Quiz on plot in Hamlet
book...@yahoo.com
front that I don't know the answer to this one question, that goes to
the center of what you think the centers of interest are in Hamlet.
See, I assume the pattern made by the centers of interest in Hamlet,
concerning what are the archetypal meanings of the action, what's
going on and said--is not the same as what we think of as plot. So
when I ask this question about plot, the answer may not be in accord
with what others say.
If you are confused by what I think I mean by plot, it's simply that
usually a tragedy has five acts, and the plot includes the beginning
Situation, proceeds to Complications, arrives at a Climax, and then
the Conclusion. Setting, themes, characters, etc., are apart from
that. Maybe, in the case of Hamlet, even Shakespeare's handling of
Aristotle's unities is apart from the basic parts of situation,
complications, climax, and conclusion.
So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply, At what point in
the play does the climax occur? You may assume that it's obvious, but
I, for one am unsure. bookburn
John W Kennedy
In the older sense of "climax", frequently associated with five-act
analysis, that would be III, ii, the mousetrap.
--
John W Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
spinoza1111
When Ophelia has her first orgasm?
Seriously, it's when Hamlet kills Claudius.
spinoza1111
> On 2011-03-24 11:07:41 -0400, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You may think this is routine and uncomplicated, but I have to say up
> > front that I don't know the answer to this one question, that goes to
> > the center of what you think the centers of interest are in Hamlet.
>
> > See, I assume the pattern made by the centers of interest in Hamlet,
> > concerning what are the archetypal meanings of the action, what's
> > going on and said--is not the same as what we think of as plot. So
> > when I ask this question about plot, the answer may not be in accord
> > with what others say.
>
> > If you are confused by what I think I mean by plot, it's simply that
> > usually a tragedy has five acts, and the plot includes the beginning
> > Situation, proceeds to Complications, arrives at a Climax, and then
> > the Conclusion. Setting, themes, characters, etc., are apart from
> > that. Maybe, in the case of Hamlet, even Shakespeare's handling of
> > Aristotle's unities is apart from the basic parts of situation,
> > complications, climax, and conclusion.
>
> > So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply, At what point in
> > the play does the climax occur? You may assume that it's obvious, but
> > I, for one am unsure. bookburn
>
> In the older sense of "climax", frequently associated with five-act
> analysis, that would be III, ii, the mousetrap.
Perhaps. But Hamlet is still unresolved as to the time and place.
Bob Grumman
asks his cousin Horace, to make sure people learn the truth about him
as a poet.
--Bob
Peter Groves
It's an interesting question: on one reading it takes place offstage,
during Hamlet's sea-voyage, in which a couple of fortunate accidents
convert him to a belief in 'Providence' --- a sardonic dig at the
human need to believe in *something*.
Peter G.
book...@yahoo.com
(snip)
>
>So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply, At what point in
>the play does the climax occur? You may assume that it's obvious, but
>I, for one am unsure. bookburn
Here's my summary of an informal survey made from looking at Internet
opinions about the climax in Hamlet, where, and why.
I. Choices for climax of the plot in Hamlet.
E. When Claudius is caught in the Mousetrap play, in III,ii.
[Play within a play is suddenly revealing of central issues;
shows Hamlet not mad.]
D. When Hamlet decides NOT to kill Claudius, in III,iii.
[Claudius confesses to killing brother in a soliloquy. Hamlet
has sword drawn. All the inner motives are at play.]
A. When Hamlet kills Polonius in Act III,iv.
[Sets plot events in motion, including sub-plots.]
B. When Hamlet resolves to commit himself to revenge, in IV,iv.
["thoughts be bloody".]
F. When Hamlet discovers Ophelia's death, the Greveyard scene, in
V,i. [Strongly involves Ophelia in other sub-plots and compromises
revenge plots.]
G. When Hamlet and Laertes duel, in V,ii.
[Revenge of Hamlet and Laertes ends; Hamlet kills Claudius;
Queen's soul is set free; Hamlet is absolved of Polonius and Ophelia's
deaths; Hamlet's death is realized; Fortinbras takes Elsinor.]
II. Other possibilities.
A. Shakespeare did not intend a specific and obvious climax.
B. Maybe there's a part missing about the sailing ship to
England, showing Hamlet's change and sanity.
C. There could be more than one climax, like the fight of revenge
between Hamlet and Laertes; and the final scene of forgiveness with
Laertes.
III. How to figure out the climax: opinions.
A. Consider the definition of tragedy, that its plot has 5 acts,
with act 3 the usual position for climax.
B. Consider the center of interests and a common point where they
are resolved in important ways, a point of no return, a high point of
excitement and revelation. Archetypal patterns involving central
characters include 1) quest or journey; death and rebirth;
enlightenment; universal symbols in the unconscious; various wish
fulfillment motifs; etc..
C. Classic approach of identifying the main theme of action vs.
inaction, when conflict comes to a head, with rising action before,
falling after. Kinds of conflict: 1) with self; 2) with others; 3)
with something outside.
Conclusion: I can't resolve all the variables. As others comment,
the light imagery goes from dark to light, then dark again. Inner
life of the central character seems to get sorted out only at the
conclusion, when he accepts fate/divine over-reaching plan.
neonprose
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:07:41 -0800, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> >So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply, At what point in
> >the play does the climax occur? You may assume that it's obvious, but
> >I, for one am unsure. bookburn
>
> Here's my summary of an informal survey made from looking at Internet
> opinions about the climax in Hamlet, where, and why.
>
> I. Choices for climax of the plot in Hamlet.
>
> E. When Claudius is caught in the Mousetrap play, in III,ii.
> [Play within a play is suddenly revealing of central issues;
> shows Hamlet not mad.]
>
> D. When Hamlet decides NOT to kill Claudius, in III,iii.
> [Claudius confesses to killing brother in a soliloquy. Hamlet
> has sword drawn. All the inner motives are at play.]
>
> A. When Hamlet kills Polonius in Act III,iv.
> [Sets plot events in motion, including sub-plots.]
>
> B. When Hamlet resolves to commit himself to revenge, in IV,iv.
> ["thoughts be bloody".]
--------------------------------------
Bacon's Essay Of Revenge explain's Hamlet's delay.
According to Bacon, the philosopher of law, Hamlet
may not commit private revenge.
Or as Bacon put it in Of Revenge:
Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that
for the death of Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for
the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more.
But in private revenged it is not so . . ..
and . . .
REVENGE is a kind of wild justice; which the more man’ s
nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out. For as
for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the
revenge of that wrong, putteth the law out of office.
As a prince of Denmark, Hamlet holds an office. If he
seeks private revenge, he "puts the law out of office" and
becomes a mere executioner.
<http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-5.html>
Hamlet is compelled by his office to commit regicide on
behalf of the people of Denmark but he may not take
revenge for himself.
-----------------------------------------
Paul Crowley
> On Mar 25, 2:07 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> If you are confused by what I think I mean by plot, it's
>> simply that usually a tragedy has five acts, and the
>> plot includes the beginning Situation, proceeds to
>> Complications, arrives at a Climax, and then the
>> Conclusion. Setting, themes, characters, etc., are
>> apart from that.
As is well known, Hamlet is not a pure tragedy
but, as the poet tells us: a tragical-comical-
historical-pastoral; and for such drama the
appropriate divisions are the (1) Ahein, (2) Adoe,
(3) Atray, (4) Kehair, (5) Kuig, (6) Is-Shay, and
(7) Is-Shockt.
>> Maybe, in the case of Hamlet, even
>> Shakespeare's handling of Aristotle's unities is apart
>> from the basic parts of situation, complications,
>> climax, and conclusion.
>>
>> So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply,
>> At what point in the play does the climax occur?
In fact, the crucial partition is the 'Kehair',
and its inception.
>> You
>> may assume that it's obvious, but I, for one am
>> unsure. bookburn
In Hamlet the inception of the Keheir is clearly
in his words "Wormwood, wormwood" while
listening to The Mousetrap'.
> It's an interesting question: on one reading it takes
> place offstage, during Hamlet's sea-voyage, in which
> a couple of fortunate accidents convert him to a belief
> in 'Providence' --- a sardonic dig at the human need to
> believe in *something*.
More likely, a dig at the human capacity to
believe in _anything_ -- but especially in
pompous and utterly-meaningless nonsense
issuing from the mouths of academics.
Paul.
Peter Groves
Crowley prefers his pompous nonsense home-brewed -- and I have to
admit, he does a vastly better job of it.
Peter G.
neonprose
Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion so it
is not surprising that we find it in Hamlet since
Our Author (whoever he was) was not a Roman
Catholic as were Shackspeare (spelling on the will)
and Oxford.
Both were actually quite devout (or in Oxford's
case, terrified) Roman Catholics.
Shackspeare was a moderate Roman Catholic,
Oxford was a rabid Roman Catholic who actually
plotted with his cousins Arundel and Howard to
assassinate Calvinists like Philip Sidney, Leicester,
perhaps even Bacon who reported that he had
received death threats against his life.
