I have had a dream
Elisabeth Riba
Something" I've been poring over the web regarding the various authorship
claims, particularly the Marlovians.
Last night, I dreamed that I somehow travelled back in time to just after
Marlowe's arrest (and just before his death). I wanted to somehow warn
him that he might be murdered in a few days and/or ask whether that
was part of a plot to spirit him to safety. But somehow, I couldn't quite
bring myself to say anything so boldly [he was already worried about
impending torture, why compound it by scrying his immediate death or by
screwing up his plans to escape.]
Still, he was very good looking and witty in my dreams.
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Mark Steese
that wrote news:a62s7j$pf0$1...@reader2.panix.com, on the day of 05 Mar
2002:
> I'm a Salon subscriber, and after reading their article on "Much Ado
> About Something" I've been poring over the web regarding the various
> authorship claims, particularly the Marlovians.
After reading the article, I'm glad I'm *not* a Salon subscriber. (It's
available for free at
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html) Willy
Ley said that picking out flaws in Hans Hörbiger's *Welteislehre* was
"about as easy--and as pleasant--as gathering Japanese beetles from an
infested flowerbed." So it is with Gavin McNett's article. Among the
obvious errors of fact:
"We do know that William Shakespeare composed the oft-quoted inscription on
his tombstone..."
"Many readers and scholars have wondered how Shakespeare got an inside view
of court intrigues in Scotland ("Hamlet" and "Macbeth" are based on actual
people and events there, including the court of James VI)."
"[...]early engravings show that the Bard of Avon was once effigied holding
a sack of grain, like many another wealthy provincial landowner."
There are a few good laughs to be had, like the reference to "the scholar
Touchstone" in *As You Like It*, but most of it is the same tiresome
distortions, e.g., "There's no record of his having attended the village
school" (McNett omits the fact that there are *no attendance records at
all* for the period in question). Once again Dickens, Henry James, and
Ralph Waldo Emerson are ascribed views they never held. (Why are the anti-
Strats not satisfied with Twain and Freud?)
McNett is impressed by Peter Farey's laughable attempt to render the
"famously obtuse" memorial inscription into a *Times* Crossword clue. He
is so credulous he makes Niederkorn seem like a scholar.
-Mark Steese
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits
Richard Kennedy
I'd give odds that he does. (Excuse the foolery, but it's a dull day and
I thought I'd stir up a little poetry.)
Mark Steese
<stai...@teleport.com> that wrote news:3C84D51F...@teleport.com,
on the day of 05 Mar 2002:
> Let's ask Steese if he likes the Funeral Elegy.
Who's the "us" of the "Let's"? You carrying mice in your pockets these
days?
> If I were Las Vegas I'd give odds that he does. (Excuse the foolery, but
> it's a dull day and I thought I'd stir up a little poetry.)
If I were giving odds on your having anything relevant to add to my
comments on the Salon article, I would have given a million to one against.
All I would have had to do is one find one sucker dumb enough to bet
against the odds. Easy money!
Richard Kennedy
your name in the Thank God for the Funeral Elegy column unless you
object, in which case we'll try to remember your birthday, otherwise not.
I've looked at Kathman's remarks about the FE. Maybe he's not entirely
packed in cement about poetry, because he never says that he actually
"likes" the elegy. What he likes is Fosters explication of the thing, and he
likes Shaxicon,and he likes all articles that praise it for being by
Shakespeare,
and he dislikes everyone who doesn't think so. But I don't think he ever
says he actually likes the poem itself, but only that he likes all opinions that
like it, assuming deniability for himself, like someone had let a brain fart and
at least it wasn't him.
Mark Steese wrote:
> Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of Richard Kennedy
> <stai...@teleport.com> that wrote news:3C84D51F...@teleport.com,
> on the day of 05 Mar 2002:
>
> > Let's ask Steese if he likes the Funeral Elegy.
>
> Who's the "us" of the "Let's"? You carrying mice in your pockets these
> days?
Kennedy: No, Steese, I'm just happy to see you.
Richard Kennedy
"Yes, Kennedy, I'm sorry too that Shakespeare
didn't produce another "Hamlet" with his elegy,
but I think the voice, the nobility of sense, and
the gravity appropriate to the situation are certainly
worthy of Shakespeare, even though he had
less than 19 days to write it.
Kennedy doesn't understand: His subjective judgements
about the quality of the elegy by themselves determine
nothing. The elegy certainly is alive; a heartfelt, sincere
remembrance of a genuine friend, rather than the hollow
eulogies written by Daniel and Donne for pay."
Kennedy: Knave, I'm starting another catagory just for
you and those who like the nobility of sense of the thing.
Don't like it: Groves, Webb, R. Kennedy, Caruana, Neuendorffer,
Dooley.
Like it: Grumman, Knave, Reynolds
Better than it seems: Kathman
Nobility of sense: Knave
Richard Kennedy
Like it: Grumman, Knave, Reynolds, Nathan
Better than it seems: Kathman
Nobility of sense: Knave
I've taken the liberty of adding Nathan's name to the "Like It"
group. If he objects I'll tear his name off and shitcan it.
>
Crows Dog
I've told you before I'm no big fan of the Funeral Elgey.
The only honest thing you've ever said on this newsgroup was when you admitted
you were going senile.
Richard Kennedy
added Steese. Nathan now "Don't Like It." I realize that this sort
of listing is rather anal retentive, but that's scholarship for you.
Knave has given us the best review of the FE, finding it to be
"noble," and Kathman has given us the cutest answer, he must
be part Irish. There's the story, a fellow visiting Ireland says to
a man from country Cork, "I hear that that if you ask a man from
county Cork a question, he'll answer you with a question." And
the fellow says, "Now who was it told you that?"
> >Don't like it: Groves, Webb, R. Kennedy, Caruana, Neuendorffer,
> > Dooley, Der Colin, Nathan
> >Like it: Grumman, Knave, Reynolds, Steese
KQKnave
like Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, The Phoenix and
the Turtle and The Lover's Complaint, and see if it has
any relevance to authorship?
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Richard Kennedy
readers of a smart-ass person, and you wouldn't want
that to happen, would you?
Mark Steese
> Ok, I've shitcanned Nathan's name from the "Like It" list and
> added Steese.
Please take my name off the list. I have expressed no opinion regarding
the quality of the Funeral Elegy.
Mark Steese
on the day of 05 Mar 2002:
[snip]
> And we'll put your name in the Thank God for the Funeral Elegy column
> unless you object
Which I do. I have no interest in discussing the Funeral Elegy with you,
and it is unusually oafish of you to hijack other threads for the purpose
of your latest idiotic crusade.
[Kennedy monomania snipped]
This thread started with a reference to an article in *Salon* magazine
that, in my opinion, was worse than Niederkorn's risible *New York Times*
piece. On the off chance that someone is interested in discussing that
article, here's the URL again:
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html
Greg Reynolds
Richard Kennedy wrote:
> Knave, these kind of smart-ass posts must remind the
> readers of a smart-ass person, and you wouldn't want
> that to happen, would you?
Hello, Richard.
I know you are not an idiot or anything, but after
starting a thread on this very subject, why in the
world are you now posting your own responses
to Elizabeth Riba's I Have Had a Dream thread?
And when are you going to either verify my
*liking* A Funeral Elegy or removing my name
from your "study." I have never spoken of A
Funeral Elegy in those terms.
And Richard, would you please post an example
of what you consider to be excellent poetry. Maybe
three samples or so, if you could. Just wondering
what your tastes are.
So, in conclusion...
-stay in your own thread
-don't claim I "like" A Funeral Elegy
(I've strongly criticized one authorship conclusion)
-show us some good poetry that YOU like
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey
Mark Steese wrote
>
> McNett is impressed by Peter Farey's laughable attempt to render the
> "famously obtuse" memorial inscription into a *Times* Crossword clue.
McNett clearly does not understand how the puzzle works, so I am in no
way heartened by his support. No more than I am disheartened by your
hilarity, of course, as you clearly do not understand it either.
