Copyright in Shakespeare's Time VIII
Detobel
- The ordinance of 1588 and the first quarto of * Hamlet * in 1603 -
It has been silently assumed that the phrase "out of print" encompass first
printing, "not yet in print". Logic clearly speaks in favour of it. As the
purpose of the ordinance was to mitigate the effects of monopolizing practices
such as keeping forms of letters standing, stocking books by printing large
numbers of them, and employing apprentices to keep costs as low as possible,
keeping coyprights of books without printing them within a reasonable time
would have had the same monopolizing effect as keeping works unreprinted.
It is interesting to note that the author too could require that a publisher
print his work. On May 6, 1631 we find the following record in Court Book C (p.
227): "This day Mr Farnaby came to complain of Mr Stansby for not printing
Martial & Juvenal & Persius. And Mr Stansby has promised that they shalbe
printed by Allhallowtide next." Giving the fact that Elizabethans were used to
setting time limits on holidays the period from May 6 to October 31 covers
almost exactly 6 months, the same term as set in the ordinance of 1588. William
Stansby, by the way, the publisher of Ben Jonson's Folio in 1616, became one of
the big monopolists in the 1620s. Not exactly 6 months but possibly the
interval between two holidays coming nearest to 6 months were fixed in other
case recorded in Court Book C under 5 December 1625: "This day one Mr Morgan
complained that Mr Okes hath had a booke called Speculum animæ five years to
print and hath done onely sixe sheetes. It is ordered that the said Nich. Okes
shall bring them pñtely [presently] to the hall and goe forward in printing
before Candlemas next & finnish the booke before Easter terme next otherwise he
is to loose the said Copie and so much of it as shalbe then printed : Nich.
Okes." In still another case the ultimate printing term was between 5 December
1606 and Midsummernight 1607, a period between two holidays close to six months
(Arber III.434).
Why did no other stationer ask the application of paragraph 5 in the case of
Morgan whose book was left unprinted for about five years? It seems as if the
book was never printed because it was not profitable. If a copyright owner
delayed the printing of a book which seemed to costly another stationer would
have been prevented from claiming one impression of it for the same reason. But
there are three other well-known cases in which a printer entered a work and
left it unprinted for an unusually long time.
In each case the question is of James Roberts and in each of the cases it is a
work of Shakespeare's: * The Merchant of Venice * in July 1598, printed over
two years later; * Hamlet * in July 1602, printed by Roberts over two years
later; * Troilus and Cressida * in February 1603, never printed by Robert and
first published by others in 1609. At least the two first plays would have well
sold. Why then was Roberts waiting so long? And above all - one of the puzzles
of the publication history of Shakespeare's plays - why was a bad quarto of *
Hamlet * published in 1603 and a good quarto late in 1604 (some of the quartos
bear the printing year 1605)? The printer of the 1604 quarto was James Roberts,
the publisher Nicholas Ling; the printer of the bad quarto was Valentine
Sim(e)s, but one of the publishers was also Nicholas Ling, the other being John
Trundle. Mainly three answers have been given. They are summarized by Harold
Jenkins in his introduction to the Arden edition of * Hamlet . "Roberts's claim
to * Hamlet *, his two-year delay before printing, his relations with Ling,
publisher of both quartos, have been the subject of ingenious speculation. But
the most straightforward explanations are still also the most probable. Since
nothing at all connects Roberts with Q1, we must infer that this was brought
out by Ling and Trundle in spite of, not in accordance with, the entry in the
Stationers' Register. Yet, from Roberts's co-operation with Ling in the
publication of Q2, it follows that they came to an accomodation. The
participation in Q1 of Trundle, a very much junior partner, with Ling, an
established bookseller, together with Trundle's disappearance when the bad
quarto was succeeded by the better, has sometimes led to a guess - it can be no
more - that it was he who secured the unauthorized copy." (p. 14-15)
That it was Trundle who procured the unauthorized copy is, however, far better
than a guess. But let us first re-examine the three possibilities.
1) That James Roberts was a pirating printer was a widely held belief until
A.W. Pollard rejected it out of hand (*Shakespeare's Fight with the Pirates and
the Problems of the Transmission of His Text *, Cambridge 1920, Reprint 1967).
It is not easy to understand what might have induced scholars to see in Roberts
one of the most unscrupulous pirates of literary texts whose attempts would
have been thwarted by the players in July 1598 by having the wardens require
that he first obtain the license of the Lord Chamberlain for the printing of *
The Merchant of Venice *. Rather it was he who informed the wardens of that
necessity. Roberts himself had to yield to the publication of Thomas Pavier's
bad quarto of * Henry V * when in August 1600 he tried to enter that play on
the Stationers' Register along with three others, two of which were soon
afterwards published and printed (not by him) as good quartos. Moreover,
Roberts behaved in a way diametrically different from pirating printers. The
latter were in need for manuscripts to publish as soon as possible whereas
Roberts was waiting unusually long and did not even print some of the plays he
entered or tried to enter. He was no needy printer. He owned two lucrative
privileges, one for the printing of * Prognostications * and * Almanacs * which
he shared with Richard Watkins, one for the printing of the playbills which was
entirely his own. In the following years he entered four more plays of the
repertory of the Lord Chamberlain's Men and, as seen, tried to enter four more
in August 1600, a total of 9 plays of which he printed only three and, to boot,
after a long time. An unauthorized version of * Hamlet *was published in 1603
but Roberts had nothing to do with it. On the contrary, either it was his
copyright which was injured or he refused to print it and waited till 1604 to
print the good quarto. This led Pollard to the hypothesis that he was making
"conditional blocking entries" on behalf of the Lord Chamberlain's Men, a
concept, however, which Pollard himself exploded by extending it to the whole
of entrances made or attempted by Roberts. But Pollard's argument that as a man
who had steady business relations with the players through his privilege for
the printing of playbills Roberts was, in fact, a most unlikely pirate was
absolutely sound. In the light of the known facts the representation of James
Roberts as a pirating printer lacks credibility.
2) Hardly less odd, however, is the idea that Nicholas Ling could have
published the bad quarto of * Hamlet * in 1603 in breach of Roberts's
copyright. What is true for the relationship of Roberts and the players is even
more true for the relationship between James Roberts and Nicholas Ling who were
close associates. From 1593 to 1600 Nicholas Ling published: all of the 6 works
until then written by Michael Drayton, Nicholas Breton's * Wit's Trenchmour *,
Evrard Guilpin's * Skialetheia , Sir John Davis's * Orchestra *, the first and
third of the commonplace book project * Wit's Commonwealth * (in 1597 and
1599), The first book of Luis de Granada's * The Sinner's Guide * in a
translation by Francis Meres (1598) who wrote * Palladis Tamia * , the second
part of * Wit's Commonwealth * (in 1598) published by Cuthbert Burby, also
associated with Ling (to whom he assigned in 1607 the copyrights in
Shakespeare's * Love's Labour's Lost and * Romeo and Juliet *, finally, the
best contemporaneous English miscellany, * England's Helicon *(in 1600). Would
Ling have infringed a copyright of so close an associate, a copyright,
moreover, he was likely to have assigned to him anyway? We are again left with
a puzzling situation.
3) The only possibility left is that Roberts had already assigned the copyright
to Ling when the latter, with John Trundle as co-publisher, published the bad
quarto of * Hamlet * in 1603. Assignments of copyrights from one stationer to
another were sometimes registered much later than they occurred or even not
registered at all in the Stationers' Register. But then we have perhaps a still
less explainable situation because Ling, in sharing the copyright with John
Trundle and publishing an unauthorized version before publishing the authorized
version in 1604, would have, so to speak, pirated himself, and would have
committed a breach of his own coypright (??).
As Harold Jenkins wrote: "But the most straightforward explanations are still
also the most probable." We get the most straightforward explanation if we
consider the publication of * Hamlet * in 1603 as a case of the application of
paragraph 5 of the ordinance of 1588. The only assumption we have to make is
that Ling already had the copyright but for some reason could not publish the
authorized text. Possibly, Shakespeare had not yet given his authorization to
Ling or, probably more likely, to Roberts. Or, if not the author, it was
Roberts who was withholding the text. In 1603 * Hamlet * had been registered
for at least six months and was not yet printed. If John Trundle had come
across of a manuscript he could ask for application of paragraph 5 and have one
impression of the play on the base of the defective manuscript, the "untrue
copy" if the author did not oppose it. And there was no such prohibitive clause
as in the case of * The Merchant of Venice *. Ling could refuse to publish. In
that case Trundle would have obtained one impression and Ling would have had a
share in the proceeds to be determined by the wardens. But * Hamlet * would
nevertheless have been published as bad quarto. Ling had no means of preventing
it. The ordinance of the company stipulated it so. So Ling could prefer to
share the publication with Trundle which would be superseded anyway if the good
quarto was published. Trundle's right ended with this one impression of 1603.
And there is no longer any puzzling about why Trundle was not a co-publisher
in 1604, why Ling did publish a bad quarto, whether he infringed Roberts's
copyright (he did not).
Mark Alexander
postings, a marvellous opportunity arises for every reader of hlas.
Stratfordian response tactics will clearly reveal themselves.
Unless Strats have the courage to acknowledge directly the clarity and
force of Detobel's main arguments, you will see one or more of the
following avoidance tactics displayed in all their glory:
TACTIC 1) Nitpicking Red Herrings: Strats will distract attention away
from the main arguments by focusing on minor points, which often lead
to...
TECTIC 2) Personal Attacks: Strats will distract attention away from the
main arguments by posting something to deconstruct Detobel's
credibility, something that has nothing to do with the current
arguments. This is often done with the disclaimer of not having time to
get into the main arguments. (A favorite tactic of Monsieur Dave
Kathman, who also uses the elegant method of posting something ad
hominem or unrelated, and then claims that if he had time he could also
demonstrate that the attackee is wrong in the current post as well.)
TACTIC 3) Irrelevant Material: Strats will distract attention away from
the main arguments by stearing the conversation to unrelated or
irrelevant material. A subcategory of this is...
TACTIC 4) Avalanche of Inconsequential Details: Strats will distract
attention away from the main arguments by piling on of a mass of
inconsequentail data that only offers the appearance of relevance
through sheer mass. (A favorite of Monsieur Terry Ross.)
TACTIC 5) Avoidance: They will simply not respond in any meaningful way.
Bravo Detobel. Good to have you on board.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Bob Grumman
> from the main arguments by focusing on minor points, which often lead
> to...
At least we focus of SOME points.
> TACTIC 2) Personal Attacks: Strats will distract attention away from the
> main arguments by posting something to deconstruct Detobel's
> credibility, something that has nothing to do with the current
> arguments. This is often done with the disclaimer of not having time to
> get into the main arguments. (A favorite tactic of Monsieur Dave
> Kathman, who also uses the elegant method of posting something ad
> hominem or unrelated, and then claims that if he had time he could also
> demonstrate that the attackee is wrong in the current post as well.)
As opposed to Mark's favorite avoidance tactic (other than accusing
his opponents of being too ill-mannered to communicate with): that
his opponents won't let him "level the playing field" by agreeing
to choose and present their arguments in a manner to be prescribed
by him, so he won't deign to interact with them.
> TACTIC 3) Irrelevant Material: Strats will distract attention away from
> the main arguments by steering the conversation to unrelated or
> irrelevant material.
Like Shakespeare's name on the title-pages of
more than forty books published during his lifetime
without anyone's questioning its being on any of them
(that we know of).
> TACTIC 4) Avalanche of Inconsequential Details: Strats will distract
> attention away from the main arguments by piling on of a mass of
> inconsequentail data that only offers the appearance of relevance
> through sheer mass. (A favorite of Monsieur Terry Ross.)
I've disagreed with a few points Terry's made and even think he's
made a few pretty trivial ones, but I would be interested to know
if you can produce one example of his ever making an irrelevant point.
(This can't be your version of tactic 2, could it, Mark; or is it
just the standard anti-Stratfordian tactic of assertion without
evidence?)
> TACTIC 5) Avoidance: They will simply not respond in any meaningful way.
I love tactic 5 coming from Mark, who hasn't responded meaningfully to
HLAS posts in years. It would be wonderful if someone would someday
analyse the HLAS threads to determine how many ended with an argument
of substance unanswered by an anti-Stratfordian, how many with an
argument of substance unanswered by a Stratfordian, and how many
in a genuine stalemate. As far as I'm concerned, I've NEVER dropped
out of a thread until my opponent already had, or we were just
repeating arguments at each other (excluding threads I dropped in
on casually and did not contribute, or intend to contribute,
substantially to). On the other hand, well over a dozen times
an anti-Stratfordian arguing with me has disappeared after an
argument of mine. I note that the same has happened to all the
other Stratfordians. Mark is especially good at starting threads,
but not continuing in them once the opposition to whatever idiocy
he's posted is clicking too well.
--Bob G.
In spite of Mark's certification of the latest loon (tactic 2--you
got it, Richard?), I'll try to read what he's written, when I have
time.
--Bob G.
Mark Alexander
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:5f7d2eb3.01072...@posting.google.com...
> > TACTIC 1) Nitpicking Red Herrings: Strats will distract attention away
> > from the main arguments by focusing on minor points, which often lead
> > to...
>
> At least we focus of SOME points.
>
> > TACTIC 2) Personal Attacks: Strats will distract attention away from the
> > main arguments by posting something to deconstruct Detobel's
> > credibility, something that has nothing to do with the current
> > arguments. This is often done with the disclaimer of not having time to
> > get into the main arguments. (A favorite tactic of Monsieur Dave
> > Kathman, who also uses the elegant method of posting something ad
> > hominem or unrelated, and then claims that if he had time he could also
> > demonstrate that the attackee is wrong in the current post as well.)
>
> As opposed to Mark's favorite avoidance tactic (other than accusing
> his opponents of being too ill-mannered to communicate with): that
> his opponents won't let him "level the playing field" by agreeing
> to choose and present their arguments in a manner to be prescribed
> by him, so he won't deign to interact with them.
Gee, I wonder why?
When an opponent in a debate takes the following positions, what is the point?
1) We start by assuming that my position is the correcct one.
2) You can only displace my position when you *absolutely prove beyond any
doubt* that your argument is THE correct one.
3) There will be no acknowlegement of the world of stronger and weaker
arguments.
Sorry, Bob. There is no logical point in playing in your sandbox when only you
get to throw sand and everyone else has their hands tied.
> > TACTIC 3) Irrelevant Material: Strats will distract attention away from
> > the main arguments by steering the conversation to unrelated or
> > irrelevant material.
>
> Like Shakespeare's name on the title-pages of
> more than forty books published during his lifetime
> without anyone's questioning its being on any of them
> (that we know of).
What does the number have to do with it? Why ignore the historical fact that
many things happen at the time that are only questioned after? Why ignore the
fact that were Shakspere the man (vs. Shakespeare the name) acknowledged as the
author, there would be greater living direct acknowledgement of it, rather than
a historical blank?
Of course, this thread is irrelevant as it pertains to Detobel's arguments. What
do you think of them, Bob?
> > TACTIC 4) Avalanche of Inconsequential Details: Strats will distract
> > attention away from the main arguments by piling on of a mass of
> > inconsequentail data that only offers the appearance of relevance
> > through sheer mass. (A favorite of Monsieur Terry Ross.)
>
> I've disagreed with a few points Terry's made and even think he's
> made a few pretty trivial ones, but I would be interested to know
> if you can produce one example of his ever making an irrelevant point.
> (This can't be your version of tactic 2, could it, Mark; or is it
> just the standard anti-Stratfordian tactic of assertion without
> evidence?)
All these assertions are made without evidence, Bob (pronounced "Bawb" a la
Blackadder's "Bells" <G>)
> > TACTIC 5) Avoidance: They will simply not respond in any meaningful way.
>
> I love tactic 5 coming from Mark, who hasn't responded meaningfully to
> HLAS posts in years.
Since this statement is so blatently contradicted by recent Shakespeare and the
Law threads, I must assume that you have not read all my postings.
> It would be wonderful if someone would someday
> analyse the HLAS threads to determine how many ended with an argument
> of substance unanswered by an anti-Stratfordian, how many with an
> argument of substance unanswered by a Stratfordian, and how many
> in a genuine stalemate. As far as I'm concerned, I've NEVER dropped
> out of a thread until my opponent already had, or we were just
> repeating arguments at each other (excluding threads I dropped in
> on casually and did not contribute, or intend to contribute,
> substantially to). On the other hand, well over a dozen times
> an anti-Stratfordian arguing with me has disappeared after an
> argument of mine. I note that the same has happened to all the
> other Stratfordians. Mark is especially good at starting threads,
> but not continuing in them once the opposition to whatever idiocy
> he's posted is clicking too well.
Sure. There couldn't be any other possible reasons, such as arguments where I
said straight out that they were too complex to cover on this forum, such as my
detailed arguments on Shakespeare's knowledge of the law, a portion of which
(5000 words) has been published and is now available on the Web through The
Shakespeare Law Library at
and the rest of which will be published in the Oxfordian peer-reviewed journal
in October (an additional 25,000 words).
Of course, since you are a model of argumentation, I can take heart that you
will take the time to examine the full argument that you so strenuously claim I
have avoided making. You can purchase a copy when it is available through
> --Bob G.
>
> In spite of Mark's certification of the latest loon (tactic 2--you
> got it, Richard?), I'll try to read what he's written, when I have
> time.
> --Bob G.
Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> I love tactic 5 coming from Mark, who hasn't responded meaningfully to
>> HLAS posts in years.
>
>Since this statement is so blatently contradicted by recent Shakespeare and
>the
>Law threads, I must assume that you have not read all my postings.
>
No, you just dropped out of that one too, once I showed that the amount
of Shakespeare's legal imagery was miniscule compared to other
kinds of imagery.
Jim
Mark Alexander
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20010723163956...@nso-fu.aol.com...
Leaving aside that I was responding to Bob's claim that I have not responded
meaningfully to HLAS posts in years (which has nothing to do with your statement
above, which simply claims that I did not respond to your post...not the same
thing, Jim), here is what you wrote to which I did not respond:
*********************
From: KQKnave (kqk...@aol.comspamslam)
Subject: Re: Legalese (was The Beard of Avon)
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
View complete thread (14 articles)
Date: 2001-06-14 15:57:05 PST
In article <3v3W6.3858$Kq4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Mark
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Well, no. He offered no such counter. He expressed that Shakespeare's
>stage quotes were memorable and offered a list.
>
>KQKnave wrote:
>
>*So how many times has he used terms from the stage, since
>that was Shakespeare's "profession"? Aren't some of Shakespeare's
>most heartfelt, memorable quotes related to the stage?*
>
>If Spurgeon is to be believed, there are only about 80 distinct terms of
>drama used, much less than her 120 for law, so I still don't get it.
>
>Try again?
>
So apparently Mark thinks that if there are 80 terms relating to the
stage and 120 relating to law, then Shakespeare must have been
a lawyer but not an actor? By that logic, Shakespeare must have
been a gardener. I don't know where you're getting the 80 and 120
number because those numbers are not in her book, but these
numbers are. They are the numbers of types of images in
Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet:
R&J Hamlet
Nature 39 32
Personification 23 12
Animals 21 27
Fire/Light 12 5
Food/Cooking 11 18
Classes/Types 11 13
War/Weapons 10 12
Sickness/Medicine 8 20
Domestic 7 11
Sport/Games 7 22
Body/Bodily Action 5 21
Proverbial 5 3
Religion/Superstition 4 6
Crafts/Tools 0 7
Classical 4 12
Human Relations 4 7
Books/Reading 4 2
Law 3 6
Buildings 3 1
Substances 3 7
Clothes 3 2
Jewels 2 2
Music 2 6
Theatre 2 4
Indoor Games 2 2
Money 1 4
Art 0 3
Science 1 3
and several others 1 each in both plays.
Doesn't look like law leads the list. In both plays, the category
"Nature" leads the list, and Spurgeon divides that into several
sub-categories. "Gardening" leads the list with 11 examples in each
play. Are there any plays where Shakespeare makes an error
with a gardening term? Just in case you don't understand the
point I'm making, I'll spell it out. You've claimed that the way
in which Shakespeare uses legal terms has some significance,
and likewise for the claim that he made no errors when he used
legal terminology. So using your own logic, I'm claiming that
the way in which Shakespeare uses stage terms to create
memorable passages must mean that he was an actor, and
using your logic, I'm saying that because he made no errors
with gardening terms, he must have been a gardener, not to
mention the fact that there are far more gardening images
than legal images in the plays.
*********************
HERE BEGINS MARK'S MEANINGFUL RESPONSE...Pay attention:
I did not respond because in this series of 14 posts, I believed that you simply
were not paying attention to my overall argument, so let me restate it (and if
you want the details, you will have to pick up the Oxfordian article when it is
published):
Quantitative analysis accomplishes very little in *proving* anything. The sheer
number of legal terms that a writer uses does little more than to suggest a
starting place for determining whether he was trained in law. The way to go at
it is to examine the *qualitative* uses of terms, as metaphors and in contexts
that have nothing to do with field under examination.
The points I was making had to do with *qualitative* propositions and arguments.
You come back at me with *quantitative* propositions and arguments. So with that
in mind, let's examine some statements in your concluding paragraph:
>Doesn't look like law leads the list. In both plays, the category
>"Nature" leads the list, and Spurgeon divides that into several
>sub-categories. "Gardening" leads the list with 11 examples in each
>play.
As I have made clear, the quantitative comparison of numbers proves little if
anything. For example, if I care to compare two authors and find that one uses
more terms than another, that is not enough to demonstrate which has had legal
training, or whether either one did. Furthermore, when comparing a writer's
quantitative use of terms, simply saying that more terms one topic, such as
gardening, can be found in an author's works compared to another topic, such as
law, says very little about whether the author is either a gardener or a lawyer.
For you to think I was making such an argument reveals problems in your reading
comprehension.
>Are there any plays where Shakespeare makes an error
>with a gardening term?
I don't know. If his accuracy is 100%, then the matter bears further
examination, but that fact alone is not enough to make a persuasive case (just
as the fact that Shakespeare has 100% accuracy in his use of legal terms is a
starting point, not in itself a persuasive case, although the skeptical
Stratfordian William C. Devecmon essentially says that 100% accuracy constitutes
strong evidence.)
Anybody can get the terms right with enough outside help. Mark Twain and Charles
Dickens both seemed to have managed it.
>Just in case you don't understand the
>point I'm making, I'll spell it out. You've claimed that the way
>in which Shakespeare uses legal terms has some significance,
>and likewise for the claim that he made no errors when he used
>legal terminology.
Yes, the way he uses legal terms as metaphors in non-legal contexts.
(Qualitative) Combined with the fact of 100% accuracy. (Qualitative) Notice that
my arguments reside on the *qualitative* side of the fence, whereas...
>So using your own logic, I'm claiming that
>the way in which Shakespeare uses stage terms to create
>memorable passages must mean that he was an actor,
No. You have done nothing more than state that Shakespeare used more stage terms
than legal terms. (Quantitative) You are on the *quantitative* side of the
fence. You are comparing my good apples to your rotten oranges.
>and using your logic,
>I'm saying that because he made no errors
>with gardening terms, he must have been a gardener, not to
>mention the fact that there are far more gardening images
>than legal images in the plays.
You are not using *my logic.* You have distorted my position.
Furthermore, you make the simple claim that he made no errors with gardening
terms. Yet you do not back it up with any evidence.
I on the other hand have made available a 5000-word argument on the matter of
Shakespeare's use of legal terms. If you actually read my article, you would
understand that the main theme is that a case has been made over the decades
that Shakespeare had perfect accuracy that is being ignored my current
Stratfordians, who falsely claim based on bad authority that Shakespeare erred
in his use of legal terms. That essay is not enough to make the case that
Shakespeare had legal training, although it points in that direction. Other
issues and arguments have to be made for that case to be persuasive.
Although I would concede that Shakespeare's accuracy in the use of gardening
terms would be a good base to start such an investigation, I do not believe nor
claim that it is enough to make the case.
Your example is not parallel to mine. You have responded to my post in a way
that not only distorts my position, but fails to supply evidence of your own.
You want me to investigate you *claim* regarding gardening terms. No. You made
the claim. You supply the evidence.
Perhaps now you can see why I failed to bother to reply to your post. You went
off the rails and expect me to do all the thinking.
No thanks. If I do not respond to a post of yours in the future, you may assume
that I believe that you are simply distorting my argument and expecting me to do
your thinking for you.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
David L. Webb
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Since to my knowledge no "Stratfordian" has yet responded (probably
none has even *read* all the posts in question yet), you appear to be
prejudging the question prematurely.
David Webb
Mark Alexander
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:230720011719282145%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
Only to the extent that this represents an opportunity to see these
tactics on display. There are three implied paths:
1) Acknowledge the scholarship and strength of the arguments.
2) Apply on of these tactics.
3) Argue clearly and coherently on relevant aspects of the arguments
presented, making alternative, well-supported claims in the manner that
Detobel has.
I'm not against people responding in kind, positive or negative. But
Detobel offers some real scholarly work to engage with. Let's see what
happens, shall we?
Cheers
Mark
By placing these here, the opportunity also exists for Strats to
maintain a substantive course.
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>HERE BEGINS MARK'S MEANINGFUL RESPONSE...Pay attention:
>
>I did not respond because in this series of 14 posts, I believed that you
>simply
>were not paying attention to my overall argument, so let me restate it (and
>if
>you want the details, you will have to pick up the Oxfordian article when it
>is
>published):
>
>Quantitative analysis accomplishes very little in *proving* anything.
And why is that? Because you don't want it to?
>The
>sheer
>number of legal terms that a writer uses does little more than to suggest a
>starting place for determining whether he was trained in law. The way to go
>at
>it is to examine the *qualitative* uses of terms, as metaphors and in
>contexts
>that have nothing to do with field under examination.
The qualitative use of terms is entirely subjective to begin with, and the
same arguments about qualitative use can be applied to all of fields
in which Shakespeare appears to have some knowledge of vocabulary.
>
>The points I was making had to do with *qualitative* propositions and
>arguments.
>You come back at me with *quantitative* propositions and arguments.
Because it should be obvious to any one but an Oxfordian that if
terms relating to nature outnumber those relating to law by 6:1, no
matter how good the references to law sound, it makes more
sense to consider Shakespeare to be a naturalist by profession
than a lawyer. That is, *only* if one is proceeding to with
the rather dubious proposition that Shakespeare must have had
some occupation other than actor and playwright to begin with.
The *most* logical assumption is to assume that Shakespeare,
as a great writer, knew how to use words, period.
>So with
>that
>in mind, let's examine some statements in your concluding paragraph:
>
>>Doesn't look like law leads the list. In both plays, the category
>>"Nature" leads the list, and Spurgeon divides that into several
>>sub-categories. "Gardening" leads the list with 11 examples in each
>>play.
>
>As I have made clear, the quantitative comparison of numbers proves little if
>anything. For example, if I care to compare two authors and find that one
>uses
>more terms than another, that is not enough to demonstrate which has had
>legal
>training, or whether either one did. Furthermore, when comparing a writer's
>quantitative use of terms, simply saying that more terms one topic, such as
>gardening, can be found in an author's works compared to another topic, such
>as
>law, says very little about whether the author is either a gardener or a
>lawyer.
>For you to think I was making such an argument reveals problems in your
>reading
>comprehension.
