscripts circulated amongst Catholics. The
copy now in Emmanuel College, Cambridge, originally belonged to the
More family. It contains the note, in an early hand: 'This booke was
founde by Rich: Topclyff in mr Thomas Moares Studdye emongs other
bookes at Greenstreet mr Wayfarers house when Mr Moare was apprehended
the xiijth of Aprill 1582'. The Thomas More in question was grandson
of the play's protagonist. 'Greenstreet ' refers to the house where
the Jesuit Robert Persons set up a press for printing Catholic
propaganda. Perhaps the manuscript was seized specifically to prevent
it being printed. The two facts, that Munday was involved in raids on
Catholic suspects at this very time and that he wrote a play based on
this very text, point to an uncomfortable conclusion'.

One wonders about the origins of Locrine.

'O 'tis a jolly matter when a man hath a familiar style, and can
endite a whole year, and never be beholden to art, but to bring
scripture to prove anything he says....'

Munday was known for his religiously moralising pamphlets.

'I think this was but simple abusing of the scripture; in charity be
it spoken, I am persuaded the sexton of Saint Giles-without-
Cripplegate would have been ashamed of such blasphemous rhetoric'.

'The sexton' is probably a pejorative reference to Robert Crowley.


SB.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Sabrina Feldman <sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:10a9ed0d-f9d7-47c6...@googlegroups.com:

> S. O. P.,
>
> You write, "Unfortunately, the number of Early Modern playwrights who
> can be shown to have served as front men is exactly zero."
>
> This is not true: the author of the apocryphal play Fair Em served as
> a literary front man. In Farewell to Folly [1591], Robert Greene

> attacked Fair Em's author for being a "Batillus" - willing to put his

> name on other men's writings.

Greene certainly used the epithet 'Batillus' in the same passage in
which he quoted a couple of phrases from "Fair Em." That does NOT show
that the author of the play "Fair Em" actually was a front man, any more
than Drummond's report that Jonson told him "Marston wrote his
father-in-law's preachings, and his father-in-law his comedies" shows
that Marston (or his father-in-law) actually was a front man. Gossip is
not probative.

> Fair Em was bound with two other apocryphal
> plays, Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, in a volume titled
> "Shakespeare Vol. 1" belonging to the library of King Charles II. So
> there is positive evidence that William Shakespeare wrote Fair Em, and
> no evidence that anyone else did.

In fact, the handwritten note of Charles II's binder is no more or less
positive than Edward Phillips's claim, made about the same time, that
Robert Greene was the the author of Fair Em.

The most plausible explanation for the attribution of Fair Em,
Mucedorus, and Merry Devil to Shakespeare is that they were plays
performed by Shakespeare's company. We know that Merry Devil was - the
1608 quarto indicates that it was "Acted, by his Maiesties Seruants, at
the Globe, on the banke-side"; similarly, we have evidence that
Mucedorus was in the repertory of the Lord Chamberlain's Men and the
King's Men.

As I noted in my previous post, the likelihood that the apocryphal plays

were misattributed to Shakespeare due to confusion between his roles as
a playwright and a play-producer is somewhat greater than the likelihood
that Shakespeare wrote the apocryphal plays and did NOT write the 37-
plus plays, 150-plus sonnets, erotic verse epics, and minor poems such
as 'Let the bird of loudest lay' that were generally attributed to him
during his lifetime or shortly afterwards and remain attributed to him
to this day.

> Here's more background on Greene's attack on Fair Em's author.
>
> Greene first accuses this man of being an incompetent writer, then
> criticizes him for using religious precepts in vain in Fair Em. The
> attack begins:
>
> "Others will flout and over-read every line with a frump, and say 'tis
> scurvy, when they themselves are such scabbed jades that they are like
> to die of the fazion; but if they come to write, or publish anything
> in print, it is either distilled out of ballads, or borrowed of
> Theological poets, which, for their calling and gravity being loathe
> to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some other
> Batillus to set his name to their verses. Thus is the ass made proud
> by this underhand brokery. And he that cannot write true English
> without the help of clerks of parish churches will needs make himself
> the father of interludes [stage plays]. O 'tis a jolly matter when a
> man hath a familiar style, and can endite [write] a whole year, and
> never be beholding to art."
>
> In other words, according to Greene, Fair Em's author tended not to
> generate his own plot ideas.

If Greene is accusing 'Batillus' of being a front man, he is clearly
doing so only inasmuch as 'Batillus' has put his name to the 'profane'
verses of embarrassed "Theological poets." Greene is NOT suggesting that
'Batillus' has written plays as a front for some nobleman or another.

The allusion to ballads and the assertion that the writer "cannot write
true English without the help of clerks of parish churches" indicate
that Anthony Munday is the target of Greene's attack - but I see that SB
has already laid out the case for Munday. Mr. Munday is in fact a far
more plausible candidate for the authorship of Fair Em than is Mr.
Shakespeare.
--
S.O.P.

[Paul Crowley]

On 30/10/2012 21:31, Bob Grumman wrote:

> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> theory is wrong.

Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
"X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "

It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
has to be more of a response than Janice's
' claptrap '. OK. she's a bad example, since
she is obviously incapable of any form of
argument. But where are the Strats who are
any better? When are YOU going to say what
is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?

The discussion on language that I tried to get
going is an interesting parallel. A small number
of people disagree with the overwhelming
consensus of academic theory, that has
prevailed for hundreds of years and is still
dominant. You have not seen ANY rational
response here.