As the erudite seminarians who published the
great 1908 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia
(never surpassed) wrote, the Shakespeare works
WERE NOT
written by a Roman Catholic or perhaps they
were written by a lapsed Roman Catholic who
had better, like Littré, find a way to get
confession and absolution on his death bed or
he was going straight to Hell. Or at least
Purgatory.
Hamlet is not a Roman Catholic but we find
some references to Roman Catholicism
in Old Hamlet's sufferings in Purgatory and
some references (not that easy to identify)
to Roman Catholic feast days scattered through-
out the play.
Steve Sohmer, whose Oxford PhD was not
good enough for Webb, has written several
papers on the significant dates in Hamlet,
not necessarily by mention of calender dates
but by allusions to the feast days.
Bacon would be the best candidate for naming
the Feast Days in Hamlet (which in the Church
of England were not much different from the
Roman Catholic dates for the Feast Days) as
Bacon (who did not "edit" the King James Version
in order to sign his pen name "Shake-speare"
46 words up and 46 words down in the 46th
Psalm -- an academic on Hardy Cook's Shaksper
forum went through all the editions of the English
Bible from Bibles back to Tyndale's translation
of Jerome and almost all of the English bibles had
shake and speare 46 words up and 46 words down
in the 46th Psalm.
Bacon did, however, fire off letter after letter to
the distracted (by his darling boys) James I, warning
James that the portion of the Geneva that listed the
Calendar of the Feast Days was running out and if a
new version of the Bible was not printed,
the English would not be able to find their way
to Church on Feast Days.
That is Bacon's sum total contribution to the
King James Version, he harassed James until
James convened the Hampton Court scholars
who then screwed up the bible by relying on
a Byzantine text.
So Bacon is the "author" of the KJV in the
sense that he made it happen.
Luckily Bacon had iffy Greek, so he wasn't
invited to "edit" the bible, otherwise he would
have been blamed for the introduction of the
corrupt Byzantine text.
James was forced to recall the KJV and have
it reprinted.
I
John W Kennedy
> Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion
No, it is a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. It is a Calvinist obsession.
If any specific point of Jacobean religious controversy is present in
“Hamlet”, it is the question of Purgatory, and the play comes down
squarely on the RC side of it. On the other hand, it is hard to believe
that a Roman Catholic would have presented Thomas Cranmer as the
saintly prophet he is in “Henry VIII”.
--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
nordicskiv2
<d29ac0f0-6955-4def-87e0-
a19938...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion
Rubbish. As usual, Elizabeth doesn't know what she's talking about
here. In fact, the notion of Divine Providence was around long before
Calvinism even existed. The Catholic Encyclopedia (which I really
must exhort Elizabeth to consult before consigning to Protestant
doctrine an idea of such venerable antiquity) has a lengthy discussion
of Divine Providence in Catholic theology, a summary of its treatment
in Patristic literature, etc., and points out that the notion appears
in the Old Testament. Thus it could scarcely have been a Calvinist
invention -- although in view of Elizabeth's copious chronological
contretemps, perhaps she actually believes that John Calvin predates
the Church Fathers. Calvinism certainly exhibits a preoccupation with
the idea, but it is *not* a Calvinist notion!
> so it
> is not surprising that we find it in Hamlet since
> Our Author (whoever he was) was not a Roman
> Catholic
Pure conjecture.
> as were Shackspeare (spelling on the will)
> and Oxford.
>
> Both were actually quite devout (or in Oxford's
> case, terrified) Roman Catholics.
Again, this is speculation in Shakespeare's case -- unless
Elizabeth is relying upon her celebrated clairvoyance again.
> Shackspeare was a moderate Roman Catholic,
> Oxford was a rabid Roman Catholic who actually
> plotted with his cousins Arundel and Howard to
> assassinate Calvinists like Philip Sidney, Leicester,
> perhaps even Bacon who reported that he had
> received death threats against his life.
>
> As the erudite seminarians who published the
> great 1908 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia
> (never surpassed) wrote, the Shakespeare works
>
> WERE NOT
>
> written by a Roman Catholic
The Catholic Encyclopedia -- which I really must exhort Elizabeth
to read before attempting to paraphrase -- does not say anything of
the kind. Indeed, it says:
"As regards the internal evidence of the plays and poems, no
fair appreciation of the arguments advanced by Simpson, Bowden,
and others can ignore the strong leaven of Catholic feeling
conspicuous in the works as a whole. Detailed discussion would
be impossible here. The question is complicated by the doubt
whether certain more Protestant passages have any right to
be regarded as the authentic work of Shakespeare. For example,
there is a general consensus of opinion that the greater part
of the fifth act of 'Henry VIII' is not his. Similarly in 'King
John' any hasty references drawn from the anti-papal tone of
certain speeches must be discounted by a comparison between
the impression left by the finished play as it came from the
hands of the dramatist and the virulent prejudice manifest in
the older drama of 'The Troublesome Reign of King John', which
Shakespeare transformed. On the other hand the type of such
characters as Friar Lawrence or of the friar in 'Much Ado
About Nothing', of Henry V, of Katherine of Aragon, and of
others, as well as the whole ethos of 'Measure for Measure',
with numberless casual allusions, all speak eloquently for
the Catholic tone of the poet's mind (see, for example, the
references to purgatory and the last sacraments in 'Hamlet',
Act I, sc. 5).
"Neither can any serious arguments to show that Shakespeare
knew nothing of Catholicism be drawn from the fact that in
'Romeo and Juliet' he speaks of 'evening Mass'. Simpson and
others have quoted examples of the practice of occasionally
saying Mass in the afternoon, one of the places where this
was wont to happen being curiously enough Verona itself, the
scene of the play. The real difficulty against Simpson's
thesis comes rather from the doubt whether Shakespeare was
not infected with the atheism, which, as we know from the
testimony of writers as opposite in spirit as Thomas Nashe
and Father Persons, was rampant in the more cultured society
of the Elizabethan age. Such a doubting or sceptical attitude
of mind, as multitudes of examples prove in our own day, is
by no means inconsistent with a true appreciation of the beauty
of Catholicism, and even apart from this it would surely not be
surprising that such a man as Shakespeare should think
sympathetically and even tenderly of the creed in which his
father and mother had been brought up, a creed to which they
probably adhered at least in their hearts. The fact in any
case remains that the number of Shakespearean utterances
expressive of a fundamental doubt in the Divine economy of the
world seems to go beyond the requirements of his dramatic purpose
and these are constantly put into the mouths of characters with
whom the poet is evidently in sympathy. A conspicuous example is
the speech of Prospero in 'The Tempest', probably the latest of
the plays, ending with the words:
'We are such Stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep'.
"Whether the true Shakespeare speaks here no one can ever tell,
but even if it were so, such moods pass and are not irreconcilable
with faith in God when the soul is thrown back upon herself by
the near advent of suffering or death. A well-known example is
afforded by the case of Littré."
> or perhaps they
> were written by a lapsed Roman Catholic who
> had better, like Littré, find a way to get
> confession and absolution on his death bed or
> he was going straight to Hell. Or at least
> Purgatory.
>
> Hamlet is not a Roman Catholic but we find
> some references to Roman Catholicism
> in Old Hamlet's sufferings in Purgatory and
> some references (not that easy to identify)
> to Roman Catholic feast days scattered through-
> out the play.
>
> Steve Sohmer, whose Oxford PhD was not
> good enough for Webb,
Huh? I never said anything of the kind. This is yet another
instance of Elizabeth's "casual reading" or "imperfect recollection."
It will be recalled that Elizabeth also averred that the "fact" that
the Nobel Prize in physics was created for Michelson "wasn't good
enough" for me -- yet as anyone with a casual familiarity with the
history of science knows quite well and as anyone else can readily
check, the members of the Nobel committee awarded the Nobel Prize in
physics to nine other scientists before they got around to Michelson.
Elizabeth's "facts" are invariably entertaining.
> has written several
> papers on the significant dates in Hamlet,
> not necessarily by mention of calender dates
> but by allusions to the feast days.
>
> Bacon would be the best candidate for naming
> the Feast Days in Hamlet (which in the Church
> of England were not much different from the
> Roman Catholic dates for the Feast Days) as
> Bacon (who did not "edit" the King James Version
> in order to sign his pen name "Shake-speare"
> 46 words up and 46 words down in the 46th
> Psalm -- an academic on Hardy Cook's Shaksper
> forum went through all the editions of the English
> Bible from Bibles back to Tyndale's translation
> of Jerome and almost all of the English bibles had
> shake and speare 46 words up and 46 words down
> in the 46th Psalm.
Reference? "An academic" is hardly a very specific course,
particularly since Elizabeth has a very broad view of what constitutes
an "academic."
> Bacon did, however, fire off letter after letter to
> the distracted (by his darling boys) James I, warning
> James that the portion of the Geneva that listed the
> Calendar of the Feast Days was running out and if a
> new version of the Bible was not printed,
> the English would not be able to find their way
> to Church on Feast Days.