Couldn't give a toss either way, in fact, as odds of over 20,000,000 to 1
tell me that I am right on this one.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Peter Farey
Mark Steese wrote:
>
> This thread started with a reference to an article in *Salon* magazine
> that, in my opinion, was worse than Niederkorn's risible *New York Times*
> piece. On the off chance that someone is interested in discussing that
> article, here's the URL again:
>
> http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html
You may find some remarks on this subject that I have just made to Dave
More of some interest. He had asked me why I had been so critical of
the article. This was my reply.
<quote>
Having looked at it again, I feel a bit less critical than
I was, although I particularly object to his lifting John
Baker's ideas wholesale, without crediting him, and thus
implying that his views are shared by all of us.
Main problem is the number of errors.
> "Mark Rylance, the somewhat dashing, hat-affecting
> artistic director of the Globe Theatre, speaks lavishly
> on-camera on how he thinks it was really Marlowe."
No, he doesn't. He says that he can't believe
that Shakespeare did it, at least not alone.
> "His patron, Francis Walsingham, was certainly one of
> Elizabeth's spooks"
His patron was Thomas Walsingham
> "A letter from Buckingham Palace to the regents at his
> college"
Buckingham Palace was not built until the early
18th century
> "The college thought he'd gone to France to cavort with
> Catholics, a bad thing indeed in those days. The palace
> demurred on France, but vouched for Marlowe's valuable
> service there to the crown."
The note said it had been rumoured that he
intended to go to France and remain there,
not that he had already been.
> "Marlowe scholar Charles Nicholl tells the camera that he
> believes the brawl, which happened a week after the warrant
> was served, was actually an assassination meant to keep
> Marlowe from spilling crown secrets."
No he didn't. He spoke about what happened that
day and not why it happened (and certainly would
not have said that anyway).
> "The official story, reenacted in the film, is that they
> argued about the "ley" (the bill for the food and booze)"
There was never any mention of the word 'ley'
in this context. This use of the word was in fact
very rare, and is not the one I use in the riddle.
> ".supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse
> as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Johannes fac totum
> [read: errand boy, Stepin Fetchit]"
That is not what a *Johannes fac totum* is. Read
Noel Coward or Orson Welles rather.
> "Research has shown that the fateful rooming house was a kind
> of safe house, owned by a woman with connections to the
> queen's personal escort."
No research has shown it to have been used
as a safe house.
> "whereupon the queen rapidly pardoned everyone involved"
She pardoned Ingram Frizer, and nobody else.
> "The avowed killer, Frizer, who was employed by Marlowe's own
> spymaster and patron, kept his job."
Mixing up the Walsinghams again.
> "Another man in that same circle of Royal Secret Service men
> who was stationed at Dover, on the south coast of England,
> transported a group of agents to France the next day."
Faunt was not 'stationed at Dover', he was there
to meet an agent coming from France. He sent a
messenger who already lived in Calais, and a young
man who came back again straight away.
> "He subsequently returned to London via Cambridge, Marlowe's
> hometown."
Canterbury.
> "Marlovians. believe this was more or less an open secret at
> the time."
Do we? I don't.
> "an epic poem in the Marlovian style, first registered to
> "anonymous" in the Stationer's Register, was re-registered 13
> days after this hypothetical flight would have taken place,
> in the name of William Shakespeare -- the first time that
> name had ever appeared there."
It wasn't registered to "anonymous", it was
registered anonymously. It wasn't re-registered,
it was printed by then. The first mention of
Shakespeare in the register was not until years
later.
<Load of stuff from John Baker's site, presented as common view>
> "the Shakespeare plaque in the Stratford chapel, placed there
> to commemorate the First Folio, which was published after
> Shakepeare's death."
The monument had nothing to do with the First
Folio, which was not produced until after the
'plaque' was in place.
> "Farey's interpretation is more literal than many. Allowing
> for the peculiarities of Elizabethan punctuation and diction,
> he interprets it thus: "Read if you can whom envious death
> has placed within this monument to Shakespeare:"
"Read if you can whom envious death has placed
in this monument with Shakespeare."
> "the only name on Shakespeare's tomb (which is outside, in
> the yard)"
No it isn't. It is right in front of the monument,
about five feet away from the wall.
> "Christ-far more-ley. Which is creepily close to the way
> Christopher Marlowe signed his name Christofer Morley)"
He signed his name Christofer Marley. The correct
solution (and the one which it is actually possible
to solve, which this isn't) gives this spelling.
> "Sieh all" is, Farey says, a common Elizabethan cipher:
> Nobody spelled "seeth" like that, especially on a plaque for
> a poet."
I said that the rebus was a type of puzzle around
at that time. The word was "sith".
> "He is, returned, with the word, "all": "He is returned with
> all that he hath writ." "
He is returned withal. That he hath writ.
> "Both the bust and the man, Farey would say, are but a
> figurehead."
I do not believe the bust is very different from
the way it appeared to start with.
> "a rustic boob named "Falstaff" (as in, Shake-spear)"
Falstaff "a rustic boob"?
> "As the scholar Touchstone (get it? It's another, ruder pun)
> says to a rustic boob in "As You Like It,""
Touchstone, a "scholar"?
</quote>
Neil Brennen
> This thread started with a reference to an article in *Salon* magazine
> that, in my opinion, was worse than Niederkorn's risible *New York Times*
> piece. On the off chance that someone is interested in discussing that
> article, here's the URL again:
>
> http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html
> Mark Steese
I think the "research" in the Salon article consisted of downloading
posts by "Dr." "Bishop" John Faker.
Neil Brennen
Richard Kennedy
>
> From: Richard J Kennedy <rken...@orednet.org>
> Date: Saturday, 20 Apr 1996 16:59:38 -0700
> Subject: Re: Funeral Elegy
>
> Shaxicon has compared John Ford's early verse with that of W.S.,
> unknown writer of the Funeral Elegy. It can find no similarity
> between the two poets. Here is the beginning line of John Ford's
> major elegy and the beginning line of the Funeral Elegy:
>
> Ford: "Swift Time, the speedy pursuivant of heaven...."
> W.S.: "Since Time, and his predestined end...."
>
> Shaxicon doesn't see the likeness. And then here are the
> concluding lines of another John Ford elegy and the Funeral
> Elegy:
>
> Ford: "Sleep in peace: thus happy hast thou prov'd
> Thou mightst have died more known, not more belov'd."
> W.S.: "Who herein hast forever happy prov'd:
> In life thou livdst, in death thou died belov'd."
>
> Shaxicon doesn't see the likeness, and cannot really be blamed for
> that. All Shaxicon can really do is count things; it has no notion of
> meaning. Well, then, here is a count of 4-syllable words in 578
> lines, John Ford's major poem, the Funeral Elegy, and the Sonnets.
>
> Ford: 69
> W.S.: 62
> Sonnets: 15.
>
> Now this is something that Shaxicon can understand, but it takes
> no notice of this 300% difference between the Sonnets and the
> Funeral Elegy.. It was not programmed to notice long words,
> evidently. However, that's an important stylistic disparity, a
> significant mismatch between Shakespeare's non-dramatic
> poetry and the Funeral Elegy.
>
> Then there is the quality of the poetry itself. Shaxicon cannot
> answer for that, not knowing poetry from shinola, something
> which Don Foster admits, and he should know.because he created
> Shaxicon. Those who believe the Funeral Elegy to be written by
> Shakespeare must answer for themselves how Shakespeare could
> have written that miserable poem (Foster admits it) in the same
> year he wrote the Tempest. It's an outstanding descent, a
> monumental failure, such a fall from grace not recorded of any
> poet in all the world since the beginning of time. Shaxicon
> doesn't know a thing about that, and Don Foster tells us that
> it's a mere detail.
>
> On the other hand, John Ford could write such a piece of
> bootpolish as the Funeral Elegy with his eyes closed, or filled
> with tears in reverence and inward weeping for the
> mismanagement of Fate, all the world treating the subject of the
> memorial (and himself) with such malice as one would not expect
> to be attached to such saints. One of Ford's editors describes his
> early verse as so much "whining", and that matches well with the
> Funeral Elegy.