> I don't think there's any way you would. You wouldn't
> accept any decision on the matter against you.

'Decision' ? What are you talking about? Who
'decides'? Did the earth not move because
the Vatican decided it would be heretical to
suggest that it did? Should rational people have
accepted that decision?

> I believe there is a rational way to determine whether a
> theory is valid or not but it's too complicated to go into,
> and you wouldn't agree with it.

Yeah, yeah. Let's see what it says in the
Holy Book, or let's appoint a committee of
experts. They'd have sided with Galileo --
wouldn't they?


Paul.

[Edward A. Falk]

In article <k6re6j$ps8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Paul Crowley <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>On 30/10/2012 21:39, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
>
>Nor should you. No one with any historical knowledge
>would make such a claim. There was no such thing as
>the 'middle class' when the Stratman would have been
>at school (~1574) assuming that he attended one.

Perhaps, but it adequately describes in modern terms the environment he
grew up in and the education he had.

>The Stratman came from the yeomanry -- a class
>now extinct, but then indicating respectable, hard-

>working ILLiterate farming people.

I looked it up. Shakespeare's father was a town alderman and his mother
the daughter of a rich family. In his circumstances, he was entitled
to a public education.

He was not illiterate, and your arguments once again boil down
to "you can't be a great writer unless you had an upper-class
upbringing" and "you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
that the historical records are correct."

And with that, I remember what Shaw said about wrestling
with a pig.

[Bob Grumman]

> > My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
> > determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > theory is wrong.

> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.

IN WHOSE OPINION!

> "X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
> reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
> because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "

Right. But who is to determine what "good evidence" is?
Who is to decide whether logic is being used, and, if
so, whether or not it is relevant?

We've been through this many times. I shouldn't have
brought it up, but sometimes my mind wanders and . . .
Anyway, here we are again. What it seems to me we
need is someone we both trust as neutral, and
a proper judge of arguments. I would say, find
someone in any field whom you and I agree is competent
and likely neutral--someone outside Shakespeare
studies or any literary field, and ask him to decide
from our presentations who between you and me has the
better argument concerning who wrote the works of
Shakespeare.

I would let you offer candidates. Yes, I see that
it is unlikely to be feasible. But would you not
agree that if we could get such a person to be our
judge, his opinion should at least get one of us
to agree that his case is the weaker? I doubt you
could name any possible judge that I would not
accept, for I suspect that even cranks would be
on my side. How about M. L. Harper? I couldn't
accept him since he already knows you are an apostle
of his, but I would be curious what he thinks of
your Oxford theory.

> It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
> has to be more of a response than Janice's
> ' claptrap '. OK. she's a bad example, since
> she is obviously incapable of any form of
> argument. But where are the Strats who are
> any better? When are YOU going to say what
> is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
> of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?

Your challenge here is to find ONE person who
will agree that I have never shown you why
your interpretation Sonnet 18 is insane.

> The discussion on language that I tried to get
> going is an interesting parallel. A small number
> of people disagree with the overwhelming
> consensus of academic theory, that has
> prevailed for hundreds of years and is still
> dominant. You have not seen ANY rational
> response here.

But I say I have, Paul. I will even say that I have seen
one or two opinions of yours that go against the main
theory that seem to me rational. I have not yet learned
enough to be able to say whether I agree with them or not.

How can anyone argue against someone who consistently
writes his opponents views and arguments off as irrational,
AND fails to show what makes them irrational except his
assertion that they are?

> > I don't think there's any way you would. You wouldn't
> > accept any decision on the matter against you.

> 'Decision' ? What are you talking about? Who
> 'decides'? Did the earth not move because
> the Vatican decided it would be heretical to
> suggest that it did? Should rational people have
> accepted that decision?

Right, quibble with my words. What I am obviously
saying is that no case against what you believe, however
presented, no matter who presented it, no matter who
swore by its logic and persuasiveness, etc., would
make you give up your beliefs.

> > I believe there is a rational way to determine whether a
> > theory is valid or not but it's too complicated to go into,
> > and you wouldn't agree with it.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Let's see what it says in the
> Holy Book, or let's appoint a committee of
> experts. They'd have sided with Galileo --
> wouldn't they?

Yes. They did. In his time, and they still do.
They have had almost a hundred years now to
side with Looney and haven't come close to doing
so. But, hey, you can always come up with a
name of somebody whose ideas were considered
wrong by the experts in his field who was
later vindicated. Strangely, you seem not to
notice that thousands of wacks whose ideas have
been considered wrong by the experts and were
never vindicated. Reich and the orgone box,
von Danikan and the pyramids, Velikovski and
astronomy (I've forgotten what his main theory was).
And so many other wacks who were too boringly wrong
or too insanely wrong to have been written up.

There are also the many wacks whose theories went
against established understanding and were accepted.
Freud, for instance. Lily and his intelligent
dolphins. Many famous scientists proved wrong
in some instances although thought to be right
at the time.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 02/11/2012 20:04, Edward A. Falk wrote:

>> Nor should you. No one with any historical knowledge
>> would make such a claim. There was no such thing as
>> the 'middle class' when the Stratman would have been
>> at school (~1574) assuming that he attended one.
>
> Perhaps, but it adequately describes in modern terms the
> environment he grew up in and the education he had.

Yeah, yeah. It's like saying an adequate description
in Elizabethan terms of a modern nuclear power
plant would be was a domestic coal fire. Why do
you have a compulsion to describe historical
phenomena in modern terms?

