Why does the authorship issue persist?
mylear
issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
conjunction of facts:
(a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
literature,
(b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
european customs - especially Italy,
(c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
(d) it is highly unlikely that Will had any opportunity to travel
abroad,
(e) there exists no literary paper trail for Will,
(f) for whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
be those of a highly literate man,
(f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
him in a literary context.
These are all legitimate issues for discussion, not to be avoided or
swept under the carpet.
John Hermann
ignoto
> It is perhaps not too surprising that so many theories abound on the
> issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
> conjunction of facts:
>
> (a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
> literature,
Along with Milton, Spenser, and the rest.
> (b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
> european customs - especially Italy,
A commonplace of the period.
> (c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
If you are going to apply a standard then you must apply it
consistently. It is true there is no direct evidence for the education
of WS. But there is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of
Stratford wrote the works. So an evidentiary standard that requires the
existence of direct evidence automatically rules out any authorship
question whatsoever.
> (d) it is highly unlikely that Will had any opportunity to travel
> abroad,
It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to
compsose his plays.
> (e) there exists no literary paper trail for Will,
This is a Diana Priceism. It is not true that he has no literary paper
trail, he merely has no literary paper trail *as arbitrarily defined by
anti-stratfordians*. Real historians concern themselves with the actual
evidence, not arbitrary categories designed to rule out particular
persons from being Shakespeare.
> (f) for whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> be those of a highly literate man,
Firstly, poor handwriting is no indicative of illiteracy. Secondly,
plenty of experts in the old english hand have studied his signatures
and found them to contain at least some fluent character formations.
Thirdly the signatures were generally executed under less than ideal
circumstances. Fourthly, the fact that he spelt his name different on
different occasions (probabaly as space or circumstance dictated) is
indicative of literacy. Fifthly, Shakespeare must be the only person in
the history of the world to be declared illiterate on the basis of a
*signature* (which is usually considered prima fracie evidence of
literacy). [etc.]
IOW the reason for thinking Shakespeare illiterate on the basis of a
signature is a very poor reasonn indeed.
> (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> him in a literary context.
huh?
"Mellifluous Shakespeare, whose enchanting quill
Commanded mirth or passion, was but Will"
Thomas Heywood, Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels (1635)
"Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,"
William Basse wrote a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in
April 1616"
"Spenser, and Shakespeare did in art excell"
John Taylor, The Praise of Hemp-seed (1620)
and so on and on.
Ign.
ignoto
> It is perhaps not too surprising that so many theories abound on the
> issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
> conjunction of facts:
>
> (a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
> literature,
Along with Milton, Spenser, and the rest.
> (b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
> european customs - especially Italy,
A commonplace of the period.
> (c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
If you are going to apply a standard then you must apply it
consistently. It is true there is no direct evidence for the education
of WS. But there is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of
Stratford wrote the works. So an evidentiary standard that requires the
existence of direct evidence automatically rules out any authorship
question whatsoever.
> (d) it is highly unlikely that Will had any opportunity to travel
> abroad,
It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to
compsose his plays.
> (e) there exists no literary paper trail for Will,
This is a Diana Priceism. It is not true that he has no literary paper
trail, he merely has no literary paper trail *as arbitrarily defined by
anti-stratfordians*. Real historians concern themselves with the actual
evidence, not with arbitrary categories designed to rule out particular
persons from being Shakespeare.
> (f) for whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> be those of a highly literate man,
Firstly, poor handwriting is not indicative of illiteracy. Secondly,
plenty of experts in the old english hand have studied his signatures
and found them to contain at least some fluent character formations.
Thirdly the signatures were generally executed under less than ideal
circumstances. Fourthly, the fact that he spelt his name differently on
different occasions (probabaly as space or circumstance dictated) is
indicative of literacy. Fifthly, Shakespeare must be the only person in
the history of the world to be declared illiterate on the basis of a
*signature* (which is usually considered prima fracie evidence of
literacy). [etc.]
IOW Shakespeare's signatures do not, on any reasonable examination of
the evidence, suggest illiteracy.
> (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> him in a literary context.
huh?
"Mellifluous Shakespeare, whose enchanting quill
Commanded mirth or passion, was but Will"
Thomas Heywood, Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels (1635)
"Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,"
William Basse wrote a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in
April 1616"
"Spenser, and Shakespeare did in art excell"
John Taylor, The Praise of Hemp-seed (1620)
and so on and on.
Ign.
>
mylear
> But there is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of Stratford wrote the works.
>
Shakespearean works were co-authored. This opens up the possibility
that Will was a reviser of the works of others.
>
> It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to compose his plays.
>
This is very debatable of course, but the usual arguments given for
Will getting everything he needed - in regard to foreign cultures,
customs etc - from the library of a supposed noble patron residing in
the south of England, are convoluted and unconvincing.
>
> It is not true that he has no literary paper trail, he merely has no literary paper trail *as arbitrarily defined by anti-stratfordians*. Real historians concern themselves with the actual evidence, not arbitrary categories designed to rule out particular persons from being Shakespeare.
>
This is simply waffle. The table in the appendix of Diana Price's
book, detailing a set of criteria by which a literary paper trail may
be evaluated, does not appear arbitrary in the least.
>
> Firstly, poor handwriting is no indicative of illiteracy. Secondly, plenty of experts in the old english hand have studied his signatures and found them to contain at least some fluent character formations. Thirdly the signatures were generally executed under less than ideal circumstances. Fourthly, the fact that he spelt his name different on different occasions (probabaly as space or circumstance dictated) is indicative of literacy. Fifthly, Shakespeare must be the only person in the history of the world to be declared illiterate on the basis of a *signature* (which is usually considered prima fracie evidence of literacy). [etc.] IOW the reason for thinking Shakespeare illiterate on the basis of a signature is a very poor reason indeed.
>
I did not say Will was illiterate (which would be an absurd
proposition to make in regard to a competent actor). I meant to imply
that what samples we have of his writing are strangely anomalous,
since there seems to be a correlation between literacy and good
handwriting.