>
> Does Don Foster, et al, really think that the Funeral Elegy has not been seen
> before? Do they think that Chambers didn't read it, or Schoenbaum, or
> Halliwell-Phillips, Rouse, Spurgeon, Hotson, Langbaine, Malone, Chalmers,
> Steevens, Dowden, Harrison, Lee.....? The list of exhalted Shakespearean
> scholars who must have read and put aside the Funeral Elegy would fill pages.
> Can we believe they actually overlooked a poem by "W.S.". leaving Don Foster
> to make the discovery that the Funeral Elegy was written by Shakespeare? Not
> bloody likely.
>
>
Richard Kennedy
Webb wrote, and I suppose you're of the same admiring
cheek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Webb writes a note about a mis-attribution. It appears that
Kathman wrote a certain piece in question, not Webb, who
answers to the mistaker:
“Dave Kathman wrote that; I had nothing to do with it. While I'm
flattered that anyone, even an incompetent reader like yourself, could
possibly confuse my offhand, uninformed, amateur remarks with those of
a well-known scholar like Dave Kathman, there is such a thing as giving
credit where credit is due….”
A nice Elizabethan touch to this, I think, that kiss-ass dedication style
we’re all familiar with, perfectly in order, a knee and a lip to the cyber-
lord of Stratfordianism, the Darth Vader of scholarship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for yourself, Knave, and your bending over to look smart,
I think I'll pass, but thanks for the offer.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> In article <3C85134A...@teleport.com>, Richard Kennedy
> <stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > Knave, these kind of smart-ass posts must remind the
> > readers of a smart-ass person, and you wouldn't want
> > that to happen, would you?
>
> Well, better that than remind readers of a dumb-ass person.
Gavin McNett
> Mark Steese wrote:
> >
> > This thread started with a reference to an article in *Salon* magazine
> > that, in my opinion, was worse than Niederkorn's risible *New York Times*
> > piece. On the off chance that someone is interested in discussing that
> > article, here's the URL again:
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html
>
> You may find some remarks on this subject that I have just made to Dave
> More of some interest. He had asked me why I had been so critical of
> the article. This was my reply.
>
> <quote>
>
> Having looked at it again, I feel a bit less critical than
> I was, although I particularly object to his lifting John
> Baker's ideas wholesale, without crediting him, and thus
> implying that his views are shared by all of us.
I want to step in here for a moment. It was a film review, written on
a deadline long after the screening, and I don't claim any expertise
in Shakespearean or Marlovian scholarship. It differs from the Times
piece, though, in that it's an ambitious article that tries to sum up
the debate on the topic. I think it largely succeeds, even though, as
you note, there are flaws and errors that appear there either out of
my own ignorance, or in some cases from the sources I consulted.
There's the Thomas/Francis Walsingham slip that you mentioned, for
one. That was careless. I had him as Thomas, but a late fact-checking
sweep rendered the name Francis instead. The Buckingham Palace
reference, for its part, was quickly caught and changed, and no longer
appears in the text. Rylance, I think is more of an issue. He appears
in my notes saying that he endorses Marlowe (I can't check the film),
and Mr. Rubbo and I discussed that after the screening. I do remember
that Rylance holds up a portrait of Marlowe in the film, and that
there are a number of things he says which very strongly indicate an
opinion on the matter. Apropos the assassination theory, that's in my
notes as well, and I also discussed that with Mr. Rubbo. It's my
understanding that the author in question does hold that opinion. If
the dispute reduces to whether he does or doesn't say so on-camera, I
can't check that. My notes say he does, although he backs off on the
question of authorship.
What I can, and what I did check, was the Marlovian and other
Shakespearean scholarship that appears lavishly on the Web -- through
which I went over every detail of substance that I could find. This is
not a body of research that can be mastered in a week or two. You, and
other experts of your caliber, are going to know far more about it
than some Johannes fac totem who writes an article. (I checked that
term thrice over, btw; I know quite well that its meaning falls within
the compass I described). When you say the article draws from Baker's
research without citation, I have to reply that I certainly did cite
that research, as something Marlovians believe -- which is in fact the
case. If I were doing a film such as Rubbo did, rather than a review
of a film, distinctions regarding which Marlovians endorse which other
Marlovians' research would become very important. As it is, I think
it's more salient that the term "Marlovians," in the generic, is a bit
more visible in the world this week than last week.
And as much as any Marlovians here might dislike the article, believe
me: I've got it coming in like crazy from the orthodox Shakespeare
scholars. That bunch is hopping mad.
Best,
-GFMcN
Gavin McNett
> I think the "research" in the Salon article consisted of downloading
> posts by "Dr." "Bishop" John Faker.
> Neil Brennen
_*_ for the overstep, Mr. Brennen.
-McN
Mark Steese
> Mark Steese wrote
>>
>> McNett is impressed by Peter Farey's laughable attempt to render the
>> "famously obtuse" memorial inscription into a *Times* Crossword clue.
>
> McNett clearly does not understand how the puzzle works, so I am in no
> way heartened by his support. No more than I am disheartened by your
> hilarity, of course, as you clearly do not understand it either.
I understand it perfectly well. It's rubbish.
> Couldn't give a toss either way, in fact, as odds of over 20,000,000 to 1
> tell me that I am right on this one.
Oh, I think you can set the odds much higher than that; that you would find
*something* in the inscription to show that Marlowe was Shakespeare was as
close to certain as anything could be. Anti-Stratfordians rarely fail to
find what they're looking for.
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Mark Steese wrote:
> > >
> > > This thread started with a reference to an article in *Salon* magazine
> > > that, in my opinion, was worse than Niederkorn's risible *New York
Times*
> > > piece. On the off chance that someone is interested in discussing
that
> > > article, here's the URL again:
> > >
> > > http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html
> >
> > You may find some remarks on this subject that I have just made to Dave
> > More of some interest. He had asked me why I had been so critical of
> > the article. This was my reply.
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > Having looked at it again, I feel a bit less critical than
> > I was, although I particularly object to his lifting John
> > Baker's ideas wholesale, without crediting him, and thus
> > implying that his views are shared by all of us.
>
> I want to step in here for a moment.
Excellent! And very welcome you are too, Gavin.
> It was a film review, written on
> a deadline long after the screening, and I don't claim any expertise
> in Shakespearean or Marlovian scholarship. It differs from the Times
> piece, though, in that it's an ambitious article that tries to sum up
> the debate on the topic. I think it largely succeeds, even though, as
> you note, there are flaws and errors that appear there either out of
> my own ignorance, or in some cases from the sources I consulted.
Fair enough, although to attempt something so ambitious within
such a tight a timescale might have been a little unwise if you
really were starting from scratch? Mike Rubbo, of course, also
knew very little about the subject when he started, but was at
least able to get someone who knew a bit more about it than him
(me) to check it for him. Not all of my recommendations were
acted upon, but most of the worst howlers were removed. Had you
sent me the article before publication, I would have been only
too happy to let you have my comments within an hour or two.
> There's the Thomas/Francis Walsingham slip that you mentioned, for
> one. That was careless. I had him as Thomas, but a late fact-checking
> sweep rendered the name Francis instead. The Buckingham Palace
> reference, for its part, was quickly caught and changed, and no longer
> appears in the text. Rylance, I think is more of an issue. He appears
> in my notes saying that he endorses Marlowe (I can't check the film),
I have, and he doesn't endorse anyone.
> and Mr. Rubbo and I discussed that after the screening.
Mike called in to see me only last week on his way home from
the States, and he told me that Rylance had confirmed at the
time that he is a Baconian. The film does mention this, but
it is nevertheless understandable that people would go away
thinking he supports Marlowe.
> I do remember
> that Rylance holds up a portrait of Marlowe in the film,
In the film? I recall seeing the photo in the Film Forum
publicity, but not in the film itself. Mike carted that
picture of Marlowe around with him everywhere, and I admit
that it keeps popping up all over the place in the film,
but not in Rylance's hands in the last cut I saw.