>
> That is Bacon's sum total contribution to the
> King James Version, he harassed James until
> James convened the Hampton Court scholars
> who then screwed up the bible by relying on
> a Byzantine text.
>
> So Bacon is the "author" of the KJV in the
> sense that he made it happen.
>
> Luckily Bacon had iffy Greek, so he wasn't
> invited to "edit" the bible, otherwise he would
> have been blamed for the introduction of the
> corrupt Byzantine text.
>
> James was forced to recall the KJV and have
> it reprinted.
>
> I
Huh? What a pity! Elizabeth breaks off in mid-sentence, just as
she was beginning to get *really* funny!
spinoza1111
A climax at the geometrical midpoint would generate a classical
tragedy in which acts 4 and 5 were wasted in long speeches justifying
the way of the gods. Climax near the end is more modern in that the
audience at the Globe would be less interest in long and edifying
speeches and more in a continuation of suspense. They wanted a show,
and not a lecture. That would be ancient Greek tragedy, or Racine.
Note that while we "know" what will happen in Hamlet, the audience at
the original staging did not.
Compare Richard III. The climax is when he takes the throne and it all
turns to shit almost immediately when he realizes that he must kill
the Princes, importunes Buckingham to do it, and is refused. From that
point on, Richard's fate is sealed because the killing of the Princes
is forced upon him.
We know Richard in full when he takes the throne. But until the end,
if we bracket out our pre-existing knowledge of Hamlet, we don't know
if he will wuss out or make a mess of things until the end. In fact,
his idiotic killing of Polonius makes our perception of Hamlet
negative: it is quite possible that this stupid act made original
audience members boo Hamlet. This, and the general mess made of things
in the Mousetrap make us perceive him as either losing control or
feigning madness (which is not the typical act of a tragic hero). But
we then realize, both in the speech Hamlet makes after meeting
Fortinbras' sergeant and in his Act 5 speeches to Horatio, that he is
NOT fucked up at all. "There's a divinity that shapes our ends/Rough
hew them how we will".
A melancholy and egregious Dane
Did Denmark stain
With blood, like Elmer Fudd.
The first to go was Polonius
Whom he dispatched without a fuss
Although he thought it was his uncle, that ass
Hid behind an arras.
Then Ophelia floated away, and did not stay.
But this was only a preparation for the Big Event
Where Mom bought it without his intent,
Claudius was murdered most messily,
And Laertes did depart this mortal coil,
Pinked as he was by Hamlet's poison foil.
Offstage, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern got dead
But unlike Richard III, nobody, and I mean nobody, lost his head.
Fortinbras busted in and said what the hell is this
The floor is slick with blood and valedictory piss.
Clean up this fucking mess, lads, toss Claudius in the moat,
But give Hamlet a soldier's funeral and the Gravediggers a groat.
HAMLET ACT VI
Sc 1
Enter First and Second Gravediggers
First: Bestir, we must with some ceremony dig young Hamlet's grave.
Sec: Will our Savior his soul save?
First: Of course, thou cudgel, see'est how 'tis so.
Sec: Ow thou hast dropped thy shovel on my toe.
First: Cry I your mercy, lump but dig up and hist.
Sec: Since it beats working so sit I an' list.
First: Tho' he a murderer be, 'twas revenge.
Sec: But doth not our Savior with hell fire revenge avenge?
First: 'Tis so for the low but not for the high.
Sec: 'Tis I who hopeth you will tell me, why.
First: Of course, I am thy school master and thy marm
Sec: Good 'tis so, since the simple oft' come to harm.
First: The great are different from you and me.
Sec: Why is this so? Is't history?
First: No, 'tis law, for do not the great make the law?
Sec: So must it be so, and so goes the saw.
First: They cannot live under the law of the low.
Sec: Thou'rt wise, for it seems it must be so.
First: Therefore they live under the old law, and, to leave this
jangling meter and untimely rhyme, they take it in their own hands to
revenge. For us the low, the watch takes care of our petty hatreds and
revenge, but the watch serves the Prince, and cannot beat the Prince,
nay e'en when he makes a mess of the Palace, and makes the floors run
red with blood.
Sec: 'Tis so. Doth thou have a stoup of wine?
First: Verily, but to work: now is not the time.
First and Second Gravediggers dig Hamlet's grave while singing Yo
Heave Ho, and, subsequent, dance a Bergamask.
book...@yahoo.com
From Wikipedia:
Wormwood (star) in the Book of Revelation, a star that falls upon
Earth and poisons a third part of the waters.
Wormwood (immoral woman), in the Book of Proverbs(5:4, NKJV), a woman
that entices a man into immoral conduct.
ignoto
> On Mar 28, 9:25 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:07:41 -0800, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>> So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply, At what point in
>>> the play does the climax occur? You may assume that it's obvious, but
>>> I, for one am unsure. bookburn
>>
>> Here's my summary of an informal survey made from looking at Internet
>> opinions about the climax in Hamlet, where, and why.
>>
>> I. Choices for climax of the plot in Hamlet.
>>
>> E. When Claudius is caught in the Mousetrap play, in III,ii.
>> [Play within a play is suddenly revealing of central issues;
>> shows Hamlet not mad.]
>>
>> D. When Hamlet decides NOT to kill Claudius, in III,iii.
>> [Claudius confesses to killing brother in a soliloquy. Hamlet
>> has sword drawn. All the inner motives are at play.]
>>
>> A. When Hamlet kills Polonius in Act III,iv.
>> [Sets plot events in motion, including sub-plots.]
>>
>> B. When Hamlet resolves to commit himself to revenge, in IV,iv.
>> ["thoughts be bloody".]
This is the point in the play where there is a contrapuntal shift in the
action and if we take the climax to be the 'turning point', then this is it.
Ign.
neonprose
Hamlet was a Calvinist. He believed in
Providence.
I don't know that "a couple of fortunate
accidents" converted Hamlet to a belief
in Providence.
The author was raised on Providence by
his Calvinist mother.
No Roman Catholic wrote the Shakespeare
works. As the seminarians who edited the
1908 Catholic Encyclopedia (a masterpiece
in its own right).
The seminarians categorically eliminated the
two Roman Catholic candidates, Shackspeare
(spelling on the will) and Oxford but their
advocates just keep muddling on.
<Divine providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia> - Mar 28
In theology, divine providence, or simply providence, is God's
activity in [the world] .. an integral part of John Calvin's
theological framework known as Calvinism . . .
Btw, never get your religious doctrine from
a lawyer.
John W Kennedy
So does just about everyone who isn't an outright atheist.
--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Peter Groves
That would be me, then.
Peter G.
neonprose
> On 2011-03-29 03:17:12 -0400, neonprose said:
>
> > Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion
>
> No, it is a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. It is a Calvinist obsession.
Logically, it can be both a Calvinist notion and
a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. A
notion and a commonplace can co-exit in the
same space-time.
The Calvinists are not plotting to deprive the J/C/M's
of their commonplace nor do I believe that the
J/C/Ms even care that Calvin wrested Divine Provi-
dence from the Hebrew Scriptures. Traditionally,
the Calvinists are more fascinated by the Hebrew
Scriptures than they are with the New Testament.
Lord Burghley, a Calvinist, wore the gabardine and
had himself painted on Jacob's Mule.
> If any specific point of Jacobean religious controversy is present in
> “Hamlet”, it is the question of Purgatory, and the play comes down
> squarely on the RC side of it. On the other hand, it is hard to believe
> that a Roman Catholic would have presented Thomas Cranmer as the
> saintly prophet he is in “Henry VIII”.
After you mentioned Cranmer I devoted three hours to
reading about Cranmer on Wikipedia. I swear to God
that the article is a 67 screens long. I just clicked them
off.
I think Cranmer's problem (in terms of his legacy, if that's
the right word) were his recantations at the end of his life.
They make him look like an equivocator. He certainly was
an equivocator on his way to the stake. I think Cranmer's
problem was that the English Protestants and Catholics were
far from finding a via media.
The via media would finally be found by Sir Nicholas Bacon
and Bishop John Jewell. As far as our argument over the
doctrine in the Shakespeare works is concerned, the works
are consciously and intentionally written via media.
Of course that didn't satisfy the consummate scholars who
produced the famous 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. They
thought the author was Protestant but if Shacksper wrote
the works he would have to be ready, like Littré, to give
confession and receive absolution on his death bed.
Gary
SNIP
> Of course that didn't satisfy the consummate scholars who
> produced the famous 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. They
> thought the author was Protestant but if Shacksper wrote
> the works he would have to be ready, like Littré, to give
> confession and receive absolution on his death bed.
"Thus Archdeacon Davies's statement that "he dyed a Papyst"
is by no means incredible, but it would obviously be foolish
to build too much upon an unverifiable tradition of this
kind. The point must remain forever uncertain."