I didn't think you were making such an argument. I was *destroying* your
argument. In fact, I was using your argument about the "quality" of the
legal references to destroy your argument; for example, some of Shakespeare's
most beautiful passages involve terms from the stage. They are much
more striking than anything involving legal terms. Therefore, by the terms
of your own theory, Shakespeare must have been an actor.
>
>>Are there any plays where Shakespeare makes an error
>>with a gardening term?
>
>I don't know. If his accuracy is 100%, then the matter bears further
>examination, but that fact alone is not enough to make a persuasive case
>(just
>as the fact that Shakespeare has 100% accuracy in his use of legal terms is a
>starting point, not in itself a persuasive case, although the skeptical
>Stratfordian William C. Devecmon essentially says that 100% accuracy
>constitutes
>strong evidence.)
I don't care what Devecmon says. Shakespeare does not use specialist
terms in his legal vocabulary, such as "distreinde" or "esloynde" or
"withername", (that other poets who *were* lawyers used in their
poery) so the fact that he uses words that have common
meanings as well as legal meanings ("several") shows that he
picked these words up in his normal discourse with lawyers (remember
all of those court cases he was involve in that Oxfordians like to
bring up as proof that the Strat man was just a petty business man).
The list of legal terms that Shakespeare uses is so filled with
words that have common as well as legal meanings that their
use as signifiers for anything is nonexistent. His use of legal
terms is consistent with his use of words from other fields:
as simple, pun-like constructions.
>
>Anybody can get the terms right with enough outside help. Mark Twain and
>Charles
>Dickens both seemed to have managed it.
>
>>Just in case you don't understand the
>>point I'm making, I'll spell it out. You've claimed that the way
>>in which Shakespeare uses legal terms has some significance,
>>and likewise for the claim that he made no errors when he used
>>legal terminology.
>
>Yes, the way he uses legal terms as metaphors in non-legal contexts.
>(Qualitative) Combined with the fact of 100% accuracy. (Qualitative) Notice
>that
>my arguments reside on the *qualitative* side of the fence, whereas...
>
>>So using your own logic, I'm claiming that
>>the way in which Shakespeare uses stage terms to create
>>memorable passages must mean that he was an actor,
>
>No. You have done nothing more than state that Shakespeare used more stage
>terms
>than legal terms. (Quantitative) You are on the *quantitative* side of the
>fence. You are comparing my good apples to your rotten oranges.
Notice that you ignored the term "memorable".
>
>>and using your logic,
>>I'm saying that because he made no errors
>>with gardening terms, he must have been a gardener, not to
>>mention the fact that there are far more gardening images
>>than legal images in the plays.
>
>You are not using *my logic.* You have distorted my position.
How have I "distorted" your position? That is precisely your position.
>
>Furthermore, you make the simple claim that he made no errors with gardening
>terms. Yet you do not back it up with any evidence.
>
>I on the other hand have made available a 5000-word argument on the matter of
>Shakespeare's use of legal terms. If you actually read my article, you would
>understand that the main theme is that a case has been made over the decades
>that Shakespeare had perfect accuracy that is being ignored my current
>Stratfordians, who falsely claim based on bad authority that Shakespeare
>erred
>in his use of legal terms. That essay is not enough to make the case that
>Shakespeare had legal training, although it points in that direction. Other
>issues and arguments have to be made for that case to be persuasive.
>
>Although I would concede that Shakespeare's accuracy in the use of gardening
>terms would be a good base to start such an investigation, I do not believe
>nor
>claim that it is enough to make the case.
>
>Your example is not parallel to mine. You have responded to my post in a way
>that not only distorts my position, but fails to supply evidence of your own.
>You want me to investigate you *claim* regarding gardening terms. No. You
>made
>the claim. You supply the evidence.
No, you made the claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms
means that he must have been a lawyer. In order for you to demonstrate
that that is true, you must first show that he made errors in all the other
fields that he appears to have knowledge of. Otherwise, all we have is
a large list of possible occupations.
>
>Perhaps now you can see why I failed to bother to reply to your post. You
>went off the rails and expect me to do all the thinking.
No, you failed to respond because you have no argument.
>
>No thanks. If I do not respond to a post of yours in the future, you may
>assume that I believe that you are simply distorting my argument and expecting
me to
>do your thinking for you.
Jim
Mark Alexander
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> In article <jE077.10494$Xn.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Mark
> Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>snip
Since it is obviously useless to continue with you, I will simply correct an
embarrasingly wrong statement of yours for the benefit of thoughtful readers:
> No, you made the claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms
> means that he must have been a lawyer.
Wrong. Immensely wrong. You thereby prove your lack of reading comprehension.
I claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms is a component in a larger
argument that strongly indicates that he has some kind of formal legal training.
I do not believe he was a practicing lawyer. In fact I think the plays display
evidence against that claim.
You say "must". I say "strongly indicates that."
You say "lawyer". I say "some kind of formal legal training."
Those differences indicate the sharp distinctions in how we use our minds.
I will no longer waste your time, Jim. Spin your wheels with others.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Bob Grumman
> > his opponents of being too ill-mannered to communicate with): that
> > his opponents won't let him "level the playing field" by agreeing
> > to choose and present their arguments in a manner to be prescribed
> > by him, so he won't deign to interact with them.
>
> Gee, I wonder why?
>
> When an opponent in a debate takes the following positions, what is the point?
>
How anyone starts an argument is irrelevant.
> 2) You can only displace my position when you *absolutely prove
> beyond any doubt* that your argument is THE correct one.
Baloney. You can only displace my position (in exchanges of
substance) when you present direct concrete evidence against it
that outweighs the direct concrete evidence I have for it. You can
cause me to modify my position if you have any direct concrete
evidence against it that I hadn't considered. I think I speak for
just about all the HLASers on my side here.
In exchanges of speculations, you can modify my stand with common
sense, but you'll never get me to accept your speculations in lieu
of direct concrete evidence. You tend not to like direct concrete
evidence, so you argue, entirely speculatively, about things like
what kind of musical or legal background The Author MUST have had.
> 3) There will be no acknowlegement of the world of stronger and weaker
> arguments.
Hogwash. One of my own most reiterated complaints against the rigidniks
on your side is that they seem so rarely aware of continuums. For
instance, I can't get Pat Dooley or Diana Price to admit that there
is not just personal and impersonal evidence, but all kinds of
semi-personal evidence as well.
> Sorry, Bob. There is no logical point in playing in your sandbox when only you
> get to throw sand and everyone else has their hands tied.
Making direct concrete evidence for our side, and the absence
of direct concrete evidence for your side known is, I guess, like
throwing sand at someone with his hands tied. But we don't tie your
hands; most of us, in fact, beg you to present concrete evidence for
your hallucinations. (Ooops, tactic 2, tactic 2! Shame on me!)
> > > TACTIC 3) Irrelevant Material: Strats will distract attention away from
> > > the main arguments by steering the conversation to unrelated or
> > > irrelevant material.
> >
> > Like Shakespeare's name on the title-pages of
> > more than forty books published during his lifetime
> > without anyone's questioning its being on any of them
> > (that we know of).
>
> What does the number have to do with it?
Oh, not much, Mark. It only means that more than one printer
testified that William Shakespeare wrote a book he published.
And suggests the wide distribution of things that say William
Shakespeare was a writer without drawing comment, as one would
expect it to if it were untrue. It also means that the statement
that William Shakespeare was a writer was in circulation for many
years--without, again, drawing any comment. In any case, you
would not call drawing attention to the name on the title-pages
is irrelevant, I trust.
> Why ignore the historical fact that
> many things happen at the time that are only questioned after?
> Why ignore the fact that were Shakspere the man (vs. Shakespeare
> the name) acknowledged as the author, there would be greater
> living direct acknowledgement of it, rather than
> a historical blank?
If you have read what we've been saying over and over at HLAS,
Mark, you would know that we have not ignored the fact that
we HAVE discussed why the direct acknowledgements of Shakespeare
as a writer failed to give his address, and why they were not
Pricean to the degree they were for a few other writers of the time.
> Of course, this thread is irrelevant as it pertains to Detobel's
> arguments.
This thread, which you started, has to do with alleged Stratfordian
defects.
> What do you think of them, Bob?
I'll let you know when I've read his posts. I tried to get through
his first one but found it dense and poorly organized. It reminded
me of Jerry Downs's sclerotic attempt to dismantle the attribution
of the Sir Thomas More passage to Shakespeare--by, as far as I could
tell, attributing it to some unnamed scribe (and asserting that
those attributing it to Shakespeare were wrong). Anyway, I did read
Price's entire book, and Ogburn's even worse one before that, so
I'm sure I can manage the new loon's.
> > > TACTIC 4) Avalanche of Inconsequential Details: Strats will distract
> > > attention away from the main arguments by piling on of a mass of
> > > inconsequentail data that only offers the appearance of relevance
> > > through sheer mass. (A favorite of Monsieur Terry Ross.)
> >
> > I've disagreed with a few points Terry's made and even think he's
> > made a few pretty trivial ones, but I would be interested to know
> > if you can produce one example of his ever making an irrelevant point.
> > (This can't be your version of tactic 2, could it, Mark; or is it
> > just the standard anti-Stratfordian tactic of assertion without
> > evidence?)
>
> All these assertions are made without evidence, Bob (pronounced "Bawb" a la
> Blackadder's "Bells" <G>)
> > > TACTIC 5) Avoidance: They will simply not respond in any meaningful way.
> >
> > I love tactic 5 coming from Mark, who hasn't responded meaningfully to
> > HLAS posts in years.
>
> Since this statement is so blatently contradicted by recent
> Shakespeare and the Law threads, I must assume that you have
> not read all my postings.
You may be right, but in that case you presented your case much more
than responded very much to replies to it. And you didn't respond for
very long. But I should have written that you had RARELY responded
meaningfully to HLAS posts for years. I might add that I don't consider
speculations all that meaningful.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
TACTIC 2) Personal Attacks
Although the characterization of Jim as useless (or too stupid) to
argue with, and not thoughtful, and capable of "embarrassingly" wrong
statements is not only implicitly (i.e., not forthrightly) insulting,
so won't count as ill-mannered for the anti-Stratfordian Emily
Posters.
> > No, you made the claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms
> > means that he must have been a lawyer.
>
> Wrong. Immensely wrong. You thereby prove your lack of reading comprehension.
>
> I claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms is a component in a larger
> argument that strongly indicates that he has some kind of formal legal training.
> I do not believe he was a practicing lawyer. In fact I think the plays display
> evidence against that claim.
>
> You say "must". I say "strongly indicates that."
>
> You say "lawyer". I say "some kind of formal legal training."
>
> Those differences indicate the sharp distinctions in how we use our minds.
TACTIC 1) Nitpicking Red Herrings: (they) will distract attention away
from the main arguments by focusing on minor points.
> I will no longer waste your time, Jim. Spin your wheels with others.
TACTIC 5) Avoidance: They will simply not respond in any meaningful
way.
Frankly, I'm not positive Jim got what you were saying entirely
right, Mark (although I'm also not positive that you are the world's
most rigorously unfuzzy writer), but he definitely presented strong
arguments against your over-all position that you would have to
respond to if you were intellectually-responsible. One argument he
presents (and I am particularly interested in) is, if I have it right,
that Shakespeare uses terminology from many specialized fields to
make first-rate poetry; since you claim that his doing that with
legal terminology (your "qualitative" argument) indicates
"a strong possibility" that he had some kind of legal background
greater than the man from Stratford seems to have had, it seems to me
you must accept that he had a similarly extensive background in more
other specialties than seems plausible, show that his use of terms
from other fields was not as effective as his use of legal terms, or
agree with Jim and me that it wasn't his background that accounted for
Shakespeare's deft use of legal terms but simply the fact that he was
a poet of genius who used all words well.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Since it is obviously useless to continue with you, I will simply correct an
>embarrasingly wrong statement of yours for the benefit of thoughtful readers:
Right. You can't refute my statements, so you bring in a red herring.
>
>> No, you made the claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms
>> means that he must have been a lawyer.
>
>Wrong. Immensely wrong. You thereby prove your lack of reading comprehension.
>
>I claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms is a component in a
>larger
>argument that strongly indicates that he has some kind of formal legal
>training.
>I do not believe he was a practicing lawyer. In fact I think the plays
>display
>evidence against that claim.
"Must have", "probably". My arguments are the same no matter how you
want to hedge your bets.
>
>You say "must". I say "strongly indicates that."
>
>You say "lawyer". I say "some kind of formal legal training."
>
>Those differences indicate the sharp distinctions in how we use our minds.
No, they indicate the games you are willing to play in order to avoid
realizing that your point of view is a complete waste of time.
Here's how fuzzy *your* mind is: You've retreated from the position that
that Shakespeare must have been a lawyer because then you might
have to admit that he was gardner too. For example, on 5/13/1998, you said
=================================================
"If one must marry the plays to Stratford, then yes, I can
understand why it is easy to miss some very obvious "high" legal
thinking and philosophy that appears in some of the plays.
I would argue that to look for evidence in the realm of a *lawyer's
clerk* or *one who drank sack with his lawyer-buddies* is to miss
much of the real evidence and its real aim. So many have set their
sights too low precisely *because* they had Shakspere of Stratford
in mind.
Try looking at the plays from the higher standpoint of one who
*did* go to Gray's Inn, who had experience as a judge on important
legal matters, and whose aim was the legal education of the audience."
==================================================
Now, you will say, "But I didn't explicitly say that he must have been
a lawyer". Whatever. Now your argument makes no sense whatsoever,
because if it is not necessary for Shakespeare to have been a
practicing lawyer in order to use legal terms as correctly and with
such "quality" as you claim, then *anyone* who so much as stood
near a law office can qualify. William Shakespeare of Stratford, if
you'll recall, had been involved in legal matters, including the Mountjoy
lawsuit, the Welcombe inclosures, the purchasing of leases and
tithes, etc. It's hard to imagine that Shakespeare, whose sensitivity
to words is obvious, would not have looked over a contract and
noticed the words, and asked someone (like his lawyer, Frances
Collins) what they meant.
>I will no longer waste your time, Jim. Spin your wheels with others.
You mean you will no longer try to defend the indefensible.
Jim
Mark Alexander
correct an
> > embarrassingly wrong statement of yours for the benefit of
thoughtful readers:
>
> TACTIC 2) Personal Attacks
> Although the characterization of Jim as useless (or too stupid) to
> argue with, and not thoughtful, and capable of "embarrassingly" wrong
> statements is not only implicitly (i.e., not forthrightly) insulting,
> so won't count as ill-mannered for the anti-Stratfordian Emily
> Posters.
<yawn> My statement does not charactize *him* as useless. It
characterizes our *exchange* as useless. We are all capable of
embarassingly wrong statements. But Jim willfully repeats them after
ignoring correction. Since Jim will not willingly take correction from
me regarding my arguments, there is no point in continuing.
Why do you choose to join Jim in mischaracterizing what I say?
> > > No, you made the claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal
terms
> > > means that he must have been a lawyer.
> >
> > Wrong. Immensely wrong. You thereby prove your lack of reading
comprehension.
> >
> > I claim that Shakespeare's perfect use of legal terms is a component
in a larger
> > argument that strongly indicates that he has some kind of formal
legal training.
> > I do not believe he was a practicing lawyer. In fact I think the
plays display
> > evidence against that claim.
> >
> > You say "must". I say "strongly indicates that."
> >
> > You say "lawyer". I say "some kind of formal legal training."
> >
> > Those differences indicate the sharp distinctions in how we use our
minds.
>
> TACTIC 1) Nitpicking Red Herrings: (they) will distract attention away
> from the main arguments by focusing on minor points.
It is not minor to point out how a so-called "fellow debater" is
mischaracterizing my argument. These are not notpicking. These are
crucial.
If I say "The evidence points to the western sky being dark blue last
Tuesday at 11:00 AM" and a fellow debator replies, "You say that the sky
was dark blue Tuesday morning, but I was there and saw that it was light
blue," am I nitpicking to point at that he has altered the *nature* of
my argument by shifting the meaning in ways that has little to do with
my argument? My specific "western sky" is changed to "sky," which can
lead to obvious problems. My specific "dark blue" should not be
mischaracterized as merely "blue." And my "11:00 AM" should not be
generalized as "morning."
These are the kinds of things that Jim has done. And if you actually
believe that what he has done is irrelevant (or that my correction is an
attempt to distract), then you are either being careless, playing a game
with me, or your mind is is as unwilling to discipline itself in the
specific framing of arguments as is Jim's mind.
Again, I do *not* believe that the writer Shakespeare was a lawyer, in
the sense of a practicing lawyer. To claim that my argument encompasses
that idea is to misread me. I claim that there is strong evidence that
he is (as Kathman might frame it) "learned in law." One learned in law
is not necessarily a lawyer. And since the statement "Shakespeare was a
lawyer" can be taken by most people to include being a practicing lawyer
as well as one trained in law, the statement is an ambiguously bad one.
> > I will no longer waste your time, Jim. Spin your wheels with others.
>
> TACTIC 5) Avoidance: They will simply not respond in any meaningful
> way.
Your now being obviously silly, Bob. I responded in a meaningful way,
attempted to correct Jim's mischaracterizing of my argument, but he
could not see his way clear enough to accept that correct. What should I
do? Get on his vague, fog-filled merry-go-round of pointless exchange?
> Frankly, I'm not positive Jim got what you were saying entirely
> right, Mark (although I'm also not positive that you are the world's
> most rigorously unfuzzy writer), but he definitely presented strong
> arguments against your over-all position that you would have to
> respond to if you were intellectually-responsible.
There is no point in going further if he has not been able to
demonstrate that he grasps the essential nature of my original argument.
There is plenty of houses being built on cracked and broken foundations
on hlas. Why should I move forward and do the same?
> One argument he
> presents (and I am particularly interested in) is, if I have it right,
> that Shakespeare uses terminology from many specialized fields to
> make first-rate poetry; since you claim that his doing that with
> legal terminology (your "qualitative" argument) indicates
> "a strong possibility" that he had some kind of legal background
> greater than the man from Stratford seems to have had, it seems to me
> you must accept that he had a similarly extensive background in more
> other specialties than seems plausible, show that his use of terms
> from other fields was not as effective as his use of legal terms, or
> agree with Jim and me that it wasn't his background that accounted for
> Shakespeare's deft use of legal terms but simply the fact that he was
> a poet of genius who used all words well.
>
> --Bob G.
But Bob, I never made the claim that "Shakespeare uses legal terminology
to make first-rate poetry." Where on earth do you and he get that? You
and he misrepresent the nature of my qualitative argument. Go back and
read what I actually wrote, not Jim's distortions. Why should I respond
to arguments that I have never advanced?
You see, Bob, there is value in exchanging posts with someone who
displays the level of specificity of, say, a Rob, who in our last
exchange hung in there with me, and I with him, working out our
differences in our understanding until I got the point he was making. It
did no damage to the case I made regarding accuracy, but it did lead to
a greater mutual understanding regarding the nature of the
several/common pun.
I come into this newsgroup expecting primarily three levels of
interaction:
1) Simply supplying or acquiring factual information. (Like where
resources are located.)
2) Game playing. (The playful or otherwise banter between participants.)
3) A forum for reason, evidence, and argument.
I have specific requirements for engaging in the third area, which seems
to be different from those you and Jim require:
I expect a certain degree of *critical detachment*. This is the primary
goal of my desire for a level playing field. Critical detachment is
displayed in the way a person goes about framing arguments and
responding to participants. It presumes an ability to clearly understand
another's argument, or accept correction when a response displays a
misunderstanding. I strive to maintain that critical detachment when
engaging in that forum of reason, evidence, and argument.
Once I recognize that a participant not only refuses to engage a
necessary level of critical detachment, but insists on mischaracterizing
my arguments, then I recognize that "Elvis has left the building" and I
see no point in hanging around. And it does no good when you and others
cry out that I leave threads unfinished. What is the point? Those are
specious claims made by those whose minds are clearly alien to critical
detachment.
When the forum is violated, there is no advancement, only the
"merry-go-round of Gotcha".
I am bored with that merry-go-round, which you and Jim are so partial
to.
Meaningful enough for you, Bob? If not, then Elvis has left the
building. And I stick with Elvis. <G>
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> Here's how fuzzy *your* mind is: You've retreated from the position
that
> that Shakespeare must have been a lawyer because then you might
> have to admit that he was gardner too. For example, on 5/13/1998, you
said
Of course I have changed my mind, Jim, but not to do with anything you
have said.
Did it ever even remotely cross your mind that you had to go back *over
three years* to resurrect a dead position that I have long since buried
due to my acquiring a deeper understanding of the issues, arguments, and
evidence involved?
Why don't you quote my arguments from the last six months...the
arguments that you were actually responding to? Could it be because I
have constructed a more specific proposition that clarifies the nature
of the issue by eliminating the problematic ambiguity of the original
proposition?
(To repeat, the statement "Shakespeare was a lawyer" can be interpreted
to mean both "Shakespeare had some formal legal training" and
"Shakespeare was a *practicing* lawyer." Once I became aware of that
ambiguity, I clarified my proposition. Poor Jim seems unable to grasp
this simple fact of the proper use of a critical mind.)
My mind and arguments evolve, sometimes in fits and starts, as I acquire
more evidence and weigh more arguments.
I highly recommend that you give it a try.
Goodbye.
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
just sent under the thread "Legal Terms." For example, what I write
there can be taken as a response to your claim below that "How anyone
starts an argument is irrelevant."
Cheers
Mark
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:5f7d2eb3.01072...@posting.google.com...
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
Completely avoiding the issues again. I'll try one more time:
How much legal training do you think Shakespeare had?
One month? Two Months? Six Months? 1 year and 7 months?
A conversation with his lawyer twice a year? A degree in law?
If you can't home in on a figure, then your entire approach is useless.
It's equivalent to saying "Shakespeare used legal terms, and he
acquired them from *somewhere*", which we already know.
Jim
Mark Alexander
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
Read the Oxfordian article when it comes out. I spent two years working on it.
You can spend a few dollars and a few hours contemplating it. I'm not going to
post the whole thing here, for obvious reasons. For you to think I should, and
then claim I am avoiding the issues because I don't, is simply silly.
Goodbye
Mark
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Read the Oxfordian article when it comes out. I spent two years working on
>it.
>You can spend a few dollars and a few hours contemplating it. I'm not going
>to
>post the whole thing here, for obvious reasons. For you to think I should,
>and
>then claim I am avoiding the issues because I don't, is simply silly.
>
>Goodbye
>
>Mark
>
Let's see, this part of the thread started after the following
exchange:
Bob said:
"I love tactic 5 coming from Mark, who hasn't responded meaningfully to
HLAS posts in years."
You then said:
"Since this statement is so blatently contradicted by recent Shakespeare and
the Law threads, I must assume that you have not read all my postings."
I replied:
" No, you just dropped out of that one too, once I showed that the amount
of Shakespeare's legal imagery was miniscule compared to other
kinds of imagery."
Now that you've avoided any meaningful response again, do you
agree with Bob's original assertion that you haven't responded
meaningfully to an HLAS response in years?
I'm not going to pay anything for any Oxfordian article. If it can't
be found for free at the library, it's not worth reading. I suggest that
if you want meaningful critical response that you at least post
it on the web and announce it here.
Goodbye!
Jim
Mark Alexander
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> I'm not going to pay anything for any Oxfordian article. If it can't
> be found for free at the library, it's not worth reading. I suggest
that
> if you want meaningful critical response that you at least post
> it on the web and announce it here.
ROTFLMAO!
Cheers
Mark
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> I'm not going to pay anything for any Oxfordian article. If it can't
>> be found for free at the library, it's not worth reading. I suggest
>that
>> if you want meaningful critical response that you at least post
>> it on the web and announce it here.
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>Cheers
>
I take it then that you are not interested in any meaningful
response, and that you would prefer the onanistic rituals
of your cabal?
Jim
Alisa Beaton
> > TACTIC 1) Nitpicking Red Herrings: Strats will distract attention away
> > from the main arguments by focusing on minor points, which often lead
> > to...
>
> At least we focus of SOME points.
>
> > TACTIC 2) Personal Attacks: Strats will distract attention away from the
> > main arguments by posting something to deconstruct Detobel's
> > credibility, something that has nothing to do with the current
> > arguments. This is often done with the disclaimer of not having time to
> > get into the main arguments. (A favorite tactic of Monsieur Dave
> > Kathman, who also uses the elegant method of posting something ad
> > hominem or unrelated, and then claims that if he had time he could also
> > demonstrate that the attackee is wrong in the current post as well.)
>
> As opposed to Mark's favorite avoidance tactic (other than accusing
> his opponents of being too ill-mannered to communicate with): that
> his opponents won't let him "level the playing field" by agreeing
> to choose and present their arguments in a manner to be prescribed
> by him, so he won't deign to interact with them.
>
> > TACTIC 3) Irrelevant Material: Strats will distract attention away from
> > the main arguments by steering the conversation to unrelated or
> > irrelevant material.
>
> Like Shakespeare's name on the title-pages of
> more than forty books published during his lifetime
> without anyone's questioning its being on any of them
> (that we know of).
>
1)"The Passionate Pilgrim".
In 1599 the stationer Wm Jaggard published a volume of miscellaneous
verse which he titled "The Passionate Pilgrim". He credited, on the
title page, William Shakespeare as author of the poems, while we know
without doubt that the contents of the volume are the work of
Christopher Marlowe, Walter Ralegh, Richard Barnfield and Bartholomew
Griffin. (Two of the poems in the volume appeared again in 1609 in the
volume "Shakespeare's Sonnets, never before imprinted" as Sonnets #138
and #144. Yes, previously printed, no, not the work of William
Shakespeare.)
2) The Sonnets. Entered into the stationer's register in 1609 and
published that year by Thomas Thorpe. In addition to the 154 sonnets
(#138 and #144 having previously appeared as noted above), the volume
contained the poem "A Lover's Complaint", which is not Shakespeare's.
3) And, after Shakespeare's death, in 1640 the sonnets, together
with some poems from "The Passionate Pilgrm" and other sources, many
already subscribed to other writers, were republished by John Benson
in a volume titled "Poems Written by Wil. Shakespeare, Gent." By then
the fraud was entrenched.
Bob Grumman
argument of yours down, you claim he mischaracterized your
argument. In some cases, you may be right. In this last case,
you found very minor points to gripe about and ignored the
very good arguments that he made, some of which I repeated,
with you ignoring them again.
As for your claiming that Shakespeare made great poetry of
legal terms in your view, I got that from reading your essay;
as I now recall, that was only the opinion of one of the
"experts" you quoted. I assumed you went along with it. If
you don't think he made great poetry from his legal terms, I
wonder what you think he did with them. And why you think they
were an intimate part of his vocabulary.
As for my paying good money for your bilge about Shakespeare's
advanced legal knowledge, I doubt I will. So you can will be able
to claim I was afraid to trade speculations with you.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> 1)"The Passionate Pilgrim".