>
> > (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember him in a literary context.
>
> huh?
>
> "Mellifluous Shakespeare, whose enchanting quill
> Commanded mirth or passion, was but Will"
> Thomas Heywood, Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels (1635)
>
> "Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,"
> William Basse wrote a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in
> April 1616"
>
> "Spenser, and Shakespeare did in art excell"
> John Taylor, The Praise of Hemp-seed (1620)
Yes, it is clear that Heywood was a fervent admirer of the
Shakespearean works. My statement was too loose, I meant literary
contemporaries who knew Will personally. Andrew Lang (a stratfordian)
in his book 'Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown' stated: I do
not remember that a single contemporary allusion to Shakespeare speaks
of him as "learned," erudite", "scholarly", and so forth. The epithets
for him are "sweet", "gentle", "honeyed", "sugared", "honey-tongued" -
this is the convention.
Given these facts, it is natural to enquire from whence came Will's
erudition, including his diverse technical and legal knowledge, his
knowledge of foreign languages and cultures, his knowledge of history,
his knowledge of mythology, and above all his great literary facility.
JH
mylear
complete version is:
Marlow, renown’ d for his rare art and wit,
Could ne’er attain beyond the name of Kit ...
Mellifluous Shakespeare, whose enchanting quill
Commanded mirth and passion, was but Will
(from Hierarchie of the blessed Angels, 1635, Lib. 4)
Heywood also mentions the following poets: Greene, Kyd, Watson, Nash,
Beaumont, Jonson, Fletcher, Webster, Dekker, May, Middleton and Ford,
who were all called by abbreviations of their Christian names.
From: The history of English dramatic poetry to the time of
Shakespeare, Vol 3
by John Payne Collier, p. 401
ignoto
> On Nov 1, 7:15 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> But there is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of Stratford wrote the works.
>>
> There is substantial evidence that a significant number of the
> Shakespearean works were co-authored. This opens up the possibility
> that Will was a reviser of the works of others.
This is a non sequitur. The point raised for discussion is: "Was William
Shakespeare of Stratford the author William Shakespeare" not "Was
William Shakespeare a reviser of other people's work".
Now, there are three kinds of evidence that tell us William Shakespeare
of Stratford was the author- documentary, testimonial and
circumstantial. Documentary and testimonial evidence (which may loosely
be defined as 'direct evidence') exists for no other candidate.
So the question is really whether there is a circumstantial case of
sufficient merit to overturn the evidence in support of WS of Stratford.
As it goes, I am yet to see an anti-stratfordian argument that one
could classify as 'reasonable', let alone one that is meritorious.
>> It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to compose his plays.
>>
> This is very debatable of course, but the usual arguments given for
> Will getting everything he needed - in regard to foreign cultures,
> customs etc - from the library of a supposed noble patron residing in
> the south of England, are convoluted and unconvincing.
No competent orthodox scholar believes that Shakespeare got his
knowledge of (say) Italy from just perusing the books of "a supposed
noble patron residing in the south of England." What they actually say
is that shakespeare got his knowledge of Italy from a variety of
sources- books, pamphlets, plays, the reports of returned travellers,
the reports of Italian visitors to England and associates with Italian
backgrounds (like Florio or Marston).[See, for instance: Schoenbaum,
William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life; Duncan-Jones, Ungentle
Shakespeare]
Competent scholars also recognise the limitations of Shakespeare's
knowledge of the continent (describing for instance Bohemia as
possessing a seascoast).
>> It is not true that he has no literary paper trail, he merely has no literary paper trail *as arbitrarily defined by anti-stratfordians*. Real historians concern themselves with the actual evidence, not arbitrary categories designed to rule out particular persons from being Shakespeare.
>>
> This is simply waffle. The table in the appendix of Diana Price's
> book, detailing a set of criteria by which a literary paper trail may
> be evaluated, does not appear arbitrary in the least.
Terry Ross:
"I know of no literary historian who would consider the dedication to be
absolutely without value in determining whether Shakespeare was a writer
-- yet that is how Price's filter operates. Of course, in order to keep
out Shakespeare's records Price's filter must reject much that is
valuable about other writers. I know of no account of Gosson's life and
writings that ignores his dedication of *School of Abuse* to Sidney --
yet for Price's filter the dedication is absolutely without value. I
know of no literary historian who ignores all title page attributions --
yet for Price's filter they are absolutely worthless. I know of no
literary historian who ignores entries in the Stationers' Register --
yet for Price's filter they are absolutely worthless. I know of no
literary historian who accepts statements about a person that can be
dated to within 365 days of his death but who rejects all records that
date from 366 days or longer -- yet for Price's filter they are
absolutely worthless.
On the other hand, I know of no literary historian who believes that
every person for whom there is any kind of educational record must ipso
facto have been a writer -- but Price's filter is set up to do just
that. I know of no literary historian who thinks every person for whom
there is a "book record" must ipso facto have been a writer -- yet
Price's filter is set up to do just that. I know of no literary
historian who thinks that every person who ever discussed "literary
matters" in a letter must ipso facto have been a writer -- but Price's
filter is set up to do just that.
One should not confuse the results of Price's filter, which Pat Dooley
confessed was expressly designed NOT to include evidence known to exist
for Shakespeare, with either all or with the only materials a literary
historian may use."
(I suggest you read the entire debate. it's in the goggle archives. just
be sure to include -Neuendorffer in the search box)
>> Firstly, poor handwriting is no indicative of illiteracy. Secondly, plenty of experts in the old english hand have studied his signatures and found them to contain at least some fluent character formations. Thirdly the signatures were generally executed under less than ideal circumstances. Fourthly, the fact that he spelt his name different on different occasions (probabaly as space or circumstance dictated) is indicative of literacy. Fifthly, Shakespeare must be the only person in the history of the world to be declared illiterate on the basis of a *signature* (which is usually considered prima fracie evidence of literacy). [etc.] IOW the reason for thinking Shakespeare illiterate on the basis of a signature is a very poor reason indeed.