>> The Stratman came from the yeomanry -- a class
>> now extinct, but then indicating respectable, hard-
>> working ILLiterate farming people.
>
> I looked it up. Shakespeare's father was a town alderman

He was, for a couple of years, an ILLITERATE
town alderman.

> and his mother the daughter of a rich family.

An ILLITERATE daughter of a relatively well-
off ILLITERATE yeoman.

> In his circumstances, he was entitled to a public
> education.

Every boy in the town (and neighbourhood) was
entitled to attend. About one-in-six of those so
entitled did actually attend. The Stratman may,
or may not, have been in those one-in-six.

> He was not illiterate,

His parents were illiterate, His wife was illiterate.
His daughters were illiterate. His signature was
that of an illiterate. (Literate people of that time
made their skill obvious by displaying a clear,
elegant, and often beautiful signature. The
Stratman manifestly could barely hold a pen.)
He left no letters, Only one to him (apparently
not delivered) survives. Yet his house remained
in the family until around 1660 -- long after the
poet was famous.

> and your arguments once again boil down to "you can't be
> a great writer unless you had an upper-class upbringing"

Well, an education helps. I see you snipped my
request for examples of writers who grew up in
an illiterate household. Couldn't find any?

> and "you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
> historical records are correct."

What do you need historical records for, when
you know what they should say?

> And with that, I remember what Shaw said about wrestling
> with a pig.

The key thing to remember when you lose an
argument is that you must keep the faith. Don't
change your opinion under any circumstances.


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 02/11/2012 21:58, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
>>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
>>> theory is wrong.
>
>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>
> IN WHOSE OPINION!

It's almost never an issue -- in spite of your
capitals. Note the responses that Mick Harper
and I have got here recently. What evidence
(of any sort) has been quoted? What logic
(of any kind) has been presented? If you
think some has, quote it.

> We've been through this many times. I shouldn't have
> brought it up, but sometimes my mind wanders and . . .
> Anyway, here we are again. What it seems to me we
> need is someone we both trust as neutral, and
> a proper judge of arguments. I would say, find
> someone in any field whom you and I agree is competent
> and likely neutral--someone outside Shakespeare
> studies or any literary field, and ask him to decide
> from our presentations who between you and me has the
> better argument concerning who wrote the works of
> Shakespeare.

This is, as you know, drivel. Think of someone
historical you admire, who came up with some
new idea or way of thinking. Let's imagine some
anonymous young patent clerk in Geneva around
1904 who has an interest in physics and
cosmology. He comes up with a few ideas.
Let's say he talks to some academic about them
who doesn't understand them but then proposes
something like your 'system'. Would Einstein be
sensible to agree? Or think of a 25-year-old
Newton in much the same situation. Or a
young Wittgenstein. They would not be able to
have a sensible conversation about the issues
that interested them unless their interlocutor had
spent almost as much time as them studying
the subject.l But such a person would not and
could not have done that while keeping an open
mind on the issues.

>> But where are the Strats who are
>> any better? When are YOU going to say what
>> is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
>> of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?
>
> Your challenge here is to find ONE person who
> will agree that I have never shown you why
> your interpretation Sonnet 18 is insane.

But before that you have to point to a post
or a set of posts you made here that actually
made some arguments on the topic. How
come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
filled up with dreams and fantasies?
[..]

Paul.

[jaelsheargold]

On Nov 1, 12:31 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 21:31, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > My question was poorly put.  What I'm trying to
> > determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > theory is wrong.
>
> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> "X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
> reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
> because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "
>
> It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
> has to be more of a response than Janice's
> ' claptrap '.  OK. she's a bad example, since
> she is obviously incapable of any form of
> argument.  But where are the Strats who are
> any better?  When are YOU going to say what
> is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
> of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?

Shove off, Crowley. You're like a cracked gramophone record in the
desert - constantly repeating yourself and nobody is listening.

You got totally slaughtered on sonnet 18, so get over it. I might
answer some other posts as and when I get the time and inclination but
it's hard to be inspired by your drivel.


SB.

[Bob Grumman]

On 02/11/2012 21:58, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
>>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
>>> theory is wrong.
>
>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>

> IN WHOSE OPINION!?

PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."

How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else in any field concerned with determining some truth is that considered an
adequate way of operating?

***snips***

PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post

or a set of posts you made here that actually
made some arguments on the topic. How
come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
filled up with dreams and fantasies?"

Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to your doubly insane notion that I have made no arguments.

Okay, moron, I now propose that we find someone neutral to judge which of us is right about whether or not I have presented arguments against your interpretation of Sonnet 18.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 03/11/2012 23:06, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>>
>> IN WHOSE OPINION!?
>
> PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."
>
> How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider
> logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
> reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
> in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
> considered an adequate way of operating?

QUOTE some of your "logical arguments based
on relevant evidence". If you look (although I am
sure you won't) you will see that your only "logical
arguments based on relevant evidence" are the
same old semi-Biblical re-assertions of your
Faith. The name of the Stratman appears on
the plays (not true, of course, but that's never
bothered you). There was an unambiguous
monument stating the Stratman's poetic genius
(very far from the truth, of course, but that's
never bothered you).

And that's about it. Have I forgotten a few other
Stratfordian doctrines?

> ***snips***
>
> PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post
> or a set of posts you made here that actually
> made some arguments on the topic. How
> come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
> filled up with dreams and fantasies?"
>
> Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge
> which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to
> your doubly insane notion that I have made no
> arguments.