> In 1599 the stationer Wm Jaggard published a volume of miscellaneous
> verse which he titled "The Passionate Pilgrim". He credited, on the
> title page, William Shakespeare as author of the poems, while we know
> without doubt that the contents of the volume are the work of
> Christopher Marlowe, Walter Ralegh, Richard Barnfield and Bartholomew
> Griffin. (Two of the poems in the volume appeared again in 1609 in the
> volume "Shakespeare's Sonnets, never before imprinted" as Sonnets #138
> and #144. Yes, previously printed, no, not the work of William
> Shakespeare.)
> 2) The Sonnets. Entered into the stationer's register in 1609 and
> published that year by Thomas Thorpe. In addition to the 154 sonnets
> (#138 and #144 having previously appeared as noted above), the volume
> contained the poem "A Lover's Complaint", which is not Shakespeare's.
Wrong. Some scholars question whether it is Shakespeare's or not. I
wonder why Thorpe would bother including it with the sonnets if
he didn't think it by Shakespeare, though.
> 3) And, after Shakespeare's death, in 1640 the sonnets, together
> with some poems from "The Passionate Pilgrm" and other sources, many
> already subscribed to other writers, were republished by John Benson
> in a volume titled "Poems Written by Wil. Shakespeare, Gent." By then
> the fraud was entrenched.
Gosh, Shakespeare's name on works he didn't write! That must mean
that his name on a title-page means nothing. Thanks for bringing this
to my attention, Alisa.
--Bob G.
Richard Kennedy
Grumman that everything is well with the Stratford man. That's G's
best argument, and I think it's a very good one. If his name "wasn't"
on some title pages the man wouldn't have a thing going for him. So
I'm satisfied that Grumman has found the best argument for the
Stratfordian position, and I wish he'd visit Newport here so we could
have a drink and sort through a few books with Shakespeare's name
on the title page. We could eat fish and chips, too, and then stroll out to
the bayfront where we could look at the bridge. It's a very good bridge,
built in 1939 and will be strong for it's centenary I think. And the price
is right, that's what I'd like to tell Grumman. I suppose he'd like to see
a postcard picture of it before he visits. Or maybe I'll send an
attachment so he can look it over before he decides to buy.
Terry Ross
Mark's latest catalogue of sins includes this:
[snip]
>
> TACTIC 3) Irrelevant Material: Strats will distract attention away
> from the main arguments by stearing the conversation to unrelated or
> irrelevant material. A subcategory of this is...
>
> TACTIC 4) Avalanche of Inconsequential Details: Strats will distract
> attention away from the main arguments by piling on of a mass of
> inconsequentail data that only offers the appearance of relevance
> through sheer mass. (A favorite of Monsieur Terry Ross.)
One never knows what will set Mark off, but here is the last response I
posted to one of his posts. As careful readers will note, the
"inconsequential details" in question are those that Mark was promoting as
significant "connections" that supposedly existed (uniquely) between
Oxford and Shakespeare. As for the other sins Mark lists -- well, it is
amazing how autobiographical his indictment turns out to be. Is it
possible to live in this world and have so little self-knowledge?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
===
From: Terry Ross (tr...@bcpl.net)
Subject: Re: Oxford's Connections (Shmonnections)
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2001-06-17 16:27:39 PST
A few additions to some of Bob's comments...
On 16 Jun 2001, Bob Grumman wrote:
> > Bob Grumman wrote :
> >
> > > Note: when we Stratfordians say Oxfordians have established no
> > > link betwen Oxford and the plays of Shakespeare, we're using
> > > shorthand
> > > for "no link that would not have been shared by thousands of people
> > > of
> > > the time."
> >
> > OK. Let's test your standard against my list:
> >
> > > > 1) ***I guess you missed the fact that all three of the extant
> > > > Shakespeare dedicatees (Southampton, Pembroke, and Montgomery)
> > > > were
> > > > either engaged or married to one of Oxford's daughters. Of course,
> > . . that cannot possibly be a connection in your selective world.
> >
> > So you think there are *thousands of people of the time* who were
> > either
> > engaged or married to one of Oxford's daughters? Hello? Are we living
> > in
> > the same logical universe, Bob?
>
> No to both questions, Mark. And I will agree that "thousands" is an
> exaggeration here (my statement was made at the end of your list,
> where it worked much better). However, I have the ability to
> generalize. Using that, I can state there were probably quite a few
> people of the times with simialr ties to the three nobles you mention,
> though I haven't the time to pursue the matter, the coincidence being
> too trivial to bother with even if as unique, in general terms, as I'm
> sure you thin it.
Did Oxford even know Southampton? Southampton, of course, did not marry
any of Oxford's daughters. Burghley tried to match his granddaughter
Elizabeth Vere to Southampton, but Southampton begged off. Oxford, unlike
Shakespeare, never dedicated any work to Southampton; Oxford, unlike
Shakespeare, was never credited with writing either of the works
Shakespeare dedicated to Southampton.
Did Oxford even know William Herbert? Oxford approved of the proposed
match, writing to Burghley, "the ionge gentelman, as I vnderstand hathe
bene well browght vp, fayre conditioned, and hathe many good partes in
hym" (letter of September 8, 1597, from Alan Nelson's website). It sounds
from this as if he did NOT know the "young gentleman," who never did marry
any of Oxford's daughters.
Did Oxford even know Philip Herbert? This Herbert married Oxford's
daughter Susan in 1604 -- six months after Oxford's death. If he ever met
the man who died before becoming his father-in-law, or if he had any
opinion of the man, he does not seem to have left any trace of this
alleged "connection."
Where is any direct address from Oxford to Southampton or to either
Herbert? Where is any direct address from any of the three to him? Where
is even the statement of a third party that Oxford was close to any of the
three men? Did any of them ever read so much as a line Oxford wrote?
Where is there any reference by any of them to Oxford as a writer?
Heminges and Condell tell us that the brothers Herbert "prosequuted both
[the plays] and their Author living, with much favor" and they refer to
Shakespeare as the brothers' "servant," which gives us a direct
"connection" between them and Shakespeare. Where is the "connection"
between Shakespeare and Oxford?
Mark's "connection" bit here is like the game of "Six Degrees of Kevin
Bacon." Once you get more than a degree or so away, you don't have a
"telling and significant connection," and even at one degree there may be
no genuine connection (two actors may appear in the same movie but never
meet). Ben Jonson knew and loved Shakespeare; he wrote a poem to the
countess of Montgomery; she was Oxford's daughter. I suppose that would
count as a "connection" in Oxfordian eyes, but Jonson never suggests that
anyone other than Shakespeare wrote the works of Shakespeare, Jonson never
comments on Oxford or his writings, Jonson does not even attempt to honor
the countess by complimenting her on having had such a dad.
>
>
> > > > 2) ***And Polonius as Burghley, Oxford's father-in-law? Putting
> > > > Oxford
> > > > squarely in the position of being Hamlet? Oh, that's right. That
> > > > cannot
> > > > possibly be a connection in your selective world.
> >
> > So far I have seen a total of two people advanced as serious
> > contenders
> > as a model for Polonius.
>
> Did you count the leading contender for the sane, nobody in particular?
>
> > Maybe a couple more (not *thousands*) could be
> > advanced, but Burghley still holds the lead, by Stratfordian
> > commentators. You lose the logic contest again.
>
> But many people knew Burghley well enough to use him for traits of
> Polonius.
It is possible, though far from certain, that Polonius is partly based on
Burghley (the evidence for the claim is almost as weak as Mark's
mendacious pages on the matter), but that would not make Oxford Hamlet.
Hamlet was never Polonius's ward; Hamlet never married; Oxford's father
was not a king; Oxford's father was not murdered; Oxford slew neither
Burghley nor any uncle, etc. etc.
>
> > > > 3) ***And The Courtier being a profound influence on Hamlet? A
> > > > book that
> > > > Oxford wrote a preface for? Oh, that's right. That cannot possibly
> > > > be a
> > > > connection in your selective world.
> >
> > We know there is a profound and intimate connection between
> > Shakespeare
> > the writer and The Courtier. We know there is a profound and intimate
> > connection between Oxford and the Courtier. That's a living, breathing
> > connection that cannot apply to *thousands*. You lose.
>
> You're talking about a book read my thousands.
It is mildly amusing that Mark used the word "Liar" (or, to be precise,
"Liar!") in the post where he mentioned *Cardanus Comfort* and yet he was
not referring to himself. Shakespeare may well have read Hoby's English
translation of *Il Cortigiano* but that popular book was NOT published
with any preface by Oxford. Oxford wrote a preface in Latin to a Latin
translation of Castiglione's work. I know of no evidence that Shakespeare
was familiar with this edition. Mark tosses around words like "liar"
rather casually, but it is not very honest of him to present Shakespeare's
probable familiarity with Hoby as a connection to a preface to a different
translation. Where is the "connection" between Shakespeare and Oxford?
>
> > > > 4) ***And Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Arthur Golding translation,
> > > > which
> > > > profoundly influenced Shakespeare? Arthur Golding coincidentally
> > > > happened to be Oxford's uncle. But that cannot possibly be a
> > > > connection
> > > > in your selective world.
> >
> > Oxford was living in the same household as Golding when part of the
> > Metamorphoses was being translated, at an age when he was studying
> > Latin. Can you seriously advance a list of *thousands* who would have
> > such an intimate connection? You lose again.
>
> You're talking about a book read by thousands.
There is no reason to believe that Oxford had anything to do with
Golding's translation. I suppose Oxford may have read it at some point,
but I know of no evidence that he did. Golding nowhere refers to Oxford
anywhere in his book. Shakespeare was certainly familiar with Ovid in
Latin and with Golding's translation, which was a very popular book, but I
know of no contemporary reader who "connected" either Ovid or Golding's
translation with Oxford. Where is the "connection" between Shakespeare
and Oxford? Does Mark consider every relative of every writer that
Shakespeare read to have a "connection" to Shakespeare?
>
> > > > 5) ***And Cardanus Comfort, the book surmised to be that which
> > > > Hamlet is
> > > > reading in the library? The translation of which was dedicated to
> > > > Oxford? But that cannot possibly be a connection in your selective
> > > > world.
> >
> > A profound and intimate connection between Shakespeare the writer and
> > Cardanus Comfort has been advanced by Stratfordian scholars.
What "profound and intimate connection"? Harold Jenkins in the Arden
*Hamlet* (a book Mark has read bits of) says, "Hardin Craig's discovery in
Cardan's *De Consolatione* of sentiments similar to Hamlet's does not
warrant the conclusion that that was where Hamlet found them" (111). Where
is the "connection" between Oxford and Shakespeare?
> > We know
> > there is a profound and intimate connection between Oxford and
> > Cardanus
> > Comfort . That's a living, breathing connection that cannot apply to
> > *thousands*. You lose again.
>
> You're talking about a book read by thousands.
This "connection" seems to require a "surmised." Certain commonplaces
that appear in *Hamlet* and elsewhere also appear in Cardanus, but that
does not mean that Shakespeare must have read the book (although, of
course, he might have). By the way, while Jenkins tells us it is probably
not possible to identify the book Hamlet is reading, the "satirical
rogue's" comments about old men don't sound like something from *Cardanus
Comfort* (Juvenal or Erasmus may be more plausible candidates for this odd
distinction). Where is the "connection" between Shakespeare and Oxford?
>
> > > > 6) ***And Oxford's itinerary in Northern Italy so closely matching
> > > > the
> > > > locations of several of Shakespeare's Italian plays? But that fact
> > > > cannot possibly be a connection in your selective world.
> >
> > Look at Oxford's travel record closely. Compare the cities visited to
> > the Italian plays. In light of the other connections, this one stands
> > out glaringly. Naturally, you would wish to isolate each of these
> > connections, but the nature of circumstantial evidence is cumulative,
> > and the connections must be gathered and examined. You may claim that
> > thousands have had a similar itinerary, so let's give you ONE. But you
> > ignore the accumulation of evidence.
>
> I simply don't see the close connections that you do. Nor do I find
> Italy of any more importance to Shakespeare's plays than Greece as a
> geographical locale.
The "Italian" bit has been covered thoroughly on this newsgroup. Does
Mark believe there were tides in Verona when Oxford visited? Does Mark
believe that (as a special treat for Oxford) Padua was moved into Lombardy
during his visit? Of course it is not impossible that Shakespeare did
visit Italy at some point, and it is also possible that one who HAS
visited a country may misremember some details, but there is still no
"connection" here between Shakespeare and Oxford.
>
> > > > 7) ***And the acknowledged influences of John Lyly and Anthony
> > > > Munday on
> > > > Shakespeare, both of whom worked for Oxford? But that fact cannot
> > > > possibly be a connection in your selective world.
> >
> > Gee, I did not realize that Lyly and Munday had *thousands* of
> > employer s
> > who were patrons to players and known playwrights. Nice try, Bob. You
> > lose again.
>
> You're talking about authors read by thousands, one of them extremely
> influential.
The idea that we should seek an author by looking at the people to whom
works which that author probably read were dedicated is marvelously
Oxfordian. Surely Lyly and Munday were well placed to describe Oxford's
contributions to literature -- yet when we look at their dedications to
Oxford we find that although they praise his generosity and appeal to his
family pride, they say nothing whatsoever about him as a writer. Other
patrons who dabbled in verse were sometimes praised for their literary
efforts in dedications, but never Oxford. Munday was one of the many
contributors to *Sir Thomas More*; Shakespeare was another. That gives us
a connection between Munday and Shakespeare, but where is the "connection"
between Shakespeare and Oxford?
>
> > And then there is:
> >
> > > > 8) ***Levin Sch|cking in "Character Problems in Shakespeare's
> > > > Plays"
> > > > (1922): "A fundamental feature of Hamlet's character is a
> > > > fanatical
> > > > sense of truth."
> > > > "Nay it is ten times true, for truth is truth
> > > > To th'end of reckning."
> > > > (Measure for Measure V. 1. 45-46) (1604)
> > > >
> > > > In Latin "Vere" means "Truly" or "according to Truth." Oxford's
> > > > motto,
> > > > the motto of the previous De Veres, was Vero nihil verius (Nothing
> > > > truer
> > > > than truth, or Nothing truer than the true man). In a letter to
> > > > Robert
> > > > Cecil, Oxford knowingly plays upon the Latin meaning.
> > > > ".for truth is truth though never so old, and time cannot make
> > > > that
> > > > false which was once true." (Oxford's letter to Robert Cecil, May
> > > > 7, 1603)
> >
> > Only applies to one, Bob, one man. Oxford. You lose.
>
> This one is subjective; an interest in the truth is something
> that would have been shared by thousands. I dunno about a "fanatical
> interest" in it.
One would not describe Hamlet as a person whose fidelity to the truth is
as strong as Sissela Bok might have preferred. Mark's point seems to be
that because Oxford once used the phrase "truth is truth" and Shakespeare
did in *Measure for Measure*, therefore Oxford is Hamlet (shouldn't he
mean that Oxford is Isabella?). Shakespeare also knew a great deal about
lying, and Hamlet is not the only one of Shakespeare's characters to
scheme, misdirect, and plot in ways that one might consider contrary to
"truth."
How common was the phrase "truth is truth"? Costard in *Love's Labor's
Lost* says, "truth is truth," so perhaps Mark thinks Oxford was also
Costard, but the phrase was not unique to Shakespeare. Thomas Churchyard
said in a poem, "For truth is truth, when all is saide and don:" -- was he
also Oxford? Florila in Chapman's *Humorous Day's Mirth* says, "You say
well sir, that which is truth is truth"; argal, Florila must also be
Oxford -- or would Mark contend that Chapman is Oxford? In *Sir Giles
Goosecap*, also by Chapman, Foulweather says, "Slight my Lord but truth is
truth you know." Was Oxford Foulweather and Costard and Florila and
Isabella? The earl did get around, didn't he. What is missing, of
course, is any "connection" between Oxford and Shakespeare.
>
> > > Mark, you left out:
> > >
> > > 9. Shakespeare's main character, Hamlet, spoke English (although
> > > supposedly Danish), just as Oxford did, and
> > >
> > > 10. both Hamlet and Shakespeare were male!
> >
> > Silly examples, not even in the ballpark of parallelism. your own
> > rigidnikery is showing again, Bob.
>
> They reflect my opinion of your parallels, which hasn't changed.
> Parallels count only for people who can't get any real evidence for
> their positions.
But Bob, there are so many non-connections -- surely the presence of so
many non-connections cannot be a coincidence. It must be the Oxfordian
equivalent of "psi-missing," in which attempts to guess a hidden card by
ESP are much less successful than the result one would expect from a
series of random guesses.
>
> > > Can you REALLY believe that any of your eight "links" is
> > > 10% as strong as Shakespeare's having acted in the company that put
> > > on
> > > those plays--if you want to bring in circumstantial evidence?
> >
> > Every one of those connections would be like gold to Stratfordians if
> > even one of them could be applied to their boy for Stratford.
What "connections"?
>
> Gold? Only in arguments with nuts, Mark. Now, then, can you answer
> my question?
>
> > But they apply to Oxford. You lose.
>
> Frankly, I would agree that my statement was a bad exaggeration.
You are overhasty in agreement, Bob.
> My overall point--that your coincidences are trivial, is valid,
> however. Near-proof of that is you not answering my question about
> Shakespeare's known career with the acting troupe that performed the
> plays with his name on them.
Mark's actual overall point seems to be, as is so often the case, the
personal one. The "case" for Oxford is really not the issue; rather, this
seems to be a game of Mark's devising and with his own system of scoring
-- a game at which he is the only player, but in which he may declare that
nonplayers have lost. He calls Greg Reynolds "Liar!" for saying, "it has
been impossible for [Oxfordians] to link the earl to the works of
Shakespeare," and then Mark proceeds to list 8 non-connections, or
"connections" only within the rules of his own private game of solitaire
-- a game at which he cheats, but which provides him the satisfaction of
saying seven times to Bob, "you lose." At least I hope for Mark's sake
that he derives some satisfaction from his efforts, as I hope cheaters at
solitaire get some slight kick from their attempts at self-deception.
Otherwise it's all rather sad, isn't it?
Cheers,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Alexander
> that his name on a title-page means nothing. Thanks for bringing this
> to my attention, Alisa.
Bob, have you read Foucault's "What is an Author?"
He explores why attribution can be so problematic.
Cheers
Mark
Neuendorffer
>>>>> In Latin "Vere" means "Truly" or "according to Truth." Oxford's motto,
>>>>> the motto of the previous De Veres, was Vero nihil verius (Nothing truer
>>>>> than truth, or Nothing truer than the true man). In a letter to Robert
>>>>> Cecil, Oxford knowingly plays upon the Latin meaning.
>>>>> ".for truth is truth though never so old, and time cannot make
>>>>> that false which was once true." (Oxford's letter to Robert Cecil,
>>>>> May 7, 1603)
> > >
> > > Only applies to one, Bob, one man. Oxford. You lose.
Terry Ross wrote:
> One would not describe Hamlet as a person whose fidelity to the truth is
> as strong as Sissela Bok might have preferred. Mark's point seems to be
> that because Oxford once used the phrase "truth is truth" and Shakespeare
> did in *Measure for Measure*, therefore Oxford is Hamlet (shouldn't he
> mean that Oxford is Isabella?). Shakespeare also knew a great deal about
> lying, and Hamlet is not the only one of Shakespeare's characters to
> scheme, misdirect, and plot in ways that one might consider contrary to
> "truth."
>
> How common was the phrase "truth is truth"? Costard in *Love's Labor's
> Lost* says, "truth is truth," so perhaps Mark thinks Oxford was also
> Costard, but the phrase was not unique to Shakespeare. Thomas Churchyard
> said in a poem, "For truth is truth, when all is saide and don:" -- was he
> also Oxford? Florila in Chapman's *Humorous Day's Mirth* says, "You say
> well sir, that which is truth is truth"; argal, Florila must also be
> Oxford -- or would Mark contend that Chapman is Oxford? In *Sir Giles
> Goosecap*, also by Chapman, Foulweather says, "Slight my Lord but truth is
> truth you know." Was Oxford Foulweather and Costard and Florila and
> Isabella? The earl did get around, didn't he. What is missing, of
> course, is any "connection" between Oxford and Shakespeare.
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 1, Scene 4
KENT I can keep honest counsel, ride, run, mar a curious
tale in telling it, and deliver a plain message
bluntly: that which ordinary men are fit for, I am
qualified in; and the best of me is DILIGENCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCY of Charlecote Motto: "By TRUTH and DILIGENCE"
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 4, Scene 3
LUCY That ever living man of memory, Henry the Fifth
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Prologue, Scene 1
First Huntsman My lord, I warrant you we will play our part,
As he shall think by our TRUE DILIGENCE
He is no less than what we say he is.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 5, Scene 2
HAMLET I will receive it, sir, with all DILIGENCE of spirit.
Put your BONNET to his right use; 'tis for the head.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Out of a DUCAL CORONET,
a Boar's head and neck, between wings.>>
-- LUCEY HERALDRY
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
B. Jonson's _Every Man Out of his Humor_ shows an uneducated
rustic [Puntavolo] purchasing a crest:
<<Boar without a head, rampant.>>
<<Within the great hall is a fine bay window filled with
armorial stained glass bearing the arms of the Lucy family;
white pike or 'luces' on a crimson ground
as well as the winged boar's head crest.>>
http://www.rickmansworthherts.freeserve.co.uk/webpage22.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are at least 14 different Arms for Lucy, all being quite
similar but distinct, and all based on three lucies (or pike fish).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.insales1.demon.co.uk/Genealogy/Documents/johnfoxe1.htm
<<John Foxe, the Boston-born author of _Book of Martyrs_ (1563) was
born in 1516. He became tutor to the family of Sir Thomas Lucy
of Charlecote (Warwicks.), and was ordained while living in the
household of the Duchess of Suffolk, who appointed him tutor to the
children of her nephew, Thomas, Earl of Surrey, then a prisoner in the
Tower. With the accession of Mary Tudor, Foxe fled the country,
undertook literary work at Basil, Switzerland, and did not return until
Elizabeth I had succeeded her half-sister. Now much impoverished, he had
a pension settled on him by his former pupil, Thomas Howard, who
succeeded his father as Earl of Surrey and Duke of Norfolk. Foxe was on
the scaffold that June day in 1572 to witness the execution of his young
patron for complicity in the Ridolfi plot.>>
-------------------------------------------------------
The Tempest Act 1, Scene 2
PROSPERO Go make thyself like a nymph o' the sea: be subject
To no sight but thine and mine, invisible
To every EYEBALL else. Go take this shape
And hither come in't: go, hence with DILIGENCE!
[Exit ARIEL]
PROSPERO [Aside to ARIEL] Bravely, my DILIGENCE.
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<St. Lucy is represented as a maiden with her EYEBALLs in a dish,
on a book, or in a shell. Sometimes she is shown
(1) holding a burning lamp;
(2) with a lamp and a sword;
(3) with a flaming horn;
(4) with oxen and men trying to drag her; or
(5) with a gash in her neck or sword imbedded in it
She was one of the most popular saints of the Middle Ages and, thus, is
patronesses of a wide variety including: cutlers, glaziers, notaries,
peddlers, saddlers, servant girls, scribes, tailors, and weavers.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.att.net/~tleary/johnson.htm
<<The Stratfordians say that the reference in "The Merry Wives of
Windsor" to the "dozen white luces" on Justice Shallow's coat identifies
this character with Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote Park near
Stratford-on-Avon, whose coat of arms had three luces on it. If this is
so, how do the Stratfordians account for the fact that this reference to
the luces first appeared in the First Folio of the Plays published
in 1623, seven years after Shakesper's death and is not found
in the Quarto of the Play published in 1602?>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rickmansworthherts.freeserve.co.uk/webpage22.htm
<<Sir William Dugdale, the famous antiquarian, visited Charlecote,
Warwickshire in the 1630's to inspect and record the 'roll-of-arms'
which had been preserved and maintained by the Lucy family for more than
four hundred years. This priceless pedigree disappeared in a succeeding
generation. Dugdale states that he was unable to ascertain the exact
parentage of Cecily de Lucy, born around l172, but was of the opinion
that she belonged to the great baronial family of Lucys in Cumberland.
Regarding Daniel Lucy, the first Lucy recorded in America, we know that
he emigrated to Jamestown Virginia in the "Susan" in 1624 and was given
a patent of four acres of land on Jamestown Island. Daniel had married
Abigail, "the tanner's daughter" about 1617 in Warwickshire, England and
their son Samuel (about 1618-1662) was born there>>.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/reedchapter4.htm
<<[Francis] Bacon was connected by marriage
with Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote>>.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://nauvoo.byu.edu/TheArts/Theater/studypackets/lesson07/main.html
<<The most persistent legend concerning Shakespeare, the
celebrated deer-poaching incident, explains why he abandoned
his family for London. One year after his marriage,
Shakespeare, consorting with some low companions, was
caught poaching deer on Sir Thomas Lucy's estate, Charlecote
Park. After being prosecuted by Lucy, Shakespeare retaliated
by writing an insulting ballad about the Lucy family in which he
puns upon Lucy, "Lowse," and "Lowsey"‹similar-sounding
words in the Stratfordian dialect. It was this bit of doggerel
(Shakespeare's first attempt at poetry, according to the legend)
that forced him out of Stratford and on to London and fame.
During the early years of Shakespeare scholarship, the
deer-poaching legend regularly turned up, each time with an
individual twist. In one version Shakespeare is found poaching
rabbits; in another, he boldly nails the ballad to the gates of the
Lucy estate. Similarly, the ballad changes with each
chronicler....>> (The Friendly Shakespeare)
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.go2coventry.co.uk/history/part3/shakespeare.htm
<<We are informed that Shakespeare fell into bad company and often
poached deer from Lucy and was suspected by the keeper and on one
occasion captured and locked in the keeper’s lodge overnight. In the
morning he was dragged into the great hall before Lord Lucy, humiliated
and whipped, then released. It is said that Shakespeare was so annoyed
at his humiliation that he wrote a verse which he hung on Lord Lucy’s
gate. This is an extract of the claimed verse:
A parliament member,
a justice of peace,
At home a poor scarecrow,
at London an asse,
If lowsie is Lucy,
as some volke miscalle it,
Then Lucy is lowsie,
whatever befall it.
He thinks himself great;
Yet an asse in his state,
We allow, by his ears,
but with asses to mate,
if Lucy is lowsie,
as some volke miscall it,
Then sing lowsie Lucy whatever befall it.
It is said that Lucy was so incensed by the verse that he applied to the
County Attorney for Shakespeare’s arrest. This, we are told, was granted
and Lord Lucy signed Shakespeare’s arrest warrant, traditionally on the
Elizabethan table now in St. Mary’s Guildhall, Coventry.
Many have dismissed this story simply because at this time it is said
Thomas Lucy’s park at Charlecote was not emparked for deer, therefore
the story must be untrue. It is known that Lucy’s nearby park at
Fulbrooke had deer, but this was probably set up by his son. It is a
fact, however, that all Lucy land in and around Charlecote, like most of
Elizabethan England, had numerous wild deer which were by law the
property of the lord of the manor. So a bored Shakespeare had plenty of
opportunity to steal deer from Lord lucy’s land, not emparked but wild.
This is the point where Shakespeare is said to have left Stratford with
the threat of arrest hanging over his head. This leads into a period of
his life between 1585 and 1592 when little is known.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy, Sir Thomas
http://harlem.eb.com/shakespeare/micro/359/61.html
(b. April 24, 1532, Charlecote, near Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire,
Eng.--d. July 7, 1600, Charlecote), English squire whom William
Shakespeare may possibly have caricatured as Justice Shallow in Henry
IV, Part 2 and The Merry Wives of Windsor.