>>
> I did not say Will was illiterate (which would be an absurd
> proposition to make in regard to a competent actor). I meant to imply
> that what samples we have of his writing are strangely anomalous,
> since there seems to be a correlation between literacy and good
> handwriting.
It is certainly not established that there is a "correlation between
literacy and good handwriting", nor is it established that Shakespeare
was incapable of writing in an ornate style - indeed, the first
signature on his will appears to have begun with a flourish that is
indicative of his best ornate style.
>>> (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember him in a literary context.
>> huh?
>>
>> "Mellifluous Shakespeare, whose enchanting quill
>> Commanded mirth or passion, was but Will"
>> Thomas Heywood, Hierarchy of the Blessed Angels (1635)
>>
>> "Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,"
>> William Basse wrote a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in
>> April 1616"
>>
>> "Spenser, and Shakespeare did in art excell"
>> John Taylor, The Praise of Hemp-seed (1620)
>
> Yes, it is clear that Heywood was a fervent admirer of the
> Shakespearean works. My statement was too loose, I meant literary
> contemporaries who knew Will personally. Andrew Lang (a stratfordian)
> in his book 'Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown' stated: I do
> not remember that a single contemporary allusion to Shakespeare speaks
> of him as "learned," erudite", "scholarly", and so forth. The epithets
> for him are "sweet", "gentle", "honeyed", "sugared", "honey-tongued" -
> this is the convention.
>
> Given these facts, it is natural to enquire from whence came Will's
> erudition, including his diverse technical and legal knowledge, his
> knowledge of foreign languages and cultures, his knowledge of history,
> his knowledge of mythology, and above all his great literary facility.
The epithets of the day do not speak of him as "learned," erudite",
"scholarly" because he was not "learned," erudite", "scholarly". As
Jonson said he had "small Latin and less Greek". Of course by *todays*
standards he is "learned," erudite", "scholarly", but that merely points
to the general falling off in classical education since the rise of the
modern democracy.
Ign.
>
> JH
Peter G.
news:MIGdnYz_mu79yHDX...@netspace.net.au...
> mylear wrote:
> > It is perhaps not too surprising that so many theories abound on the
> > issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
> > conjunction of facts:
> >
> > (a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
> > literature,
>
> Along with Milton, Spenser, and the rest.
>
> > (b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
> > european customs - especially Italy,
>
> A commonplace of the period.
>
> > (c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
>
> If you are going to apply a standard then you must apply it consistently.
> It is true there is no direct evidence for the education of WS. But there
> is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of Stratford wrote
> the works. So an evidentiary standard that requires the existence of
> direct evidence automatically rules out any authorship question
> whatsoever.
>
And in any case, while the original post calls the OP's intelligence into
question, this throws doubt upon his/her honesty, given that no attendance
records for Stratford Grammar School survive from that period. To say
"there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education" without
pointing out that any such records must have been destroyed is to argue not
like a scholar but like a two-bit shyster.
Peter G.
mylear
wrote:
>
> And in any case, while the original post calls the OP's intelligence into
> question, this throws doubt upon his/her honesty, given that no attendance
> records for Stratford Grammar School survive from that period. To say
> "there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education" without
> pointing out that any such records must have been destroyed is to argue not
> like a scholar but like a two-bit shyster. Peter G.
>
My good friend Peter, that little display of emotionalism and
distortion is not what one would expect from a scholar. My honesty is
not at issue here, nor would I wish to caste aspersions on your
integrity.
Obviously the educational records were destroyed -- one does not need
to state the obvious. Moreover I did not mention a Grammar School.
My point is that any unambiguous record of attendance at an
educational institution which allowed study of the classics and a
range of other subjects, spanning several years, would add strong
support to the Stratfordian case.
JH
mylear
> mylear wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 7:15 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> >> But there is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of
>> Stratford wrote the works.
>
> > There is substantial evidence that a significant number of the
> > Shakespearean works were co-authored. This opens up the possibility
> > that Will was a reviser of the works of others.
>
> This is a non sequitur. The point raised for discussion is: "Was William
> Shakespeare of Stratford the author William Shakespeare" not "Was
> William Shakespeare a reviser of other people's work".
>
authorship issues persist. It is my contention that a sufficient
number
of anomalies surround the authorship of many works conventionally
attributed (wholly) to William Shakespeare of Stratford to justify
further
scholarly investigation.
>
> >> It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to
> >> compose his plays.
>
> > This is very debatable of course, but the usual arguments given for
> > Will getting everything he needed - in regard to foreign cultures,
> > customs etc - from the library of a supposed noble patron residing in
> > the south of England, are convoluted and unconvincing.
>
> No competent orthodox scholar believes that Shakespeare got his
> knowledge of (say) Italy from just perusing the books of "a supposed
> noble patron residing in the south of England." What they actually say
> is that shakespeare got his knowledge of Italy from a variety of
> the reports of Italian visitors to England and associates with Italian
> backgrounds (like Florio or Marston). [See, for instance: Schoenbaum,
> William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life; Duncan-Jones,
> Ungentle Shakespeare]
>
plays which strongly suggest personal familiarity with the venue.
>
> Competent scholars also recognise the limitations of Shakespeare's
> knowledge of the continent (describing for instance Bohemia as
> possessing a seascoast).
>
for a
literary paper trail (what you prefer to describe as a filter).
However I
do not believe her list is entirely misleading, which is what you
seem
to be implying. I think it conveys useful information.
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/...
they are all different. Perhaps it was due to illness. The
handwriting
of professional writers usually displays a firm steady hand.
consistent with the works. I suppose "small" by todays standards
is, as you say, not the same as "small" by Jonson's standards.
JH
Melanie Sands
You know Shakespeare went to school and learned to
read and write.
You know he took plots from existing plays, stories or
legends.
You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not in
those years between leaving Stratford and becoming
an actor and theatre co-owner.