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10755
- Gary
John W Kennedy
> On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-03-29 03:17:12 -0400, neonprose said:
>>
>>> Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion
>>
>> No, it is a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. It is a Calvinist obsession.
>
> Logically, it can be both a Calvinist notion and
> a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. A
> notion and a commonplace can co-exit in the
> same space-time.
My point is that one cannot reason:
Calvinists believe in Providence.
Hamlet believes in Providence.
Therefore, Hamlet is a Calvinist.
One might as well reason:
Stalinists tell lies.
Rush Limbaugh tells lies.
Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a Stalinist.
Or:
Eugene O’Neill’s father is an alcoholic.
George W. Bush is an alcoholic.
Therefore, George W. Bush is Eugene O’Neill’s father.
>> If any specific point of Jacobean religious controversy is present in
>> “Hamlet”, it is the question of Purgatory, and the play comes down
>> squarely on the RC side of it. On the other hand, it is hard to believe
>> that a Roman Catholic would have presented Thomas Cranmer as the
>> saintly prophet he is in “Henry VIII”.
>
> After you mentioned Cranmer I devoted three hours to
> reading about Cranmer on Wikipedia. I swear to God
> that the article is a 67 screens long. I just clicked them
> off.
>
> I think Cranmer's problem (in terms of his legacy, if that's
> the right word) were his recantations at the end of his life.
> They make him look like an equivocator. He certainly was
> an equivocator on his way to the stake. I think Cranmer's
> problem was that the English Protestants and Catholics were
> far from finding a via media.
I do not think you know what “equivocator” means.
In any case, none of this has anything to do with the fact that, from
Rome’s viewpoint, Cranmer was a schismatic and heresiarch, whereas the
play “Henry VIII” presents him as a divinely inspired prophet and a
saintly man.
> Of course that didn't satisfy the consummate scholars who
> produced the famous 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. They
> thought the author was Protestant but if Shacksper wrote
> the works he would have to be ready, like Littré, to give
> confession and receive absolution on his death bed.
Committing a sin while thinking, ”It’s OK, I’ll repent later,” makes
the original sin worse and, in most cases, makes the repentance
worthless.
neonprose
Nice post, Kennedy.
spinoza1111
That isn't Catholic theology, just North American Jansenism. In
actuality, the power of the sacraments of Confession and Extreme
Unction is such that they can absolve even the cynical sinner who like
Falstaff postpones taking these Sacraments in order to have fun. The
intent to confess later in no way is a sin and doesn't complicate the
sin. Arguably it demonstrates that the sinner can be redeemed as was
Falstaff according to Mistress Quickly.
Much of traditional American Catholicism was over-influenced by the
Jansenist heresy because capitalism creates the guilt-ridden life-
hating Catholic. The fact is that complementary to "cum vix justus sit
securus", even Adolf Hitler would be saved in the unlikely event he
made a perfect act of Contrition in the interval between blowing his
brains out and actually dying.
Cf. Max Weber. Jansenism, Catholic over-scrupulousness and OCD are
artifacts of capitalism because capitalism forces upon the Catholic a
Protestant ethical system that is incompatible with Christ's Sermon on
the Mount and is destroying Creation.
book...@yahoo.com
So was Hamlet wrong in assuming that Claudius if killed at prayer
would go to heaven despite his guilt?
Peter Groves
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 01:43:40 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 4, 9:47 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 2011-04-03 17:59:58 -0400, neonprose said:
>
> >> > On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 2011-03-29 03:17:12 -0400, neonprose said:
>
>
> So was Hamlet wrong in assuming that Claudius if killed at prayer
> would go to heaven despite his guilt?
>
No, provided Claudius had confessed, shown contrition and made
restitution (he falls at the last hurdle), and I don't quite
understand how that question could have been prompted by the posts you
were responding to, unless you were reading very inattentively.
Peter G.
John W Kennedy
On 2011-04-06 04:43:40 -0400, spinoza1111 said:
On Apr 4, 9:47 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
Committing a sin while thinking, ”It’s OK, I’ll repent later,” makes
the original sin worse and, in most cases, makes the repentance
worthless.
That isn't Catholic theology, just North American Jansenism.
As exemplified by such North American Jansenists as St. Alphonsus Liguori?
The fact is that complementary to "cum vix justus sit
securus", even Adolf Hitler would be saved in the unlikely event he
made a perfect act of Contrition in the interval between blowing his
brains out and actually dying.
Unlikely indeed. “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.”
Or, to put it another way:
If I say
“Here is a sword of steel; I give It you
On one condition: that you treat it first
With the most powerful corrosive known
To alchemy”, what will the sword be like
By the time you claim it?
-- Dorothy L. Sayers: “The Devil to Pay”
--
John W Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton
book...@yahoo.com
My short investigation on the point of Claudius' "confession" suggests
that neither the audience then or commentators since conclude that
Claudius' pray in his private chapel amounts to a confession.
1. The audience would know that Claudius shows remorse, but only
plans for expiating sins later; possibly a public confession? The
brooding Claudius says he knows all too well that prayers alone will
not save him if he continues to benefit from his own sin (Sparknotes).
2. Literary commentators like Coleridge do not accept that Hamlet can
plausibly pretend interest in the condition of Claudius' soul as part
of his revenge plot.
3. Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation -- Penance, Penance and
Reconciliation: at
http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
(quote)
Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave
or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God
has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the
sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.
(unquote)
So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Claudius' "confession"
was during prayer, or "confessed directly to God", but sin such as
murder of a brother is "grave or mortal sin", requiring forgiveness
through the sacrament of confession to a priest.
BTW, Sparknotes points out that if Hamlet did kill Claudius here, it
would be the climax of the plot, not the Mousetrap scene. bookburn
Peter Groves
>
> (quote)
> Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave
> or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God
> has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the
> sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.
> (unquote)
>
> So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Claudius' "confession"
> was during prayer, or "confessed directly to God", but sin such as
> murder of a brother is "grave or mortal sin", requiring forgiveness
> through the sacrament of confession to a priest.
As I thought I had pointed out, it's not valid in any case because he
cannot make restitution. Your reading skills aren't all they could
be.
Peter G.
book...@yahoo.com
Can't fully account for you reasoning, but what you say to my
question: "So was Hamlet wrong in assuming that Claudius if killed at
prayer would go to heaven despite his guilt?", is: "No, provided
Claudius had confessed, provided . . . ."
Your explanation doesn't seem responsive to definitions I've dredged
up, so I'm assuming you really think Hamlet wasn't wrong in his
calculation Claudius' confession at private prayer allowed forgiveness
that would allow him to avoid damnation if he killed him then.
Instead of depending on Hamlet's understanding of a belief system that
allows forgiveness of mortal sin through confession, maybe you could
just say Hamlet was rationalizing or mentally unbalanced. bookburn
nordicskiv2
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2011-04-03 17:59:58 -0400, neonprose said:
> > On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On 2011-03-29 03:17:12 -0400, neonprose said:
> >>
> >>> Divine Providence is a Calvinist notion
> >>
> >> No, it is a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. It is a Calvinist
> >> obsession.
> > Logically, it can be both a Calvinist notion and
> > a Jewish/Christian/Moslem commonplace. A
> > notion and a commonplace can co-exit in the
> > same space-time.
> My point is that one cannot reason:
> Calvinists believe in Providence.
> Hamlet believes in Providence.
> Therefore, Hamlet is a Calvinist.
> One might as well reason:
> Stalinists tell lies.
> Rush Limbaugh tells lies.
> Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a Stalinist.
> Or:
> Eugene O’Neill’s father is an alcoholic.
> George W. Bush is an alcoholic.
> Therefore, George W. Bush is Eugene O’Neill’s father.
Careful, John -- this may not be the best way to explain your point
to Elizabeth. After all, Elizabeth believes that the princess
Elizabeth Tudor was the mother of the Earl of Oxford, so she might
well believe that George Bush is Eugene O'Neill's father!
> >> If any specific point of Jacobean religious controversy is present in
> >> “Hamlet”, it is the question of Purgatory, and the play comes down
> >> squarely on the RC side of it. On the other hand, it is hard to believe
> >> that a Roman Catholic would have presented Thomas Cranmer as the
> >> saintly prophet he is in “Henry VIII”.
> >
> > After you mentioned Cranmer I devoted three hours to
> > reading about Cranmer on Wikipedia. I swear to God
> > that the article is a 67 screens long. I just clicked them
> > off.
> >
> > I think Cranmer's problem (in terms of his legacy, if that's
> > the right word) were his recantations at the end of his life.
> > They make him look like an equivocator. He certainly was
> > an equivocator on his way to the stake. I think Cranmer's
> > problem was that the English Protestants and Catholics were
> > far from finding a via media.
> I do not think you know what “equivocator” means.
I'm pretty sure that she doesn't.
Peter Groves
This is really very simple; Hamlet was not "wrong in assuming that
Claudius if killed at prayer would go to heaven despite his guilt" IF
he thought Claudius had made a genuine repentance, a "movement of the
soul" as Catholic theologians call it. As Claudius himself expresses
it, this assumption is wrong: Claudius is too wedded to the fruits of
his sin.