At 16 Lucy married an heiress, Joyce Acton, daughter of Thomas Acton of
Sutton, Worcestershire, and rebuilt Charlecote, the family house, with
her fortune. Lucy was knighted in 1565. He sat in two sessions of
Parliament as knight of the shire for Warwick, was a justice of the
queen's peace and a member of the council for the Marches of Wales
(to superintend the Welsh borders), and became a hunter of recusants
(usually Roman Catholic dissenters from the Church of England).
In 1588 he was a commissioner for musters against the Spanish Armada.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/search?q=thomas+lucy+Charlecote&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG=Google+Search
The story was initiated by a Gloucestershire clergyman named Richard
Davies who around 1616, wrote that "Shakespeare was much given to all
unluckiness in stealing venison and rabbits, particularly from Sir -----
Lucy (Davies left out Sir Thomas' first name) who oft had him whipped
and sometimes imprisoned and at last mad him fly his native country to
his great advancement." In 1709 Rowe picked up the story in his Acount
of the Life of Shakespeare.
"He had, by a Misfortune common
enough to young Fellows, fallen into ill Company;
and amongst them, some that made a frequent practice of Deer-stealing,
engag'd him with them more than once in robbing a Park that belong'd to
Sir Thomas Lucy of Cherlecot, near Stratford. For this he was prosecuted
by that Gentleman, as he thought, somewhat too severely; and in order to
revenge that ill Usage, he made a Ballad upon him. And tho' this,
probably the first Essay of his Poetry, be lost, yet it is said to have
been so very bitter, that it redoubled the Prosecution against him to
that degree, that he was oblig'd to leave his Business and Family in
Warwickshire, for some time, and shelter himself in London."
The third Sir Thomas Lucy (1532-1600) owner of Charlecote, Warwickshire
was educated by John Foxe, the martyrologist, whose Puritan sentiments
he adopted. He inherited the Warwickshire estate in 1552 and rebuilt the
manor house at Charlecote in 1558-9. He was knighted in 1565 by Robert
Dudley, Earl of Leicester, deputizing for Elizabeth Ist. In August 1572
he entertained Queen Elizabeth at Charlecote.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/soahstry.htm
<<On 22 August [Queen Elizabeth] arrived at Warwick and many people
from Stratford took the opportunity of going over to see her. On
24 August she passed even nearer the town, stopping at Charlecote to
knight Master Thomas Lucy, before moving quickly on to Broughton and
Oxford the same day. We did, however, receive one distinguished visitor
soon afterwards. On 9 September, Philip, the 12-year-old son of the
well-known Sir Henry Sidney, and nephew of the Early of Leicester,
stopped here on the way from Oxford to Shrewsbury, where he is at
school.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
The History and Antiquities of Boston by Pishey Thompson (1856)
<<Thus destitute of the means of subsistence, but qualified by his
long and severe studies to instruct others in the higher branches
of classical learning, we find him engaged, according to the son’s
account, as tutor to the family of Sir THOMAS LUCY, of Charlecote
in Warwickshire, though this fact is very vaguely treated by his
biographers. It does not appear, indeed, with any certainty, how he
employed his time after his retirement from Oxford in 1545, until he
became tutor to the Earl of Surrey’s children. It is known, however,
that within this period he married AGNES RANDALL, who was, the memoir
says, a friend or visitor of Sir Thomas Lucy, and of a Warwickshire
family; this last is, however, doubtful, since we find no trace of any
family of the name in that county.
The memoir states, that John Fox continued with Sir Thomas Lucy until
the read of religious persecution drove him to seek assistance from his
wife’s father, a citizen of Coventry. His step-father offered him an
asylum, "if he would alter his opinion;" his mother wrote to him to
come to them, without enforcing this arbitrary condition. He then lived
alternately with his step father and his wife’s father, and by this
means “avoided the diligence of those who inquired after him.”>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TRUTH COULD BE SHOWN TO THE WISE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to my 1939 _Encyclopedia Britannica_ Herodotus had
a lot to say about TRAGEDY (i.e., a goat-song) being
a PATHOS (i.e., the violent death of Dionysus/Osiris
by "sparagmos or dismemberment):
<<. . .we have the express testimony of HERODOTUS that the ritual
worship of Dionysus (the god of Drama) was the same as the ritual
worship of Osiris such that it involved a sparagmos(dismemberment),
mourning, search, discovery and resurrection.>> -- Drama article in
1939 _Encyclopedia Britannica_
However, Herodotus avoided directly mentioning
Dionysus OR Osiris in this regard:
"When the Egyptians lament the god whom I may not name in this
connection"
"They lament but whom they lament I must not say" -- Herodotus
For in the manner of ancient religion, it was always necessary
that Dionysus or Osiris be represented by some surrogate.
In fact, ALL TRAGIC HEROS are simply surrogates of Dionysus/Osiris:
<<We find a frequent sparagmos of beings who have committed some sin:
Pentheus by Maenads
Orpheus by Maenads
Lycurgus by horses
Hyppolytus by horses
Dirce by a bull
Actaeon by hounds. . .
This use of a surrogate was made easier by the fact that both at Eleusis
and in the Osiris rite the myth was conveyed by tableaux (i.e., 'things
shown') rather than by words. Thus the death of Pentheus, wearing
Dionysiac dress, would be shown by exactly the same tableau as that of
Dionysus. THE TRUTH COULD BE SHOWN TO THE WISE AND AT THE SAME TIME
VEILED FROM THE UNKNOWING. Such facts help to explain the charge of
"profaning the mysteries" which was brought against Aeschylus.>> -
Drama in 1939 _Encyclopedia Britannica_
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
I haven't read the silly relativist, Foucault, Mark, but am aware of
how authorship can be problematic--if you don't use the common
sense definition of "author" as the person responsible for making a
definitive whole of a text or artwork or whatever. Greg Reynolds
and I, for two, agree that it's hard to divide the credit for Hamlet,
say, since Shakepeare used sources, built on the work of all who
went before him in the field, fed off the inspiration provided by
other writers of his time, and was undoubtedly helped by his
fellow actors, etc., etc. All art is, in the final analysis,
collaborative, plays more than probably any other kind.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> >> be found for free at the library, it's not worth reading.
Just to show Mark I'm able to agree with him against a comrade, I have
to say that Jim's suggestion here that something not "at the library"
isn't worth reading is going a mite overboard. I realize that he probably
means "published material," but still, many libaries are abysmally
poor at selecting worthwhile stuff, and there are a lot of micro-presses
publishing stuff without any library's knowing about it. It is also
a rare library that stocks any but mainstream magazines and books--
though I suspect by being "found free at the library," Jim means
at "some" library. There are thousands of texts worth reading by
anybody's standards that aren't at my own local library-SYSTEM.
> >> I suggest that if you want meaningful critical response that
> >> you at least post it on the web and announce it here.
I agree with this, and suspect that this is what made Mark roll on
the floor, etc., "meaningful critical response" meaning, for Mark,
"response agreeing with my main points and not calling me an idiot."
--Bob G.
KQKnave
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) writes:
>> >> I'm not going to pay anything for any Oxfordian article. If it can't
>> >> be found for free at the library, it's not worth reading.
>
>> Jim
>
>Just to show Mark I'm able to agree with him against a comrade, I have
>to say that Jim's suggestion here that something not "at the library"
>isn't worth reading is going a mite overboard.
Yes, it's hyperbolic, but I had in mind peer-reviewed papers, not
works of art or essays.
> I realize that he probably
>means "published material," but still, many libaries are abysmally
>poor at selecting worthwhile stuff, and there are a lot of micro-presses
>publishing stuff without any library's knowing about it. It is also
>a rare library that stocks any but mainstream magazines and books--
>though I suspect by being "found free at the library," Jim means
>at "some" library. There are thousands of texts worth reading by
>anybody's standards that aren't at my own local library-SYSTEM.
I had in mind a big university library, which usually does have most
of what's worth reading, if not every fringe topic.
>
>> >> I suggest that if you want meaningful critical response that
>> >> you at least post it on the web and announce it here.
>
>I agree with this, and suspect that this is what made Mark roll on
>the floor, etc., "meaningful critical response" meaning, for Mark,
>"response agreeing with my main points and not calling me an idiot."
Mark's too good for us. I meant to say "post it on the web and
announce it here and on SHAKSPER".
Jim
Neuendorffer
>
> > <<Out of a DUCAL CORONET,
> > a Boar's head and neck, between wings.>>
> > -- LUCEY HERALDRY
> >
> > "The time has come," the Walrus said,
> > "To talk of many things:
> > Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
> > Of cabbages--and kings--
> > And why the sea is boiling hot--
> > And whether pigs have wings."
Janice Miller wrote:
>
> Another one from the Girl Scout songbook:
>
> <<There are suitors at my door,
> Six or eight or maybe more,
> And my father wants me wed,
> Or at least that's what he said.
<<St. Lucy was born in Syracuse, Sicily, the daughter of noble and
wealthy parents, and was raised a Christian. Her father died while she
was a child. She made a secret vow of virginity, but her MOTHER pressed
her to marry a pagan. St. Lucy tore out her own eyes to discourage a
suitor who admired them, or that they were gouged out by the judge; her
eyes were then miraculously restored to her.>>
> So I told him that I will,
> When the rivers flow uphill,
> Or the pigs begin to fly,
> Or the day before I die.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
http://killdevilhill.com/romanticschat/messages2/501.html
Posted by Laon on April 26, 1999 at 00:45:31:
"Alastor" makes interesting reading after "Kubla Khan". Here the "Poet",
Shelley's character, gets on a boat, hangs up his cloak on the mast, and
lets it ride wherever it will go. He starts on the ocean, but soon is
swept into a craggy shore, where the boat narrowly misses being swamped
or crushed by waves, or drowened in a whirlpool, and instead washes
through at high speed into a long, winding underground cavern.
Measureless to man, you might almost say. Re-reading the section, lines
370 - 403, in which the boat goes uphill, I see that I slandered
Shelley, who does provide a rational explanation. His boat gets caught
in a huge underground whirlpool: "Stair after stair the eddying waters
rose, Circling immeasurably fast".
Funny to find "immeasurably" in the context of an underground cavern
through which a river flows - though Shelley's would seem to be a
salt-water river. Shelley wrote "Alastor" in 1815, and Coleridge
published "Kubla Khan" in 1816. Shelley could have heard Byron recite
"Kubla Khan" shortly before it was published, but, again, Shelley didn't
meet Byron till after he'd written "Alastor". No, got it. Shelley stayed
with Coleridge's friend Southey in 1811, and maybe Southey showed
Shelley some unpublished Coleridge.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 1, Scene 4
BRAKENBURY Had you such leisure in the time of death
To gaze upon the secrets of the deep?
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<St. Lucy is represented as a maiden with her EYEBALLs in a dish,
> > on a book, or in a shell. Sometimes she is shown
>
> A pumpkin shell?
That was the Headless Horseman.
Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater,
Had a wife and couldn’t keep her;
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her very well.
> > This use of a surrogate was made easier by the fact that both at Eleusis
> > and in the Osiris rite the myth was conveyed by tableaux (i.e., 'things
> > shown') rather than by words. Thus the death of Pentheus, wearing
> > Dionysiac dress, would be shown by exactly the same tableau as that of
> > Dionysus. THE TRUTH COULD BE SHOWN TO THE WISE AND AT THE SAME TIME
> > VEILED FROM THE UNKNOWING. Such facts help to explain the charge of
> > "profaning the mysteries" which was brought against Aeschylus.>> -
> > Drama in 1939 _Encyclopedia Britannica_
>
> <<Hillel said, separate not thyself from the congregation:
> nor have confidence in thyself until the death.
>
> Judge not thy neighbour till thou art in his situation; neither utter
> a sentence, as if it was incomprehensible, that afterwards may be
> comprehended: nor say, when I shall have leisure, I will study, lest
> though shouldest not have leisure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 5, Scene 1
DUKE VINCENTIO Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and MEASURE still FOR MEASURE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> He also said, a boor cannot be fearful of sin; nor can a rustic ['am
> ha-'aretz: ignoramus] be a saint [chasid]: the bashful [bayshan] will not
> become learned [lamed], nor the passemate [?: qapdan] a teacher [melamed]:
> neither will he who is much engaged in traffic become wise: and where
> there are no instructing men [she-eyn 'anashim], strive thou to be a man
> ['ish].>>
>
> _Avot_, ch. 2: I apologize for the translation, which is from an old
> (1937) prayerbook.
Can a rustic ['am ha-'aretz: ignoramus] become learned [lamed]?
Art Neuendorffer
Mark Alexander
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
> In article <5f7d2eb3.01072...@posting.google.com>,
> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) writes:
>
> >> >> I'm not going to pay anything for any Oxfordian article. If it
can't
> >> >> be found for free at the library, it's not worth reading.
> >
> >> Jim
> >
> >Just to show Mark I'm able to agree with him against a comrade, I
have
> >to say that Jim's suggestion here that something not "at the library"
> >isn't worth reading is going a mite overboard.
>
> Yes, it's hyperbolic, but I had in mind peer-reviewed papers, not
> works of art or essays.
Been out of town for a week without e-mail access, and all kinds of
things have cropped up on this newsgroup.
FYI, The Oxfordian "is" a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers of my my
article were lawyers, and it is available in many university libraries.
If you and Bob let me know what universities you frequent, I will try to
find out if copies are available there.
As far as *posting it on the Web*, obviously a publication agreement
forbids that for a time. The earliest such a thing could even be
considered is the middle of next year. However, if I get positive
responses from certain quarters, I may expand it into a book.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
> >
> > He explores why attribution can be so problematic.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Mark
>
> I haven't read the silly relativist, Foucault, Mark, but am aware of
> how authorship can be problematic--if you don't use the common
> sense definition of "author" as the person responsible for making a
> definitive whole of a text or artwork or whatever. Greg Reynolds
> and I, for two, agree that it's hard to divide the credit for Hamlet,
> say, since Shakepeare used sources, built on the work of all who
> went before him in the field, fed off the inspiration provided by
> other writers of his time, and was undoubtedly helped by his
> fellow actors, etc., etc. All art is, in the final analysis,
> collaborative, plays more than probably any other kind.
>
> --Bob G.
Bob, I am not a big fan of 20th century criticism, and I hold a special
distaste for much French critical theory, post-structuralism and its
heirs. That does not mean that that such writers do not write with
intelligence or are incapable of making thoughtful observations. I
believe Marx was perversely misguided, but there are occasionally
trenchant observations in his writings, despite his being almost
completely off the rails regarding human nature. Of all of Foucault's
writings, his essay What is an Author? is worth reading.
But since you have him put in a nice little box, without apparently
having read him beyond a sampling of paragraphs, let's then leave it at
that.
Cheers
Mark
Mark Alexander
> argument of yours down, you claim he mischaracterized your
> argument. In some cases, you may be right. In this last case,
> you found very minor points to gripe about and ignored the
> very good arguments that he made, some of which I repeated,
> with you ignoring them again.
>
> As for your claiming that Shakespeare made great poetry of
> legal terms in your view, I got that from reading your essay;
> as I now recall, that was only the opinion of one of the
> "experts" you quoted. I assumed you went along with it. If
> you don't think he made great poetry from his legal terms, I
> wonder what you think he did with them. And why you think they
> were an intimate part of his vocabulary.
Whether or not I thought he made *great poetry* with legal terms is not
relevant, because I have not made that idea a part of my argument.
Unless you are confusing *great poetry* with the explicit idea I *have*
advanced, that Shakespeare's use of legal terms as metaphors in
*non-legal contexts* is a matter of persuasive significance. I don't
know what that argument has to do with *great poetry*.
But you and Jim did not seem to be approaching the actual content of my
argument. Instead you and he brought in the notion that somehow my
reasoning implies that because Shakespeare made *great poetry* out of
gardening terms, he was therefore a gardener. That does not follow in my
book, although I did respond by explaining the investigative process
needed to make a determination of whether Shakespeare was a gardener
based on his use of technical language.
Since the idea that Shakespeare used terms from various professions to
make *great poetry* is irrelevant to my argument, I quite necessarily
dismissed it as irrelevant and not worth arguing.
If you want to challenge my argument, then use the specific language of
my argument, and draw parallels based upon the specific language of my
argument.
Otherwise, you move into the world of sophistry, or simply muddled
thinking.
> As for my paying good money for your bilge about Shakespeare's
> advanced legal knowledge, I doubt I will. So you can will be able
> to claim I was afraid to trade speculations with you.
>
> --Bob G.
Then why don't you leave these threads alone. If your philosophy of
debate is to dive in without giving the other side its due, you are
simply wasting bandwidth. You become the example of the rigidnikery you
so often brand on others.
Since you assume my arguments are *bilge* before you examine them, then
you simply reveal yourself as an ideologue. . . And that this forum for
you is more of a sand-throwing playground of gamesmanship than an
opportunity to advance mutual understanding.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Copyright in Shakespeare's Time VIII (Strat tactics)
Let's get to the nub.
<snip>
Gee, Terry. By your reasoning, then, we must discount any connection
between Shakspere and Field. And Dave Kathman's entire paper on
Shakspere and the lawyers would suffer as well. Dave does quite a job
violating your degrees of separation reduction.
The only way we can connect Shakspere and Field is if we assume
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare. Then we can reasonably infer a connection.
If we start our investigation without that assumption, then we must let
the possible connection between Field and Shakespeare....and virtually
every other personal connection, since Shakspere's connections are
almost universally beyond the first degree.
By your reasoning, then, almost anything we advance about Shakspere,
Oxford, Burghley, and Shakespeare's plays are *far from certain*. Of
course that is part of the problem. So much uncertainty.
My argument is that:
1) Topical references and purposefully ambiguous representations were
common and expected in Elizabethan drama. (Of course, because of the
obvious problems of how someone of Shakspere's class would get away with
so many pointed references, modern Strats want to deny that
Shakespeare's plays were topical and referenced contemporaries, however
ambiguously...But Hamlet lets the cat out of the bag, supporting my
argument with his "abstracts and brief chronicles" speech. The Queen
also supports it with the Richard II reference. This is not a
controversial argument, except to the extent that Strats throw dust in
the air around Shakespeare whenever it comes up.)
2) That whatever you and I would argue, playgoers would naturally
connect Polonius to Burghley, especially those who may have seen a
version where he is named Corambis (and it's no matter if the name
reflects perfect grammatical Latin, for God's sake...the rule is
ambiguity...deniability! The audience who knew Burghley's motto would
get it. You piling on of red-herring Latinisms aside.) Heck, a mass of
Stratfordian scholars make this argument, only some now retreat because
of the uncomfortable implications for Shakspere, not any new
understanding of topicality or Burghley's character.
3) That in fact the *most reasonable* argument is that Polonius is meant
to be Burghley, especially when other obvious, and sometimes ambiguous,
parallels arise for Ophelia, Laertes, and Hamlet. To argue that the
parallels are not precise and perfect is to ignore wholesale the point
of "telling the truth but telling it slant".
Hoby is beside the point. Shakespeare the writer had an intimate
appreciation for both books (my error aside). Oxford has an intimate
connection to specific translations of both, one where he wrote a Latin
preface and the other where he is the dedicatee, and *acknowledged as
the one who commanded its translation and publication*.
Some time ago I offered to list some intimate connections, 25 I think,
and match them to a comparable list of 25 intimate connections for
Shakspere. I forget who was willing to do the Shakspere list, but I have
mine ready to go. I will happily create a web page with side by side
lists.
> >
> > > > > 4) ***And Ovid's Metamorphoses, the Arthur Golding
translation,
> > > > > which
> > > > > profoundly influenced Shakespeare? Arthur Golding
coincidentally
> > > > > happened to be Oxford's uncle. But that cannot possibly be a
> > > > > connection
> > > > > in your selective world.
> > >
> > > Oxford was living in the same household as Golding when part of
the
> > > Metamorphoses was being translated, at an age when he was studying
> > > Latin. Can you seriously advance a list of *thousands* who would
have
> > > such an intimate connection? You lose again.
> >
> > You're talking about a book read by thousands.
>
> There is no reason to believe that Oxford had anything to do with
> Golding's translation. I suppose Oxford may have read it at some
point,
> but I know of no evidence that he did. Golding nowhere refers to
Oxford
> anywhere in his book.
Yeah, I suppose we could get technical and say that there is no proof
Oxford knew Golding. There's no proof that they ever spoke in Cecil's
home. There's no proof that Oxford ever read any of Golding's
dedications.
> Shakespeare was certainly familiar with Ovid in
> Latin and with Golding's translation, which was a very popular book,
but I
> know of no contemporary reader who "connected" either Ovid or
Golding's
> translation with Oxford. Where is the "connection" between
Shakespeare
> and Oxford? Does Mark consider every relative of every writer that
> Shakespeare read to have a "connection" to Shakespeare?
Gee, isn't it fascinating that we can find connections between so many
relatives and high-level acquaintances and Shakespeare the writer. And
you know that if even *one* of these people could be connected to
Shakspere, you would be trumpeting it.
But it's not that we looked at every relative trying to find
connections. It's that we first looked at Shakespeare and what *Strat
scholars* had to say about Shakespeare. Then we ask, Is there an Oxford
connection?
I mean, put a circle in the middle of a piece of blank paper. Put these
things around that circle, things that Strat scholars have indicated
have a connecton to Shakespeare the writer:
Burghley
Anne Cecil
Thomas Cecil
John Lily
Anthony Munday
Edmund Spenser
Pembroke
Montgomery
Southampton
Peacham
Golding's "Metamorphoses"
Castiglione's "The Courtier"
Cardanus's "Comforte"
The Geneva Bible
Law
Music
A Great Library
"Truth is truth"
"I Am That I Am"
You can put Shakespeare the writer in that circle you draw and make some
intimate and fascinating connections with all of the above. (In the case
of Peacham, a telling *non*connection.)
Now put Shakspere in the middle of that circle. What happens?
Now put Oxford in that circle. What happens?
Now create your own Shakspere circle with your choice of connections.
And then we compare that to those above. What do you think will happen?
I'll address Cardanus and the rest in a separate thread.
Cheers
Mark
Mark Alexander
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0107250948560.26247-100000@mail...
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
> > > > > 5) ***And Cardanus Comfort, the book surmised to be that which
> > > > > Hamlet is
> > > > > reading in the library? The translation of which was dedicated
to
> > > > > Oxford? But that cannot possibly be a connection in your
selective
> > > > > world.
> > >
> > > A profound and intimate connection between Shakespeare the writer
and
> > > Cardanus Comfort has been advanced by Stratfordian scholars.
>
> What "profound and intimate connection"? Harold Jenkins in the Arden
> *Hamlet* (a book Mark has read bits of) says, "Hardin Craig's
discovery in
> Cardan's *De Consolatione* of sentiments similar to Hamlet's does not
> warrant the conclusion that that was where Hamlet found them" (111).
Where
> is the "connection" between Oxford and Shakespeare?
You are the one reading bits, Terry. Since I did not recall Jenkins
addressing Cardan at lenght, I had to go in search of. I went to Jenkins
expecting an argument with support, and all I got was a claim without
support. Perhaps you had hoped that I did not actually have a copy of
Craig's article, or did not know Jenkins enough to respond. But Stanford
has quite a nice library, thank you, and I have all 21 pages of Craig's
rather informative argument. And thank you for sending me back to it.
And to Jenkins, an astute critic whose arguments are not always
well-supported.
Here's what Jenkins says (p. 111), which you quoted:
"Hardin Craig's discovery in Cardan's *De Consolatione* of semtiments
similar to Hamlet's does not warrant the conclusion that that was here
Hamlet found them."
That's pretty much it. The next sentence goes on to Erasmus, and the two
sentences after that, which seem the extent of Jenkins effort to support
his claim, reads:
"The whole question of the sources of ideas, in an age much given to
repeating proverbial wisdom, discourages confident assertions. It has
often happened that investigators concerned with one source have
attributed to it what could have come equally from another."
However this may be, Jenkins provides no alternative source. He supplies
no arguments to refute Craig's 21 pages of detailed arguments.
But more than that, Jenkins merely repeats a point that Craig fully
understands. Go back to Craig's essay, pp 19-21, where he survey's the
literature of comfort. He points out how much of what Cardan is doing
follows earlier examples (Cicero, Plutarch, Boethius).
But Craig then goes on to supply specific parallels that reveal *why*
there is a strong case to be made that Shakespeare read Cardan in
particular. I won't make that case here. But I will point out the tactic
you have used--to simply cite an authority without an argument as if
that should end the matter. Kathman tried that with Shakespeare's
knowledge of Law. I have roundly refuted him with plenty of support. You
and he best not acquire a copy of the Oxfordian when it comes out. It
may ruin your whole day.
The fact is, Craig makes a strong argument that stands unrefuted,
especially by Jenkins. In fact, *Jenkins takes with one hand while
giving with the other*. In longer notes to the famous To be or not to be
speech, Jenkins actually mentions Cardan as a direct source:
(p. 489) "The likening of death to a sleep...was a Renaissance
commonplace descending from such works as Cicero's *Tusculan
Disputations* but often referred back to Socrates. It is found, among
other places, in Cardan's *De Consolatione*...sometimes regarded as a
direct source..."
(p. 492) (Regarding "conscience") "This is also the sense in which the
word is used by Belleforest in conjunction with the cowardice...that
hinders gallant enterprises...in view of which it is less necessary,
though still instructive, to note that Cardan's *Comfort*...attributes
man's unhappiness to 'a cowardly and corrupt conscience.'"
These will no doubt not put a dent in your thinking, Terry. There is
plenty of wiggle room. Jenkins says "...sometimes regarded as a direct
source". Plenty of wiggle room there. And the second reference is merely
"instructive".
But the point is that Craig's argument stands unrefuted. He gives some
persuasive details. (Ther may be a good refutation, but I have yet to
see it.) You have to come up with more than mere assertion and quoting
of authority to refute it.
> > > We know
> > > there is a profound and intimate connection between Oxford and
> > > Cardanus
> > > Comfort . That's a living, breathing connection that cannot apply
to
> > > *thousands*. You lose again.
> >
> > You're talking about a book read by thousands.
>
> This "connection" seems to require a "surmised." Certain commonplaces
> that appear in *Hamlet* and elsewhere also appear in Cardanus, but
that
> does not mean that Shakespeare must have read the book (although, of
> course, he might have). By the way, while Jenkins tells us it is
probably
> not possible to identify the book Hamlet is reading, the "satirical
> rogue's" comments about old men don't sound like something from
*Cardanus
> Comfort* (Juvenal or Erasmus may be more plausible candidates for this
odd
> distinction). Where is the "connection" between Shakespeare and
Oxford?
Gee, ya think that Shakespeare could mix rhetorical stances and combine
sources and ideas? That's a shocker!