There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people with
TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
In that case, most doctors are mentally retarded.
(Well, okay, that was a bad example....considering all those
diagnosis and treatment mistakes they make - but you get the drift
of my argument).
So how many "contemporaries" do you need to
remember him in a literary context?
I get tired of this snobbism, actually. It's no different from saying
that black people can't have leading positions because their
brains are less developed than white peoples'.
Melanie
art
>
> It exists because people like you are educational snobs.
Charlie Chaplin on Shakespeare:
.
<<In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble
beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one
cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare...
Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude.>>
..............................................
Walt Whitman on Shakespeare:
.
<<Conceiv'd out of the fullest heat & pulse of European feudalism,
personifying in unparallel'd ways the medieval aristocracy,
its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste, its own
peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) one of the
wolfish earls so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some
born descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author
of those amazing works... I am firm against Shaksper.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You know Shakespeare went to school
> and learned to read and write.
All we really know is that
Shakspere never learned to write legibly.
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You know he took plots from existing plays,
> stories or legends.
Many of them only available in foreign languages.
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not
> in those years between leaving Stratford and
> becoming an actor and theatre co-owner.
We know that of the hundreds of thousands of folks who
supposedly attended public plays in Elizabethan London each
year only foreigners (or kooks) wrote about having done so.
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
Mostly lawsuits for shillings & pence for Shaksper.
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people
> with TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
Isn't it downright STOOOPID to think
that prolific writers of the 16th century
didn't *ALL* have legible handwriting?
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> So how many "contemporaries" do you need
> to remember him in a literary context?
It would be nice to have *just ONE* "contemporary" connect
(the illiterate Stratford boob) 'Shaksper' with the works.
Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I get tired of this snobbism, actually. It's no different from
> saying that black people can't have leading positions
> because their brains are less developed than white peoples'.
Tell it to Doudou Diene.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss Fury at Foreigners Boiling Over
Grisly Attack on African Underscores Race Issue In a Harsh Campaign
By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/yavx9uj
ZURICH -- At 1:30 a.m., Antonio da Costa heard a knock at the back
entrance of the McDonald's restaurant where he worked as a janitor
after-hours. He opened the door, he recalled in an interview. There
stood two men, each gripping a chain saw. One yanked the cord on his
saw, stepped toward da Costa and shouted above the roaring machine:
"We don't need Africans in our country. We're here to kill you!" The
two masked assailants cornered da Costa and began raking him with the
whirring chain-saw blades. They slashed one arm to the bone, nearly
sliced off his left thumb and hacked his face, neck and chest, the 37-
year-old Angolan said, his voice quavering as he recounted the May 1
attack.
The gruesome assault in a suburb of Zurich -- consistently ranked in
international surveys as one of the world's most livable cities --
dramatized the surge in racism and xenophobia as Switzerland confronts
its most difficult social transformation in modern times. Today, more
than one in five people living in Switzerland are foreign-born, the
second-highest percentage among countries in Europe.
One of the world's oldest democracies is at the center of Western
Europe's most divisive political debate: to embrace an increasingly
globalized, multicultural society or to retreat into social isolation
in an effort to preserve eroding traditional identities. Across
Switzerland, anti-foreigner and anti-Islamic attitudes have become so
pervasive on the streets, in politics and within governmental
institutions that the United Nations, European Union, Amnesty
International and Switzerland's own Federal Commission Against Racism
have expressed alarm in recent months. The theme is dominating the
campaign for national parliamentary elections Oct. 21 and is
crystallized in a controversial campaign poster showing three white
sheep kicking a black sheep off a Swiss flag above the slogan, "For
more security." The sign is the creation of the anti-immigration Swiss
People's Party, which in three decades has grown from a fringe group
to the party with the largest number of seats -- 55 of the 200 -- in
parliament's lower house, the National Council, and a major player in
the coalition government. On Saturday, counter-demonstrators threw
rocks and bottles at Swiss People's Party protesters during a
political rally in front of the national parliament building. Police
fired tear gas to break up the melee.
Doudou Diene, the U.N. special fact-finder on racial intolerance,
accused the party and its campaign posters of "advocating racist and
xenophobic ideas."
"That's nonsense," said Ulrich Schluer, a Swiss People's Party
legislator, newspaper editor and creator of the sheep campaign. "It's
not against race. It's against people who break laws. People are fed
up." Even prominent members of his party denounced the campaign
posters as going too far, though none is known to have made an effort
to have them removed from the train stations and streets of
Switzerland.
"We have addressed the problems that most of the population is
thinking about," Schluer, 63, said in an interview outside the opulent
marble-columned National Council chambers in the capital, Bern. He
said rising crime rates, concern over terrorism and the increasing
drain on the national budget to support poor immigrant families have
drawn more voters to the Swiss People's Party. His party has initiated
and won national referendums making it tougher for foreigners to enter
Switzerland and obtain citizenship and easier to deport immigrants.
Switzerland now has the strictest naturalization laws in Europe. The
Swiss parliament last week passed a party-sponsored bill allowing
police to use Tasers -- weapons that fire electrically charged barbs
of about 50,000 volts at the body -- to force recalcitrant immigrants
onto airplanes during deportation.
Three years ago, the party helped defeat a national referendum to ease
the citizenship process for second- and third-generation foreigners;
its campaign posters depicted brown hands reaching into a basket of
Swiss passports. Another poster showed a picture of Osama bin Laden on
a Swiss identity card with the caption, "Don't be fooled." The party
is now calling for a national referendum on banning minarets on
mosques and another on allowing deportation of a family if one of its
members younger than 18 is convicted of a crime. It is also pushing to
repeal the federal law making discrimination and incitement to racial
hatred a crime.
"These campaigns remind me of the worst times in Europe between 1930
and 1938," said Yves Patrick Delachaux, a Geneva police officer and
author who has made a career of combating racism in his police
department. "The same types of posters were used to encourage people
to kick the Jews out. We have to be very careful with such
propaganda."