Peter G.
neonprose
> In article <4d992343$0$21500$607ed...@cv.net>,
And you've read Sir John McLane's biography
of Sir Thomas Seymour, Baron of Sudeley, and
I have not.
You've also read the three hundred sworn depositions in the
inquisition by high judges
into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
held in the State Papers, British Archives.
I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
deposition to the panel as well as the
very compelling testimony of the midwife
and the midwife's assistant who delivered
Elizabeth's infant male. Small, red patches
of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
indicative of congenital syphilis.
If you want to debate this, Webb, I'll be
happy to kick your stupid ass again.
spinoza1111
No, Hamlet was right. In Catholic doctrine, which still fairly much
applied in Tudor times, a "perfect act of contrition" MIGHT get
Claudius into heaven.
spinoza1111
You cannot make restitution for killing your brother, and restitution
plays no part in the perfect act of contrition.
It is being heartily sorry not through fear of death but from love of
God, and this is what the holy sisters told us. It is confirmed online
in the Catholic encyclopedia on contrition: "Perfect contrition, with
the desire of receiving the Sacrament of Penance, restores the sinner
to grace at once."
If the padre on D-Day doesn't get to you before you die, and you make
your own confession in a state of sorrow for sin in hopes he will,
then you have made a "perfect act of contrition".
Father Mike Judge was last seen on September 11 giving a general
absolution to the dead and dying. He was later killed in the collapse
of the towers.
As in the case of the Sacrament of Marriage which in mediaeval times
and parts of Shakespeare's England, the sacrament wasn't the external
trappings or the presence of the priest. It was all about intentions
which are very important in Catholic theology. This was reconciled
with the Church by saying that the sinner must have the intention to
get to Confession.
spinoza1111
> On 2011-04-06 04:43:40 -0400, spinoza1111 said:
>
> > On Apr 4, 9:47 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Committing a sin while thinking, ”It’s OK, I’ll repent later,” makes
> >> the original sin worse and, in most cases, makes the repentance
> >> worthless.
>
> > That isn't Catholic theology, just North American Jansenism.
>
> As exemplified by such North American Jansenists as St. Alphonsus Liguori?
Let's see, St Alphonsus wasn't a Jansenist. Therefore no North
American Catholics were Jansenists, nor influenced by this 17th
century French heresy? Fallacy of composition?
>
> > The fact is that complementary to "cum vix justus sit
> > securus", even Adolf Hitler would be saved in the unlikely event he
> > made a perfect act of Contrition in the interval between blowing his
> > brains out and actually dying.
>
> Unlikely indeed. “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
> it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the
> Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.”
Most of the Bible makes no sense for the very good reason that it was
written by man. Which means that we can and must pick and choose our
texts carefully. Care to expound what you think this means? If there
were unpardonable offenses this would detract from the power of
Confession. Besides, did Hitler blaspheme against the Holy Ghost?
Maybe you should make a Hitler video on YouTube and have him doing so.
Much of North American Catholicism is way to Protestant for my taste,
but I am not a good Catholic. I miss Michael who tried to speak of
forgiveness and humanity in this newsgroup and fought the real devils
here.
Peter Groves
Amazing! By Elizabeth's standards this is *almost* a reference. "Sir
John McLane" is not a thousand miles away from John McLean, a
Victorian biographer of Seymour.
Peter G.
nordicskiv2
<71c4cacc-dafd-4b07...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:31 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > In article <4d992343$0$21500$607ed...@cv.net>,
> > John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2011-04-03 17:59:58 -0400, neonprose said:
> > > > On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
[...]
> > > My point is that one cannot reason:
> > > Calvinists believe in Providence.
> > > Hamlet believes in Providence.
> > > Therefore, Hamlet is a Calvinist.
> > > One might as well reason:
> > > Stalinists tell lies.
> > > Rush Limbaugh tells lies.
> > > Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a Stalinist.
> > > Or:
> > > Eugene O’Neill’s father is an alcoholic.
> > > George W. Bush is an alcoholic.
> > > Therefore, George W. Bush is Eugene O’Neill’s father.
> > Careful, John -- this may not be the best way to explain your point
> > to Elizabeth. After all, Elizabeth believes that the princess
> > Elizabeth Tudor was the mother of the Earl of Oxford, so she might
> > well believe that George Bush is Eugene O'Neill's father!
[...]
> And you've read Sir John McLane's [sic] biography
> of Sir Thomas Seymour, Baron of Sudeley, and
> I have not.
If you say that you haven't read it, I *certainly* believe you.
If you had said that you *had* read it, that claim would be much
less credible, and it would count for very little -- after all, we've
seen countless examples of what Alan Jones called your "casual
reading", which in many cases amounts to misrepresenting your supposed
source, which often says exactly the opposite of what you claim that
it says; Akrigg is a good case in point.
> You've also read the three hundred sworn depositions in the
> inquisition by high judges
> into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
> lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
> held in the State Papers, British Archives.
Source? "State papers" is not very precise.
> I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
> deposition to the panel as well as the
> very compelling testimony of the midwife
> and the midwife's assistant who delivered
> Elizabeth's infant male. Small, red patches
> of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
> indicative of congenital syphilis.
Source? You *still* have not supplied a credible citation!
We've seen countless examples of your "reading," none of which
inspires confidence in your ability to report your supposed "sources"
faithfully. Thus, in order to convince anyone, you will need to be
more specific. As Alan Jones put it,
"So in the course of a single short sentence based on a single
website page, you have demonstrably invented every single 'fact'.
How do you expect us to believe the 'facts' you offer on any
other topic, including the authorship of the Shakespeare texts,
or take seriously any deduction you make from those 'facts'?"
Matters being so, I'm still waiting for a *specific citation*. That
means a reference that another reader can readily check in a decent
research library, not breathless, lurid gossip about "subdural
bleeding" and "congenital syphilis" that you may well have imbibed
from sources of very dubious reliability (see, for example, your
ridiculous reporting on the supposed North Korean submarine attack on
the gulf oil platform); that's Streitzian stuff. Mr. Streitz does
unsourced gossip and lurid speculation very well, as do you; that's
not what's being asked for here. If you have credible sources, then
please provide the citations. If not, this is par for the course for
you.
> If you want to debate this, Webb, I'll be
> happy to kick your stupid ass again.
Oh, by all means! The only posterior that you have ever "kicked"
in this forum is your own -- ceaselessly.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article
>
> > On Apr 6, 6:31 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <4d992343$0$21500$607ed...@cv.net>,
> > > John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2011-04-03 17:59:58 -0400, neonprose said:
> > > > > On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > My point is that one cannot reason:
> > > > Calvinists believe in Providence.
> > > > Hamlet believes in Providence.
> > > > Therefore, Hamlet is a Calvinist.
> > > > One might as well reason:
> > > > Stalinists tell lies.
> > > > Rush Limbaugh tells lies.
> > > > Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a Stalinist.
> > > > Or:
> > > > Eugene O’Neill’s father is an alcoholic.
> > > > George W. Bush is an alcoholic.
> > > > Therefore, George W. Bush is Eugene O’Neill’s father.
>
> > > Careful, John -- this may not be the best way to explain your point
> > > to Elizabeth. After all, Elizabeth believes that the princess
> > > Elizabeth Tudor was the mother of the Earl of Oxford, so she might
> > > well believe that George Bush is Eugene O'Neill's father!
down the stairs thus breaking her pretty neck, Leicester
found himself to be single and in a position to marry
Elizabeth Tudor.
I find the "experts" in the Shakespeare authorship
dispute LACKING in knowledge about the historical
persons they pretend to study.
The MARRIAGE RECORDS are still held at Penshurst
(which at that time was held by Bacon's first cousin,
Sir Robert Sidney -- yes, Leicester's sister married
a Sidney which tightened up the family ties.
> [...]
>
> > And you've read Sir John McLane's [sic] biography
> > of Sir Thomas Seymour, Baron of Sudeley, and
at least provides the fact.
Scrolling up to see which S.O.B. is harassing me . . .
oh, it's only Webb.
> If you say that you haven't read it, I *certainly* believe you.
>
> If you had said that you *had* read it, that claim would be much
> less credible, and it would count for very little -- after all, we've
> seen countless examples of what Alan Jones called your "casual
> reading", which in many cases amounts to misrepresenting your supposed
> source, which often says exactly the opposite of what you claim that
> it says; Akrigg is a good case in point.
torment Neuendorffer.
> > You've also read the three hundred sworn depositions in the
> > inquisition by high judges
> > into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
> > lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
> > held in the State Papers, British Archives.
depositions. I said that I was fortunate to be able
to read about a dozen sworn statements from
the midwife, the household help who witnessed
Seymour laying under the covers on top of Elizabeth
and the sworn testimony of Kat Ashley, Elizabeth's
nanny from birth. And her name was "Kat" not "Kate."
The British Library did not waste much time in taking
these historical documents down.