Bedingfield's translation was dedicated to Oxford. Since I own a
facsimile of the 1576 edition, it may interest you to note that it is
more than just a sycophant's effort to curry favor. Here is the complete
text of that dedication:
"MY GOOD LORDE, I can geeue nothinge more agreable to your minde, and my
fortune then the willinge performance of sutch seruice as it shall
please you to commaunde me vnto: And therefore rather to obeye then
boast of my cunninge, and as a newe signe of myne olde deuotion, I doe
present the booke your lordeship so longe desired. VVith assured hope
that how so euer you mislike or allow ther of, you will fouourably
conceal myne imperfections which to your Lordeshippe alone I dare
discouer, because most faithfully I honour and loue you. My long
discontinuance of study, or rather the lack of grounded knowledge did
many times discorage me, yet the pleasure I tooke in the matter did
counteruayle all dispayre, and the rather by encouragement of youre L
who (as you wel remember) vnwares to me founde some part of this
woorcke, and willed me in any wise to procede therin. My meaning was not
to haue imparted my trauaile to any, but your honour hath power to
countermaund myne intencion. Yet I moste humbly beseech you either not
to make any partakers thereof, or at the least wise those, who for
reuerence to you L. or loue to mee, wyll willingly beare wyth myne
errors. A nedelesse thinge I knowe it is to comforte you, whom nature
and fortune hath not onely not iniured, but rather vpon whom they haue
bountifully bestowed their grace: notwithstandinge sith you delight to
see others acquited of cares, your L. shall not do amisse to reade some
part of Cardanus counsell: wherein consideringe the mayfolde miseries of
others, you may the rather esteeme your own happy estate wyth encrease
of those noble and rare vertues which I know and reioyce to be in you.
Sure I am it would haue better beseemed me to haue taken this trauaile
in some discourse of Armes (being your L. chief profession & mine also)
then in Philosophers skill to haue thus busied my selfe: yet sith your
pleasure was such, and your knowledge in either great, I do (as I will
euer) most willingly obeye you. And if any eyther through skill or
curiosity do find fault with mee, I trust notwithstanding for the
respects aforesaide to be houlden executed. From my lodginge this first
of Ianuarye. 1571."
Note those first two sentences: "MY GOOD LORDE, I can geeue nothinge
more agreable to your minde, and my fortune then the willinge
performance of sutch seruice as it shall please you to commaunde me
vnto: And therefore rather to obeye then boast of my cunninge, and as a
newe signe of myne olde deuotion, I doe present the booke your lordeship
so longe desired."
Oxford, at the age of 20 or 21, asked for this translation. It meant
something to him. It meant something to Shakespeare (per Craig). Now go
make a proper refutation of Craig.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>FYI, The Oxfordian "is" a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers of my my
>article were lawyers,
They claim to be a peer-reviewed journal, but they only use reviewers
within their own little cabal of true-believers. Your reviewers should
not have been lawyers, but lawyers who are familiar with the conceit
of legal language as used by Elizabethan dramatists and poets, and
experts in Shakespearian diction who are not lawyers. I'm afraid calling
your local ambulance-chaser won't do.
Jim
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Unless you are confusing *great poetry* with the explicit idea I *have*
>advanced, that Shakespeare's use of legal terms as metaphors in
>*non-legal contexts* is a matter of persuasive significance. I don't
>know what that argument has to do with *great poetry*.
It's like this: if Shakespeare uses a few legal terms, much more
rarely than he uses terms from other fields, and when he uses
those terms from other fields, he creates striking passages,
then the use of legal terms means absolutely nothing. Especially
so if his use is sometimes incorrect.
>
>But you and Jim did not seem to be approaching the actual content of my
>argument. Instead you and he brought in the notion that somehow my
>reasoning implies that because Shakespeare made *great poetry* out of
>gardening terms, he was therefore a gardener. That does not follow in my
>book, although I did respond by explaining the investigative process
>needed to make a determination of whether Shakespeare was a gardener
>based on his use of technical language.
>
>Since the idea that Shakespeare used terms from various professions to
>make *great poetry* is irrelevant to my argument, I quite necessarily
>dismissed it as irrelevant and not worth arguing.
Then what is your argument? That Shakespeare used legal terms
correctly, just as he used many terms from many fields correctly?
Not very persuasive, to say the least. Even the possibility that he *never*
used
legal terms incorrectly is wrong. For example, in LLL, when Boyet is
asking for a kiss:
BOYET. So you grant pasture for me.
KATHARINE. Not so, gentle beast;
My lips are no common, though several they be.
The pun here is on the word "several", which had then its modern
meaning of "a small number more than two", but also (the one used
here) meaning "separate, distinct" (this is the way the Earl of
Oxenforde used it in his letters). The pun involves the legal meaning
of "several", defined by the OED as
"7. Chiefly Law. (Opposed to common.) Private; privately
owned or occupied. a. of land, esp. of enclosed pasture."
Notice that it is *opposed* to "common". The examples given by
the OED, e.g. from the year 1583, support this:
"1583 STUBBES Anat. Abus. II. (1882) 27 The commons..are inclosed, made
seueral."
Shakespeare tries too hard for the pun, saying, "My lips are (more than
one)(separated)
(privately owned)", which is fine, but the line should have read something
like:
"My lips are no common, they are several"
not
"My lips are no common, *though* several they be."
Land cannot be "common" and "several" at the same time.
Jim
Bob Grumman
> relevant, because I have not made that idea a part of my argument.
I contend that you have, or have come too close to doing so for
it to make any great difference. I further contend that your
way of "arguing" is to require your opponents to understand
exactly what you mean, and if they don't (in your view), to
use that as an excuse not to go on rather than accepting
their near-understanding and adapting your arguments to it
the way the rest of us do. I believe that your not accepting
my (offhand, admittedly) characterization of your argument is
good evidence of this--as I will now try to show.
> Unless you are confusing *great poetry* with the explicit idea I *have*
> advanced, that Shakespeare's use of legal terms as metaphors in
> *non-legal contexts* is a matter of persuasive significance. I don't
> know what that argument has to do with *great poetry*.
I am simply using words you wouldn't have to say what you said.
Your argument is that Shakespeare uses legal terms accurately
and EFFECTIVELY in metaphors, in the process revealing the DEPTH
of his legal knowledge. That to me strongly implies that he was
using his legal terms to make great poetry. But what difference
does it make? He was using his legal terms to do something! Why
can't you substitute some approximation for my (not Jim's, that I
know of) "great poetry" that will work for you rather than just
yelping, "Aha, making great poetry is not precisely what I was
arguing; therefore, all that Bob is saying in irrelevant?." For
instance, convert my "Shakespeare used legal terms to make great
poetry" to "Shakespeare used legal terms to make intelligent
which revealed the depth of his legal wisdom in poetry" (since he
wrote poetry" or something else that will allow you to continue
the discussion profitably (in my view).
> But you and Jim did not seem to be approaching the actual content of my
> argument. Instead you and he brought in the notion that somehow my
> reasoning implies that because Shakespeare made *great poetry* out of
> gardening terms, he was therefore a gardener.
I said nothing about gardening terms. Jim's point, it certainly seemed
to me, was that Shakespeare used gardening terms as effectively
and knowledgeably as he used legal terms. This, using your
apparent reasoning, should make him in gardening whatever you
think his use of legal terms makes him in law.
> That does not follow in my
> book, although I did respond by explaining the investigative process
> needed to make a determination of whether Shakespeare was a gardener
> based on his use of technical language.
All you have to do here is say that you cannot accept that
Shakespeare used gardening terms as well as he used legal terms;
you can then challenge Jim to show why you are not right; you needn't
dictate his method of doing that, just show the defects of the
method he chooses to use, if you believe in defective.
> Since the idea that Shakespeare used terms from various professions to
> make *great poetry* is irrelevant to my argument, I quite necessarily
> dismissed it as irrelevant and not worth arguing.
I truly do not see how you can sanely (uhn oh, there I go again) say
that. How could Shakespeare use terms from any profession to make
great poetry without being a master of those terms in the way you
think he's a master of legal terms? Are you saying he used legal
terms to make metaphors but NOT great poetry and that makes
him a legal expert but it does not follow that his use of terms
from gardening or some other profession to make metaphors AND
great poetry would make him an expert in gardening or whatever other
profession he takes his terms from?
> If you want to challenge my argument, then use the specific language of
> my argument, and draw parallels based upon the specific language of my
> argument.
This is intellectual totalitarianism, Mark. It is also an easy
way, as I have shown, to keep from endangering your rigidniplex.
> Otherwise, you move into the world of sophistry, or simply muddled
> thinking.
> > As for my paying good money for your bilge about Shakespeare's
> > advanced legal knowledge, I doubt I will. So you can will be able
> > to claim I was afraid to trade speculations with you.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> Then why don't you leave these threads alone. If your philosophy of
> debate is to dive in without giving the other side its due, you are
> simply wasting bandwidth. You become the example of the rigidnikry you
> so often brand on others.
If I have a comment to make that seems pertinent to me, I don't
know why I should not state it--without agreeing to buy and read
everything concerning the discussion into which I insert my comment.
Again, you want to lay down rules of discussion. (I, too, am working
on a formal text I expect to have published, as you no doubt know;
unlike you, I will be posting every chapter in it that's concerned
with the Shakespeare Authorship Questions--and have already posted a
few chapters (without getting any feedback from you, that I recall);
that book will also have several chapters on my theory of psychology,
which is much more complex than anything involving who wrote Shakespeare,
so I probably won't be posting much of it at HLAS; it also will rely
on illustrations that will be hard to post; but I will very likely put
those chapters up somewhere on the Internet where others may read
it for free.)
> Since you assume my arguments are *bilge* before you examine them, then
> you simply reveal yourself as an ideologue. . . And that this forum for
> you is more of a sand-throwing playground of gamesmanship than an
> opportunity to advance mutual understanding.
I've read enough of your arguments to assume that the ones I haven't
read are bilge. But, for me (this may be difficult for you to
understand, Mark), an assumption is not a conclusion. Present your
arguments (if you really have any I haven't already read in your
lame article in the SOS Newsletter) and I'll very probably examine
them. I can't promise I will since, like Dave and many others at
HLAS, I have other things in my life, and you haven't yet shown
yourself worthy of my primary attention.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
my local university, Mark, but the one here is very small,
and not convenient for me. But maybe, if I ever get my
book done, we can work a trade or something. Or maybe I'll
get to a library that has copies of the Oxfordian eventually.
--Bob G.
Mark Alexander
> I've read enough of your arguments to assume that the ones I haven't
> read are bilge. But, for me (this may be difficult for you to
> understand, Mark), an assumption is not a conclusion. Present your
> arguments (if you really have any I haven't already read in your
> lame article in the SOS Newsletter) and I'll very probably examine
> them. I can't promise I will since, like Dave and many others at
> HLAS, I have other things in my life, and you haven't yet shown
> yourself worthy of my primary attention.
>
> --Bob G.
Oh. Thank you for clarifying. No need to waste each other's time, then.
Cheers
Mark
Bob Grumman
him at HLAS as being--while wrong and usually foolish--never this
block-headed. (Yeah, Mark, here I go again.)
Anyway, Mark wants a list of--oops, he didn't say he "wants," he
said, "Now create your own Shakspere circle with your choice of
connections (between the rube and the poet)." Here's mine:
Hamlet
Romeo and Juliet
Venus and Adonis
Timon of Athens
Richard II
Richard III
The Tempest
A Winter's Tale
Henry VIII
A Comedy of Errors
Loves Labours Lost
Twelfth Night
other plays and poems
the Stratford monument
The First Folio engraving
Basse poem
Ooops. What am I doing?! I'm unfairly listing things which
direct concrete evidence indicates are connected to Shakespeare
of Stratford as a WRITER. From Mark's list of people and things,
it is evident that he wants a list of things that have nothing
particularly to do with Shakespeare the writer, except--maybe--
a short quotation or two.
> Burghley
> Anne Cecil
> Thomas Cecil
> John Lily
> Anthony Munday
> Edmund Spenser
> Pembroke
> Montgomery
> Southampton
> Peacham
>
> Golding's "Metamorphoses"
> Castiglione's "The Courtier"
> Cardanus's "Comforte"
> The Geneva Bible
>
> Law
> Music
> A Great Library
> "Truth is truth"
> "I Am That I Am"
Ah, and I see now the reason for his asking for things that *scholars*
have connected to Shakespeare the writer so he can add things like
"a great library."
(1) when you have direct concrete evidence for possibility A and NO
direct concrete evidence for possibility not-A, there's little point
in examining trivial indirect evidence
(2) so what if Oxford and Shakespeare the poet share all the items
on Mark's list since we lack sufficient data to know that Shakespeare
did not.
(3) how can we be sure that all the items on Mark's list have to do
with Shakespeare the writer--Burghley, for instance,and Ann Cecil,
for certain. Yes, I know, Mark only needs some scholar to say
there's a connection, but that won't do. We need direct
concrete evidence of such a connection. Also, there are scores
of things some scholar or other has said are important to
Shakespeare the writer that you selectively ignore like Jim's
gardening, and medicine, and the river Avon near Stratford, and
Denmark (we can be much more sure that Oxford never visited
Denmark and thus could not have written about Elsinore the way
Shakespeare did than that Shakespeare never went there), etc.
Now a digression, because I happned to think about it. What is
the formal definition of a refereed journal? I mean, in a sense
any periodical with a board of editors is refereed. I myself
couldn't care less whether Mark's Oxfordian is refereed or not,
and take Mark's word that it is, by the rules. But I'm curious
what is needed to make a journal officially refereed. Must the
referees all have Ph. D.'s? Must there be university-affiliation?
--Bob G.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> > read are bilge. But, for me (this may be difficult for you to
> > understand, Mark), an assumption is not a conclusion. Present your
> > arguments (if you really have any I haven't already read in your
> > lame article in the SOS Newsletter) and I'll very probably examine
> > them. I can't promise I will since, like Dave and many others at
> > HLAS, I have other things in my life, and you haven't yet shown
> > yourself worthy of my primary attention.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> Oh. Thank you for clarifying. No need to waste each other's time, then.
Everything is either/or to a rigidnik: here I must either attend to
Mark's arguments zealously (on his terms, of course) or not attend
to them, at all. No wide range of choices between the extremes that
would include dipping in to consider a point here or there. As I
will no doubt continue to do. (Note, my not considering you worthy
of my primary attention is not the insult you probably take it as,
Mark. My own poetry and my own Shakespeare book are two of the
items of my primary attention. My two cats. My theory of psychology.
Speaking of which, many valuable books by other psychologists that
touch on matters I'm concerned with do not seem to me to rate my
"primary" attention, simply because I've read their authors before
and doubt they'll say anything new to me or reviews of their books have
suggested that to me, or a skim of their books, etc. Naturally, this
means I'll miss some stuff of importance, but that's life. I haven't
time to follow up on all leads.)
--Bob G.
Mark Alexander
not your habit to leave me with the last word. (The better to forever
claim that it is always I who drop a thread. <g>)
Cheers
Mark Alexander
"Mark Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uTF97.10989$bl1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Terry Ross
> Terry, I presume that you are still researching this matter, since it is
> not your habit to leave me with the last word. (The better to forever
> claim that it is always I who drop a thread. <g>)
>
Mark,
I have been out of town recently, and have not had time to finish a reply
to you that I had started before I left.
I recommend Cooperstown NY for anyone interested in a delightful and
varied Summer vacation. For the opera fancier, there is the Glimmerglass
Opera, offering excellent productions, mostly of operas that are not
commonly performed: the 2001 season comprises *The Marriage of Figaro*,
which everyone knows, but also Chabrier's *L'Etoile*, Britten's *Rape of
Lucrecia* (very different from Shakespeare's version), and Handel's
*Agrippina*. For the fan of James Fenimore Cooper, there is the Fenimore
Museum, and a chance to spend time in a region where Cooper lived, and in
which he set some of his best fiction -- and even to paddle a canoe across
Lake Otsego, Cooper's Glimmerglass. For one who dwells near the
Chesapeake, there is the lake itself, the source of the Susquehanna. For
the baseball fan, there is the Hall of Fame. For the beer fancier, there
is the marvelous Ommegang Brewery, where excellent Belgian-style ales are
produced.
The latter part of the week I spent further south in the Chesapeake
watershed, observing the avifauna of Smith Island and environs (and making
the acquaintance of many mosquitos and biting flies).
Now I am back, and I have a number of partially-composed posts to finish
or abandon when I get the time. I will probably finish the Cardanus
Comfort post, because our discussions have touched upon a very interesting
issue: on what basis does one decide whether parallels between an earlier
and a later text compel the conclusion that the more recent author must
have read the earlier work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Alexander
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> > Terry, I presume that you are still researching this matter, since it is
> > not your habit to leave me with the last word. (The better to forever
> > claim that it is always I who drop a thread. <g>)
> >
> Mark,
>
> I have been out of town recently, and have not had time to finish a reply
> to you that I had started before I left.
I figured that.
<snip>
> Now I am back, and I have a number of partially-composed posts to finish
> or abandon when I get the time. I will probably finish the Cardanus
> Comfort post, because our discussions have touched upon a very interesting
> issue: on what basis does one decide whether parallels between an earlier
> and a later text compel the conclusion that the more recent author must
> have read the earlier work.
Yes, and I hope you have a copy of Craig's essay on hand in order to refute his
argument and examples. If not, I will be happy to fax you a copy.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> Mark's latest catalogue of sins includes this:
>
> [snip]
> Did Oxford even know Southampton? Southampton, of course, did not marry
> any of Oxford's daughters. Burghley tried to match his granddaughter
> Elizabeth Vere to Southampton, but Southampton begged off. Oxford, unlike
> Shakespeare, never dedicated any work to Southampton; Oxford, unlike
> Shakespeare, was never credited with writing either of the works
> Shakespeare dedicated to Southampton.
>
> Did Oxford even know William Herbert? Oxford approved of the proposed
> match, writing to Burghley, "the ionge gentelman, as I vnderstand hathe
> bene well browght vp, fayre conditioned, and hathe many good partes in
> hym" (letter of September 8, 1597, from Alan Nelson's website). It sounds
> from this as if he did NOT know the "young gentleman," who never did marry
> any of Oxford's daughters.
>
> Did Oxford even know Philip Herbert? This Herbert married Oxford's
> daughter Susan in 1604 -- six months after Oxford's death. If he ever met
> the man who died before becoming his father-in-law, or if he had any
> opinion of the man, he does not seem to have left any trace of this
> alleged "connection."
You know, Terry, I must say these statements are truly outrageous and display a
classic red herring maneuver. Perhaps you have not thought through the way
social classes operated in Elizabethan England. But I think you have, so forgive
me my being cynical here.
These four men were *peers,* for God's sake. What does that necessarily imply?
Well, taking into account that the population in England during their common
peerage was, oh, about 3 - 4 million people...
And that there were fewer than 60 peers, who thought of themselves as part of a
rather unique class, who attended the Queen's parties in Court in London and on
Progress, availing themselves of all oppportunities to participate in all those
things that peers participate in...
And given that one's standing in court was a relative matter, intertwined in
myriad ways with other members of the peerage, requiring as much information as
one could reasonable acquire on one's fellow peers...
And given the history and traditions of each peer, and the relations with other
peers going back decades and centuries....
See where I'm going with this?
How can you possibly expect any thoughtful person to believe that these guys
didn't know each other and associate with each other in a number of ways?
Southampton later hung out with Oxford's son, but nooooooooo, there's no
evidence he even knew dad.
The Herberts were engaged to, and one married one of, Oxford's daughters, but
nooooooooo, there's no evidence he even knew dad.
This isn't argument, Terry. It's sheer political spin. Deliberate red herring.
The implantation of authoritative statements in the hope that the ignorant will
bite. The desire to keep others from thinking to clearly.
And just because these guys were not in the habit of writing down their deeper
feelings and private dealings with each other...
Give us a collective break.
These guys knew each other.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
*** These are no the droids you're looking for.
Bob Grumman
the society of the times and because there were only 60 peers
(he says). Sorry, Mark, but direct concrete evidence is required
for certainty on this. For example: my family had a reunion a couple
of years ago--all the descendants of my mother's parents, around
70 people. Until that time (when I was older than Oxford when he
died). There were ten or fifteen people there whom I hadn't known
before. There are now still two family members I can't be said to
know, one of them a first cousin (and I only have two of them left
of my original three).
I think it reasonable to assume that Oxford more likely than
not knew the two peers--but if your side is going to argue that
Shakespeare didn't know Richard Field, or that he didn't know
anyone at court despite performing there numerous times, or that
he had no ties to the MIddle Temple despite Thomas Greene's having
lived in his house, or--particularly important in this discussion--
that he didn't know Southampton in spite of the evidence of the
dedication to Lucrece, you shouldn't be too irked if we ask
for more evidence of this than you have provided. And there IS
some reason to believe Oxford did NOT know the two, VERY YOUNG,
lords since he had become retiring since they'd come into the
picture, and--not being of his generation--they and he may not
have had that much in common.
--Bob G.
Mark Alexander
I'm surprised you haven't responded.
Cheers
Mark
"Mark Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Bnle7.10914$ZM2.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Terry Ross
everything that demonstrates William Shakespeare's authorship of his
works, and then we are to cast about for "connections" supposedly favoring
Oxford as a suitable candidate upon which to bestow the title "real
author."
Let us assume that we had forgotten the evidence (for those not wishing to
imbibe from the river of forgetfulness, a brief survey of the evidence is
available in Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman's essay "How We Know that
Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare" at
http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/howdowe.html). If we attempted to discover
for ourselves who had written the works of Shakespeare, we would proceed
in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY we would if we were trying to learn who wrote any
other contemporary work, and we would come to exactly the same conclusion,
because we would "discover" the same evidence that has compelled scholars
and readers in general to identify William Shakespeare as William
Shakespeare.
Having done so, we could then look again for "connections" that seem to
favor Oxford or any other "candidate," but none of this pointless exercise
would have the slightest bearing whatsoever on the authorship of
Shakespeare's works. This, by the way, is a very different exercise from
that of looking for further connections between Shakespeare and his
contemporaries as a way of shedding further light on his life and the
circumstances that lay behind his works.
Mark, Oxfordianism itself is nothing but a red herring -- not to be
confused with Britten's *Albert Herring* or even with pickled herring --
although the way you preserve and continue to serve up this accusation
makes me want to call it "pickled red herring." Oxfordianism (and any
other variation of antistratfordianism you can name) requires that we
close our eyes to the overwhelming evidence that Shakespeare was
Shakespeare, that we create vague new rules for assigning authorship
(rules that would not be applied to Jonson or Spenser or Daniel or Sidney
or Chapman or Kyd or any other author of the period), and that, based on
those vague rules (in your case, a look at supposed "connections" between
Oxford and Shakespeare's works), we strip away Shakespeare's works from
their actual author and award them to somebody else.
> Perhaps you have not thought through the way social classes operated
> in Elizabethan England. But I think you have, so forgive me my being
> cynical here.
I asked a simple question: did Oxford even know these men? I take it from
your responses that you have no evidence that he did.
>
> These four men were *peers,* for God's sake. What does that
> necessarily imply?
Hmmm -- I begin to suspect it implies that you are not going to be able to
show that Oxford knew the other three.
>
> Well, taking into account that the population in England during their
> common peerage was, oh, about 3 - 4 million people...
>
> And that there were fewer than 60 peers, who thought of themselves as
> part of a rather unique class, who attended the Queen's parties in
> Court in London and on Progress, availing themselves of all
> oppportunities to participate in all those things that peers
> participate in...
Well, that's helpful. Now which parties did Oxford attend with
Southampton? Which progresses did he share with the brothers Herbert?
Please enlighten me.
>
> And given that one's standing in court was a relative matter,
> intertwined in myriad ways with other members of the peerage,
> requiring as much information as one could reasonable acquire on one's
> fellow peers...
You think so? Oxford's standing in the court during the last fifteen
years of his life was not what it had been in his salad days. Ward titles
the third book of his biography of Oxford "The Recluse," and begins, "from
1589 onwards the life of Lord Oxford becomes one of mystery.... Very
little is definitely known as to his movements and activities during the
next fifteen years" (299). Alan Nelson has uncovered new material about
Oxford, but I am not aware of anything he has turned up that shows Oxford
even knew Southampton or the brothers Herbert.
Mark's point, I guess, is that all peers come fully equipped with a
Lifelong Information Extricator (LIE) that causes them to grab every bit
of gossip about every other peer. We may therefore assume that since all
peers have this LIE, Oxford, being a peer, must have had an LIE as well.
I'm not sure how the LIE actually works. Would Oxford have been as
interested in people who were NOT peers at the time his period as a
"recluse" began? I await the result of your further researches into this
extraordinary find.
>
> And given the history and traditions of each peer, and the relations
> with other peers going back decades and centuries....
I am reminded of Major General Stanley's appropriation of a family history
("I don't know whose ancestors they WERE, but I know whose ancestors they
ARE"). Edward de Vere's grandfather became the 15th earl of Oxford when
the 14th earl died without issue. Edward de Vere's great-grandfather does
not even seem to have been a knight. Being the second cousin of the
nephew of the 13th earl of Oxford must have been the making of the 17th
earl's grandfather, and was perhaps the most outstanding achievement in
the line that led, ultimately, to the 17th earl's glory, such as it was.
Do you imagine that the grandfathers of Southampton and the brothers
Herbert hung out with John de Vere, Oxford's great-grandfather, who seems
to have been born and to have died (horrors!) a commoner?
>
> See where I'm going with this?
Yes I do; you have no evidence that Oxford even knew Southampton and the
brothers Herbert.
>
> How can you possibly expect any thoughtful person to believe that
> these guys didn't know each other and associate with each other in a
> number of ways?
They may have known each other; I have never denied the possibility.
Your point, however, cannot, I hope, be that all peers knew each other.
If that were your point, then the fact that so many works were dedicated
to peers or even to lesser courtiers would, by the kind of argument you
seem to be making, mean that every courtier was as strong a candidate as
every other courtier to be the author of any work dedicated to any other
courtier.
Before you respond to that paragraph, reread it and think over the
implications of your notion that all peers (and all who would become
peers) knew each other intimately. Now think of what that does for any
argument based on allegedly strong "connections" between any single peer
(or peer-to-be) and all other peers. A number of works were dedicated to
Oxford by people (such as Munday and Lyly) who did in fact know Oxford.
By your "all peers are intimately acquainted" rule, these dedications are
Oxfordian-style evidence that Thomas Sackville was the author of Lyly's
and Munday's works, because as Lord Buckhurst he was very well known to
every other Lord. Sackville is also a very likely "candidate" for the
authorship of Shakespeare's works on the very same, very weak grounds.
>
> Southampton later hung out with Oxford's son, but nooooooooo, there's
> no evidence he even knew dad.
I asked the question: did Oxford even know Southampton? Your answer seems
to be that there is no evidence that he had. Of course they MAY have
known each other, but even if they had, such acquaintance would shed no
light on the authorship of Shakespeare's works. In fact, even if we
assumed from the outset that the "real author" must have been a nobleman,
we would be unable (by Mark's reasoning) to single any particular nobleman
out because Mark assures us they were all thick as thieves, and their
great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddads has been just as thick.
>
> The Herberts were engaged to, and one married one of, Oxford's
> daughters, but nooooooooo, there's no evidence he even knew dad.