Switzerland's Federal Commission Against Racism warned in a report
last month that racial discrimination has become institutionalized in
government agencies and that the centuries-old Swiss tradition of
community decision-making has been corrupted by xenophobia.
In Switzerland, each local community determines who among its
immigrants will be granted citizenship. In many towns and villages,
public votes are taken among citizens. The Commission Against Racism
said those decisions "sometimes take the shape of a refusal with
discriminatory and even racist overtones." The commission said most
people denied citizenship were Muslims and natives of the Balkans who
were granted asylum during the ethnic wars of the 1990s.
Glenda Loebell-Ryan, a candidate for parliament and head of the Zurich
branch of SOS Racism, an anti-discrimination group that assists
victims of racism, accuses anti-immigration parties of "instilling
fear in the population." She said the political rhetoric is fueling
the kind of aggression that led to the chain-saw attack on Antonio da
Costa at the McDonald's restaurant.
Asked about da Costa's account, Swiss People's Party legislator
Schluer said: "Sometimes a mistake can happen. I don't say all Swiss
men and women are the most ideal human beings in the world."
Philipp Rothenbach, prosecutor in the case, said in a written
statement, "The search for the unknown perpetrators is ongoing." He
added that there were no independent witnesses to the attack, but
said, "The investigators have pictures from a video camera from
McDonald's."
Da Costa, who came to Switzerland 11 years ago as an Angolan war
refugee, said he had grown accustomed to the racial slurs and looks of
suspicion from white Swiss over the years. But he said nothing
prepared him for the two men and their chain saws. "We know
Switzerland is a nice country, there's security everywhere," said da
Costa, who speaks three languages but has worked most of his time in
Switzerland as a janitor. "You never think something like this can
happen. I couldn't defend myself against two chain saws," he said. As
they slashed at him with the buzzing blades, da Costa said, he tried
in vain to protect his face with his arms. "I couldn't feel my
fingers. I was on my knees. I tried to tell them I didn't want
trouble, I just came here to work. They were treating me like I was an
animal. One put the chain saw on top of my head and said, 'We're going
to cut you in half.'" He closed his eyes at the memory. "I tried to
hide my eyes. I didn't want to see the way they were going to kill
me," he continued, in French. "I was praying. In my head I'd already
died. I'd lost all hope of living. Then it was a miracle. He saved
me," da Costa said, referring to God. "I found the courage inside. I
got up and pushed open the door with my chest because I couldn't use
my arms, and ran." He fell, breaking his teeth; the men stood over him
and tried to restart the saws, but could not, he said. He sprang up
and jumped a fence, eluding them.
That night he underwent six hours of surgery to stitch the cuts on his
face, chest and arms and reattach his left thumb. Five months after
the attack, half of his face is slathered in a white salve, his left
arm remains in a red cast, 16 purple slashes are outlined on his right
arm and damaged teeth continue to fall out. "My own children are
afraid of me -- my own children," said da Costa, his eyes welling with
tears. "They want to know, 'Why did somebody cut up my daddy?' " >>
--------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<2aa4b1d1-8370-4384...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It exists because people like you are educational snobs.
> Charlie Chaplin on Shakespeare:
> .
> <<In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble
> beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one
> cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare...
> Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude.>>
While nobody reVEREs Chaplin's genius more than I, he is a rather
poor judge of aristocratic manners. Indeed, his Dickensian early life
of abject poVERty, time in the workhouse, and the local district
school for paupers left him with little formal education and scant
familiarity with anything even remotely close to the aristocracy. Yet
Dryden, who much closer to that milieu both socially and temporally,
reported that Shakespeare portrayed aristocratic life less
convincingly than seVERal of his peers.
[...]
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You know Shakespeare went to school
> > and learned to read and write.
> All we really know is that
> Shakspere never learned to write legibly.
The same could be said about many well-educated contemporary
professionals, among whom physicians are proVERbial.
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You know he took plots from existing plays,
> > stories or legends.
> Many of them only available in foreign languages.
To someone familiar with Latin, the mainstay of the curriculum at
the Stratford Grammar School, it is quite easy to read sources in
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. As I have said before, the
only Slavic language that I ever actually spoke with any fluency is
Russian, yet I have at need read and/or translated texts in Ukrainian,
Slovak, Polish, etc. without difficulty. The same observation
pertains to Romance languages: a good working ability in one of them
confers the ability to read texts of interest in (but not to speak)
the others. In fact, some years ago, the best introductory text on
Riemannian geometry, by a Brazilian mathematician, was only available
in Portuguese; yet the graduate students at a major Ivy League
mathematics department were routinely assigned the book as their
primary course text, on the assumption that their familiarity with
French or Spanish would enable them to read Portuguese -- as indeed it
did.
Your problem -- well, one of many, at any rate -- is that you judge
the linguistic competence of others by your own. Not eVERyone is as
incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art. In fact, much more
can be said, by a simple alteration of quantifiers: not *anyone* is as
incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art, with the possible
exceptions of Elizabeth Weird and Mr. Innes. (The icing on the cake
-- or better, the fruitcake -- is that the three of your are
farcically inept in English as well, but that's a different topic to
which one could devote scores of posts without exhausting one's
material.) The notion that one of the most gifted writers in history
was as inept as you are in foreign languages is just as ludicrous as
Elizabeth's ideologically motivated denigration of Einstein's
supposedly meager achievements in physics.
In fact, I've been forced to reconsider what your native tongue
might be, Art. On the basis of the sheer volume of your prolix
effusions, I was formerly inclined to hypothesize that your native
tongue was COBOL. HoweVER, I'm beginning to consider it more likely
that your native tongue was something rather more primitive, like
FORTRAN -- and indeed, FORTRAN is an anagram of "For Art N." The
explanation for the monstrous volume of your moronic VERbiage is not
the intrinsic wordiness of the language itself (which is what
suggested COBOL), but rather the fact that you neVER progressed far
enough to have mastered the DO loop or the GOTO construction, forcing
you to produce thousands of iterations of *exactly the same thing*.