> and that
> there are a number of things he says which very strongly indicate an
> opinion on the matter.
I think you will find that they were all about doubting the
authorship rather than suggesting who else it might have been.
> Apropos the assassination theory, that's in my
> notes as well, and I also discussed that with Mr. Rubbo. It's my
> understanding that the author in question does hold that opinion.
Not that it was to protect state secrets he doesn't. Charles
Nicholl's theory (it's in his *The Reckoning*, which is well
worth reading, if you haven't done so) is that it was all part
of a plot by the Earl of Essex to disgrace Sir Walter Ralegh.
> If
> the dispute reduces to whether he does or doesn't say so on-camera, I
> can't check that. My notes say he does, although he backs off on the
> question of authorship.
All that happens in the film is that Nicholl says at one point
"if he was murdered - er, killed." and in his narration Rubbo
picks up this slip to indicate that Nicholl also doubts the
truth of the official story.
> What I can, and what I did check, was the Marlovian and other
> Shakespearean scholarship that appears lavishly on the Web
There are plenty here who would regard the term 'Marlovian
Scholarship' as an oxymoron!
> -- through
> which I went over every detail of substance that I could find. This is
> not a body of research that can be mastered in a week or two. You, and
> other experts of your caliber, are going to know far more about it
> than some Johannes fac totem who writes an article. (I checked that
> term thrice over, btw; I know quite well that its meaning falls within
> the compass I described).
It may do, Gavin, but it is certainly not what 'Greene' meant
when he used the term in this context. He was referring to a
'jack-of-all-trades' who thinks he can do the lot, not an
'errand boy'.
> When you say the article draws from Baker's
> research without citation, I have to reply that I certainly did cite
> that research, as something Marlovians believe -- which is in fact the
> case.
Each of us has at least one belief which not all other Marlovians
subscribe to. My own interpretation of the poem on the monument
(which you clearly ascribed to me) is a case in point. The problem
is that John Baker has more beliefs falling into this category
than the rest of us combined.
> If I were doing a film such as Rubbo did, rather than a review
> of a film, distinctions regarding which Marlovians endorse which other
> Marlovians' research would become very important.
Had you been doing just a review of a film, I would agree with
you.
> As it is, I think
> it's more salient that the term "Marlovians," in the generic, is a bit
> more visible in the world this week than last week.
No doubt about that!
> And as much as any Marlovians here might dislike the article,
Not 'dislike'. I just get irritated when people on my side don't
get their facts right, just as I get mad at any member of my
local football team whose pass goes astray.
> believe
> me: I've got it coming in like crazy from the orthodox Shakespeare
> scholars. That bunch is hopping mad.
I bet they are. It might have been sensible to have joined in
here for a month or two to get some practice in first! Anyway,
thanks for taking the time to join in. Pop in any time.
David Kathman
In article <ed0c0722.02030...@posting.google.com>,
ga...@mcnett.org (Gavin McNett) wrote:
>"Peter Farey" <f...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<a64ria$l0h$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
>> Mark Steese wrote:
>> >
>> > This thread started with a reference to an article in *Salon* magazine
>> > that, in my opinion, was worse than Niederkorn's risible *New York Times*
>> > piece. On the off chance that someone is interested in discussing that
>> > article, here's the URL again:
>> >
>> > http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html
>>
>> You may find some remarks on this subject that I have just made to Dave
>> More of some interest. He had asked me why I had been so critical of
>> the article. This was my reply.
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Having looked at it again, I feel a bit less critical than
>> I was, although I particularly object to his lifting John
>> Baker's ideas wholesale, without crediting him, and thus
>> implying that his views are shared by all of us.
>
>I want to step in here for a moment. It was a film review, written on
>a deadline long after the screening, and I don't claim any expertise
>in Shakespearean or Marlovian scholarship.
Then why didn't you ask somebody who does have such
expertise? In the context of this review, you presented your
own opinion that the Marlovian conspiracy scenario "keeps
looking more compelling the further you get into it", and you
backed up this opinion with a litany of supposed historical
facts about Shakespeare and Marlowe. A large percentage
of the "facts" you presented are false or misleading or both,
so much so that the version of "history" you present is barely
distinguishable from fiction; yet many (perhaps most?) of your
readers are naturally going to accept it as accurate. By
passing off egregious distortions as "history", you do your
readers a disservice.
>It differs from the Times
>piece, though, in that it's an ambitious article that tries to sum up
>the debate on the topic. I think it largely succeeds, even though, as
>you note, there are flaws and errors that appear there either out of
>my own ignorance, or in some cases from the sources I consulted.
I don't think it succeeds even in "sum[ming] up the debate
on the topic", since it presents Marlovian fantasies and
distortions (supplemented by a number of your own unintentional
errors) with no indication that real Shakespeare scholars
dismiss those fantasies and distortions with good reason.
The Times article at least made a token effort to *appear* to
present both sides, even though Niederkorn never consulted
any actual Shakespeare scholars and presented caricatures
of what those scholars actually believe.
>There's the Thomas/Francis Walsingham slip that you mentioned, for
>one. That was careless. I had him as Thomas, but a late fact-checking
>sweep rendered the name Francis instead.
The errors on that point can't all be accounted for by a mere
substitution of names. You wrote that "His patron, Francis
Walsingham, was certainly one of Elizabeth's spooks", and
later that Ingram Frizer "was employed by Marlowe's own
spymaster and patron". Even if one substitutes "Thomas"
for "Francis", the result is still wrong. Marlowe's patron and
Frizer's employer was Thomas Walsingham, who was not a
"spymaster" or a "spook"; he was the son of the first cousin
of the spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham.
>The Buckingham Palace
>reference, for its part, was quickly caught and changed, and no longer
>appears in the text. Rylance, I think is more of an issue. He appears
>in my notes saying that he endorses Marlowe (I can't check the film),
>and Mr. Rubbo and I discussed that after the screening. I do remember
>that Rylance holds up a portrait of Marlowe in the film, and that
>there are a number of things he says which very strongly indicate an
>opinion on the matter. Apropos the assassination theory, that's in my
>notes as well, and I also discussed that with Mr. Rubbo. It's my
>understanding that the author in question does hold that opinion. If
>the dispute reduces to whether he does or doesn't say so on-camera, I
>can't check that. My notes say he does, although he backs off on the
>question of authorship.
Actually, I don't much care about the specifics of Mark Rylance's
opinions on the authorship question. The bigger question is why
you think his opinion on this issue is more valuable than anybody
else's. Yes, he is a very good actor who knows a lot about
Shakespeare's plays from the viewpoint of a dramaturg. But
I've seen no evidence that he has any particular knowledge of
the social and literary history of Elizabethan England (which is
what's relevant here), while I've seen considerable evidence of
his mistaken "knowledge" on those topics. For example, in the
movie he expresses incredulity about the Latin, French, and Italian
sources that Shakespeare used, all but asserting that Shakespeare
could not have known these sources. But no Shakespeare scholar
that I'm aware of expresses such doubts, because they know that
such sources were used by essentially all of Shakespeare's
contemporary playwrights, including many whose formal education
was as sparse as his was. See my article "Shakespeare's
Knowledge of Italy, the Classics, and the Law" on the Shakespeare
Authorship Page (http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/italy.html).
>What I can, and what I did check, was the Marlovian and other
>Shakespearean scholarship that appears lavishly on the Web -- through
>which I went over every detail of substance that I could find.
Did you look at the Shakespeare Authorship site
(http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com)? I'm curious. That's
the site I run with Terry Ross, at which we rebut many
of the most common antistratfordian claims, using actual
facts and scholarship rather than the fantasies and half-truths
which typically litter Oxfordian and Marlovian writings.
Even if you did look at our site, I'm a little disturbed that you
apparently did all your research for the article on the Web,
without any apparent attempt to distinguish actual scholarship
from the intellectual detritus which can be found so
abundantly online. There are a number of good Shakespeare
meta-sites which review other sites and try to separate the
wheat from the chaff, such as Terry Gray's "Mr. William Shakespeare
and the Internet" (http://shakespeare.palomar.edu).