I asked whether there was any evidence that Oxford knew either of the
Herberts, and it appears from your response that the answer is "no." Of
course Oxford certainly knew the Cecils, who were always trying to
engineer suitable marriages that would strengthen their ties to the great
families, but I am not aware of any evidence that Oxford knew the man who
would marry his daughter Susan six months after Oxford died. It would be
a mistake to cast Oxford in the Spenser Tracy role in *Father of the
Bride* unless you combined that movie with elements from *Weekend at
Bernie's* and called the result *Dead Father of the Bride*. Spenser
Tracy's remains are probably too far gone, but perhaps enough is left of
Anthony Quinn's corpse for his mortal clay to assume the role of Oxford at
his daughter's wedding to Philip Herbert.
>
> This isn't argument, Terry. It's sheer political spin. Deliberate red
> herring. The implantation of authoritative statements in the hope that
> the ignorant will bite. The desire to keep others from thinking to
> clearly.
As I said, all antistratfordianisms are red herrings. I do not
particularly care to forget all that researchers have uncovered about
Shakespeare and his works, but even if I were to do so, and were to set
out to "learn" who the "real author" was, I would approach the "question"
the same way I would approach any other question of attribution for any
other set of works in the period. Now, at some point I might have asked
myself, "who are all the people who were related to people or who knew
people to whom the works in question were dedicated or who were in circles
populated by such people?" In the present case, I would find vastly more
intimate connections between the works and their actual author than I
would for Oxford, but even so, it would be silly to insist that all other
information should be ignored.
>
> And just because these guys were not in the habit of writing down
> their deeper feelings and private dealings with each other...
As it happens, Oxford did mention William Herbert, but it does not appear
from his remarks about they young man that he knew him. On the other
hand, Heminges and Condell tell us that the brothers Herbert "prosequuted
both [the plays] and their Author living, with much favor" and they refer
to Shakespeare as the brothers' "servant," which gives us a direct
"connection" between them and Shakespeare, as well as "testimony" (to use
a favorite Oxfordian legal-shmegal word) about their acquaintance with
him.
>
> Give us a collective break.
>
> These guys knew each other.
It might be that they did, but your only "evidence" is your assumption
that all peers knew each other intimately, the hypothetical Lifelong
Information Extricator, and the "our ancestors were boys together when
Moses was a pup" bit. As an Oxfordian, you expect us to ignore all the
evidence we have for the authorship of Shakespeare's works and instead to
award the honor to Oxford on the grounds that all peers knew each other --
which is a pretty weak argument even by the debased standards of
Oxfordianism. It may be time to return this Oxfordian pickled red herring
to the brine from which it came.
Mark Alexander
Since it seems that you want to reduce all evidence to absolutely
provable evidence, then you can see why the
Shakspere attribution is such a problem.
* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere had an education.
* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere was literate.
* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays.
Ad nauseum...
All you have is the *coincidental connections* of differently spelled
names up to Shakspere's death, and some unusual and less than absolute
*connections* after his death.
A double standard applies: Oxfordians are limited to arguments of
absolute evidence while Stratfordians are allowed to draw all kinds of
connections based on suggestions, intimations, and the like.
Kathman's paper on Shakspere and his relationship with lawyers is a
classic example.
Your goal is clear and constant: Close the door to inference. Declare
all inference void until proven absolutely. Never mind any level of
reasonable inference that is allowed to Strats (who already *know* the
truth, and so there is nothing wrong with their making *reasonable*
inferences based on their *knowledge* that Shakspere was the author).
Make Oxfordians stick to absolute evidence and declare all reasonable
inference void.
As far as connections go, declare every connection *not good enough*
unless it is absolute and incontovertable, and then declare that it
doesn't matter anyway. Since topicalities are by nature ambiguous, the
door is wide open to cancel out every argument based on a topical
connection.
If Oxford shows up constantly in places where it would be momentous for
Shakspere to appear (a single mention of Shakspere being in the same
room with Golding, Lyly, Munday, Southampton, etc.) you would trumpet
this as evidence of a relationship. You *know* you would. And every
Strat on this newsgroup.
When you apply your absolute standard to your guy, a big problem arises.
And that's why the support for Shakspere is eroding. Is it true that
tourism is dropping dramatically at Stratford? Yes, it appears so. The
fantasy shoe no longer fitting.
Of course, you will use this post as a means of saying *Hey, look, Mark
still doesn't have any absolute evidence. He is avoiding the subject."
No. To carry on in the manner you demand is to write a 30,000-word paper
to handle all the lines of argument.
I have done that already with Shakespeare and the Law, simply to
demonstrate that what passes for *truth* and *argument* on this
newsgroup is an embarassment.
Time and again, I was called to account for *abandoning* threads on
Shakespeare's knowledge of law as if I didn't have the gumption for the
argument. But I recognized that some arguments require a larger format
that cannot be fit into this piecemeal group, which only seems capable
of sustaining microcosmic arguments with no more than a single line. It
cannot handle a multi-line argument, because the primary Strat tactic is
to divide every argument into its parts and to devil-to-death each
strand, *exposing* it as having no *absolute* basis (as almost nothing
can in these kinds of literary studies).
Well, I have exposed those tactics and more in the article I have
written. And I claim that I could write a dozen other articles of
extended length exposing such canards as "Shakespeare did not have a
significant Classical education" or "Shakespeare did not have a special
knowledge of Italy" or "Shakespeare did not have a significant knowledge
of music." And so on.
If you want to truly see the difference between argument on this
newsgroup, and an extended, supported, multi-line argument, then read
the morass of arguments on Shakespeare's knowledge of law on this
newsgroup over the last three years, and then read my article.
The difference is extraordinary.
And goes to the heart of the reason why so many threads are abandonned
on this newsgroup. That article answers the contention.
Cheers
Mark
Terry Ross
funny thing is, he was SO interested in seeing my response that he posted
his "Oxford MUSTA known all the peers" post twice. In his latest
rejoinder, he included neither my post (for which, like thirsty Moses, he
struck the rock twice), nor any attempt at refutation. I will delete
whatever he said this time, and paste the text of my post one more time.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
[nothing whatsoever in response to my eagerly-awaited post]
Here's what Mark was unable to face, even though he asked for it twice:
=====================
baker
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Terry
>
>Since it seems that you want to reduce all evidence to absolutely
>provable evidence, then you can see why the
>Shakspere attribution is such a problem.
>
>* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere had an education.
>
>* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere was literate.
>
>* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays.
>
>Ad nauseum...
>
Here, here.
Keep up the good work.
On the whole would you say the Author's knowledge of law to be of what
we call "international law" today...the sort I took in graduate school
when I was working on a master's in International Affairs...or the
local sort of law that drives towns and smaller communities.
Myself I see lots of evidence for a powerful knowledge of
International Lae in the Author's works...
baker
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
Mark Alexander
<baker> wrote in message news:3b7e89c...@News.localaccess.com...
: On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:08:06 GMT, "Mark Alexander"
: <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
: >Terry
: >
: >Since it seems that you want to reduce all evidence to absolutely
: >provable evidence, then you can see why the
: >Shakspere attribution is such a problem.
: >
: >* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere had an education.
: >
: >* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere was literate.
: >
: >* There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays.
: >
: >Ad nauseum...
: >
:
: Here, here.
:
: Keep up the good work.
:
: On the whole would you say the Author's knowledge of law to be of what
: we call "international law" today...the sort I took in graduate school
: when I was working on a master's in International Affairs...or the
: local sort of law that drives towns and smaller communities.
:
: Myself I see lots of evidence for a powerful knowledge of
: International Lae in the Author's works...
There's evidence of a knowledge of international law. A good source is
Keeton's "Shakespeare's Legal and Political background.
Mark
Mark Alexander
: In his haste to misread, Mark forgot to answer my post. The (mildly)
: funny thing is, he was SO interested in seeing my response that he
posted
: his "Oxford MUSTA known all the peers" post twice. In his latest
: rejoinder, he included neither my post (for which, like thirsty Moses,
he
: struck the rock twice), nor any attempt at refutation. I will delete
: whatever he said this time, and paste the text of my post one more
time.
:
: On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
:
: [nothing whatsoever in response to my eagerly-awaited post]
:
: Here's what Mark was unable to face, even though he asked for it
twice:
:
: =====================
:
: Remember what Mark's basic argument is. We are implicitly asked to
forget
: everything that demonstrates William Shakespeare's authorship of his
: works, and then we are to cast about for "connections" supposedly
favoring
: Oxford as a suitable candidate upon which to bestow the title "real
: author."
No. My basic argument is that we set the plays and poems and all the
references to Shakespeare, the writer, in the middle. Then we set all
the evidence and reasonable inferences regarding Shakspere of Stratford
on the left, and all evidence and reasonable inferences regarding Oxford
on the right.
Then we *assume* first that Shakspere is the author and see what the
connections are. Then we *assume* that Oxford is the writer and see what
the connections are. We get to draw reasonable inferences on both sides.
You want to keep the drawing of reasonable inferences limited to your
side.
: Let us assume that we had forgotten the evidence (for those not
wishing to
: imbibe from the river of forgetfulness, a brief survey of the evidence
is
: available in Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman's essay "How We Know that
: Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare" at
: http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/howdowe.html). If we attempted to
discover
: for ourselves who had written the works of Shakespeare, we would
proceed
: in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY we would if we were trying to learn who wrote
any
: other contemporary work, and we would come to exactly the same
conclusion,
: because we would "discover" the same evidence that has compelled
scholars
: and readers in general to identify William Shakespeare as William
: Shakespeare.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Nice try. The deck is stacked in favor of the dealer.
: Having done so, we could then look again for "connections" that seem
to
: favor Oxford or any other "candidate," but none of this pointless
exercise
: would have the slightest bearing whatsoever on the authorship of
: Shakespeare's works. This, by the way, is a very different exercise
from
: that of looking for further connections between Shakespeare and his
: contemporaries as a way of shedding further light on his life and the
: circumstances that lay behind his works.
Of course. When you *know* the answer, you can draw all the reasonable
inferences you want.
My case is very simple: When you assume that Shakspere is the author,
there are mounds of blanks, of obscure passages, of irreconcilable
contradictions between the work and the life. Stratford scholars draw
paradoxical inferences that often lead them into saying, "There's no use
guessing" or "We'll never know the answer to this."
When you assume that Oxford is the author, resounding connections
abound, often intimate and topical and strongly illuminating. Obscure
passages light up.
I haven't forgotten bookburn's question. I will get the material
together, but it will take time because I want to do justice to the
question. It will go to answer what it is that is illuminating when one
*assumes* Oxford is the author. How a play reveals an *insider*
consciousness.
The basis of your *overwhelming* evidence is the *name* Shakespeare,
which of course is at the heart of the contention. If you took away all
evidence based on the mere name on the plays and stuck to that which
absolutely referred to the man of Stratford, your position collapses.
This is not a matter of *new rules* and you know it. It's a matter of
*Hey, we got a name on the play that closely resembles our guy, and we
will do everything we can to obscure the facts that point to a
difference between the two."
: > Perhaps you have not thought through the way social classes operated
: > in Elizabethan England. But I think you have, so forgive me my being
: > cynical here.
:
: I asked a simple question: did Oxford even know these men? I take it
from
: your responses that you have no evidence that he did.
I have tons of reasonable inference, and if I had time to write another
30,000-word paper I could easily demonstrate that the argument
supporting Oxford's knowing these men is far stronger than than the
argument against. The fact that you want to focus the argument at a
lower level of analysis shows how dangerous it is for your to argue the
case at a higher level. You are very good at taking Oxfordians into
low-level analysis. But you avoid doing the same for Stratfordians. Why?
Because it would expose a lack of evidence more profoundly?
: >
: > These four men were *peers,* for God's sake. What does that
: > necessarily imply?
:
: Hmmm -- I begin to suspect it implies that you are not going to be
able to
: show that Oxford knew the other three.
See above.
:
: >
: > Well, taking into account that the population in England during
their
: > common peerage was, oh, about 3 - 4 million people...
: >
: > And that there were fewer than 60 peers, who thought of themselves
as
: > part of a rather unique class, who attended the Queen's parties in
: > Court in London and on Progress, availing themselves of all
: > oppportunities to participate in all those things that peers
: > participate in...
:
: Well, that's helpful. Now which parties did Oxford attend with
: Southampton? Which progresses did he share with the brothers Herbert?
: Please enlighten me.
See above.
:
: >
: > And given that one's standing in court was a relative matter,
No. My point is that Oxford knew these men *in his salad days* as well
as later, and that there is evidence of overlapping interests that help
explain why a Herbert may want to marry into the family. But I am not
going to write that paper for you. Let my "Shakespeare's Knowledge of
Law" paper demonstrate how Shakespeare's legal knowledge has been
misprepresented on this newsgroup. It stands as a paradigm for other
arguments as well.
:
: >
: > And given the history and traditions of each peer, and the relations
: > with other peers going back decades and centuries....
:
: I am reminded of Major General Stanley's appropriation of a family
history
: ("I don't know whose ancestors they WERE, but I know whose ancestors
they
: ARE"). Edward de Vere's grandfather became the 15th earl of Oxford
when
: the 14th earl died without issue. Edward de Vere's great-grandfather
does
: not even seem to have been a knight. Being the second cousin of the
: nephew of the 13th earl of Oxford must have been the making of the
17th
: earl's grandfather, and was perhaps the most outstanding achievement
in
: the line that led, ultimately, to the 17th earl's glory, such as it
was.
: Do you imagine that the grandfathers of Southampton and the brothers
: Herbert hung out with John de Vere, Oxford's great-grandfather, who
seems
: to have been born and to have died (horrors!) a commoner?
:
: >
: > See where I'm going with this?
:
: Yes I do; you have no evidence that Oxford even knew Southampton and
the
: brothers Herbert.
See above.
:
: >
: > How can you possibly expect any thoughtful person to believe that
: > these guys didn't know each other and associate with each other in a
: > number of ways?
:
: They may have known each other; I have never denied the possibility.
: Your point, however, cannot, I hope, be that all peers knew each
other.
: If that were your point, then the fact that so many works were
dedicated
: to peers or even to lesser courtiers would, by the kind of argument
you
: seem to be making, mean that every courtier was as strong a candidate
as
: every other courtier to be the author of any work dedicated to any
other
: courtier.
You are right. That is not my point. My point is that peers had good and
frequent opportunity to get to know each other intimately, to have
dealings with each other, more than Shakspere would have. That we know
that the three dedicatees were connected with Shakespeare the writer.
That there seems to be no significant connection to Shakspere the man,
and that there are interesting and intimate connections between Oxford
and these three men. The fact that one Herbert married Oxford's
daughter, through whom the plays would have gotten to the publisher, is
one reasonable inference that you do not want to face.
I am emphatically NOT saying that any of this proves Oxford the author,
which accounts for my frustration with you and others who continually
spin this as *proving* Oxford the author.
What I AM saying is that when we *assume* Oxford is the author, a
mountain of remarkable connections appear that have the kind of
*explanatory* power that is wholely lacking with Shakspere the man. You
*wish* you had this kind of explanatory power.
For example, how the plays were made available for publication. How the
writer could address Southampton in the tone that he did without
apparent consequences. How some of the plays could have been put on
without the author being dragged before the Star Chamber and jailed. How
the writer could have such an intimate familiarity with Golding,
Castiglione, and Cardan.
And the beat goes on.
: Before you respond to that paragraph, reread it and think over the
: implications of your notion that all peers (and all who would become
: peers) knew each other intimately. Now think of what that does for
any
: argument based on allegedly strong "connections" between any single
peer
: (or peer-to-be) and all other peers. A number of works were dedicated
to
: Oxford by people (such as Munday and Lyly) who did in fact know
Oxford.
: By your "all peers are intimately acquainted" rule, these dedications
are
: Oxfordian-style evidence that Thomas Sackville was the author of
Lyly's
: and Munday's works, because as Lord Buckhurst he was very well known
to
: every other Lord. Sackville is also a very likely "candidate" for the
: authorship of Shakespeare's works on the very same, very weak grounds.
See above.
: >
: > Southampton later hung out with Oxford's son, but nooooooooo,
there's
: > no evidence he even knew dad.
:
: I asked the question: did Oxford even know Southampton? Your answer
seems
: to be that there is no evidence that he had. Of course they MAY have
: known each other, but even if they had, such acquaintance would shed
no
: light on the authorship of Shakespeare's works. In fact, even if we
: assumed from the outset that the "real author" must have been a
nobleman,
: we would be unable (by Mark's reasoning) to single any particular
nobleman
: out because Mark assures us they were all thick as thieves, and their
: great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddads has been just as
thick.
See above.
:
: >
: > The Herberts were engaged to, and one married one of, Oxford's
: > daughters, but nooooooooo, there's no evidence he even knew dad.
:
: I asked whether there was any evidence that Oxford knew either of the
: Herberts, and it appears from your response that the answer is "no."
Of
: course Oxford certainly knew the Cecils, who were always trying to
: engineer suitable marriages that would strengthen their ties to the
great
: families, but I am not aware of any evidence that Oxford knew the man
who
: would marry his daughter Susan six months after Oxford died. It would
be
: a mistake to cast Oxford in the Spenser Tracy role in *Father of the
: Bride* unless you combined that movie with elements from *Weekend at
: Bernie's* and called the result *Dead Father of the Bride*. Spenser
: Tracy's remains are probably too far gone, but perhaps enough is left
of
: Anthony Quinn's corpse for his mortal clay to assume the role of
Oxford at
: his daughter's wedding to Philip Herbert.
See above.
:
: >
: > This isn't argument, Terry. It's sheer political spin. Deliberate
red
: > herring. The implantation of authoritative statements in the hope
that
: > the ignorant will bite. The desire to keep others from thinking to
: > clearly.
:
: As I said, all antistratfordianisms are red herrings.
Great. Then you in effect admit that you are incapable of believing that
an anti-Stratfordian is capable of a straight argument, and that any
anti-Stratforidan argument that has the appearance of being reasonable
is in fact not, and that the only reason you are here is to defend the
orthodoxy against the railings of the irrational Visigoths, and only
*pretend* to engage in reasoned debate, while all along only playing
"Whack a mole".
This is in effect what Bob Grummon admitted when he declared that he
knew *before reading them* that all my arguments were bilge. And since
my time is as valuable as his and yours and the
ever-enslaved-to-more-important-things Kathman, then you can understand
why I do not bother reading and answering his posts any longer.
I suppose since you know *in advance* that all my arguments are *by
nature* red herrings, you would not be capable of ever seeing in them
even the possibility of reasonable argument. If that is so, then perhaps
you and I should stop reading each other's posts as well.
It is truly sad that you and other Strats choose to frame the discussion
in this manner. You admit up front that you have judged all arguments in
advanced as being bilge and red herrings and idiocy and a waste of
time...yet you come back for more. Why? Apparently, the castle walls
cannot hold by themselves. You *have* to frame the argument this way,
because too many fault lines appear if you even concede that
anti-Stratfordians are capable of arguing thoughtfully and convincingly.
: I do not
Sure. If you assume Shakspere is the author, you find some connections,
howeve weak and pitiful. What I am suggesting is that the quality of the
list of connections for Stratford pale when compared to the quality of
the list connections for Oxford.
The connections do not individually prove anything.
The lists of connections, when compared to each other, show something
remarkable going on with Oxford. More than can be dismissed simply as
coincidence.
: >
: > Give us a collective break.
: >
: > These guys knew each other.
:
: It might be that they did, but your only "evidence" is your assumption
: that all peers knew each other intimately, the hypothetical Lifelong
: Information Extricator, and the "our ancestors were boys together when
: Moses was a pup" bit. As an Oxfordian, you expect us to ignore all
the
: evidence we have for the authorship of Shakespeare's works and instead
to
: award the honor to Oxford on the grounds that all peers knew each
other --
: which is a pretty weak argument even by the debased standards of
: Oxfordianism. It may be time to return this Oxfordian pickled red
herring
: to the brine from which it came.
See above.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander
:
: "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
: news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0108181106400.5861-100000@mail...
: : Here's what Mark was unable to face, even though he asked for it
: twice:
That's rich. <G>
You always demand a performance for which you have already decided in
advance is unworthy of being performed.
And you wonder why the performers choose to stop the play at
intermission.
You are a real ideological piece of work, Terry.
Cheers
Mark
Bob Grumman
> provable evidence, then you can see why the Shakspere attribution
> is such a problem.
I don't blame you for being frustrated after the way Terry destroyed
you, Mark. Still, that's no excuse for claiming that people who ask
for direct concrete evidence are only interested in what you call
"absolutely provable evidence."
> * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere had an education.
So what? There is plentiful very strong circumstantial evidence
that he did.
> * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere was literate.
So what? There is plentiful very strong, uncontradicted DIRECT
CONCRETE EVIDENCE that he was, his monument's speaking of "all
that he hath writ."
> * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays.
So what? This is a huge web of direct concrete evidence and
very strong circumstantial evidence that he did--with NO direct
concrete evidence against the proposition?
> Ad nauseum...
>
> All you have is the *coincidental connections* of differently spelled
> names up to Shakspere's death, and some unusual and less than absolute
> *connections* after his death.
>
> A double standard applies: Oxfordians are limited to arguments of
> absolute evidence while Stratfordians are allowed to draw all kinds of
> connections based on suggestions, intimations, and the like.
This, Mark, is either insane or an outright lie.
> Kathman's paper on Shakspere and his relationship with lawyers is a
> classic example.
I thought you were against digressions
> Your goal is clear and constant: Close the door to inference. Declare
> all inference void until proven absolutely. Never mind any level of
> reasonable inference that is allowed to Strats (who already *know* the
> truth, and so there is nothing wrong with their making *reasonable*
> inferences based on their *knowledge* that Shakspere was the author).
Hmmm, doesn't look like Mark Alexander, who is so vocal against the
way Stratforidans supposed refuse to argue, is not going to take on
even a single argument of Terry's.
> Make Oxfordians stick to absolute evidence and declare all reasonable
> inference void.
>
> As far as connections go, declare every connection *not good enough*
> unless it is absolute and incontovertable, and then declare that it
> doesn't matter anyway. Since topicalities are by nature ambiguous, the
> door is wide open to cancel out every argument based on a topical
> connection.
>
> If Oxford shows up constantly in places where it would be momentous for
> Shakspere to appear (a single mention of Shakspere being in the same
> room with Golding, Lyly, Munday, Southampton, etc.) you would trumpet
> this as evidence of a relationship. You *know* you would. And every
> Strat on this newsgroup.
ONLY because your side has challenged us for so long to do so. We
would NOT announce it as contributing significantly to the strength
of our case.
> When you apply your absolute standard to your guy, a big problem arises.
> And that's why the support for Shakspere is eroding. Is it true that
> tourism is dropping dramatically at Stratford? Yes, it appears so. The
> fantasy shoe no longer fitting.
>
> Of course, you will use this post as a means of saying *Hey, look, Mark
> still doesn't have any absolute evidence. He is avoiding the subject."
Gosh, and here I am doing JUST that.
> No. To carry on in the manner you demand is to write a 30,000-word paper
> to handle all the lines of argument.
I'm not sure how you need 30,000 words simply to show a piece of direct
evidence that Oxford knew Southhampton or Pembroke and his brother.
That's basically all Terry was asking for.
> I have done that already with Shakespeare and the Law, simply to
> demonstrate that what passes for *truth* and *argument* on this
> newsgroup is an embarassment.
>
> Time and again, I was called to account for *abandoning* threads on
> Shakespeare's knowledge of law as if I didn't have the gumption for the
> argument. But I recognized that some arguments require a larger format
> that cannot be fit into this piecemeal group, which only seems capable
> of sustaining microcosmic arguments with no more than a single line. It
> cannot handle a multi-line argument, because the primary Strat tactic is
> to divide every argument into its parts and to devil-to-death each
> strand, *exposing* it as having no *absolute* basis (as almost nothing
> can in these kinds of literary studies).
>
> Well, I have exposed those tactics and more in the article I have
> written. And I claim that I could write a dozen other articles of
> extended length exposing such canards as "Shakespeare did not have a
> significant Classical education" or "Shakespeare did not have a special
> knowledge of Italy" or "Shakespeare did not have a significant knowledge
> of music." And so on.
>
> If you want to truly see the difference between argument on this
> newsgroup, and an extended, supported, multi-line argument, then read
> the morass of arguments on Shakespeare's knowledge of law on this
> newsgroup over the last three years, and then read my article.
>
> The difference is extraordinary.
>
> And goes to the heart of the reason why so many threads are abandoned
> on this newsgroup. That article answers the contention.
Good, you're at least admitting that you abandon threads--after ignoring
many parts of them such as my post to this one a while back.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
> provable evidence, then you can see why the Shakspere attribution
> is such a problem.
I know Terry clobbered you, Mark, but do you really think that's
a proper excuse to claim that he, or any other Stratfordian, wants
"to reduce all evidence to absolutely provable evidence?" All we
want from you is a little direct concrete evidence.
> * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere had an education.
So what? There is plentiful solid circumstantial evidence that
he had schooling. (Note the rigidnikal equation of "education" with
"formal schooling" implied in Mark's claim.)
> * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere was literate.
So what? There is strong direct concrete evidence that he was
literate: his monument's saying he was.
> * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays.
So what? There is a web of extremely strong direct concrete evidence
and highly persuasive, corroborating circumstantial evidence that he
did--and NO direct concrete eivdence that he did not.
snip of Mark's repeating his fantasy that when Stratfordians use such
phrases as "direct concrete evidence," they mean "absolute evidence"
and digressing, and excusing himself for not providing Terry and me
any direct concrete evidence that Oxford knew Southhampton or the
Herbert Brothers, which--basically--is all we asked for, and which, I
might add, should not require an essay of 30,000 words.
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
>
> "Mark Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6Owf7.19686$ZM2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> :
> : "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> : news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0108181106400.5861-100000@mail...
>
> : : Here's what Mark was unable to face, even though he asked for it
> : twice:
>
> That's rich. <G>
And yet it still applies -- Mark still has been unable to answer the
response he twice implored me to post.
>
> You always demand a performance for which you have already decided in
> advance is unworthy of being performed.
Actually, Mark, if you will look back, you will find that I do NOT demand
anything from my fellow posters on this newsgroup. I do not demand
responses; I do not demand apologies; I do not demand a thing.
You, on the other hand, have on several occasions made a point of seeking
my response to some issue (sometimes, as in the present case, going so far
as to ask a second time that I reply to a post). Well, you have your
reply from me, and now you are going all petulant on us because you didn't
care for what I had to say. That's your privilege. So far as I am
concerned, you never have to read anything I write; you never have to
respond. Or you can respond in your customary non-response mode, and
accuse me of committing one of the top ten fallacies that are listed in
composition handbooks. Suit yourself. One of these days you might wish
to engage in a genuine exchange of arguments -- that, too, is your
privilege.
>
> And you wonder why the performers choose to stop the play at
> intermission.
I do not, in fact, wonder at the inability of Oxfordians to deal with
arguments.
As for why performers stop the play at intermission, if Mark will wait out
the intermission next time and not go home, he will soon learn that after
everybody has had a chance to use the restroom or grab a quick cigarette,
the intermission ends, the curtain rises once more, and the actors resume
the play. I swear to you Mark, this kind of thing happens all the time.
Even though I am not an Oxfordian, trust me on this, and the next time you
are tempted to leave at the intermission, thinking the play is over, force
yourself to hang around for 20 minutes or so, and you'll see what I mean.
(SPOILER: in many so-called tragedies, the star doesn't get killed until
after the intermission -- sometimes until after TWO intermissions).