Indeed, if one imagines the form that a program intended to find (say)
the first ten thousand prime numbers would take if the programmer had
not yet learned about GOTO or DO, the result bears a remarkable
resemblance to your posts, which merely repeat the same idiotic crap
oVER and oVER and oVER with little (if any) variation.
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not
> > in those years between leaving Stratford and
> > becoming an actor and theatre co-owner.
> We know that of the hundreds of thousands of folks who
> supposedly attended public plays in Elizabethan London each
> year only foreigners (or kooks) wrote about having done so.
Huh? If thousands of people did *not* attend the theater, then how
did the many theaters and acting companies survive?
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
> Mostly lawsuits for shillings & pence for Shaksper.
So? There is no reason to surmise that a middle-class actor and
playwright who depends for his livelihood upon his art cannot be a
canny businessman, nor that he should he merely write off loans that
he could legally recoVER. Shakespeare struggled to collect loans --
just as I struggle to correct loons (present company included).
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
> > not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people
> > with TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
> Isn't it downright STOOOPID to think
> that prolific writers of the 16th century
> didn't *ALL* have legible handwriting?
Huh? Melanie is right: is IS idiotic (not to mention narrow-
minded) to assume that tidy penmanship is a necessary condition for
genius.
> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So how many "contemporaries" do you need
> > to remember him in a literary context?
> It would be nice to have *just ONE* "contemporary" connect
> (the illiterate Stratford boob) 'Shaksper' with the works.
Plenty of them do, Art; it is just that cretins like yourself
refuse to accept literary references to William Shakespeare as
references to the actor by that name, thereby jettisoning a huge body
of evidence capriciously by fiat.
It is indeed shocking, but there are racists eVERywhere (and
oVERall Switzerland is plagued by fewer than its fair share of such
dangerous crazies). Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point was,
Art -- if you actually believe that many anti-Stratfordians are not
actuated by snobbery, then you must be unfamiliar with the attitudes
and crank pronouncements of Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk,
Earl of Burford. If you actually believe that such unsavory racial
attitudes are not present among anti-Stratfordians, then you evidently
are not familiar with the writings of Enoch Powell, or of Sobran, for
that matter. But nobody eVER accused you of being well informed, Art.
> --------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
art
>
>>> It exists because people like you are educational snobs.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Charlie Chaplin on Shakespeare:
>> .
>> <<In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble
>> beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one
>> cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare...
>> Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude.>>
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> While nobody reVEREs Chaplin's genius more than I,
> he is a rather poor judge of aristocratic manners.
But is Chaplin anti-Stratfordian because he is an educational snob?
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Indeed, his Dickensian early life of abject poVERty,
> time in the workhouse, and the local district school
> for paupers left him with little formal education and scant
> familiarity with anything even remotely close to the aristocracy.
> Yet Dryden, who much closer to that milieu both socially and
> temporally, reported that Shakespeare portrayed aristocratic
> life less convincingly than seVERal of his peers.
I'm sure that Oxford's peers who also wrote under pseudonyms
did an excellent job of portraying aristocratic life; but
who am I (or Dryden for that matter) to judge.
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You know Shakespeare went to school
>>> and learned to read and write.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> All we really know is that
>> Shakspere never learned to write legibly.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> The same could be said about many well-educated contemporary
> professionals, among whom physicians are proVERbial.
Show me one physician who has published books
who has illegible handwriting.
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You know he took plots from existing plays,
>>> stories or legends.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Many of them only available in foreign languages.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> To someone familiar with Latin, the mainstay of the curriculum at
> the Stratford Grammar School, it is quite easy to read sources in
> French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. As I have said before, the
> only Slavic language that I ever actually spoke with any fluency is
> Russian, yet I have at need read and/or translated texts in Ukrainian,
> Slovak, Polish, etc. without difficulty. The same observation
> pertains to Romance languages: a good working ability in one of them
> confers the ability to read texts of interest in (but not to speak)
> the others. In fact, some years ago, the best introductory text on
> Riemannian geometry, by a Brazilian mathematician, was only available
> in Portuguese; yet the graduate students at a major Ivy League
> mathematics department were routinely assigned the book as their
> primary course text, on the assumption that their familiarity
> with French or Spanish would enable them to read Portuguese
> -- as indeed it did.
I take it that it had ilustrações numerosas.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Your problem -- well, one of many, at any rate -- is that you judge
> the linguistic competence of others by your own. Not eVERyone is as
> incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art. In fact, much more
> can be said, by a simple alteration of quantifiers: not *anyone*
> is as incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art,
You've cut me to the quick!
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> The notion that one of the most gifted writers in history was as
> inept as you are in foreign languages is just as ludicrous as
> Elizabeth's ideologically motivated denigration of Einstein's
> supposedly meager achievements in physics.
Shaksper was one of the most grifted pseudonyms in history
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm beginning to consider it more likely that your
> native tongue was something primitive, like FORTRAN
> -- and indeed, FORTRAN is an anagram of "For Art N."
------------------------------------------------------
____ *FORmula TRANslating System*
<< *FORmula*: a set form of words, as for stating or declaring
something definitely or authoritatively, for indicating procedure to
be followed, or for prescribed use on some ceremonial occasion.>>
------------------------------------------------------
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> The explanation for the monstrous volume
> of your moronic VERbiage is not the intrinsic wordiness
> of the language itself (which is what suggested COBOL),
> but rather the fact that you neVER progressed far enough
> to have mastered the DO loop or the GOTO construction, forcing
> you to produce thousands of iterations of *exactly the same thing*.
> Indeed, if one imagines the form that a program intended to find (say)
> the first ten thousand prime numbers would take if the programmer
> had not yet learned about GOTO or DO, the result bears a remarkable
> resemblance to your posts, which merely repeat the same idiotic
> crap oVER and oVER and oVER with little (if any) variation.