As it was, you apparently accepted whatever you found at
face value, giving the crackpottery of John Baker the same
weight as the careful research of actual scholars. That's
really too bad.
Just for the record, here are a few of the inaccuracies in
the article, in addition to those above and those Peter Farey
pointed out in his post.
* You repeat the film's quote of Charles Dickens as saying
"The life of William Shakespeare is a fine mystery and I tremble
every day lest something should turn up." Dickens did write
this in a letter, but in context it's obvious he's saying that
the lack of personal details about Shakespeare's life allow
him (Dickens) to imagine those details himself, and he likes
it that way. Dickens was demonstrably *not* antistratfordian;
he definitely believed that William Shakespeare of Stratford
wrote the works of Shakespeare. He was a supporter of
what later became the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in its
efforts to purchase the Shakespeare Birthplace in Stratford,
and in *The Mystery of Edwin Drood*, which he was working
on when he died, Dickens refers to Shakespeare as "the Bard
of Avon" and "the swan of his native river".
* "We have no paper trail of Shakespeare as a playwright or
poet, no correspondence, manuscripts, personal library or
ephemera."
By "paper trail" I assume you mean the things you mention --
"correspondence, manuscripts, personal library, or ephemera".
Actually, we do have one letter written to Shakespeare by his
townsman Richard Quiney, and a book (William Lambarde's
*Archaionomia*) with a signature that is now widely, but not
universally, accepted as William Shakespeare's. But those
are not all that much, I'll grant you. What you do not mention
(and presumably did not know) is that such things are also
scarce or nonexistent for virtually all the professional playwrights
of Shakespeare's era. In fact, none of these things exist
for Marlowe -- no letters to or from him, no manuscripts,
no personal library, no ephemera, indeed no examples of his
handwriting at all except for a single signature. Why do you
find these absences suspicious for Shakespeare, but not for
Marlowe? You're applying an outrageous double standard here.
* "We have numerous notices of him as an actor and as a
bourgeois landowner, but only a few mentions in lists of
contemporary poets (Greene's is by far the most lavish).
Most except Greene's are merely title-page evidence, where it's
mentioned that such-and-such a play was published under
such-and-such a name."
These two sentences are misleading on so many levels that
I hardly know where to begin. First of all, the "notices of him
as an actor" place him in the Chamberlain's-King's Men, the
company which first produced the plays of William Shakespeare.
Just on the face of it, that's pretty good evidence that the
author and actor are the same person. This identification is
confirmed by plenty of other evidence, most notably the
First Folio, where Shakespeare's fellow actors John Heminges
and Henry Condell call the author Shakespeare their "fellow".
The evidence is outlined in my and Tom Reedy's article, "How
We Know that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical
Facts" (http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/howdowe.html).
I'm not sure where you got the idea that "Greene's is by far
the most lavish" contemporary mention of Shakespeare.
I've never considered that passage a central or even significant
piece of evidence; Francis Meres' *Palladis Tamia*, for example,
is much more lavish and personal, repeatedly praising Shakespeare
by name and referring to his "sugared sonnets among his private
friends." Shakespeare's name does appear on quite a few
title pages while he was alive, but I've never understood why
antistratfordians feel entitled to dismiss these. When the name
of a real person closely connected with the production of a
work appears on the title page of that work as the author, it's
usually pretty good evidence that he was the author. This isn't
absolutely foolproof as evidence (a couple of plays almost
certainly not by Shakespeare were attributed to him by
overzealous publishers), but it's the most direct and valuable
kind of evidence we have for attributing plays. Combined with
the First Folio, the Stratford monument, and all the other evidence
we present in our article, there is no reason to doubt these
title page attributions.
Contrast this with Marlowe, who you believe wrote not just
Marlowe's works but Shakespeare's as well. Marlowe's name
did not appear on *any* title pages while he was alive, and
during the same time he did not appear in *any* lists of poets.
There is no documentary evidence connecting him to any
acting company or any playhouse. Nobody ever referred to him
by name as a poet or playwright while he was alive, in print
or in letters. By the standards you apply to Shakespeare, there's
no evidence that this guy wrote anything, yet you believe that
he wrote Shakespeare's works as well as his own? Again,
tremendous double standard.
* "There are six extant Shakespeare signatures from banal
documents, all crabbed and variant, as though he had difficulty
writing his name."
Some of these signatures are "crabbed" because he was writing
in a very restricted area, such as the narrow strip of parchment
attached to the Blackfriars Gatehouse mortgage. That factor
aside, Shakespeare's signatures are written in English secretary
hand, which looks strange and unfamiliar to those not trained
in reading it. To those with such training, there's nothing particularly
unusual about Shakespeare's signatures. His handwriting wasn't
the most legible (in common with lots of great men), but it doesn't
look to me like he "had difficulty writing his name."
* "There's no record of his having attended the village school,"
True, but you neglect to mention that there are no student records
at all for the Stratford school before about 1700. That's misleading
to your readers. We know that the school was free for the sons
(and some daughters) of prominent citizens, and Shakespeare's
father was such a citizen, active in town government. Even apart
from anything William Shakespeare achieved later, we would have
every reason to believe he attended this school. See my
article on "The Stratford Grammar School", at
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/school.html.
* "or of his having donated a penny to it in his wealthy middle age."
Uh, so? I know of no records of such donations for *any* school
in England around that time. Why should we expect to find such
records for Shakespeare? This was one of the silliest arguments
in Rubbo's film, based almost entirely on ignorance and what
Rubbo felt *should* have been the case, rather than what actually was.
* "His daughters were, it seems, illiterate."
It only "seems" that way to antistrafordians, because that's what
they desperately want to believe. Shakespeare's daughter Susanna
could certainly sign her name, which put her ahead of 90% of the women
in England at the time, and makes it virtually certain that she could
at the very least read. Yet antistrats keep asserting, apparently
without the slightest twitch of conscience, that Shakespeare's
daughters were illiterate.
* "We do know that William Shakespeare composed the oft-quoted
inscription on his tombstone."
Actually, we "know" no such thing; this is a tradition which was first
recorded in 1693, seventy-seven years after Shakespeare's death.
Antistratfordians eagerly accept this tenuous tradition and present
it as fact, while rejecting all the contemporary evidence for
Shakespeare's authorship as well as all the earlier traditions centered
around him as a playwright. It's really a shameless double standard.
* "Why do so many of the plays display knowledge of locations in
Marlowe's home district of Kent, and never of Warwickshire, where
Stratford is?"
You must have gotten this from John Baker, who is a first-class
looney tune and not a scholar. He is the only one who seems able
to see these alleged references to Kent in Shakespeare's plays;
when he has tried to argue for them on this newsgroup, they
have been ripped to shreds, and they're certainly not accepted
by any Shakespeare scholars that I know of. The statment that
the plays "never" show knowledge of Warwickshire is blatantly
false; the Induction of *The Taming of the Shrew* names several
small towns in Warwickshire, near Stratford, and even names
some real families who lived in those towns.
* Your statements about Christopher Marlowe's alleged postmortem
"reappearance" in diplomatic records would not be accepted by any
real historians that I know of. Even apart from the ample evidence
that the playwright Christopher Marlowe died in 1593, there were
numerous other people named Christopher "Marlowe" or "Marley" or
"Morley" in Europe at the time.
* "Except there was no such person as Thomas Shelton; it was
a nom-de-plume."
Huh??? Um, yes, there was such a person as Thomas Shelton.
He was a servant of Thomas Howard, Lord Howard de Walden
and later Earl of Suffolk, to whom Shelton's translation of
*Don Quixote* was dedicated. I'm not sure where you got this
bizarre idea that it was a nom de plume, unless it was from
Baker or one of the wackier fringe Baconians.
* "[The Shakespeare monument] was renovated in the 18th century;
early engravings show that the Bard of Avon was once effigied
holding a sack of grain, like many another provincial landowner."