Even if you were to find such a person, you
would still have to call up those posts. But
you can't -- since they exist only in your
imagination.

How come that you have not merely forgotten
the dates and titles of those posts, but you have
also forgotten their content -- to the extent that
even if you were to try to repeat the arguments
that you imagine were in them, you are at a
complete loss?

Your problem isn't Alzheimer's. It a far worse
condition, called Stratfordianism.


Paul.

[metri...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 4 November 2012 03:39:22 UTC+11, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 21:58, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> My question was poorly put. What I'm trying to
>
> >>> determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
>
> >>> theory is wrong.
>
> >
>
> >> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>
> >

It's astonishing to me that a man who clearly knows no language other than English is happy to make a complete dick of himself by pontificating in this manner.

>
> > IN WHOSE OPINION!
>
>
>
> It's almost never an issue -- in spite of your
>
> capitals. Note the responses that Mick Harper
>
> and I have got here recently. What evidence
>
> (of any sort) has been quoted? What logic
>
> (of any kind) has been presented? If you
>
> think some has, quote it.
>

Crowley is like one of those cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Alternatively, he is so ignorant (and so thick) that he doesn't understand that the following, posted by Dave Kathman, constitutes detailed evidence against his insanity, evidence that he is obliged to deal with:

DAVE: Let's take one of your examples from before, the development of modern French from Latin. To make this easier on myself, I'm going to cut and paste from the Wikipedia article on the history of French, which looks quite good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_French_language

First, here is a non-exhaustive list of the phonological changes that occurred, starting with the development of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Western-Romance, and ending with the development of modern spoken French from early modern French in the past few centuries.

*******************************
From Vulgar Latin through to Proto-Western-Romance

* Introduction of prosthetic short /i/ before words beginning with /s/ + consonant, becoming closed /e/ with the Romance vowel change (e.g. Spanish 'espina', Fr. 'épine' "thorn, spine" < spīna).
* Reduction of ten-vowel system of Vulgar Latin to seven vowels; diphthongs 'ae' and 'oe' reduced to /ɛ/ and /e/; maintenance of /au/ diphthong.
* Loss of final /-m/ (except in monosyllables, e.g. modern rien < rem).
* Loss of /h/.
* /ns/ > /s/.
* /rs/ > /ss/ in some words (e.g. dorsum > Modern French dos), but not others (e.g. ursus > Modern French ours).
* Final /-er/ > /-re/, /-or/ > /-ro/ (cf. Spanish cuatro, sobre < quattuor, super).
* Vulgar Latin unstressed vowel loss: Loss of intertonic (i.e. unstressed and in an interior syllable) vowels between /k/, /ɡ/ and /r/, /l/.
* Reduction of /e/ and /i/ in hiatus to /j/, followed by palatalization. Palatalization of /k/ and /ɡ/ before front vowels.
* /kj/ is apparently doubled to /kkj/ prior to palatalization.
* /dʲ/ and /ɡʲ/ (from /dj/, /ɡj/, and /ɡ/ before a front vowel) become /j/.

To Proto-Gallo-Ibero-Romance

* /kʲ/ and /tʲ/ merge, becoming /tsʲ/ (still treated as a single sound).
* /kt/ > /jt/.
* /ks/ > /js/.
* First diphthongization (only in some dialects): diphthongization of /ɛ/, /ɔ/ to /ie/, /uo/ (later, /uo/ > /ue/) in stressed, open syllables. This also happens in closed syllables before a palatal, often later absorbed: peior >> /pejro/ > /piejro/ >> 'pire' "worst"; nocte > /nojte/ > /nuojte/ >> /nujt/ 'nuit'; but tertiu > /tertsˈo/ >> 'tierz'.
* First lenition (did not happen in a small area around the Pyrenees): chain shift involving intervocalic consonants: voiced stops and unvoiced fricatives become voiced fricatives (/ð/, /v/, /j/); unvoiced stops become voiced stops. NOTE: /tsʲ/ (from /k(eˌi)/, /tj/) is pronounced as a single sound and voiced to /dzʲ/, but /ttsʲ/ (from /kk(eˌi)/, /kj/) is geminate and thus not voiced. Consonants before /r/ are lenited, also, and /pl/ > /bl/. Final /t/ and /d/ when following a vowel are lenited.
* /jn/, /nj/, /jl/, /ɡl/ (from Vulgar Latin /ɡn/, /nɡʲ/, /ɡl/, /kl/, respectively) become /ɲ/ and /ʎ/, respectively.
* First unstressed vowel loss: Loss of intertonic (i.e. unstressed and in an interior syllable) vowels, except /a/ when pretonic. (Note: This occurred at the same time as the first lenition, and individual words inconsistently show one change before the other. Hence manica > 'manche' but granica > 'grange'. carricare becomes either 'charchier' or 'chargier' in OF.)