>
> Source? "State papers" is not very precise.
> > I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
> > deposition to the panel as well as the
> > very compelling testimony of the midwife
> > and the midwife's assistant who delivered
> > Elizabeth's infant male. Small, red patches
> > of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
> > indicative of congenital syphilis.
>
> Source? You *still* have not supplied a credible citation!
> We've seen countless examples of your "reading," none of which
> inspires confidence in your ability to report your supposed "sources"
> faithfully. Thus, in order to convince anyone, you will need to be
> more specific.
>
> "So in the course of a single short sentence based on a single
> website page, you have demonstrably invented every single 'fact'.
> How do you expect us to believe the 'facts' you offer on any
> other topic, including the authorship of the Shakespeare texts,
> or take seriously any deduction you make from those 'facts'?"
my reconstruction of the damage Looney did to Oxford's
letters. Looney went through cutting Oxford's paragraphs
and rearranging his words. I'll try to find the original
and post the link.
> Your behavior is disgusting. I pray that you will find another
forum to harass.
> That
> means a reference that another reader can readily check in a decent
> research library, not breathless, lurid gossip about "subdural
> bleeding" and "congenital syphilis" that you may well have imbibed
> from sources of very dubious reliability (see, for example, your
> ridiculous reporting on the supposed North Korean submarine attack on
> the gulf oil platform); that's Streitzian stuff.
David L. Webb
> On Monday, April 18, 2011 9:27:13 AM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> > In article
> > > neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 6, 6:31 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article <4d992343$0$21500$607ed...@cv.net>,
> > > > John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2011-04-03 17:59:58 -0400, neonprose said:
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 9:35 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > My point is that one cannot reason:
> > > > > Calvinists believe in Providence.
> > > > > Hamlet believes in Providence.
> > > > > Therefore, Hamlet is a Calvinist.
> > > > > One might as well reason:
> > > > > Stalinists tell lies.
> > > > > Rush Limbaugh tells lies.
> > > > > Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is a Stalinist.
> > > > > Or:
> > > > Careful, John -- this may not be the best way to explain your point
> > > > to Elizabeth. After all, Elizabeth believes that the princess
> > > > Elizabeth Tudor was the mother of the Earl of Oxford, so she might
> > > > well believe that George Bush is Eugene O'Neill's father!
> Presumably, after Leicester pushed his wife Amy Robsart
> down the stairs thus breaking her pretty neck, Leicester
> found himself to be single and in a position to marry
> Elizabeth Tudor.
>
> I find the "experts" in the Shakespeare authorship
> dispute LACKING in knowledge about the historical
> persons they pretend to study.
you, are not only knowledgeable but also able to tell the difference
between solid evidence and lurid speculation.
> The MARRIAGE RECORDS are still held at Penshurst
[...]
> > > inquisition by high judges
> > > into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
> > > lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
> > > held in the State Papers, British Archives.
> I did not state that I had read three hundred sworn
> depositions. I said that I was fortunate to be able
> to read about a dozen sworn statements from
> the midwife, the household help who witnessed
> Seymour laying under the covers on top of Elizabeth
> and the sworn testimony of Kat Ashley, Elizabeth's
> nanny from birth. And her name was "Kat" not "Kate."
> The British Library did not waste much time in taking
> these historical documents down.
> > Source? "State papers" is not very precise.
> Go eff yourself.
track record, that's exactly what I expected.
> > > I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
> > > deposition to the panel as well as the
> > > very compelling testimony of the midwife
> > > and the midwife's assistant who delivered
> > > Elizabeth's infant male. Small, red patches
> > > of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
> > > indicative of congenital syphilis.
> > Source? You *still* have not supplied a credible citation!
> Go away. Don't come back.
track record, that's exactly what I expected.
[...]
> my reconstruction of the damage Looney did to Oxford's
> letters. Looney went through cutting Oxford's paragraphs
> and rearranging his words. I'll try to find the original
> and post the link.
> > <http://tinyurl.com/3x3rfv>
> >
> > Matters being so, I'm still waiting for a *specific citation*.
> Your behavior is disgusting. I pray that you will find another
> forum to harass.
you haven't the slightest idea how scholarship works -- but of course
that's not news.
> > That
> > means a reference that another reader can readily check in a decent
> > research library, not breathless, lurid gossip about "subdural
> > bleeding" and "congenital syphilis" that you may well have imbibed
> > from sources of very dubious reliability (see, for example, your
> > ridiculous reporting on the supposed North Korean submarine attack on
> > the gulf oil platform); that's Streitzian stuff.
> I'm worried about your mind.
it succumbs to all sorts of ludicrous, lurid, unsourced gossip from the
darkest and least reliable corners of the internet -- North Korean
submarine attacks, the imminent destruction of universe by the Large
Hadron Collider, the incipient ignition of the atmosphere, relativity
denial, all manner of preposterous pseudohistory, etc.
[...]
neonprose @ gmail.com
now you're exposing the fact that you are clueless about the period.
In fact, Elizabeth bore two sons; the first Oxford when she
was a ward of Henry's beautiful widow Catherine Parr, and
the second when she was lawfully wed to Bacon's father,
Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester.
Oxford was forever a bastard because she was not married
to Seymour who was slaughtered before Oxford was born.
Bacon was wholly legitimate because under English law
(I looked it up in Blackstone) if the pregnant mother
could make it down the aisle to say "I do" before the
infant was delivered, then the infant that she was carrying
was legitimate.
The very visibly pregnant Elizabeth was wed to Leicester
at Penshurst in the Great Room before forty or so witnesses
and friends. Penshurst still holds some of the records of
that marriage.
After the first ceremony was finished, Elizabeth and Leicester
adjourned to a chapel near the grounds to repeat their vows.
I guess they wanted to make sure that the son that Elizabeth
carried would be wholly legitimized.
Elizabeth bore two sons. The first, Oxford, Bacon's older
half-brother (despite Oxford's diminutive size) was forever
a bastard under English law because his father, Thomas Seymour,
was horribly assassinated in the Tower of London before Oxford
was born. Seymour decided to grab the axe before it came
down on his neck. He spent four terrible hours fighting the
guards off but in the end he was hacked to pieces, a bloody
skeleton of a man.
Elizabeth was pregnant and stewing in guilt for letting the
handsome Thomas Seymour have his way with her, at least
on one occasion. Under oath, the housekeepers swore that
they had seen Seymour lying under the covers on top of
Elizabeth in her bed.
At the same time, Catherine Parr, Seymour's wife and Elizabeth's
guardian was delivering a stillborn son. My question is where
were Elizabeth's guardians? She was the most royal candidate
in line for Henry VIII's throne but she was out in the sticks
at Sudeley Castle being sexually abused. The trauma of hearing
of Seymour's terrible death followed her around for life.
> > Presumably, after Leicester pushed his wife Amy Robsart
>
> > down the stairs thus breaking her pretty neck, Leicester
>
> > found himself to be single and in a position to marry
>
> > Elizabeth Tudor.
workmen in to tear down the bricks that blocked an old
passageway between her bedroom and Leicester's. When
the plastering was done, Elizabeth could simply slip
through the passageway and slide into Leicester's bed.
This is probably how she conceived the future author
of the Shakespeare works, Francis Bacon.
The Oxfordians are nutters, they live in a dream world,
they don't take the effort to really study the life of Oxford,
they just want to idealize him and dream on.
In fact, I believe that Elizabeth, headed for her father's
throne, really freaked out because she didn't know what
to do with Oxford.
She made a horrible decision to send the infant out of
London as far as she could, to leave him at Hedingham
with John De Vere.
So while Bacon was being tutored and trained by the
finest people in London, Sir Nicholas Bacon and his
wife Lady Anne, Oxford was crawling around the keep
at Hedingham through blood and guts on the slimy
floor.
DeVere was married but soon after Oxford was delivered
to the mouldy old castle where he was to stay for five
or six years, DeVere's wife and daughter Mary disappeared.
DeVere had other women in villages surrounding
Hedingham. He had a route like a mail man, he would
saddle up his horse, and go from village to village
to make love to his various lovers.
The 16th earl hooked up with a couple of murderers
who would hide along the roads of Essex to rob and
kill passerbys. The local authorities would turn up
at Hedingham to serve John De Vere with supoenas
but De Vere would stick his head out the door and
say "you'll have to come back later."
This is the horrible environment that poor Oxford
was subjected to and it didn't go any better after
De Vere shipped Oxford off to Cambridge. Oxford,
then about five years old, vented his grief by throwing
rocks through the irreplaceable stained glass windows
of the Cambridge chapel. The formlas for making
such luminous windows was lost with the medieval
monks who made them. De Vere was billed for the
damage and I doubt the Queen paid.
> >
>
> > I find the "experts" in the Shakespeare authorship
>
> > dispute LACKING in knowledge about the historical
>
> > persons they pretend to study.