>
> You are a real ideological piece of work, Terry.
Well, you've called me worse things on this newsgroup. One of us must be
mellowing.
baker
place Bacon and Marlowe's name into play.
Marlowe knew the Herbert boys and Burghley.
So did Bacon.
Mark Alexander
: On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
:
: >
: > "Mark Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: > news:6Owf7.19686$ZM2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: > :
: > : "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
: > : news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0108181106400.5861-100000@mail...
: >
: > : : Here's what Mark was unable to face, even though he asked for it
: > : twice:
: >
: > That's rich. <G>
:
: And yet it still applies -- Mark still has been unable to answer the
: response he twice implored me to post.
Why so quick with the gun? I did respond. It showed up on my server at
9:34 AM Saturday five minutes before this post you are responding to.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Elizabeth Weir
> Mark is sure Oxford knew Herbert and Southampton because of
> the society of the times and because there were only 60 peers
> (he says).
Southampton was a Burghley ward but not when Oxford was terrorizing
the House on the Strand.
Southampton was, however, an inner member of the literary-political
faction that hated Oxford.
It is inconceivable that Southampton would have allowed Oxford to
dedicate anything to him.
Oxford picked a fight with a very politically powerful and wealthy
circle of Calvinist aristocrats that spanned three generations.
Southampton was the closest friend of the leader of the second
generation of that group, the Earl of Essex. Essex' stepfather was
Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who didn't like Oxford either.
Oxford invited disaster when he intervened with the censors to stop
Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke and mother of the
Incomparable Brethren of the First Folio, from posthumously publishing
the poetry of her brother Philip Sidney. The censorship only lasted a
day--this faction had more clout than Oxford--but that was enough.
Mary Sidney Herbert declared war--a poetry war--on Oxford--she even
fired off a few poems herself at Oxford via Thomas Nashe, Oxford's
paid poet and surrogate. Herbert's famous literary circle included
all the genius poets of Elizabethan England and those poets eventually
drove Oxford into seclusion with one wicked satire after another.
Oxford couldn't leave his estate without being laughed at. That, and
not a desire to scribble the Shakespeare plays, is the reason Oxford
became a recluse.
The Spenserians are the only ones who really study Oxford--I don't
consider the the sacharine drivel the Oxfordians believe to be
scholarship--because Oxford is a subject of the Harvey-Immerito
letters and was parodied in two of Spenser's epic poems. The
Spenserians have done quite a bit of research on the Pembroke-Oxford
poetry war, particularly on Gabriel Harvey who was being paid by
Oxford to write poetry at the same time he was spying on Oxford for
Essex.
So to answer your question, Bob, Oxford could not have dedicated any
poems--even the ones he hired poets to write for him--to Southampton.
And it is unthinkable that Pembroke and Montgomery would have
permitted Oxford to dedicate anythint to them, especially after Oxford
attacked their mother and uncle.
So with Oxford eliminated that leaves us with three candidates who
could have written those dedications and lived to tell about
it--Shakespeare, Bacon and Marlowe.
Bob Grumman
> > the society of the times and because there were only 60 peers
> > (he says).
you've posted that's not true, I am skeptical of the validity of
parts of it.
> It is inconceivable that Southampton would have allowed Oxford to
> dedicate anything to him.
Mark was arguing that Oxford KNEW Southampton. Of course, he also
believes Shakespeare dedicated the narrative poems to Southampton.
The argument to be overturned, though, is that Oxford knew
Southampton.
That it's "inconceivable that Southampton would have allowed
Oxford to dedicate anything to him," it's odd how much more often
anti-Stratfordians use such words as "inconceivable" than my side
does. For me, it is conceivable, at least, that he would have
accepted Oxford's friendship and dedications when he was seventeen.
That may have been before the big clash, or when the sides in that
clash were friendly or semi-friendly, or maybe Southampton was a
rebel then, going against family wishes. I'm also not certain how
Southampton could have prevented the dedications if Oxford wanted
to make them, though I would agree it'd be unlikely that Oxford
would make them to someone against them (unless as a joke--or some
kind of subterfuge to confuse those who might otherwise guess . . .
the Truth--of, say, the dedications were to Anthony Bacon--and
Southampton had to go along with it; insane, yes: but no more
than the other contortions your side has to go through to make
Shakespeare not the writer of Shakespeare's plays).
> Oxford invited disaster when he intervened with the censors to stop
> Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke and mother of the
> Incomparable Brethren of the First Folio, from posthumously publishing
> the poetry of her brother Philip Sidney. The censorship only lasted a
> day--this faction had more clout than Oxford--but that was enough.
This is interesting, if true.
> So to answer your question, Bob, Oxford could not have dedicated any
> poems--even the ones he hired poets to write for him--to Southampton.
> And it is unthinkable that Pembroke and Montgomery would have
> permitted Oxford to dedicate anything to them, especially after Oxford
> attacked their mother and uncle.
"could not?" "unthinkable?" Sorry, I can't accept that.
> So with Oxford eliminated that leaves us with three candidates who
> could have written those dedications and lived to tell about
> it--Shakespeare, Bacon and Marlowe.
Oh, there are a lot more, like Derby and Rutland.
--Bob G.
Mark Alexander
<baker> wrote in message news:3b7f02b8...@News.localaccess.com...
: Well argued Mark, but when we clear the authorship table we have to
: place Bacon and Marlowe's name into play.
:
: Marlowe knew the Herbert boys and Burghley.
:
: So did Bacon.
:
: baker
: John Baker
The reason I currently find Oxford as Shakespeare more persuasive than
any other is that the Oxfordian consciousness matches the Shakespearean
consciousness. It has more explanatory power, both in terms of certain
external facts, but primarily because of an insider topical
consciousness.
Of course, what we argue here is the nature of the Shakespearean
consciousness (Was Shakespeare learned and to what degree? Do the plays
reveal topicalities that integrate the plays and explain obscure
passages?) as well as the nature of the Oxfordian consciousness.
The way I read both, the match is closer that is that of Shakespeare,
Marlowe or Bacon. These three do not explain Hamlet to my eyes. None fit
the insider consciousness in the way that Oxford does. Certainly there
are problems. By going with Bacon, we can avoid publication issues. But
the central feature of the Oxfordian interpretation is its explanatory
power of the Shakespeare consciousness.
Cheers
Mark
Mark Alexander
"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0108181106400.5861-100000@mail...
: In his haste to misread, Mark forgot to answer my post. The (mildly)
: funny thing is, he was SO interested in seeing my response that he
posted
: his "Oxford MUSTA known all the peers" post twice. In his latest
: rejoinder, he included neither my post (for which, like thirsty Moses,
he
: struck the rock twice), nor any attempt at refutation. I will delete
: whatever he said this time, and paste the text of my post one more
time.
:
: On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
:
: [nothing whatsoever in response to my eagerly-awaited post]
:
: Here's what Mark was unable to face, even though he asked for it
twice:
: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
:
: >
: > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
Terry Ross
before he could taste them. Mark did indeed post a response (twice, in
fact) but he failed in what should have been his central mission: he
provided no evidence that Oxford even knew Southampton or the brothers
Herbert. William Shakespeare, of course, does have strong "connections."
He dedicated two of his works to Southampton, and when Shakespeare's
fellows dedicated the First Folio to the brothers Herbert, they said that
the brothers Herbert "prosequuted both [the plays] and their Author
living, with much favor" and they refer to Shakespeare as the brothers'
"servant," which gives us a direct "connection" between them and
Who ever said (as Shakespeare said of himself) that Oxford owed a "duty"
to Southampton, whom Shakespeare addressed as his superior in social rank?
While Oxford was the recipient of dedications, we have no dedications from
him to anybody.
What on earth does Oxford have to do with the works of Shakespeare?
Apply the same procedure to Spenser, and its uselessness may be obvious
even to Mark. Would any rational person attempt to settle the authorship
of *The Shepheardes Calender* by setting it "in the middle," and then
setting "all evidence and reasonable inferences regarding Spenser" on the
left and "all evidence and reasonable inferences regarding Oxford" on the
right? Oxford, of course, contributed no more to the writing of *The
Shepheardes Calender* than he did to *Venus and Adonis*. Mark's "basic
argument" is on its face an absolute example of special pleading. On what
planet does Oxford have some privileged status as a probable or even
conceivable author of either *The Shepheardes Calender* OR *Venus and
Adonis*? Yet Mark wishes to put the pro-Oxford fix in from the beginning.
Mark's attempt to disagree with my statement of his basic argument is, in
fact a confirmation of it. Like most antistratfordians, he is unable to
apply the same standards to the attribution of Shakespeare's works that
literary historians would to the works of any other author -- or even that
Mark himself would apply to the works of any other author.
>
> Then we *assume* first that Shakspere is the author and see what the
> connections are. Then we *assume* that Oxford is the writer and see
> what the connections are. We get to draw reasonable inferences on both
> sides.
I have to go back to Mark's phrase "my basic argument." Has anybody seen
an argument? I have a deplorable habit of overestimating the
ratiocinative powers of Oxfordians qua Oxfordians, and once again I am
guilty of this flaw. Mark outlines here not an "argument" nor a means to
approach the truth, but a game. Forget Shakespeare for the time being,
and imagine what happens if we play this game with Philip Sidney.
Center: Sidney's works.
Left: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Sidney
Right: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Oxford
Does this game look to anybody like a "basic argument" about who wrote
Sidney's works? For Mark it must, because this "basic argument" is
formally identical to the one he thinks he is making about Shakespeare.
Here's a version of the game that all Oxfordians should love, because they
cannot lose.
Center: Oxford's works
Left: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Oxford
Right: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Oxford
This is particularly apt, because Oxfordian games tend to be versions of
solitaire, and this one can be won without recourse to cheating.
Here's another one:
Center: Harriet Beecher Stowe's works
Left: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Harriet Beecher Stowe
Right: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Oxford
Did Oxford write *Uncle Tom's Cabin*? There's a 50-50 chance that he did
-- after all, he's part of the "basic argument" about the authorship of
that work, isn't he?
>
> You want to keep the drawing of reasonable inferences limited to your
> side.
You go off and enjoy your game. I'll pay attention when you are willing
to abide by the same standards in discussing the attribution of
Shakespeare's works would apply in discussing the works of any other
author of the time.
>
> : Let us assume that we had forgotten the evidence (for those not
> wishing to
> : imbibe from the river of forgetfulness, a brief survey of the evidence
> is
> : available in Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman's essay "How We Know that
> : Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare" at
> : http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/howdowe.html). If we attempted to
> discover
> : for ourselves who had written the works of Shakespeare, we would
> proceed
> : in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY we would if we were trying to learn who wrote
> any
> : other contemporary work, and we would come to exactly the same
> conclusion,
> : because we would "discover" the same evidence that has compelled
> scholars
> : and readers in general to identify William Shakespeare as William
> : Shakespeare.
>
> Bzzzzt. Wrong. Nice try. The deck is stacked in favor of the dealer.
>
Isn't it amazing how every single accusation raised by Mark (I mean EVERY
one, without exception that I can see) is something he is himself guilty
of, often in the same post where he makes his charges? I mean, what are
the odds?
Mark is the one attempting to "stack the deck" by including Oxford
in the process from the outset. My procedure would be to investigate any
supposed question of Shakespearean attribution in exactly the same way
that scholars would approach a similar question for any of Shakespeare's
contemporaries. This is not "stacking the deck," it is using the
standard methods of literary history.
> : Having done so, we could then look again for "connections" that seem
> to
> : favor Oxford or any other "candidate," but none of this pointless
> exercise
> : would have the slightest bearing whatsoever on the authorship of
> : Shakespeare's works. This, by the way, is a very different exercise
> from
> : that of looking for further connections between Shakespeare and his
> : contemporaries as a way of shedding further light on his life and the
> : circumstances that lay behind his works.
>
> Of course. When you *know* the answer, you can draw all the reasonable
> inferences you want.
Mark has inadvertently stumbled onto an important principle. We know (or
should I say, *know*) that Milton wrote Paradise Lost. We know this for
a fact, even though Mark might prefer to play this game:
Center: Milton's works
Left: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Milton
Right: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Oxford
I'd hate to think what the Vegas book would look like for THAT game.
Back to the point. We know that Milton wrote *Paradise Lost*, but we do
not know exactly when. We know he was sketching an epic or drama on such
a subject decades before the great work was published in 1667. Some parts
of *PL* may have originated as speeches in a draft drama. To what extent,
if at all, does *PL* reflect Milton's experiences in Cromwell's England?
To what extent, if at all, is his disappointment in the Restoration
expressed in his epic? These are reasonable questions to ask. They
probably cannot be definitively answered, but it should be possible for a
Miltonist to make a reasonable case based on what we know of Milton's
actual and probable experiences and opinions outside of their expression
in *PL*.
The same kind of legitimate inquiry is part of the task of Spenserians,
Jonsonians, Shakespeareans, and scholars who specialize in the works of
all other writers. What would NOT be legitimate would be to say, "let us
instead look for 'connections' between Milton's works and Oxford, between
Spenser's works and Oxford, between Jonson's works and Oxford, between
Shakespeare's works and Oxford, and so on, so that we may grant Oxford the
title of 'Grand Writer of Everything Worth Reading."
Yet this is exactly what Mark's "basic argument" game amounts to.
>
> My case is very simple: When you assume that Shakspere is the author,
> there are mounds of blanks, of obscure passages, of irreconcilable
> contradictions between the work and the life. Stratford scholars draw
> paradoxical inferences that often lead them into saying, "There's no
> use guessing" or "We'll never know the answer to this."
There is no more reason to "assume" that Shakespeare wrote *Venus and
Adonis* than to "assume" that Spenser wrote *The Shepheardes Calender*.
The authorship of both works is known, even though there are many things
about Spenser, Shakespeare and every other writer of the time that are NOT
known. Mark's pickled red herring gambit is to ask us to ignore what we
know, so that he can then play his "basic argument" game. Here's one
more:
Center: Mark Alexander's works.
Left: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Mark
Right: "evidence and reasonable inferences" regarding Oxford
OK, it's very likely that Mark Alexander wrote a great deal of the works
of Mark Alexander, but nobody can deny that Oxford is in the game.
>
> When you assume that Oxford is the author, resounding connections
> abound, often intimate and topical and strongly illuminating. Obscure
> passages light up.
But it would be silly to assume that Oxford wrote *Venus and Adonis*, even
if we did not KNOW that, as sure as Sidney wrote *Astrophil and Stella* or
Daniel wrote *Delia*, Shakespeare wrote *Venus and Adonis*. It does not
matter how much pleasure the Oxfordians "basic argument" game affords its
players; the game is entirely beside the point.
>
> I haven't forgotten bookburn's question. I will get the material
> together, but it will take time because I want to do justice to the
> question. It will go to answer what it is that is illuminating when
> one *assumes* Oxford is the author. How a play reveals an *insider*
> consciousness.
And then you can enthrall us with what happens when one *assumes* that
Oxford wrote *Long Day's Journey Into Night*.
There have been many men from Stratford; one of them, William Shakespeare,
is the "real author" you are seeking. If you will read Tom Reedy and Dave
Kathman's essay (and I cannot recommend it too highly), you will see that
there is far more than a coincidence of names involved, and that
Shakespeare's name is found in many more places than "merely" on his
works. Of course, if all that we had (and we do have a great deal more)
were Shakespeare's name on his works, that would be a very very strong
indication that the author was William Shakespeare. Fortunately, we also
have Stationers' Register entries, revels accounts, the remarks of his
friends and admirers, the First Folio, the tomb, and more. I only wish we
had a quarter so much for Thomas Kyd.
>
> This is not a matter of *new rules* and you know it. It's a matter of
> *Hey, we got a name on the play that closely resembles our guy, and we
> will do everything we can to obscure the facts that point to a
> difference between the two."
Wrong again, Mark, but you must be used to it by now. Of course, as you
may know, the name "Spencer" resembles the name "Spenser," while "Sidney"
and "Marlowe" each resembles its own cluster of variations. The title
Earl of Oxford "resembles" -- though not so closely -- the signature
"E.O." If I may quote the conclusion to Tom and Dave's essay,
How do we know that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare? We know because the
historical record tell us so, strongly and unequivocally. The historical
evidence demonstrates that one and the same man, William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon, was William Shakespeare the player, William
Shakespeare the Globe-sharer, and William Shakespeare the author of the
plays and poems that bear his name -- and no person of the Elizabethan
and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution. No Elizabethan ever
suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone
else, or that Shakespeare the player was not Shakespeare the author, or
that Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was not Shakespeare of Stratford. No
contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the
player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym; and none of the
major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of
Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's
acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.
>
> : > Perhaps you have not thought through the way social classes operated
> : > in Elizabethan England. But I think you have, so forgive me my being
> : > cynical here.
> :
> : I asked a simple question: did Oxford even know these men? I take it
> from
> : your responses that you have no evidence that he did.
>
> I have tons of reasonable inference, and if I had time to write another
> 30,000-word paper I could easily demonstrate that the argument
> supporting Oxford's knowing these men is far stronger than than the
> argument against. The fact that you want to focus the argument at a
> lower level of analysis shows how dangerous it is for your to argue the
> case at a higher level. You are very good at taking Oxfordians into
> low-level analysis. But you avoid doing the same for Stratfordians. Why?
> Because it would expose a lack of evidence more profoundly?
I never denied that he MIGHT have known one, two, or three of the men;
what I asked was whether you had any evidence that he in fact did. It
appears that you do not. It does not matter, since even if it could be
demonstrated that he HAD known one, two, or three of the men, that would
not make him the author of *Venus and Adonis*.
>
> : >
> : > These four men were *peers,* for God's sake. What does that
> : > necessarily imply?
> :
> : Hmmm -- I begin to suspect it implies that you are not going to be
> able to
> : show that Oxford knew the other three.
>
> See above.
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three. [Tiresomeness warning for anyone still reading: henceforth,
every time Mark says "see above," I will repeat my "I looked" sentence]
> :
> : >
> : > Well, taking into account that the population in England during
> their
> : > common peerage was, oh, about 3 - 4 million people...
> : >
> : > And that there were fewer than 60 peers, who thought of themselves
> as
> : > part of a rather unique class, who attended the Queen's parties in
> : > Court in London and on Progress, availing themselves of all
> : > oppportunities to participate in all those things that peers
> : > participate in...
> :
> : Well, that's helpful. Now which parties did Oxford attend with
> : Southampton? Which progresses did he share with the brothers Herbert?
> : Please enlighten me.
>
> See above.
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three.
> :
You may choose to believe that. It may even be true that Oxford at some
point knew one, two, or three of the men, but there does not seem to be
any evidence that he did.
> and that there is evidence of overlapping interests that help
> explain why a Herbert may want to marry into the family. But I am not
> going to write that paper for you. Let my "Shakespeare's Knowledge of
> Law" paper demonstrate how Shakespeare's legal knowledge has been
> misprepresented on this newsgroup. It stands as a paradigm for other
> arguments as well.
I fail to see how some paper that I have not seen and may never see, and
that does not concern your point here, has any bearing on the simple
question whether Oxford knew one, two, or three of the men. You have
asserted your belief that he did. I have said that while he may have, I
know of no evidence that he did in fact know any of them. It appears that
you know of no such evidence either.
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three.
> : >
> : > How can you possibly expect any thoughtful person to believe that
> : > these guys didn't know each other and associate with each other in a
> : > number of ways?
> :
> : They may have known each other; I have never denied the possibility.
> : Your point, however, cannot, I hope, be that all peers knew each
> other.
> : If that were your point, then the fact that so many works were
> dedicated
> : to peers or even to lesser courtiers would, by the kind of argument
> you
> : seem to be making, mean that every courtier was as strong a candidate
> as
> : every other courtier to be the author of any work dedicated to any
> other
> : courtier.
>
> You are right. That is not my point. My point is that peers had good
> and frequent opportunity to get to know each other intimately, to have
> dealings with each other, more than Shakspere would have.
You believe that such opportunity must have existed, but you are unable to
present any evidence that it did. It would not matter in the slightest,
because it seems that, although I dreaded lest it be true, you really DO
mean that since "all peers know each other," "therefore" the author of any
work dedicated to any peer must have been some other peer. I put
"therefore" in quotation marks as a sign that it is the Oxfordian
"therefore" in which there is no logical relationship between what comes
before the word and what comes after.
As Mark must know, peers were far more likely to be the recipients of
dedications than to be the authors of works dedicated to peers. Of
course, if we wish to play Mark's "basic argument" game, we may put ANY
author's works in the middle, the evidence and reasonable inferences for
the real author on the left, and the Oxford clump on the right. Since
Oxfordians are the ones judging the "reasonableness" of their inferences,
Oxford can be shown to have written everything. Q.E.L.
> That we know that the three dedicatees were connected with Shakespeare
> the writer.
-- that is to say, William Shakespeare, the glover's son from Stratford.
> That there seems to be no significant connection to Shakspere the man,
You mean "no other significant connection" don't you? Of course there may
well have been other significant connections, but there is no scholarly
consensus on that score. Oxfordianism also lacks consensus, but it makes
up for that by steering generally clear of scholarship as well. The
result is that in both cases one may speak of a lack of "scholarly
consensus," but for different reasons.
> and that there are interesting and intimate connections between Oxford
> and these three men. The fact that one Herbert married Oxford's
> daughter, through whom the plays would have gotten to the publisher, is
> one reasonable inference that you do not want to face.
Let's pause on the word "inference," because Mark needs more help than
usual today. What he meant to say is NOT that Susan's marriage to Philip
is a "reasonable inference" (unless he means to say that it is a
"reasonable inference" derived from many records attesting to the fact
that they were married). What he means to say is that because six months
after Oxford died, his daughter married Philip Herbert, THEREFORE it is a
"reasonable inference" that the author of any book that was dedicated to
Herbert must really have been Oxford, even though Oxford is mentioned
nowhere in the book and had nothing whatsoever to do with the works of
Shakespeare. But that is not in the least a "reasonable inference," so
perhaps I once again have failed to plumb the Oxfordian shallows. I do
not know what Mark means by suggesting that the plays would have "gotten
to the publisher" through Oxford's daughter. This seems to be something
some Oxfordian just made up, as is their wont.
>
> I am emphatically NOT saying that any of this proves Oxford the author,
> which accounts for my frustration with you and others who continually
> spin this as *proving* Oxford the author.
Is it then your point that nothing in the Oxfordian steamer trunk (or
wherever you keep the really really really "good" arguments) does anything
to prove that Oxford was Shakespeare? I agree, but I think you can go
further. Nothing in the entirety of Oxfordiana goes one whit to
suggesting that William Shakespeare did not and Oxford did write the works
of Shakespeare.
But Mark is being disingenuous. He believes that the Oxfordian myth is
not just a game, but reflects a historical fact. His game is offered as
another way of inquiring into certain historical questions, and be
believes that whichever man's adherents win the game should be considered
-- as a matter of historical fact -- the "real author" of Shakespeare's
works. In short, his game is supposed to be a demonstration. The only
reason he asterisks "proved" is that he fears the burden of proof. Since
only he plays the game, and since he is the scorekeeper, he can always
declare that he has won, but such victories signify nothing.
>
> What I AM saying is that when we *assume* Oxford is the author, a
> mountain of remarkable connections appear that have the kind of
> *explanatory* power that is wholely lacking with Shakspere the man. You
> *wish* you had this kind of explanatory power.
Once you have given in to your fantasies, it makes no difference how
elaborate they become - they remain fantasies none the less. To assume
that the moon is cheese does not make it cheese. To add to this
assumption further details -- not just a cheese, but stilton; not just any
stilton but one created with care by a seventy-nine year old cheesemeister
with a hairy mole just to the left of his nose -- does not make the moon
into cheese. I certainly do not wish for Oxfordian "explanatory power,"
which consists of deriving fantastic fables about Oxford from ludicrous
projections onto misreadings of Shakespeare's works. Such fables
"explain" nothing about Shakespeare or about the actual Edward de Vere,
but I suppose they might provide "evidence" of some kind about those who
create and those who buy into such fables.
>
> For example, how the plays were made available for publication. How the
> writer could address Southampton in the tone that he did without
> apparent consequences.
You mean how a social inferior would have spoken of his "duty" to
Southampton, and his "love"? I guess you haven't read many dedications
from commoners to Lords.
> How some of the plays could have been put on without the author being
> dragged before the Star Chamber and jailed.
There was a bit of hot water concerning some of the plays; should I be
sorry that the Elizabethan system was not so Draconian as you would have
wished?
> How the writer could have such an intimate familiarity with Golding,
> Castiglione, and Cardan.
Well, since Golding's translation of Ovid was in print, since Hoby's
translation of Castiglione was in print, since Bedingfield's translation
of Cardanus was in print -- my guess is that anyone who had an "intimate
familiarity" with these works read them. Oxford, of course, had NO
connection to Hoby's translation -- but Thomas Sackville did. Sackville
also wrote a commendatory sonnet to Bedingfield's translation of Cardanus,
a work that Shakespeare may well have known, but with which he does not
demonstrably display an "intimate familiarity." Shakespeare had a much
more "intimate familiarity" with North's Plutarch and with the histories
of Honlinshed and Halle than with the works you mention, yet for some
reason Oxfordians do not assume that the author of Shakespeare's works
should be sought among the hypothetical associates of the people to whom
Shakespeare's more important sources were dedicated.
>
> And the beat goes on.
It's reassuring to know that there is at least one Sonny & Cher fan left
in the world. Will your next tagline be "I got you Babe"?
>
> : Before you respond to that paragraph, reread it and think over the
> : implications of your notion that all peers (and all who would become
> : peers) knew each other intimately. Now think of what that does for
> any
> : argument based on allegedly strong "connections" between any single
> peer
> : (or peer-to-be) and all other peers. A number of works were dedicated
> to
> : Oxford by people (such as Munday and Lyly) who did in fact know
> Oxford.
> : By your "all peers are intimately acquainted" rule, these dedications
> are
> : Oxfordian-style evidence that Thomas Sackville was the author of
> Lyly's
> : and Munday's works, because as Lord Buckhurst he was very well known
> to
> : every other Lord. Sackville is also a very likely "candidate" for the
> : authorship of Shakespeare's works on the very same, very weak grounds.
>
> See above.
>
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three.
>
> : >
> : > Southampton later hung out with Oxford's son, but nooooooooo,
> there's
> : > no evidence he even knew dad.
> :
> : I asked the question: did Oxford even know Southampton? Your answer
> seems
> : to be that there is no evidence that he had. Of course they MAY have
> : known each other, but even if they had, such acquaintance would shed
> no
> : light on the authorship of Shakespeare's works. In fact, even if we
> : assumed from the outset that the "real author" must have been a
> nobleman,
> : we would be unable (by Mark's reasoning) to single any particular
> nobleman
> : out because Mark assures us they were all thick as thieves, and their
> : great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddads has been just as
> thick.
>
> See above.
>
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three.
:
> : >
> : > The Herberts were engaged to, and one married one of, Oxford's
> : > daughters, but nooooooooo, there's no evidence he even knew dad.
> :
> : I asked whether there was any evidence that Oxford knew either of the
> : Herberts, and it appears from your response that the answer is "no."