To Early Old French

In approximate order:

* Spread and dissolution of palatalization:
* A protected /j/ (not preceded by a vowel), stemming from an initial /j/ or from a /dj/, /ɡj/, or /ɡ(eˌi)/ when preceded by a consonant, becomes /dʒ/.
* A /j/ followed by another consonant tends to palatalize that consonant; these consonants may have been brought together by intertonic loss. (E.g. medietate > /mejetate/ > /mejtʲate/ > 'moitié'. peior > /pejro/ > /piejrʲe/ > 'pire', but impeiorare > /empejrare/ > /empejrʲare/ > /empejriɛr/ > OF 'empoirier' "to worsen".)
* Palatalized sounds lose their palatal quality and eject a /j/ into the end of the preceding syllable, when open; also into the beginning of the following syllable when it is stressed, open, and front (i.e. /a/ or /e/). Hence *cugitare > /kujetare/ > /kujdare/ > /kujdʲare/ >> /kujdiɛr/ OF 'cuidier' "to think". mansionata > /mazʲonada/ > /mazʲnada/ > /majzʲnjɛðə/ > OF 'maisniée' "household".
* /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ (including those from later sources, see below) eject a following /j/ normally, but do not eject any preceding /j/.
* Double /ssʲ/ < /ssj/ and from various other combinations also ejects a preceding /j/.
* Single /dz/ ejects such a /j/, but not double /tts/, evidently since it is a double sound and causes the previous syllable to close; see comment above, under lenition.
* Actual palatal /lʲ/ and /nʲ/ (as opposed to the merely patalized varieties of the other sounds) retain their palatal nature and don't emit preceding /j/. Or rather, palatal /lʲ/ does not eject a preceding /j/ (or else, it is always absorbed, even when depalatalized); palatal /nʲ/ emits a preceding /j/ when depalatalized, even if the preceding syllable is closed, e.g. jungit > *yōnyet > /dʒoɲt/ > /dʒojnt/ 'joint'.
* Palatal /rʲ/ ejects a preceding /j/ as normal, but the /j/ metathesizes when a /a/ precedes, hence operariu > /obrarʲo/ > /obrjaro/ (not */obrajro/) >> 'ouvrier' "worker".
* Second diphthongization: diphthongization of /e/, /o/, /a/ to /ei/, /ou/, /ae/ in stressed, open syllables, not followed by a palatal sound (not in all Gallo-Romance). (Later on, /ei/ > /oi/, /ou/ > /eu/, /ae/ > /e/; see below.)
* Second unstressed vowel loss: Loss of all vowels except /a/ in unstressed, final syllables; addition of a final, supporting /e/ when necessary, to avoid words with impermissible final clusters.
* Second lenition: Same changes as in first lenition, applied again (not in all Gallo-Romance). NOTE: Losses of unstressed vowels may have blocked this change from happening.
* Palatalization of /ka/ > /tʃa/, /ɡa/ > /dʒa/.
* Further vocalic changes (part 1):
* /ae/ > /ɛ/ (but > /jɛ/ after a palatal, and > /aj/ before nasals when not after a palatal).
* /au/ > /ɔ/.
* Further consonant changes:
* Geminate stops become single stops.
* Final stops and fricatives become devoiced.
* /dz/ > /z/, when not final.
* A /t/ is inserted between palatal /ɲ/, /ʎ/ and following /s/ (doles > 'duels' "you hurt" but colligis > *colyes > 'cuelz, cueuz' "you gather"; jungis > *yōnyes > 'joinz' "you join"; filius > 'filz' "son").
* Palatal /ɲ/, /ʎ/ are depalatalized to /n/, /l/ when final or following a consonant.
* In first-person verb forms, they may remain palatal when final due to the influence of the palatalized subjunctives.
* /ɲ/ > /jn/ when depalatalizing, but /ʎ/ > /l/, without a yod. (*veclus > /vɛlʲo/ > /viɛlʲo/ > 'viel' "old" but cuneum > /konʲo/ > 'coin'. balneum > /banjo/ > 'bain' but montanea > /montanja/ > 'montagne'.)
* Further vocalic changes (part 2):
* /jej/ > /i/, /woj/ > /uj/. (placere > /plajdzjejr/ > 'plaisir'; nocte > /nuojt/ > 'nuit'.)
* Diphthongs are consistently rendered as falling diphthongs, i.e. the major stress is on the first element, including for /ie/, /ue/, /ui/, etc. in contrast with the normal Spanish pronunciation.

Through to Old French, c. 1100 AD

* /f/, /p/, /k/ lost before final /s/, /t/. (debet > Strasbourg Oaths 'dift' /deift/ > OF 'doit'.)
* /ei/ > /oi/ (blocked by nasalization; see below).
* /wo/ > /we/ (blocked by nasalization; see below).
* /a/ develops allophone [ɑ] before /s/. Later, this develops into a separate phoneme; see below.
* Loss of /θ/ and /ð/. When this results in a hiatus of /a/ with a following vowel, the /a/ becomes a schwa /ə/.
* Loss of /s/ before voiced consonant (passing first through /h/), with lengthening of preceding vowel. Produces a new set of long vowel phonemes. Described more completely in the following section.
* /u/ > /y/.

To Late Old French, c. 1250–1300 AD

NOTE: Changes here affect oral and nasal vowels alike, unless otherwise indicated.