This sentence contains numerous inaccuracies, and rather than
try to untangle them all, I'll just suggest that you read the
articles on "Shakespeare's Stratford Monument" on the
Shakespeare Authorship web page, with accompanying
illustrations. The restoration of the monument in the mid-18th
century demonstrably did not alter its appearance significantly,
since there are sketches from before the restoration showing
it looking the same as it does today. From the 1620s onward,
all observers consistently saw it as a monument to William
Shakespeare, the great poet, and not to a "provincial landowner."
And by the way, the implication in the last clause of the above
sentece is completely false; I know of *no* monument to any
17th century landowners which show them "holding a sack of
grain".
* Your characterization of Falstaff as a "rustic boob" and
Touchstone as a "scholar" shows a distressing lack of
familiarity with Shakespeare's plays.
That's the most obvious stuff I noticed, but there were plenty
more questionable statements and interpretations that I
decided to let slide.
>This is
>not a body of research that can be mastered in a week or two. You, and
>other experts of your caliber,
I wouldn't call Peter Farey an "expert" on Shakespeare,
though he's more knowledgeable (and more willing to
acknowledge when he doesn't know something) than most
of the antistratfordians I've encountered. The real experts
are people like Stanley Wells, Jonathan Bate, and Andrew Gurr
from Rubbo's film, all of whom have done important and
substantial scholarly work. Unfortunately, many of them
are not particularly good at arguing against antistratfordians,
since they're used to arguing with other scholars, who
are rational and know what they're talking about.
>are going to know far more about it
>than some Johannes fac totem who writes an article. (I checked that
>term thrice over, btw; I know quite well that its meaning falls within
>the compass I described).
Equating the term "Johannes fac totem" [sic; it's actually
"Johannes factotum"] with "Stepin Fetchit" is a distortion bearing
little resemblance to Greene's actual meaning. Since you just
called yourself a "Johannes fac totem" above, does that mean
you're a cringing toady acting like a fool all the time?
>When you say the article draws from Baker's
>research without citation, I have to reply that I certainly did cite
>that research, as something Marlovians believe -- which is in fact the
>case.
Calling it Baker's "research" is being extremely charitable, since
a lot of it is based on bizarre interpretations which don't stand
up to the slightest scrutiny. Many of the factoids you gleaned
from Baker's site (such as the idea that "Marlowe's sister's tavern
even turns up in Henry IV") are, as far as I know, held only by
Baker himself, and certainly not by any Marlowe or Shakespeare
scholars. John Baker is a major-league nutcase who has lied about
having a Ph.D., among many other unsupported claims, and who
believes that the moon landings were faked by NASA; as far as
I can tell, even most antistratfordians don't take him seriously.
Why do you? Do you just believe everything you read on the Internet?
>If I were doing a film such as Rubbo did, rather than a review
>of a film, distinctions regarding which Marlovians endorse which other
>Marlovians' research would become very important. As it is, I think
>it's more salient that the term "Marlovians," in the generic, is a bit
>more visible in the world this week than last week.
And why is that good, exactly? You've apparently undergone
a full conversion to Marlovianism, but does that mean you
have to abandon all standards of accuracy? Do you justify
publishing an article filled with distortions just because it advances
the True Cause?
>And as much as any Marlovians here might dislike the article, believe
>me: I've got it coming in like crazy from the orthodox Shakespeare
>scholars. That bunch is hopping mad.
As well they should be: the article was full of inaccuracies and
displayed an alarming amount of excessive credulity. If you wrote a
similarly inaccurate article about the moon landing, and treated with
respect the people who believe the moon landings were faked, you
could expect astronomers and astronauts (among others) to be upset.
If you wrote a similarly inaccurate article about World War II and treated
Holocaust deniers with respect, you could expect historians of World
War II (among others) to be upset. If you wrote a similarly inaccurate
article about evolution and treated Creationists with respect, you
could expect evolutionary biologists (among others) to be upset.
Sorry, but that's the way it works; if you write a biases and inaccurate
article which attempts to legitimize a fringe belief system, people
are going to get upset.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
Dave Furstenau
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a673ko$feo$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
[ ... tearing McNett a new one ... ]
Gee ... suppose McNett will show any class and write a followup article?
Neither do I. :)
Honestly, I was pretty close to subscribing to Salon too; it's references at
MetaFilter all the time.
Dave Furstenau
Neil Brennen
_*_ ?
Dave Furstenau
letters slammings McNett's barren tripe:
http://www.salon.com/ent/letters/2002/03/07/shakespeare/index.html
They at least show more integrity than the clowns at the NYTime A&E
division, who so obviously stacked the deck by posting mostly letters
supported Niederkorn's braying. Still, a follow-up article would sure be
nice. I'll look for that as soon as I come back from cashing my lottery
ticket.
Dave Furstenau
Toby Petzold
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that "Greene's is by far
> the most lavish" contemporary mention of Shakespeare.
> I've never considered that passage a central or even significant
> piece of evidence...
I'm sort of surprised at this opinion. I wouldn't describe GGW as
"lavish" in any event, but it is undeniably one of the most-quoted and
critical pieces of evidence Stratfordians have. How can you dismiss
its significance? If not for the GGW, it would have been a much
tougher problem for orthodoxy to place a terminus ab quem on
Shakspere's London theatrical debut.
> Francis Meres' *Palladis Tamia*, for example,
> is much more lavish and personal, repeatedly praising Shakespeare
> by name and referring to his "sugared sonnets among his private
> friends."
But only a Honanesque biographer would claim that this is evidence of
the two men's friendship.
Toby Petzold
American
Richard Kennedy
As for being a gentleman, he's not even trying. For a while I thought
he was interested in reforming, but not so. In one single post today
he offers us this.
March 6, 2002
--crackpottery of (name)
--one of the wackier fringe
--Unfortunately, many of them are not particularly good
at arguing against antistratfordians, since they're used to
arguing with other scholars, who are rational and know
what they're talking about.
--does that mean you're a cringing toady acting like a
fool all the time?
--attempts to legitimize a fringe belief system
It's no argument at all to call names at those who disagree with you,
and it tells the reader that all other arguments you make are likely
unsound, needing ad hominem attacks to back them up.
Can't it be understood that this sort of language is not productive, and
that such comments are only useful to work on the very lowest intelligence.
Is that what the Stratfordians want, a sort of mob response to their bluster
and banners? Isn't this sort of like the saying, "All the fools in town are on
our side"? It is.
The Stratfordians can't advance along this line, the scholars won't have it.
Can it be imagined that a serious and thoughtful man would read such as
the above and think, "Well, that Kathman/Ross site must be full of
valuable information, I'd better click on it." No, not at all. A man of
some worldly acquaintance will see right off that Kathman's position is
weak, and that he is frightened and unsure of how this is all going to turn
out for him.
And so the guarantee is that Kathman will continue to talk like this, because
the case is only going to get worse for him. For that, I don't care, but he
influences others with weak minds, such as Groves, who says such things
as this:
Groves:
"Now, there are two possible conclusions here: (a) you don't understand Early
Modern English very well (but in that case why do you give a flying fuck who
wrote the works?) or (b) you already know what I just explained, but you're
a disingenuous dickhead."
If Groves were several people, he'd be a mob, you see, and he'd look to
Kathman, and Kathman would give him a rope, and Poor Richard would be
hanged. The reason? He doesn't think that the Stratford man was the great
poet, and has labored to explain this in the sweetest and most measured
sentences. If not, some Stratfordian would have said otherwise, for I've
never called an opponent an idiot, nor moron, nor insane, nor asshole, nor
having brain farts. Next thing you know the Stratfordians are going to move
a pool table into town.
All my posts are coherent, cogent, scholarly, balanced, and full of information
not available elsewhere. Let Kathman take a lesson. The only people likely to
respond to his remarks about the mentally deprived, would be those who
have strong doubts about their own stability and want to join up with someone
who is holding up a standard that says ALL STRATFORDIANS ARE SANE,
AND THE REST ARE CRAZY. Like an unbrella, you know, because a
lot of shit is coming down on them.