-----------------------------------------------------
. Troilus and Cressida > Act II, scene I
THERSITES: I sERVE (*ICH DIEN*) thee not.
AJAX: Well, *GOTO, GOTO* .
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<MINERVA BRITANNA: dedicated to THE PRINCE of Wales Henry Stuart,
whose motto *ICH DIEN* Peacham anagrammatises as *HIC INDE* >>
*INDE* : (Latin) for that REASON, from THERE, thence, THEREafter.
THERSITES: "I SERVE HERE voluntarily.
________ ("IS VERE HERE" voluntarily.)
_____ *ICH DIEN HIER* (German)
_____ *ICH DIEN EHRE* (German: "I SERVE HONOUR")
_____ *HIC INDE HERE* (Latin: "THEREafter: YESTERDAY")
_____ *HINC INDE* : "HERE & THERE"
...............................................................
VERE (1584): *I SERVE HER Majesty* , and *I AM THAT I AM* ."
_____ *ICH DIENE IHRE Majestät* und *ICH BIN DASS ICH BIN* .
---------------------------------------------------------------
. Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Bk I, Aph.120.
.
<<Existence, or pure Being, is the divine Word. It simply is. The
cabalistic formula for this is the expression, 'I AM'. Just as the
image of sound is its EchO, so the image of existence is the knowledge
of that existence-self-consciousness, in other words. There are two
basic types of consciousness: INNOCENT or pure consciousness that
contains the wisdom but doesn't yet know it, and self-consciousness or
self-knowledge that does know. Pure consciousness is associated with
the pure but INNOCENT intelligence - the intelligence of the HEART
which has the capacity to know the wisdom that exists within it as
its life or being, but as yet is ignorant of it and what it means...
We might say, 'Oh, but I knew that already!' HowEVER, the reality is
that we did not know it before, as such, and yet we had the TRUTH of
it already in our HEARTs. We needed something, howEVER, to wake it up
and bring it to our mind as knowledge of that TRUTH.
The cabalistic NAME for this knowledge, image or EchO is 'ThaT': hence
the complete formula or god-NAME for both the Holy Trinity and the SON
of God is 'I AM ThaT I AM' In HEBREW this is rendered by 'AHIH Asher
AHIH'.
AHIH refers to 'the Living God' ( 'I AM' ), the parent of 'ThaT'
When the possibility of time and change, or gradual unfolding, is
brought into the equation, the formula becomes 'I AM all that hath
been, and that is, and that shall be'. The god-NAME signifying this
unfolding state of divinity is JHVH, meaning 'He who was, is, and is
to come'. This is essentially the NAME of the 'Image' or 'SON' of God,
known as the 'great NAME' or 'revealing NAME', from which is derived
the more personal NAME of Jehoshua or Jesus, the Messiah or Christ.
The idea of the unfolding nature of this revelation or knowledge of
God is embodied in the story of the two main appearances of the
Christ: first as the shepherd, then secondly as the king. Messiah
means 'king'. The shepherd is not a king, but one day he will be.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not
>>> in those years between leaving Stratford and
>>> becoming an actor and theatre co-owner.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> We know that of the hundreds of thousands of folks who
>> supposedly attended public plays in Elizabethan London each
>> year only foreigners (or kooks) wrote about having done so.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Huh? If thousands of people did *not* attend the theater,
> then how did the many theaters and acting companies survive?
By being something else...which is the reason they will
NEVER allow the old Globe "Theatre" to be excavated.
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Mostly lawsuits for shillings & pence for Shaksper.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> So? There is no reason to surmise that a middle-class actor and
> playwright who depends for his livelihood upon his art cannot be a
> canny businessman, nor that he should he merely write off loans that
> he could legally recoVER. Shakespeare struggled to collect loans --
> just as I struggle to correct loons (present company included).
And you both kowtow to the same Rosicrucian/Freemason conspiracy.
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
>>> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people
>>> with TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it downright STOOOPID to think
>> that prolific writers of the 16th century
>> didn't *ALL* have legible handwriting?
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Huh? Melanie is right: is IS idiotic (not to mention
> narrow-minded) to assume that tidy penmanship
> is a necessary condition for genius.
Legible penmanship was certainly a necessary
condition for genius in the 16th century.
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So how many "contemporaries" do you need
>>> to remember him in a literary context?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to have *just ONE* "contemporary" connect
>> (the illiterate Stratford boob) 'Shaksper' with the works.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Plenty of them do, Art; it is just that cretins like yourself
> refuse to accept literary references to William Shakespeare as
> references to the actor by that name, thereby jettisoning
> a huge body of evidence capriciously by fiat.
A huge body of crap.
>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I get tired of this snobbism, actually. It's no different from
>>> saying that black people can't have leading positions
>>> because their brains are less developed than white peoples'.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Tell it to Doudou Diene.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Swiss Fury at Foreigners Boiling Over
>> Grisly Attack on African Underscores Race Issue In a Harsh Campaign
>> By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service
>> Tuesday, October 9, 2007
>> http://tinyurl.com/yavx9uj
>
>> ZURICH -- At 1:30 a.m., Antonio da Costa heard a knock at the back
>> entrance of the McDonald's restaurant where he worked as a janitor
>> after-hours. He opened the door, he recalled in an interview. There
>> stood two men, each gripping a chain saw. One yanked the cord on his
>> saw, stepped toward da Costa and shouted above the roaring machine:
>> "We don't need Africans in our country. We're here to kill you!" The
>> two masked assailants cornered da Costa and began raking him with the
>> whirring chain-saw blades. They slashed one arm to the bone, nearly
>> sliced off his left thumb and hacked his face, neck and chest, the 37-
>> year-old Angolan said, his voice quavering as he recounted the May 1
>> attack.
>> Da Costa, who came to Switzerland 11 years ago as an Angolan war
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> It is indeed shocking, but there are racists eVERywhere
> (and oVERall Switzerland is plagued by fewer
> than its fair share of such dangerous crazies).
The evidence is clearly otherwise.