* /o/ > /u/.
* /l/ before consonant becomes /w/.
* /ue/ and /eu/ > /œ/.
* Rising diphthongs develop when first element of diphthong is /u/, /y/ or /i/, causing the stress to shift to the second element in these cases (hence /yi/ [yj] > [ɥi]).
* /oi/ > /we/. This in turn develops to /ɛ/ in some words, e.g. français; note doublet François. Much later, perhaps in the 17th century, remaining /we/ sounds > /wa/ except in "court" pronunciation. (The /wa/ pronunciation was then stigmatized as "vulgar" until the French Revolution.[citation needed]) However, nasalized /wẽ/ was unaffected; hence ModF 'coin' "corner" /kwɛ̃/ not **/kwɑ̃/.
* /ai/ merges into /ɛ/; after this, 'ai' is a common spelling of /ɛ/, regardless of origin. ('è' is a later development.)
* /e/ merges into /ɛ/ in closed syllables.
* /ts/ > /s/, /tʃ/ > /ʃ/, /dʒ/ > /ʒ/.
* Loss of /s/ before any consonant, with lengthening of preceding vowel. This may have begun as early as 900 AD or so, when /s/ before a consonant became /h/. Later on the /h/ vanished with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. From borrowings into English, it appeared that this latter stage had already occurred in Old French when the following consonant was voiced but not when it was unvoiced. By the end of Old French, the latter stage was complete and a whole new set of phonemically lengthened vowels developed. These were still marked in writing with an 's', but starting around 1700 were marked instead with circumflex over the vowel (perhaps because actual pronounced /s/ had been reintroduced into that position in certain words, e.g. due to borrowing of learned words from Latin.)
* Development of two low vowels /a/ and /ɑ/. The latter was initially an allophone of /a/ that occurred before /s/ and /z/, and become phonemic when /ts/ merged with /s/. (e.g. Mod. Fr. 'chasse' /ʃas/ "(he) hunts" < */cattsa/ < captiat vs. 'châsse' /ʃɑs/ "reliquary, (eyeglass) frame" < */cassa/ < capsa "strong box".) Later losses of /s/ produced further minimal pairs, e.g. 'pâte' /pɑt/ "paste" < VL *pasta vs. 'patte' /pat/ "paw" < VL *patta; or 'bas' /bɑ/ "low" < /bas/ < bassum vs. 'bat' /ba/ "(he) beats" < /bat/ < VL *battet < battuet.)

To Middle French, c. 1500 AD

NOTE: Changes here affect oral and nasal vowels alike, unless otherwise indicated.

* /au/ > /o/.
* /ei/ > /ɛ/.
* Loss of final consonants before a word beginning with a consonant. This produces a three-way pronunciation for many words (alone, followed by a vowel, followed by a consonant), which is maintained to this day in the words 'six' "six" and 'dix' "ten" (and until recently 'neuf' "nine"), e.g. 'dix' /dis/ "ten" but 'dix amis' /diz ami/ "ten friends" and 'dix femmes' /di fam/ "ten women".
* (Around this time, subject pronouns become mandatory.)

To Early Modern French, c. 1700 AD

* Loss of most phonemically lengthened vowels.
* Loss of final consonants in a word standing alone. This produces a two-way pronunciation for many words (in close connection with a following word that begins with a vowel vs. in all other cases), often maintained to the present day, e.g. 'nous voyons' /nu vwajɔ̃/ "we see" vs. 'nous avons' /nuz avɔ̃/ "we have". This phenomenon is known as liaison.
* 'oi' /we/ > /wa/ (See above – Through late Old French) or /ɛ/ (e.g. étoit > était – 19th c.).

To Modern French, c. 2000 AD

* /r/ becomes uvular sound: trill /ʀ/ or fricative /ʁ/ (replacing the rolled 'r' formerly often used by the clergy).
* Merger of /ʎ/ with /j/ (in the 18th century, see Mouillé).
* Loss of final /ə/. Loss of /ə/ elsewhere unless a sequence of three consonants would be produced (such constraints operate over multiword sequences of words that are syntactically connected).
* Gradual loss of liaison.
* Gradual loss of the "ne" in negations, "je n'ai pas" becomes "j'ai pas".

**********************
And a separate description of the changes in nasalization:

**********************
Nasalization

Progressive nasalization of vowels before /n/ or /m/ occurred over several hundred years, beginning with the low vowels, possibly as early as c. 900 AD, and finished with the high vowels, possibly as late as c. 1300 AD. Numerous changes occurred afterwards, continuing up through the present day.

The following steps occurred during the Old French period:

* Nasalization of /a/, /e/, /o/ before /n/ or /m/ (originally, in all circumstances, including when a vowel followed).
* Nasalization occurs before, and blocks, the changes /ei/ > /oi/ and /ou/ > /eu/. However, the sequence /ɔ̃i/ occurs because /oi/ has more than one origin, e.g. 'coin' "corner" < cŭneum. The sequences /iẽn/ or /iẽm/, and /uẽn/ or /uẽm/, also occur, but the last two occur in only one word each, in each case alternating with a non-diphthongized variant: 'om' or 'uem' (ModF 'on'), and 'bon' or 'buen' (ModF 'bon'). The version without the diphthong apparently arose in unstressed environments and is the only one that survived.
* Lowering of /ẽ/ and /ɛ̃/ to /ã/; but unaffected in the sequences /jẽ/ and /ẽj/ (e.g. 'bien', 'plein'). The merging of /ẽ/ and /ã/ probably occurred during the 11th or early 12th century, and did not affect Old Norman or Anglo-Norman.
* Nasalization of /i/, /u/, /y/ before /n/ or /m/.

The following steps occurred during the Middle French period:

* Lowering of /ũ/ > /õ/ > /ɔ̃/. (Note that most /ũ/ come from original /õ/, as original /u/ became /y/.)
* Denasalization of vowels before /n/ or /m/ followed by a vowel or semi-vowel. (Note that examples like 'femme' /fam/ "woman" < OF /fãmə/ < fēmina and 'donne' /dɔn/ "(he) gives" < OF /dũnə/ < dōnat, with lowering and lack of diphthongization before a nasal even when a vowel followed, prove that nasalization originally operated in all environments.)
* Deletion of /n/ or /m/ after remaining nasal vowels (i.e. when not protected by a following vowel or semi-vowel). Hence 'dent' /dɑ̃/ "tooth" < */dãt/ < OFr 'dent' /dãnt/ < EOFr */dɛ̃nt/ < dĕntem.