All of this being said, I'd like to compliment Ross, who is not of Kathman's
stripe regarding his opponents, or at least he knows best not to unload in public,
or on the carpets, and he should teach Kathman to be house-trained.
Mark Steese
wrote news:ed0c0722.02030...@posting.google.com, on the day of
06 Mar 2002:
[snip]
> What I can, and what I did check, was the Marlovian and other
> Shakespearean scholarship that appears lavishly on the Web -- through
> which I went over every detail of substance that I could find. This is
> not a body of research that can be mastered in a week or two.
I find it difficult to believe that you went over "every detail of
substance," since you present nothing but a caricature of the case for
Shakespeare ("I used to think the same as most semi-educated people about
the Shakespeare-authorship controversy: that everyone knows the guy wrote
his own stuff and we can totally prove it and it isn't really a controversy
at all but part of a common urge to find conspiracies all over the place").
David Kathman has already dealt it length with many of the errors of fact
in the piece, but I am still puzzled by your failure to mention Ben
Jonson's reminiscences of Shakespeare and Edward Blount's preface to the
posthumous edition of Marlowe's *Hero and Leander* ("‘Sir, we think not
ourselves discharged of the duty we owe our friend, when we have brought
the breathless body to earth: for albeit the eye there taketh his ever
farewell of that beloved object, yet the impression of the man, that hath
been dear to us, living an afterlife in our memory, there putteth us in
mind of further obsequies due to the deceased").
> You, and other experts of your caliber, are going to know far more about
> it than some Johannes fac totem who writes an article. (I checked that
> term thrice over, btw; I know quite well that its meaning falls within
> the compass I described).
As others have already pointed out, it obviously doesn't mean "errand-boy"
in the Greene passage.
> When you say the article draws from Baker's research without citation, I
> have to reply that I certainly did cite that research, as something
> Marlovians believe -- which is in fact the case.
If you cited it, then your editor(s) removed the citation - Baker's name
appears nowhere in the article. If you found evidence that anyone other
than Baker believes in what he says, would you please provide it? So far
as I am aware, other Marlovians reject his hypotheses, and with good
reason.
> If I were doing a film such as Rubbo did, rather than a review of a film,
> distinctions regarding which Marlovians endorse which other Marlovians'
> research would become very important. As it is, I think it's more salient
> that the term "Marlovians," in the generic, is a bit more visible in the
> world this week than last week.
>
> And as much as any Marlovians here might dislike the article, believe
> me: I've got it coming in like crazy from the orthodox Shakespeare
> scholars. That bunch is hopping mad.
I believe you mean "the Shakespeare scholars"; there are no "unorthodox"
Shakespeare scholars among the anti-Stratfordians--scholarship and anti-
Stratfordianism can't coexist in the same brain.
-Mark Steese
David L. Webb
<stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Kathman is trying to be a scholar, and it's not working too well.
> As for being a gentleman, he's not even trying. For a while I thought
> he was interested in reforming, but not so. In one single post today
> he offers us this.
>
> March 6, 2002
>
> --crackpottery of (name)
> --one of the wackier fringe
> --Unfortunately, many of them are not particularly good
> at arguing against antistratfordians, since they're used to
> arguing with other scholars, who are rational and know
> what they're talking about.
> --does that mean you're a cringing toady acting like a
> fool all the time?
> --attempts to legitimize a fringe belief system
>
> It's no argument at all to call names at those who disagree with you,
> and it tells the reader that all other arguments you make are likely
> unsound, needing ad hominem attacks to back them up.
> Can't it be understood that this sort of language is not productive, and
> that such comments are only useful to work on the very lowest intelligence.
Since you seem to be the only one bothered by it, perhaps you're
right about that last sentence.
> Is that what the Stratfordians want, a sort of mob response to their bluster
> and banners? Isn't this sort of like the saying, "All the fools in town are
> on
> our side"? It is.
No, it's more like saying: "All the fools in town are on the other
side; the sensible people are on ours."
> The Stratfordians can't advance along this line, the scholars won't have it.
The scholars are *already* "Stratfordians."
> Can it be imagined that a serious and thoughtful man would read such as
> the above and think, "Well, that Kathman/Ross site must be full of
> valuable information, I'd better click on it." No, not at all.
The Kathman/Ross web site is far more valuable to Oxfordians than to
practically anyone else, as it summarizes and corrects some of their
most egregious and embarrassing misunderstandings and blunders.
> A man of
> some worldly acquaintance will see right off that Kathman's position is
> weak, and that he is frightened and unsure of how this is all going to turn
> out for him.
Since as I understand it Dave Kathman works as a financial analyst,
I can scarcely see how he would be "frightened and unsure of how this
is all going to turn out for him."
> And so the guarantee is that Kathman will continue to talk like this, because
> the case is only going to get worse for him. For that, I don't care, but he
> influences others with weak minds, such as Groves,
"Can't it be understood that this sort of language is not
productive...?" -- Richard Kennedy
> who says such things
> as this:
>
> Groves:
> "Now, there are two possible conclusions here: (a) you don't understand Early
> Modern English very well (but in that case why do you give a flying fuck who
> wrote the works?) or (b) you already know what I just explained, but you're
> a disingenuous dickhead."
>
> If Groves were several people, he'd be a mob, you see, and he'd look to
> Kathman, and Kathman would give him a rope, and Poor Richard would be
> hanged.
I doubt it; probably just medicated and humanely treated.
> The reason? He doesn't think that the Stratford man was the great
> poet, and has labored to explain this in the sweetest and most measured
> sentences.
You mean, in "sweetest and most measured sentences" like these:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3834CADB.653DC2B2%40teleport.com&r
num=1>?
> If not, some Stratfordian would have said otherwise, for I've
> never called an opponent an idiot, nor moron, nor insane, nor asshole, nor
> having brain farts.
You *just said* above that Peter Groves was weak-minded; are you
getting senile?
More to the point, you have groundlessly accused others of
intellectual dishonesty -- which, to those who value integrity, is far
worse than the innocuous playground epithets that induce so much of
your self-pitying whinging and hand-wringing.
> Next thing you know the Stratfordians are going to move
> a pool table into town.
You mean because there's trouble in RiVER City?
> All my posts are coherent,
I never realized that you had a sense of humor! But coherence is a
relative notion -- perhaps you meant coherent in comparison with Art
Neuendorffer.
> cogent, scholarly,
Oh, certainly: so scholarly that you cannot distinguish text from
annotator's commentary, nor can you use a dictionary. Among your more
"scholarly" posts along with their followups can be found at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EHI8EH.1qs%40midway.uchicago.edu&r
num=1> (This one deserves to be reproduced in its entirety, but this
post is already too long) and
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=David.L.Webb-ya0230800020059812043
80001%40newshost.dartmouth.edu&rnum=2>.
> balanced, and full of
> information
> not available elsewhere.
There's a very good reason that the information you are "full of" is
not available elsewhere. In fact, it's exactly the same reason that
Art's information is not available elsewhere.
> Let Kathman take a lesson. The only people likely to
> respond to his remarks about the mentally deprived, would be those who
> have strong doubts about their own stability
Well, you seem to be the only one responding to Katmhan's "remarks
about the mentally deprived," so again perhaps you're right.
> and want to join up with someone
> who is holding up a standard that says ALL STRATFORDIANS ARE SANE,
To my knowledge, nobody ever claimed that "Stratfordianism" was a
sufficient condition for sanity.
> AND THE REST ARE CRAZY. Like an unbrella [sic], you know, because a
> lot of shit is coming down on them.
>
> All of this being said, I'd like to compliment Ross, who is not of Kathman's
> stripe regarding his opponents, or at least he knows best not to unload in public,
>
> or on the carpets, and he should teach Kathman to be house-trained.
Terry's creative ridicule is evidently a bit too subtle for you.
David Webb
Peter Groves
news:3C86CF8B...@teleport.com...