> Of
> : course Oxford certainly knew the Cecils, who were always trying to
> : engineer suitable marriages that would strengthen their ties to the
> great
> : families, but I am not aware of any evidence that Oxford knew the man
> who
> : would marry his daughter Susan six months after Oxford died. It would
> be
> : a mistake to cast Oxford in the Spenser Tracy role in *Father of the
> : Bride* unless you combined that movie with elements from *Weekend at
> : Bernie's* and called the result *Dead Father of the Bride*. Spenser
> : Tracy's remains are probably too far gone, but perhaps enough is left
> of
> : Anthony Quinn's corpse for his mortal clay to assume the role of
> Oxford at
> : his daughter's wedding to Philip Herbert.
>
> See above.
>
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three.
:
> : >
> : > This isn't argument, Terry. It's sheer political spin. Deliberate
> red
> : > herring. The implantation of authoritative statements in the hope
> that
> : > the ignorant will bite. The desire to keep others from thinking to
> : > clearly.
> :
> : As I said, all antistratfordianisms are red herrings.
>
> Great. Then you in effect admit that you are incapable of believing that
> an anti-Stratfordian is capable of a straight argument, and that any
> anti-Stratforidan argument that has the appearance of being reasonable
> is in fact not, and that the only reason you are here is to defend the
> orthodoxy against the railings of the irrational Visigoths, and only
> *pretend* to engage in reasoned debate, while all along only playing
> "Whack a mole".
I believe that many antistratfordians are "capable" of forming good
arguments; the problem is that this ability flees them when they put on
the garb of antistratfordianism. No antistratfordianism is possible that
approaches the attribution of Shakespeare's works in the same way literary
scholars would approach the attribution of the works of Shakespeare's
contemporaries. All antistratfordianisms require ignoring the work and
the methods of literary history and attempting to substitute something
else (in your case, the "basic argument" game) -- and that "something
else" is a textbook example of the red herring.
>
> This is in effect what Bob Grummon admitted when he declared that he
> knew *before reading them* that all my arguments were bilge. And since
> my time is as valuable as his and yours and the
> ever-enslaved-to-more-important-things Kathman, then you can
> understand why I do not bother reading and answering his posts any
> longer.
I don't pay much attention to whether you read or answer Bob's posts or
anybody else's; that's your business, not mine. I do not keep track of
such things. I skim the newsgroup, and from time to time I post on topics
where I think I may have a contribution to make. I am, of course, more
likely to post when I am baited, but I do not promise always to rise when
the fly is overhead.
>
> I suppose since you know *in advance* that all my arguments are *by
> nature* red herrings, you would not be capable of ever seeing in them
> even the possibility of reasonable argument. If that is so, then
> perhaps you and I should stop reading each other's posts as well.
There is certainly the possibility of rational argument on your part --
this I have never denied. I would welcome an attempt to build an
antistrafordian argument that was not merely a red herring, but neither
the Baconians nor the Oxfordians, nor the Marlites, nor the general
antistratfordians have so far succeeded, to the best of my knowledge, and
most of them do not care to try.
>
> It is truly sad that you and other Strats choose to frame the
> discussion in this manner. You admit up front that you have judged all
> arguments in advanced as being bilge and red herrings and idiocy and a
> waste of time...yet you come back for more. Why? Apparently, the
> castle walls cannot hold by themselves. You *have* to frame the
> argument this way, because too many fault lines appear if you even
> concede that anti-Stratfordians are capable of arguing thoughtfully
> and convincingly.
I concede that most people are to some extent capable of arguing
thoughtfully and convincingly, at least about some topics. I'm sure there
are a number of topics about which you could generate marvelous and
perhaps even compelling arguments -- but Oxfordianism does not appear to
be one of them. What you call your "basic argument" is not an argument at
all; it is the Harold Hill method of attribution studies, or the Peter Pan
cure (if you believe Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works, clap you hands).
You do not need to "assume" that Shakespeare wrote the works of
Shakespeare. Simply apply the same methods literary historians would
apply to the works of any other author of the period, and you will be led
to the same conclusion.
> howeve weak and pitiful. What I am suggesting is that the quality of
> the list of connections for Stratford pale when compared to the
> quality of the list connections for Oxford.
It doesn't matter how you play and how you score your "basic argument"
game, because it is only a game, and you are only playing it with
yourself. What you mean by "quality" is as nebulous as "connection" or
the rest of your project. You are unwilling to make an argument -- fine,
that's your privilege. You should not, however, expect the rest of us to
pretend that the procedures of literary history should be jettisoned in
favor of your game.
>
> The connections do not individually prove anything.
>
> The lists of connections, when compared to each other, show something
> remarkable going on with Oxford. More than can be dismissed simply as
> coincidence.
A great many of them are not "connections" at all, and dismiss themselves
before one needs to consider them coincidences. Where, for instance, is
the "connection" between Hoby's *Courtier*, a very popular which
Shakespeare may well have known, and Oxford? Well, Oxford knew
Sackville...
>
>
> : >
> : > Give us a collective break.
> : >
> : > These guys knew each other.
> :
> : It might be that they did, but your only "evidence" is your assumption
> : that all peers knew each other intimately, the hypothetical Lifelong
> : Information Extricator, and the "our ancestors were boys together when
> : Moses was a pup" bit. As an Oxfordian, you expect us to ignore all
> the
> : evidence we have for the authorship of Shakespeare's works and instead
> to
> : award the honor to Oxford on the grounds that all peers knew each
> other --
> : which is a pretty weak argument even by the debased standards of
> : Oxfordianism. It may be time to return this Oxfordian pickled red
> herring
> : to the brine from which it came.
>
> See above.
>
I looked; it appears that you are not able to show that Oxford knew the
other three.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cheers
>
> Mark Alexander
>
>
>
Bob Grumman
(Non-Speculative) Connections between Shkfxple and Shakespeare:
the name on the First Folio
the picture in the First Folio
the reference to a monument in the First Folio
the reference to Shkfxple's hometown in the First Folio
the occupation (writer) noted on the monument
the Art of Virgil
acquaintance with Burbage
acquaitance with Heminges
acquaintance with Condell
acquaintance with Phillips
an acting career
date of death (according to Basse)
first name
acquaintance of Heywood
ability to write after 1604
presence at court (at least once, according to the records)
hometown of Richard Field
London residence
Non-Speculative Connections between Oxford and Shakespeare
occupation of poet/playwright
presence at court
talent as a writer (according to Puttenham and Meres)
Ooops, forgive my suggestion, Terry--I never thought Oxford would
come out so far ahead!
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
> Why not play Mark's silly game, Terry?
OK. I'm going to assume (or, in Mark's parlance, *assume*) that Oxford
wrote *Uncle Tom's Cabin*. Lincoln meets the author of the work and says,
"So you're the little lady who -- wait a minute! You're little, but
you're no lady!"
It certainly would deepen my understanding of the novel -- although I
might wonder why the novel's influence took so long to be felt.
Puttenham tells us that Oxford had a hand in some comedy or interlude, so
it is a reasonable inference that Oxford was responsible for the
dramatization of *Uncle Tom's Cabin* as well as for the novel. If you
view the work through Oxfordian lenses, a true appreciation of Oxford's
artistry will grow like Topsy. Obviously Burleigh was the model for Simon
Legree, Golding was Uncle Tom, and Oxford himself was Little Eva.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Elizabeth Weir
> > > the society of the times and because there were only 60 peers
> > > (he says).
>
> Interesting material you present, Elizabeth--though, in view of all
> you've posted that's not true, I am skeptical of the validity of
> parts of it.
You've allowed yourself to be influenced by Kathman's sneers and
Webb's abusive rants just like Baker has.
I started writing this post and interrupted it--just for you, Bob--to
write a post demonstrating Kathman's unscholarly tactics in HLAS and
on his website.
It's subject line is something like 'Dishonest Scholarship: Kathman on
'the Stritmatter of her day.'
I wanted you to see exactly how Kathman deals with evidence that
doesn't conform to the Strat idola when he has no evidence of his own
to counter it.
Kathman gets personal in a very nasty way.
Bob Grumman
> > you've posted that's not true, I am skeptical of the validity of
> > parts of it.
>
> You've allowed yourself to be influenced by Kathman's sneers and
> Webb's abusive rants just like Baker has.
Sorry, but not so, Elizabeth: I was sneering at you long before
either of the Daves was. My impression is that you're getting a
little less Bakerish of late, but I'm not sure. You HAVE asserted
many thing that are not only not so, but ridiculous. (Sorry, no time
to search your posts to find them.)
> I started writing this post and interrupted it--just for you, Bob--to
> write a post demonstrating Kathman's unscholarly tactics in HLAS and
> on his website.
>
> It's subject line is something like 'Dishonest Scholarship: Kathman on
> 'the Stritmatter of her day.'
I read it before coming to this post, and made an impolite response to
it.
> I wanted you to see exactly how Kathman deals with evidence that
> doesn't conform to the Strat idola (idol?) when he has no evidence
> of his own to counter it. Kathman gets personal in a very nasty way.
This is ridiculous. In the first place, the passage you quoted
of Dave's was a reply to Baker about whether Dave would take you
on as a Ph. D. candidate. He wasn't nice to you, true--but he
was not avoiding some argument he could not deal with. I claim that
NO Stratfordian uses insults except when trading insults in some of
HLAS's sillier posts (e.g., the ones Mark starts by telling us how
badly Stratfordianism is doing at the polls) or AFTER the Stratfordian
or other Stratfordians have spent hundreds or thousands of words
demonstrating some anti-Stratforian's errors without effect, and
no longer has any healthy alternative except name-calling. Even then
the insults are rarely directed against anyone but hypocrites like
Mark Alexander who think their sneaky insults are okay but even the
lightest explicit insults against them cause to break off relations
forever (or at least for a week or two) OR people like Baker or
Richard
Kennedy who refuse to stop misrepresenting us however many times we
correct them. Baker (and others) are still maintaining, for example,
that everyone on our side believes Shakespeare wrote for money alone.
I don't think we've attacked you particularly violently--only called
you very wrong, and irrational. And David Webb, for one, has--as far
as I can tell--very meticulously pointed out in detail (with
references
to your errors and why they are errors) why he does not treat you as
the authority you seem to think you are.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
news:5f7d2eb3.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > Interesting material you present, Elizabeth--though, in view of all
> > > you've posted that's not true, I am skeptical of the validity of
> > > parts of it.
> >
> > You've allowed yourself to be influenced by Kathman's sneers and
> > Webb's abusive rants just like Baker has.
>
> Sorry, but not so, Elizabeth: I was sneering at you long before
> either of the Daves was. My impression is that you're getting a
> little less Bakerish of late, but I'm not sure.
<snip>
It seems that there is a certain quota of Bakerish idiocy that has to be met
at any one time on hlas. Weir's Bakerishness has waned, but Okay
Fine--usually just a slightly goofy clueless monitor of politeness--has
stepped in and taken up the slack. I would go so far as to say that Okay
almost out-Bakered Baker himself. He could very well be blood kin to Baker.
TR
baker
Come on, tell me you don't see a progression from Faustus to Hamlet to
Prospero or Lear?
At any rate I'm not kicking you in the lower legs...I'm just saying
the table as to be open...and I'm sure you agree.
baker
ps. what do you think of the Promus? Did you see what kathman said
about it?
Hyperopic
>On 19 Aug 2001, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
>> Why not play Mark's silly game, Terry?
>
>OK. I'm going to assume (or, in Mark's parlance, *assume*) that Oxford
>wrote *Uncle Tom's Cabin*. Lincoln meets the author of the work and says,
>"So you're the little lady who -- wait a minute! You're little, but
>you're no lady!"
I thought you were making some sensible points earlier, but this
paragraph puts me in doubt--surely you're not a "Springfieldian"?
Surely you don't believe that Lincoln, that overgrown backwoods
Kentuckian (a "rustic" if ever there was one), was the author of some
of our finest prose? Why, in his campaign biography he was forced to
admit that his father "never did more in the way of writing than to
bunglingly sign his own name" (sounds like a certain W.S., doesn't
it?). And he himself "thinks that the agregate [sic] of all his
schooling did not amount to one year."
Face it, Lincoln was an ambitious money-grubber who could talk--he
could charm the pants off a jury of country hicks--but he was never
the brains behind "his" writings. Educated men like Hawthorne saw
through him right away (we have his contemporary description of a
lackluster talk with Lincoln). Somehow Lincoln became the mouthpiece
for a man of real distinction, putting forth opinions that the real
author found too controversial to advance under his own name. Who was
that author--Seward? Chase? Clay? Perhaps we'll never have
definitive proof. After the Cooper Union address, someone saw Lincoln
reading the proofs of the speech in a typesetter's shop. As he
checked each sheet, he dropped the corresponding manuscript into the
fire. That manuscript would be worth tens of thousands today, but
Lincoln knew that the true author's handwriting must not be allowed to
survive.
Even his habitual signature, "A. Lincoln", hints at the mystery behind
the man--he was an _indefinite_ Lincoln...not the real thing.
Bob Grumman
> the man--he was an _indefinite_ Lincoln...not the real thing.
Excellent point, H. As for Terry's being a Springfieldian, if you'll
search HLAS for Lincoln, you'll find (I'm pretty sure) that he
agrees with me that the True Author of Lincoln's works was the
little girl who told hiom he should grow a beard.
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
> little girl who told him he should grow a beard.
>
I believe Dave Kathman first opened our eyes to this fascinating but
neglected issue in American history. I certainly agree that the matter
requires further study. Here is what I said last year when the Lincoln
Question arose:
===
The little girl was one Grace Bedell, who described herself in her letter
to Lincoln as 11 years old. Lincoln met Grace Bedell a few months after
the election, by which time he had grown a beard. The New York World of
February 19, 1861, described this meeting:
"At Westfield [Ohio] an interesting incident occurred. Shortly after his
nomination Mr. Lincoln had received from that place a letter from a little
girl, who urged him, as a means of improving his personal appearance, to
wear whiskers. Mr. Lincoln at the time replied, stating that although he
was obliged by the suggestion, he feared his habits of life were too fixed
to admit of even so slight a change as that which letting his beard grow
involved. To-day, on reaching the place, he related the incident, and said
that if that young lady was in the crowd he should be glad to see her.
There was a momentary commotion, in the midst of which an old man,
struggling through the crowd, approached, leading his daughter, a girl of
apparently twelve or thirteen years of age, whom he introduced to Mr.
Lincoln as his Westfield correspondent. Mr. Lincoln stooped down and
kissed the child, and talked with her for some minutes. Her advice had not
been thrown away upon the rugged chieftain. A beard of several months'
growth covers (perhaps adorns) the lower part of his face. The young
girl's peachy cheek must have been tickled with a stiff whisker, for the
growth of which she was herself responsible."
There are similar stories in other papers of the time, but Lincoln and
Grace Bedell were never photographed together. Were they in fact
different people? Note the curious way in which the great man's whiskers
are described in his meeting with Grace (and just how old was she? 9?
11? 12? 13?): "A beard of several months' growth covers (perhaps adorns)
the lower part of his face." The reporter seems to be in doubt about the
realness of the rugged chieftain's facial hair: "grows (perhaps adorns)"
suggests his suspicions that this may have been a fake beard. This would
be in keeping with Lincoln's demonstrated fondness for disguises. More
revealing is the next sentence: "The young girl's peachy cheek must have
been tickled with a stiff whisker, for the growth of which she was herself
responsible." Is not this description consistent with the revisionist
view that Grace Bedell herself was now playing the part of a man -- and a
bearded man to boot -- and was in fact the president elect of the United
States? A girl's cheek may be "peachy" because of its color, but also
because it is hirsute, covered with (at least) "peach fuzz." Were both
Grace Bedell and the man portraying "Lincoln" wearing phony beards at this
meeting? (Older readers may remember the "Smith" brothers of cough drop
fame -- were they "Lincoln" and Bedell?)
What was "Lincoln" trying to cover up with his beard? Could not this
whole story about Grace's letter have been part of the grand deception?
While a beardless "Lincoln" was able to campaign in 1860 by pretty much
staying out of the way, it was essential that the REAL Lincoln, once
elected, be able to assume power, and thus the necessity of Grace Bedell's
wearing a phony beard. We know from contemporary accounts that Lincoln
had a rather high voice (though Grace no doubt spoke in as low a register
as she could). We know that Lincoln frequently wore a shawl -- a rather
feminine habit for an alleged backwoodsman (respect for historical
accuracy requires us to state that cross-dressing was very popular in
those days, and Jefferson Davis himself was the subject of similar
reports: witness the popular song "Jeff in Petticoats").
Was the tall man who is said to have been Lincoln a real person? Perhaps
-- perhaps several different people. With lifts in one's shoes, a fake
beard, and a stovepipe hat, there would have been millions of Americans
who could have played the part (including, on occasion, Grace Bedell
herself).
Certainly there are stronger demonstrable ties between the so-called
Lincoln and Grace Bedell than there are between Oxford and the real
Shakespeare, but we should not believe any new notion merely because it is
more plausible than Oxfordianism; we should hold ourselves to a higher
standard than that. Nevertheless, the facts about the real Lincoln should
be investigated.
John W. Kennedy
> This is particularly apt, because Oxfordian games tend to be versions of
> solitaire, and this one can be won without recourse to cheating.
Somehow Janis Ian flashed into my mind at this moment.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
John W. Kennedy
> OK. I'm going to assume (or, in Mark's parlance, *assume*) that Oxford
> wrote *Uncle Tom's Cabin*. Lincoln meets the author of the work and says,
> "So you're the little lady who -- wait a minute! You're little, but
> you're no lady!"
Doesn't that depend on the precise relationship he had with his young
Italian friend?
Terry Ross
on his usenet server but not mine, and this note was originally a
personal reply. Mark thought the reply a "good" one, and I'm posting it
here to put Mark's original (which was intended for this newsgroup) and my
answer on the hlas record.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Mark Alexander wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>
> > As I said, all antistratfordianisms are red herrings.
>
> Just to drive the point home, Terry, let's say I invite you to a
> debate, and I say "By the way, everybody on the opposite side of the
> debate will assume that all of your arguments are bilge, that you are
> an idiot, and that all of your arguments will be regarded as
> irrational. In other words, the possibility does not exist that
> anything you say will be regarded with respect, or even the
> possibility of being regarded as thoughtful."
>
> Would you bother with the debate?
>
> Of course not.
Experience proves you wrong. Most exchanges on HLAS are reasonably civil,
by the standards of the usenet, but all of us who are regulars for a time
have to decide how we will deal with the occasional personal attack.
What do I do when antistratfordians call me Hitler or Stalin or McCarthy?
What do I do when antistratfordians accuse me of always offering worthless
arguments of stripe X, Y, or Z? What do I do when antistratfordians call
me names, or say that I am full of it (the actual language tends to be
somewhat stronger), or accuse me of poisoning the well, dragging red
herrings, or some other foul crime? What do I do when antistratfordians
offer some general accusation or characterization with the intent of
marking everything I have said or will say as essentially worthless, as
"just the sort of thing Terry WOULD say"?
I take it. I don't whine; I don't sulk; I don't pout; I don't demand an
apology -- I take it. And then I generally respond the best way I know
how, which is by marshaling what I think are effective and well-supported
arguments, leavened at times with a bit of wit. As a result, such
characterizations of me or the kinds of useless arguments I am said always
to make are shown to be incorrect, or at least overgeneral.
>
> Now why would people even say that to you? Well, perhaps it would be
> because they had something to fear. Perhaps they did not even want to
> open the door to the possibility that others might *listen* to your
> arguments. Or might even be persuaded by them.
>
> So they *label* you with an absolute caricature that defines you as an
> irrational creature, in the hopes that others will not even bother to
> grant your arguments as being thoughtful.
Mark, if you are honest with yourself, you will acknowledge that you are
one of the newsgroup's prime labelers. What of it? Obviously I find some
things you say worth responding to, whether you label me or not. I expect
you to label me -- it's part of what makes you who you are, at least
insofar as the newsgroup "you" is part of the genuine "you."
>
> Thought control, like birth control, is best practiced before the fact.
>
> People who use such labels, like you and Grummon and Kathman, reveal
> themselves as the real ideologues. Why? Because you find yourself
> resorting to caricature through the use of such absolute statements.
So, calling us "ideologues" is NOT labeling? Or is labeling something
that is OK when you do it? I don't mind, mind you; I just take it.
>
> These are the tactics of fundamentalists, those who hang on tightly to
> a religious belief that is under threat.
I've been called that before, too. I may have more respect for genuine
religious beliefs than you do.
>
> If anti-Stratfordians were truly the irrational breed you claim for
> them, you would not bother. There would be no need. Their arguments
> would not puncture the mainstream.
Oh please -- leave antistratfordianism aside for the moment: countless
forms of irrationality "puncture the mainstream." Why do so many
newspapers carry horoscopes every day?
> But because reasonable people are continually being persuaded, and
> because the Stratfordian edifice is weakening, as Alan Nelson
> admitted, you are attempting damage control, not engaging in
> arguments.
The reason I engage with antistratfordians is not out of a hope to
persuade them (although I have had some success even there at times) but
rather to address those who are NOT antistratfordian but who may wonder
there is any merit in it, and to provide information for those who would
like to know a bit more about literary history.
>
> So don't be surprised when I bail out of a *debate* with you. It is no
> such thing. You admit that you are not in it for the debate. You do
> NOT grant any of your opponents the basic respect required for a real
> debate based on argument and evidence: The acknowledgement that they
> may be able to construct a thoughtful and persuasive argument.
I respect you as a person. If you present arguments and evidence, I will
pay attention, but even if I think what you post is absolute folly, you
are still entitled to my basic respect, regardless of what I think of some
of of your views.
>
> As long as you deny that as a possibility, then you are admitting that
> you and Bob and Dave are merely playing a game of "Whack a Mole".
>
> Nothing more.
>
> The entire first paragraph from Chapter One of "Shakespeare Identified"
> (1920):
>
> "IN spite of the efforts of orthodox Stratfordians to belittle the
> investigations that have been made into the question of the authorship
> of the Shakespeare dramas; perhaps indeed because of the very manner
> they have chosen to adopt, the number of Britons and Americans, to say
> nothing of the non-English speaking nationalities, who do not believe
> that William Shakspere of Stratford produced the literature with which
> he is credited is steadily on the increase. Outside the ranks of those
> who have deeply committed themselves in print it is indeed difficult
> nowadays to find any one in the enjoyment of a full and assured faith.
> At the same time the resort of the faithful few to contemptuous
> expressions in speaking of opponents is clearly indicative of uneasiness
> even amongst the most orthodox litterateurs."
>
> And the beat goes on.
Odd that so little headway has been made in 80 years. You probably know
some of the Baconian claims that the tide was turning in their favor.
Leaving antistratfordianism aside, the adherents of many, if not most
cults of unreason believe that their views are daily winning adherents.
Of course, the same can be said of countless movements, and sometimes
those who think the tide will turn their way turn out to be right. It
doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen. And if it should
happen that Oxfordianism were to become as mainstream as UFOlogy, I would
still, in my own way, make the points that I think should be made.
Terry
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
>
Mark Alexander
: Here is a reply that I sent to Mark last Saturday. His original
showed up
: on his usenet server but not mine, and this note was originally a
: personal reply. Mark thought the reply a "good" one, and I'm posting
it
: here to put Mark's original (which was intended for this newsgroup)
and my
: answer on the hlas record.
Actually, I recall saying that it was an *excellent response*.
And here is the rest of what I wrote:
OK. The one point I am making that I think you have missed is this:
As far as I can remember, I have never made any blanket claim that
discounted your ability (or the ability of Stratfordians in general) to
make a good argument. I have never stated categorically that all of your
arguments are worthless *before I have even read them*. I strive to
recognize that people on every side of this argument are capable of
making coherent arguments.
So the *labels* I am talking about are those that close the door *in
advance* by claiming that a person (me) or a group (Oxfordians) are
incapable of presenting a good argument.
When I say that when your statement reveals you to be an ideologue, yes,
that is a label, but it leaves the door open to your being able to make
a good argument.
What I am pointing to is when you make statements that in effect
proclaim that I in particular, or other Oxfordians as a class, are
incapable of making good arguments.
When you close that door, as Kathman and Grummon have clearly done, then
that is a whole different ballgame.
Even ideologues can make good arguments. They are simply hampering
themselves in some areas from seeing outside their box.
I hope you recognize and understand the distinction I am making. There
is nothing wrong with labeling per se. One man's label is another man's
sincere characterization. Debate can still have a rational forum. But
it's a whole new ballgame to label in a way that says your opponents are
*incapable* of entering the forum of reason, evidence, and argument.
Cheers
Mark
:
: >
: >
:
:
Elizabeth Weir
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0108220559520.22023-100000@mail...
> : Odd that so little headway has been made in 80 years. You probably
> know
> : some of the Baconian claims that the tide was turning in their favor.
> : Leaving antistratfordianism aside, the adherents of many, if not most
> : cults of unreason believe that their views are daily winning
> adherents.
> : Of course, the same can be said of countless movements, and sometimes
> : those who think the tide will turn their way turn out to be right. It
> : doesn't happen all that often, but it does happen. And if it should
> : happen that Oxfordianism were to become as mainstream as UFOlogy, I
> would
> : still, in my own way, make the points that I think should be made.
> :
> : Terry
There's something about supporting an authorship candidate who
invented the empirical method that isn't condusive to cult-making.
The Oxfordians are a cult in the technical sense. I studied dystopian
lit and I can deconstruct Oxfordian rhetoric and prove it.
The increasing use of 'My Lord Oxford' is also indicative.
Strats are asleep at the wheel. I'm going to start keeping track of
Oxford De Vere hits on Google. I've seen an increasing number of
Oxford sites in the few months I've been interested in the authorship
question. It looks like it's about doubled since February.
Incidently, I was motivated by you and Kathman to write the Oxford's
Burghley Bible post to Wright. You and Kathman have been staring at
the data for how many years? Now that you have the solution you
should do something with it.
Okay Fine
>
> > Since it seems that you want to reduce all evidence to absolutely
> > provable evidence, then you can see why the Shakspere attribution
> > is such a problem.
>
> I know Terry clobbered you, Mark, but do you really think that's
> a proper excuse to claim that he, or any other Stratfordian, wants
> "to reduce all evidence to absolutely provable evidence?" All we
> want from you is a little direct concrete evidence.
>
> > * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere had an education.
>
> So what? There is plentiful solid circumstantial evidence that
> he had schooling. (Note the rigidnikal equation of "education" with
> "formal schooling" implied in Mark's claim.)
>
> > * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere was literate.
>
> So what? There is strong direct concrete evidence that he was
> literate: his monument's saying he was.
>
> > * There is no absolute evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays.
>
> So what? There is a web of extremely strong direct concrete evidence
> and highly persuasive, corroborating circumstantial evidence that he
> did--and NO direct concrete eivdence that he did not.
Bob, I've already pointed out that this assertion is incorrect. You
don't know what 'direct concrete evidence' is yourself. And you show us
here that there is nothing important about it anyway. Apparently direct
concrete evidence is irrelevant when the rejoinder "So what?" is
available.
OF.
snip
Bob Grumman
"direct concrete evidence" for us and give us an example of
direct concrete evidence against Shakespeare's having written
Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
Okay Fine
I can't really think of a df. consistent with your varied uses and I've
provided the evidence you request on a different thread.
(Apparently either Peacham or Puttenham will do for our purposes:-)
OF.