The following steps occurred during the Modern French period:

* /ĩ/ > /ẽ/ > /ɛ̃/ > [æ̃]. This also affects diphthongs such as /ĩẽ/ > /jẽ/ > /jɛ̃/, e.g. 'bien' /bjɛ̃/ "well" < bĕne; /ỹĩ/ > /ɥĩ/ > /ɥɛ̃/, e.g. 'juin' /ʒɥɛ̃/ "June" < jūnium; /õĩ/ > /wẽ/ > /wɛ̃/, e.g. 'coin' /kwɛ̃/ "corner" < cŭneum. Note also /ãĩ/ > /ɛ̃/, e.g. 'pain' /pɛ̃/ "bread" < panem; /ẽĩ/ > /ɛ̃/, e.g. 'plein' /plɛ̃/ "full (m.s.)" < plēnum.
* /ã/ > /ɑ̃/.
* /ỹ/ > /œ̃/. In the 20th century, this sound has low functional load and has tended to merge with /ɛ̃/.

This leaves only four nasal vowels /ɛ̃/, /ɑ̃/, /ɔ̃/, and /œ̃/, and increasingly only the three /ɛ̃/, /ɑ̃/, /ɔ̃/.
***************************
This doesn't even get into all the other changes that resulted from the influence of the Celtic language Gaulish (which coexisted with the descendants of Latin at least through the early Middle Ages) and with the Germanic languages of the Franks (from whom France got its name) and other related peoples. Those changes are more haphazard, and can't necessarily be codified into rules like the many sound changes listed above, but the Wikipedia article has a nice list of them.

I suppose I could type in some examples of Old French and Middle French, and show how they differed from Latin and modern French, but I suspect that you and Crowley are the only people here who would need to see such evidence, and it won't change your mind in any case.

Dave Kathman

[metri...@gmail.com]

No response from Crowley. What a surprise.

Peter G.

[David L. Webb]

In article <c0b8cc6d-c716-4f71...@googlegroups.com>,
metri...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> > It's astonishing to me that a man who clearly knows no language other than
> > English

...and he doesn't even know English very well -- certainly not Early
Modern English, at any rate -- as the glaring error in verb conjugation
in the "Ray Mignot" sonnet (totally lost upon Crowley, of course)
clearly showed.

> > is happy to make a complete dick of himself by pontificating in
> > this manner.

It *is* amazing!

> > Crowley is like one of those cardinals who refused to look through
> > Galileo's telescope. Alternatively, he is so ignorant (and so thick) that
> > he doesn't understand that the following, posted by Dave Kathman,
> > constitutes detailed evidence against his insanity, evidence that he is
> > obliged to deal with:

[Snip of Dave's patient, careful explanation of significant phonetic
shifts]

Much the same could be done in the case of Spanish.

> > This doesn't even get into all the other changes that resulted from the
> > influence of the Celtic language Gaulish (which coexisted with the
> > descendants of Latin at least through the early Middle Ages) and with the
> > Germanic languages of the Franks (from whom France got its name) and other
> > related peoples. Those changes are more haphazard, and can't necessarily be
> > codified into rules like the many sound changes listed above, but the
> > Wikipedia article has a nice list of them.
> >
> >
> >
> > I suppose I could type in some examples of Old French and Middle French,
> > and show how they differed from Latin and modern French, but I suspect that
> > you and Crowley are the only people here who would need to see such
> > evidence, and it won't change your mind in any case.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Kathman

> No response from Crowley. What a surprise.

Indeed. But the surest way by far to get Crowley to clam up is to
mention the "Ray Mignot" sonnet, and to quote generously from Crowley's
pontifications in that case.


> Peter G.

[Bob Grumman]

Again, I ask, in whose opinion?

And how can it not be an issue? We present what we consider

logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
considered an adequate way of operating?

--Bob

[TomFoster]

Walk away Bob, walk awaaay. Ee's jus' not worf it.

[Paul Crowley]

On 10/11/2012 17:47, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>>>> Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
>>>>
>>>> IN WHOSE OPINION!?
>>>
>>> PAUL: "It's almost never an issue."
>>>
>>> How can it not be an issue? We present what we consider
>>> logical arguments based on relevant evidence, and you
>>> reject them based on YOUR OPINION ONLY. Where else
>>> in any field concerned with determining some truth is that
>>> considered an adequate way of operating?
>>
>> QUOTE some of your "logical arguments based
>> on relevant evidence". If you look (although I am
>> sure you won't) you will see that your only "logical
>> arguments based on relevant evidence" are the
>> same old semi-Biblical re-assertions of your
>> Faith. The name of the Stratman appears on
>> the plays (not true, of course, but that's never
>> bothered you). There was an unambiguous
>> monument stating the Stratman's poetic genius
>> (very far from the truth, of course, but that's
>> never bothered you).
>>
>> And that's about it. Have I forgotten a few other
>> Stratfordian doctrines?
>>
>>>

>>> PAUL: "But before that you have to point to a post
>>> or a set of posts you made here that actually
>>> made some arguments on the topic. How
>>> come you can't? Th'ole memory getting
>>> filled up with dreams and fantasies?"
>>>
>>> Beautiful. I propose we find someone neutral to judge
>>> which of us has the saner arguments. so you return to
>>> your doubly insane notion that I have made no
>>> arguments.
>>
>> Even if you were to find such a person, you
>> would still have to call up those posts. But
>> you can't -- since they exist only in your
>> imagination.
>>
>> How come that you have not merely forgotten
>> the dates and titles of those posts, but you have
>> also forgotten their content -- to the extent that
>> even if you were to try to repeat the arguments
>> that you imagine were in them, you are at a
>> complete loss?
>>
>> Your problem isn't Alzheimer's. It a far worse
>> condition, called Stratfordianism.
>
> Again, I ask, in whose opinion?