>
>
>
> No, they are are not "LACKING in knowledge"; rather, they, unlike
>
> you, are not only knowledgeable but also able to tell the difference
>
> between solid evidence and lurid speculation.
too much darkness in your soul.
You only pretend interest in the subject of this forum, you
are here to harass and humiliate ACTUAL posters. Leave,
you're not welcome here.
>
>
> > The MARRIAGE RECORDS are still held at Penshurst
>
>
>
> *What* "marriage records"? Source?
on the SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS FORUM, you're just
like the jackals who follow the herd and nip at their
heels.
> [...]
>
> > > > You've also read the three hundred sworn depositions in the
>
> > > > inquisition by high judges
>
> > > > into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
>
> > > > lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
>
> > > > held in the State Papers, British Archives.
>
>
>
> > I did not state that I had read three hundred sworn
>
> > depositions. I said that I was fortunate to be able
>
> > to read about a dozen sworn statements from
>
> > Seymour laying under the covers on top of Elizabeth
>
> > and the sworn testimony of Kat Ashley, Elizabeth's
>
> > nanny from birth. And her name was "Kat" not "Kate."
>
>
> > The British Library did not waste much time in taking
>
> > these historical documents down.
>
>
>
> > > Source? "State papers" is not very precise.
>
You are completely disinterested in the Elizabethan era,
you are just in here to harass other posters. I am going
to check out whether Google can be contacted and if so
I will file a complaint (with examples of your harassment)
I don't know how Neundorffer can tolerate you.
> >
>
>
> In other words, you can cite no credible source. In view of your
>
> track record, that's exactly what I expected.
subject of this thread and I was correct.
>
>
> > > > I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
>
> > > > deposition to the panel as well as the
>
> > > > very compelling testimony of the midwife
>
> > > > and the midwife's assistant who delivered
>
> > > > Elizabeth's infant male. Small, red patches
>
> > > > of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
>
> > > > indicative of congenital syphilis.
was Oxford, not Bacon.
Nevertheless Oxford and Bacon were half-brothers,
Oxford by the reckless Thomas Seymour and Bacon
by the Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth's lover from the
time they were both locked up in the Tower when
they were in their teens.
>
>
> > > Source? You *still* have not supplied a credible citation!
>
>
>
>
>
> In other words, you can cite no credible source. In view of your
>
> track record, that's exactly what I expected.
for you to write your first post on the topic of this
forum. What has it been? Twenty years?
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Well I just noticed that an Oxfordian or two appreciated
>
> > my reconstruction of the damage Looney did to Oxford's
>
> > letters. Looney went through cutting Oxford's paragraphs
>
> > and rearranging his words. I'll try to find the original
>
> > and post the link.
>
>
>
> Please do so.
>
>
>
> > > <http://tinyurl.com/3x3rfv>
>
> > >
>
> > > Matters being so, I'm still waiting for a *specific citation*.
>
neonprose @ gmail.com
neonprose @ gmail.com
> You may think this is routine and uncomplicated, but I have to say up
> front that I don't know the answer to this one question, that goes to
> the center of what you think the centers of interest are in Hamlet.
>
> See, I assume the pattern made by the centers of interest in Hamlet,
> concerning what are the archetypal meanings of the action, what's
> going on and said--is not the same as what we think of as plot. So
> when I ask this question about plot, the answer may not be in accord
> with what others say.
>
> If you are confused by what I think I mean by plot, it's simply that
> usually a tragedy has five acts, and the plot includes the beginning
> Situation, proceeds to Complications, arrives at a Climax, and then
> the Conclusion. Setting, themes, characters, etc., are apart from
> that. Maybe, in the case of Hamlet, even Shakespeare's handling of
> Aristotle's unities is apart from the basic parts of situation,
> complications, climax, and conclusion.
>
> So the quiz question about plot in Hamlet is simply, At what
> point in > the play does the climax occur? You may assume
> that it's obvious, but I, for one am unsure. bookburn
Bacon wrote his friends and family into the play, i.e., King Hamlet
is the image of the portly Sir Nicholas Bacon, Oxford is the
"water fly" who gets inappropriately excited when it's his turn
to bring out the rapiers and swords.
Did I mention that Bacon and Oxford were half-brothers?
Bacon had such an aura of calm in his temperament, Oxford
never bothered to plot Bacon's assassination. That doesn't
mean that Oxford stopped sticking his little rapier into
townies when he went out with his men into the dark London
alleys.
David L. Webb
[...]
> I am convinced that
> Bacon wrote his friends and family into the play,
> i.e., King Hamlet
> is the image of the portly Sir Nicholas Bacon,
*dead* by the time the action begins. The closest approximation to the
elder Hamlet in the drama is an apparition claiming to be his ghost.
> Oxford is the
> "water fly" who gets inappropriately excited when it's his turn
> to bring out the rapiers and swords.
version of _Hamlet_?
> Did I mention that Bacon and Oxford were half-brothers?
memory become completely dysfunctional?
But there is, of course, no evidence whatever that Oxford and Bacon
were half-brothers. Matters being so, those who believe it are
comparable to "birthers" and other naïve consumers of lurid, unsourced
speculation and pseudohistory.
> Bacon had such an aura of calm in his temperament, Oxford
> never bothered to plot Bacon's assassination.
Why should Oxford have plotted Bacon's assassination?
> That doesn't
> mean that Oxford stopped sticking his little rapier
else's?
David L. Webb
[...]
way she presumes to "know" my religious beliefs, by consulting her own
hallucinations?
> and
> now you're exposing the fact that you are clueless about the period.
>
> In fact, Elizabeth bore two sons;
> the first Oxford when she
> was a ward of Henry's beautiful widow Catherine Parr, and
> the second when she was lawfully wed
should be invoked) that Elizabeth I was ever "lawfully wed"?!
> to Bacon's father,
> Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester.
should be invoked) that the Earl of Leicester was Bacon's father?!
> Oxford was forever a bastard because she was not married
> to Seymour who was slaughtered before Oxford was born.
born, so he could not possibly have been Oxford's father.
> Bacon was wholly legitimate because under English law
> (I looked it up in Blackstone) if the pregnant mother
> could make it down the aisle to say "I do" before the
> infant was delivered, then the infant that she was carrying
> was legitimate.
>
> The very visibly pregnant Elizabeth was wed to Leicester
> at Penshurst in the Great Room before forty or so witnesses
> and friends. Penshurst still holds some of the records of
> that marriage.
produce them?!
> After the first ceremony was finished, Elizabeth and Leicester
> adjourned to a chapel near the grounds to repeat their vows.
> I guess they wanted to make sure that the son that Elizabeth
> carried would be wholly legitimized.
>
> Elizabeth bore two sons. The first, Oxford, Bacon's older
> half-brother (despite Oxford's diminutive size) was forever
> a bastard under English law because his father, Thomas Seymour,
> was horribly assassinated in the Tower of London before Oxford
> was born.
born, so he could not possibly have been Oxford's father:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Seymour,_1st_Baron_Seymour_of_Sudele
y>
> Seymour decided to grab the axe before it came
> down on his neck. He spent four terrible hours fighting the
> guards off but in the end he was hacked to pieces, a bloody
> skeleton of a man.
>
>
> Elizabeth was pregnant and stewing in guilt for letting the
> handsome Thomas Seymour have his way with her, at least
> on one occasion. Under oath, the housekeepers swore that
> they had seen Seymour lying under the covers on top of
> Elizabeth in her bed.
mean that Seymour sired the Earl of Oxford on the young princess;
indeed, Seymour was executed well over a year before Oxford was born, so
he could not possibly have been Oxford's father:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Seymour,_1st_Baron_Seymour_of_Sudele
y>
> At the same time, Catherine Parr, Seymour's wife and Elizabeth's
> guardian was delivering a stillborn son. My question is where
> were Elizabeth's guardians? She was the most royal candidate
> in line for Henry VIII's throne but she was out in the sticks
> at Sudeley Castle being sexually abused. The trauma of hearing
> of Seymour's terrible death followed her around for life.
> > > Presumably, after Leicester pushed his wife Amy Robsart
> > > down the stairs thus breaking her pretty neck,
"The coroner's report came to light in The National Archives in 2008
and is compatible with an accidental fall as well as other
violence.[86] In the absence of the forensic findings of 1560, it
was often assumed that a simple accident could not be the
explanation[87]—on the basis of near-contemporary tales that
Amy Dudley was found at the bottom of a short flight of stairs with
a broken neck, her headdress still standing undisturbed "upon
her head",[88] a detail that first appeared as a satirical remark
in Leicester's Commonwealth and has ever since been repeated for
a fact.[89] To account for such oddidities and evidence that she
was ill, it was suggested in 1956 by Ian Aird, a professor of
medicine, that Amy Dudley might have suffered from breast cancer,
which through metastatic cancerous deposits in the spine, could
have caused her neck to break under only limited strain, such as
a short fall or even just coming down the stairs.[88] This
explanation has gained wide acceptance."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Robsart>
> > > Leicester
> > > found himself to be single and in a position to marry
> > > Elizabeth Tudor.