>
> And so the guarantee is that Kathman will continue to talk like this,
because
> the case is only going to get worse for him. For that, I don't care, but
he
> influences others with weak minds, such as Groves, who says such things
> as this:
>
> Groves:
> "Now, there are two possible conclusions here: (a) you don't understand
Early
> Modern English very well (but in that case why do you give a flying fuck
who
> wrote the works?) or (b) you already know what I just explained, but
you're
> a disingenuous dickhead."
Since your posts suggest that rampant coprophilia is one of the unfortunate
symptoms of whatever mental or personality disorder you may be suffering
from, it's amusing to find you holding your nose in pious horror at a little
colourful rhetorical emphasis. People address you in this way, Kennedy, as
one might raise one's voice to a deaf person: it's a way of getting your
attention. But I note that you snipped the part where I dissect your
idiotic misreading, and fail to address the subsequent question. Let me
rephrase it more politely for your delicate sensibilities:
<repeated bit>
Richard: I take it you were snoozing during your English grammar classes.
Your idiotic paraphrase construes as:
[ALL that Shakespeare WRIT] Subject
[was] Verb, copulative
[a PAGE TO SERVE HIS WIT] Subject Complement
The monument says:
[All that he hath writ] Subject
[leaves] Verb, complex-transitive
[living art] Direct Object
[but] Adverbial (=only)
[page to serve his wit] Object Complement
i.e. Living art (that which remains) is left only as a page (servant) to all
that he hath writ (i.e. Shakespeare's works).
</repeated bit>
<Bowdlerized bit>
Now, there are two possible conclusions here: (a) you don't understand Early
Modern English very well (but in that case why do you care who
wrote the works?) or (b) you already know what I just explained, but you're
being
disingenuous. Which is it to be?
</Bowdlerized bit>
Peter G.
David Kathman
>All my posts are coherent, cogent, scholarly, balanced, and full of information
>not available elsewhere.
This may be the funniest statement I've ever read on HLAS!
It's at least in the top 10.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Kennedy
thought it might be way over your head.
David Kathman
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3C86CF8B...@teleport.com>, Richard Kennedy
><stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> A man of
>> some worldly acquaintance will see right off that Kathman's position is
>> weak, and that he is frightened and unsure of how this is all going to turn
>> out for him.
>
> Since as I understand it Dave Kathman works as a financial analyst,
>I can scarcely see how he would be "frightened and unsure of how this
>is all going to turn out for him."
"Financial analyst" isn't an entirely accurate description of
what I do. Part of the job does involve analyzing the finances
of companies and creating financial models, but the most important
part involves translating my findings into concise and readable
English, which is harder than it looks. I also talk to a lot
of reporters who write about the companies I cover, and who need
a concise explanation of what's going on. I happen to be very
good at all this, and it allows me to make a good enough living
that I can also pursue my scholarly interests in Shakespeare
and theater history with few restrictions. It all works out pretty
well; it's kind of like having tenure, except that instead of
teaching classes, I analyze stocks and write about them.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Toby Petzold
> If not for the GGW, it would have been a much
> tougher problem for orthodoxy to place a terminus ab quem on
> Shakspere's London theatrical debut.
Ab quem being a, uh, "variant" of a quo. Thank you.
Tobias
Toby Petzold
Is "living art" a euphemism for the drama?
Toby Petzold
American
Peter Groves
news:2dbd058e.02030...@posting.google.com...
It's a possibility, I suppose, though the reference to writing and the pun
on 'page' suggest that the author of the inscription is thinking of WS
primarily as a writer of poetry (much more dignified than being a mere
play-maker).
Peter G.
David L. Webb
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I got a good laugh out of it too, and was pleasantly surprised to
find that Richard Kennedy evidently has some sense of humor. However,
in fairness, here are some analogous self-assessments that surely rival
Kennedy's dictum for positions among the ten funniest of the genre:
"I'm a bit skeptical."
-- Elizabeth Weir
"I never accept anything without question."
-- Art Neuendorffer
"Indeed the advice I have been given over and over by mainstream
scholars...is that if I could only get rid of my THEORY that
Marlowe was Shakespeare I could hold a chair in these subjects
nearly anywhere in the world."
-- "Dr." Faker
Tom Reedy
>
> Is "living art" a euphemism for the drama?
>
> Toby Petzold
> American
>
It could very well be one of several simultaneous meanings. "Left living
art, but page, to serve his wit," can be interpreted to mean that drama
(known as one of the "lively" arts) is the venue through which his
intelligence can be appreciated since his death. The phrase also can be
interpreted to say he was the best playwright, and that there'll never be a
better, since it reduces drama to a mere servant with the only task of
displaying Shakespeare's wit.
My guess is that Jonson wrote it. Jonson wasn't ashamed of being a "mere"
playwright, having published his "works," and so would not have been adverse
to referring to Shakespeare's plays on his monument.
TR
Gary Kosinsky
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Financial analyst" isn't an entirely accurate description of
>what I do. Part of the job does involve analyzing the finances
>of companies and creating financial models, but the most important
>part involves translating my findings into concise and readable
>English, which is harder than it looks. I also talk to a lot
>of reporters who write about the companies I cover, and who need
>a concise explanation of what's going on. I happen to be very
>good at all this, and it allows me to make a good enough living
>that I can also pursue my scholarly interests in Shakespeare
>and theater history with few restrictions. It all works out pretty
>well; it's kind of like having tenure, except that instead of
>teaching classes, I analyze stocks and write about them.
So lemme get this straight: over the past several
years, instead of posting articles about Shakespeare, you could
have been giving us stock tips about the Next Big Thing? And
we could all be discussing the Authorship Question over drinks
in the Bahamas? Thanks alot Dave.
Thomas Larque
Of course Dave only gives Financial tips to those of us who are
employed by the Trust. We add the profits from these to those we
accumulate from our investments in Stratford bed and breakfasts, bus
tours and theatres - all of which valuable income would, of course, be
lost if anybody ever proved that Shakespeare did not write
Shakespeare. Hence our enthusiasm for the orthodox biography.
[And just in case anyone out there really is as stupid as Art pretends
to be, then I should point out that I am joking].
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
Bob Grumman
> So lemme get this straight: over the past several
> years, instead of posting articles about Shakespeare, you could
> have been giving us stock tips about the Next Big Thing? And
> we could all be discussing the Authorship Question over drinks
> in the Bahamas? Thanks alot Dave.
You mean you didn't realize all his posts WERE stock tips, Gary?!
Can't you Stratfordians read ANYthing between the lines? Jeez.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Gary Kosinsky
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>Kosinsky wrote:
>> So lemme get this straight: over the past several
>> years, instead of posting articles about Shakespeare, you could
>> have been giving us stock tips about the Next Big Thing? And
>> we could all be discussing the Authorship Question over drinks
>> in the Bahamas? Thanks alot Dave.
>You mean you didn't realize all his posts WERE stock tips, Gary?!
>Can't you Stratfordians read ANYthing between the lines? Jeez.
Damn! The only tip I read was to sell Oxfordianism short.
Greg Reynolds
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
Now that Dave is (again) forced to change the
buzzwords, let's review the code for the most
recent set:
When Dave laughs, Sell
When Dave says he is busy, Buy
David Kathman
wrote:
If you want to read my analyses, all you have to do is go
to morningstar.com and sign up for a premium membership,
which lets you read analyses of 2000 mutual funds and
1000 stocks (of which I cover about 35), plus many other
benefits. It did cost $9.95 a month or $100 a year, but I
think they might have just raised the prices slightly.
That's actually a bargain compared to the sell-side research
put out by the big investment banks.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Toby Petzold
> > Is "living art" a euphemism for the drama?
> It's a possibility, I suppose, though the reference to writing and the pun
> on 'page' suggest that the author of the inscription is thinking of WS
> primarily as a writer of poetry (much more dignified than being a mere
> play-maker).
I'm not sure why the inscriber would have had either role more in mind
than the other, but, if so, it says something about how our own
priorities, vis-a-vis the basis of Shakespeare's renown, differ from
those of his own time.
Toby Petzold
American