The Grumman Gambit is the epitome of
intellectual dishonesty. You should market
it, much like a snake-oil salesman . . .
". . Lost your argument? Nothing to say?
You've no evidence, and you've forgotten
whatever logic you thought you once had?
Don't worry . . . you can always rely on
the Grumman Gambit . . . . only $10 per
use each time . . ."


Paul.

[David L. Webb]

In article
<08dd0951-1c75-45ca...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

jaelsheargold <jaelsh...@hushmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 1, 12:31�am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> > On 30/10/2012 21:31, Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > > My question was poorly put. �What I'm trying to
> > > determine, Paul, is how you would accept that your
> > > theory is wrong.
> >
> > Some good evidence, backed up with relevant logic.
> > "X happened, and Y was the case, so Z is not
> > reasonably feasible in the manner you suggest,
> > because of Z1, Z2 and Z3 . . . "
> >
> > It's not mysterious nor is it rocket science. There
> > has to be more of a response than Janice's
> > ' claptrap '. �OK. she's a bad example, since
> > she is obviously incapable of any form of
> > argument. �But where are the Strats who are
> > any better? �When are YOU going to say what
> > is illogical or ahistorical or a clear perversion
> > of the words about my reading of Sonnet 18 ?

> Shove off, Crowley. You're like a cracked gramophone record in the
> desert - constantly repeating yourself and nobody is listening.
>
> You got totally slaughtered on sonnet 18,

And on the "Ray Mignot" sonnet as well, of course. If you want to
end up in Crowley's killfile (or if you want him to pretend that you
are, at any rate), just remind him of that amusing incident -- for some
odd reason, he dislikes recalling it.

> so get over it. I might
> answer some other posts as and when I get the time and inclination but
> it's hard to be inspired by your drivel.

But, like Art's drivel, it's hard *not* to be amused by it -- in
small doses, at any rate. Where else can learn that English has been
spoken nearly unchanged for nearly a millennium, that the Romance
languages did not descend from Latin (which is at best a simplified form
of Italian), that Sonnet 103 memorializes a royal crapping competition,
that Latin America has produced no worthwhile literature for most of its
history, etc.? It's a pretty remarkable performance.

> SB.
[...]

[Bob Grumman]

>
> Walk away Bob, walk awaaay. Ee's jus' not worf it.

You don't understand, Tom! Paul represents an opportunity never before afforded psychologists: the opportunity to record for posterity the first human being ever to be Totally Impervious to Reason. And perhaps even make a start toward a theory accounting for his achievement, although that may be asking too much. I'm Captain Ahab and he's my white whale! I MUST pursue him to the death!!!

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

>>>>Paul: no one can present a argument against any belief of mine.

> > Again, I ask, in whose opinion?
>
> The Grumman Gambit is the epitome of
> intellectual dishonesty. You should market
> it, much like a snake-oil salesman . . .

> ". . Lost your argument? Nothing to say?
> You've no evidence, and you've forgotten
> whatever logic you thought you once had?
> Don't worry . . . you can always rely on
> the Grumman Gambit . . . . only $10 per
> use each time . . ."

> Paul.

Why would anyone buy it? It is only effective against
someone who believes that his assertions are valid if
no one can say anything against it that he accepts as
a valid argument. Is there anyone else in the world more
incapable of doing anything but that to justify his
insanity than you?

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

If you go to http://poeticks.com/2012/11/17/entry-925, Paul, you'll see more garbage that proves how stupid I am, but--to a sane person--would indicate that I'm no sheep. At the bottom is a note in which I try to further your fame. You can comment on it there, if you want. It'd be great if you did, but I'm sure you won't. My entries eventually often draw a hundred or so "unique visitors" according to my counter, but they are nuts, so one of them may actually agree with you!

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

Oops, I forgot to say that I quoted your words on the "Grumman Gambit." Too bad I don't use the You Tube. It would go viral if I did, I'm sure.

--Bob

[Dr. Benigrew Dimplestad]

PAUL: "I argue no such thing. There is a huge amount
of evidence against the Stratman and more in
favour of Oxford. Of course, the latter does not
consist of explicit written statements made at
the time -- which seem to be your only criteria
for 'evidence'".

That's because that is the only kind of evidence that exists for the period.
there are no audio/video recordings. There is no "huge amount of evidence against
the Stratman", there is only a huge amount of conjecture about the Stratman, and
conjecture is not evidence. The same goes for "evidence" "in favour of Oxford";
thee is none, simply more conjecture. Even if all you had was a single document
of some kind in which someone, anyone said "This continual fronting of Oxford by
Shakespeare is a tiresome game" (or the equivalent), you would have at least
4.72 x 10^34 more evidence than you do now. That's an approximation of course,
setting the amount of current evidence for Oxford at 1 instead of zero, as 1 is approximately zero compared with very large numbers.

Dr. Benigrew Dimplestad
15 De Surmontstratt
Amstelveen, Netherlands