> There was much talk at the palace when Elizabeth called
> workmen in to tear down the bricks that blocked an old
> passageway between her bedroom and Leicester's. When
> the plastering was done, Elizabeth could simply slip
> through the passageway and slide into Leicester's bed.
>
> This is probably how she conceived the future author
> of the Shakespeare works, Francis Bacon.
>
> The Oxfordians are nutters, they live in a dream world,
> they don't take the effort to really study the life of Oxford,
> they just want to idealize him and dream on.
fantasy, with no evidence.
> In fact, I believe that Elizabeth, headed for her father's
> throne, really freaked out because she didn't know what
> to do with Oxford.
>
> She made a horrible decision to send the infant out of
> London as far as she could, to leave him at Hedingham
> with John De Vere.
>
> So while Bacon was being tutored and trained by the
> finest people in London, Sir Nicholas Bacon and his
> wife Lady Anne, Oxford was crawling around the keep
> at Hedingham through blood and guts on the slimy
> floor.
> DeVere was married but soon after Oxford was delivered
> to the mouldy old castle where he was to stay for five
> or six years, DeVere's wife and daughter Mary disappeared.
>
> DeVere had other women in villages surrounding
> Hedingham. He had a route like a mail man, he would
> saddle up his horse, and go from village to village
> to make love to his various lovers.
> The 16th earl hooked up with a couple of murderers
> who would hide along the roads of Essex to rob and
> kill passerbys. The local authorities would turn up
> at Hedingham to serve John De Vere with supoenas
> but De Vere would stick his head out the door and
> say "you'll have to come back later."
>
> This is the horrible environment that poor Oxford
> was subjected to and it didn't go any better after
> De Vere shipped Oxford off to Cambridge. Oxford,
> then about five years old, vented his grief by throwing
> rocks through the irreplaceable stained glass windows
> of the Cambridge chapel. The formlas for making
> damage and I doubt the Queen paid.
> > > I find the "experts" in the Shakespeare authorship
> > > dispute LACKING in knowledge about the historical
> > > persons they pretend to study.
> > No, they are are not "LACKING in knowledge"; rather, they, unlike
> > you, are not only knowledgeable but also able to tell the difference
> > between solid evidence and lurid speculation.
> You need to get out of HLAS, Webb. You are accumulating
> too much darkness in your soul.
>
> You only pretend interest in the subject of this forum, you
> are here to harass and humiliate ACTUAL posters.
rather than their own lurid fantasies, they would not feel humiliated
when they are asked for sources, or when their "facts" are shown to be
farcically false, when their "sources" don't anything remotely close to
what they claim, etc.
> Leave,
> you're not welcome here.
> > > The MARRIAGE RECORDS are still held at Penshurst
> > *What* "marriage records"? Source?
> What do you care?
marriage records do indeed exist, why can't Elizabeth produce a source?
> You've never posted a single post
> on the SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS FORUM,
has made this unfounded charge in the past.
> you're just
> like the jackals who follow the herd and nip at their
> heels.
> >
> > [...]
> > > > > You've also read the three hundred sworn depositions in the
> > > > > inquisition by high judges
> > > > > into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
> > > > > lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
> > > > > held in the State Papers, British Archives.
> > > I did not state that I had read three hundred sworn
> > > depositions. I said that I was fortunate to be able
> > > to read about a dozen sworn statements from
> > > the midwife,
> >> the household help, who witnessed
> > > nanny from birth. And her name was "Kat" not "Kate."
> >
> > > The British Library did not waste much time in taking
> > > these historical documents down.
> > > > Source? "State papers" is not very precise.
> I have to admit, Webb, that I have come to loathe you.
historical inquiry is manifest. She prefers inventing fantasies to
actual scholarship.
> You are completely disinterested in the Elizabethan era,
way she presumes to "know" my religious beliefs, by consulting her own
hallucinations?
> you are just in here to harass other posters. I am going
> to check out whether Google can be contacted and if so
> I will file a complaint (with examples of your harassment)
> I don't know how Neundorffer can tolerate you.
> > In other words, you can cite no credible source. In view of your
> > track record, that's exactly what I expected.
> I expected you to know absolutely NOTHING about the
> subject of this thread and I was correct.
the subject than Elizabeth does. For example, I know that Oxford was
born some fifteen months after Seymour was conveyed to the Tower, so
Seymour could not possibly have been the father of Edward de Vere.
> > > > > I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
> > > > > deposition to the panel as well as the
> > > > > very compelling testimony of the midwife
> > > > > and the midwife's assistant who delivered
> > > > > Elizabeth's infant male.
> > > >> Small, red patches
> > > > > of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
> > > > > indicative of congenital syphilis.
> note: the small infant male delivered by Elizabeth
> was Oxford, not Bacon.
>
> Nevertheless Oxford and Bacon were half-brothers,
> Oxford by the reckless Thomas Seymour and Bacon
> by the Earl of Leicester, Elizabeth's lover from the
> time they were both locked up in the Tower when
> they were in their teens.
> > > > Source? You *still* have not supplied a credible citation!
> > > Go away Webb. Don't come back.
> > In other words, you can cite no credible source. In view of your
> > track record, that's exactly what I expected.
> Get outta here, Webb, go, leave. The alternative is
> for you to write your first post on the topic of this
> forum. What has it been? Twenty years?
repeatedly by posting links. Nevertheless, Elizabeth's memory is so
dysfunctional that it does no good -- for example, Elizabeth *still*
believes that Art was a "top administrator" at NOAA, despite Art's own
denial that he was any such thing.
> > [...]
> > > Well I just noticed that an Oxfordian or two appreciated
> > > my reconstruction of the damage Looney did to Oxford's
> > > letters. Looney went through cutting Oxford's paragraphs
> > > and rearranging his words. I'll try to find the original
> > > and post the link.
> > Please do so.
> > > > <http://tinyurl.com/3x3rfv>
> > > > Matters being so, I'm still waiting for a *specific citation*.
neonprose @ gmail.com
David L. Webb
what must be at least the dozenth time: "WHAT" "marriage records? What
is Elizabeth's source for this absurd canard?
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > You've also read the three hundred sworn depositions in the
> > > > > inquisition by high judges
> > > > > into the seduction of Elizabeth by her
> > > > > lover Sir Thomas Seymour printed by Haynes
> > > > > held in the State Papers, British Archives.
> > > depositions. I said that I was fortunate to be able
> > > to read about a dozen sworn statements from
> > > the midwife,
> > > the household help who witnessed
> > > nanny from birth. And her name was "Kat" not "Kate."
> >
> > > The British Library did not waste much time in taking
> > > these historical documents down.
excuse: this is the perishable internet, etc.
> > > > Source? "State papers" is not very precise.
> > > Go eff yourself.
> > In other words, you can cite no credible source. In view of your
> > track record, that's exactly what I expected.
> > > > > I've actually read Elizabeth's own sworn
> > > > > deposition to the panel as well as the
> > > > > very compelling testimony of the midwife
> > > > > and the midwife's assistant who delivered
> > > > > Elizabeth's infant male. Small, red patches
> > > > > of subdural bleeding on the face and neck,
> > > > > indicative of congenital syphilis.
> > > > Source? You *still* have not supplied a credible citation!
> > > Go away. Don't come back.
> > In other words, you can cite no credible source. In view of your
> > track record, that's exactly what I expected.
> >
> > [...]
> > > Well I just noticed that an Oxfordian or two appreciated
> > > my reconstruction of the damage Looney did to Oxford's
> > > letters. Looney went through cutting Oxford's paragraphs
> > > and rearranging his words. I'll try to find the original
> > > and post the link.
> > Please do so.
> > > > Matters being so, I'm still waiting for a *specific citation*.
> > > Your behavior is disgusting. I pray that you will find another
> > > forum to harass.
> > Asking for a specific citation is "disgusting" behavior?! Evidently
> > you haven't the slightest idea how scholarship works -- but of course
> > that's not news.
> > > > That
> > > > means a reference that another reader can readily check in a decent
> > > > research library, not breathless, lurid gossip about "subdural
> > > > bleeding" and "congenital syphilis" that you may well have imbibed
> > > > from sources of very dubious reliability (see, for example, your
> > > > ridiculous reporting on the supposed North Korean submarine attack on
> > > > the gulf oil platform); that's Streitzian stuff.
> > > I'm worried about your mind.
> > You would be better to worry about a mind so comically credulous that
> > it succumbs to all sorts of ludicrous, lurid, unsourced gossip from the
> > darkest and least reliable corners of the internet -- North Korean
> > submarine attacks, the imminent destruction of universe by the Large
> > Hadron Collider, the incipient ignition of the atmosphere, relativity
> > denial, all manner of preposterous pseudohistory, etc.
others in their entirety without adding *anything* new? She has done
this countless times now. In the post to which I responded above, there
is *no* new content; she has merely reproduced verbatim a post that is
probably still on most h.l.a.s. participants' servers.
> > [...]