(In fact, their national hero,
William Tell, was a dangerous crazy.)
> Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point was, Art --
My point to Melanie was that "people who live in glass houses.."
> if you actually believe that many anti-Stratfordians
> are not actuated by snobbery...
I would probably agree that many anti-Stratfordians
may well be actuated by greed ... but NOT snobbery
and certainly NOT any form of Fascism.
Mostly, however, I agree with John Michell:
---------------------------------------------------------
<<We shall be abused and laughed at for our interest, for even
thinking there is any doubt about who wrote Shakespeare... All that we
can say in return is that we enjoy the subject, find *MYSTERY* in it
and are introduced by it to the finest literature and some of the
greatest, as well as the crankiest minds of our age and culture. It is
a harmless, stimulating and instructive subject to dwell upon, which
is more than can be said for many other types of obsession.>>
- [Who Wrote Shakespeare? p. 16] John Michell
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
ignoto
> On Nov 2, 9:03 am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> mylear wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 7:15 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>>>> But there is also no direct evidence that anyone other than WS of
>>> Stratford wrote the works.
>>> There is substantial evidence that a significant number of the
>>> Shakespearean works were co-authored. This opens up the possibility
>>> that Will was a reviser of the works of others.
>> This is a non sequitur. The point raised for discussion is: "Was William
>> Shakespeare of Stratford the author William Shakespeare" not "Was
>> William Shakespeare a reviser of other people's work".
>>
> I disagree. The point raised for discussion is why Shakespearean
> authorship issues persist. It is my contention that a sufficient
> number
> of anomalies surround the authorship of many works conventionally
> attributed (wholly) to William Shakespeare of Stratford to justify
> further
> scholarly investigation.
No. You are conflating two distinct issues.
1. The extent and nature of Shakespeare's collaboration and
co-authorship with the other playwrights of his day.
2. The 'authorship question': 'Whether William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon was the playwright William Shakespeare.
The former is a legitimate area of scholarly enquiry the latter is not.
>>>> It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to
>>>> compose his plays.
>>> This is very debatable of course, but the usual arguments given for
>>> Will getting everything he needed - in regard to foreign cultures,
>>> customs etc - from the library of a supposed noble patron residing in
>>> the south of England, are convoluted and unconvincing.
>> No competent orthodox scholar believes that Shakespeare got his
>> knowledge of (say) Italy from just perusing the books of "a supposed
>> noble patron residing in the south of England." What they actually say
>> is that shakespeare got his knowledge of Italy from a variety of
>> sources - books, pamphlets, plays, the reports of returned travellers,
>> the reports of Italian visitors to England and associates with Italian
>> backgrounds (like Florio or Marston). [See, for instance: Schoenbaum,
>> William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life; Duncan-Jones,
>> Ungentle Shakespeare]
>>
> I remain unconvinced by that explanation. There are details in the
> plays which strongly suggest personal familiarity with the venue.
Perhaps you would like to offer some specific examples.
How is a partisan analysis of the historical record useful?
Let me put it another way. There is nothing in the negative
anti-stratfordian 'case' that cannot be reasonably answered by orthodox
scholarship; there is nothing in the positive anti-stratfordian cases
that can be called reasonable (and by the positive cases I just mean the
attempts to justify Oxford, Bacon or Marlowe as the author).
As I said previously:
Firstly, poor handwriting is not indicative of illiteracy. Secondly,
plenty of experts in the old english hand have studied his signatures
and found them to contain at least some fluent character formations [ie
a 'steady hand']. Thirdly the signatures were generally executed under
less than ideal circumstances. Fourthly, the fact that he spelt his name
differently on different occasions (probably as space or circumstance
dictated) is indicative of literacy. Fifthly, Shakespeare must be the
only person in the history of the world to be declared illiterate on the
basis of a *signature* (which is usually considered prima fracie
evidence of literacy). [etc.]
>>>>> (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember him in a literary context.
Right.
Ign.
> JH
>
ignoto
... and for an excellent study of this issue, see "William Shakspere's
Small Latine & Lesse Greeke" by T. W. Baldwin which can be found online,
here:
http://durer.press.illinois.edu/baldwin/
Ign.
> Ign.
>
>> JH
>>
ignoto
>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It exists because people like you are educational snobs.
>
>> Plenty of them do, Art; it is just that cretins like yourself
>> refuse to accept literary references to William Shakespeare as
>> references to the actor by that name, thereby jettisoning
>> a huge body of evidence capriciously by fiat.
>
> A huge body of crap.
Well, jettisoning huge bodies of crap is certainly one area in which
you, bongo, are an expert.
Ign.
[snip
Peter G.
"mylear" <her...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:dba7844e-4081-436b...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 12:16 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
wrote:
>
> And in any case, while the original post calls the OP's intelligence into
> question, this throws doubt upon his/her honesty, given that no attendance
> records for Stratford Grammar School survive from that period. To say
> "there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education" without
> pointing out that any such records must have been destroyed is to argue
> not
> like a scholar but like a two-bit shyster. Peter G.
>
My good friend Peter,
***Sorry, I have higher standards.
that little display of emotionalism and
distortion is not what one would expect from a scholar. My honesty is
not at issue here, nor would I wish to caste aspersions on your
integrity.
***Whatever you may wish, I have given you no cause to; your post, however,
has (as I have indicated) given me cause to doubt either your honesty or
(more charitably but less plausibly) your intelligence,
Obviously the educational records were destroyed -- one does not need
to state the obvious.
***How can it be 'obvious'? It is neither a percept nor a deduction but a
contingent historical fact, which you are hoping some possible new readers
of HLAS will be ignorant of.
Moreover I did not mention a Grammar School.
My point is that any unambiguous record of attendance at an
educational institution which allowed study of the classics and a
range of other subjects, spanning several years, would add strong
support to the Stratfordian case.
***But since you know that any suche records will not have survived, it is
simply dishonest to cite their non-existence as evidence of their never
having existed (we can all agree that he didn't attend Eton or Harrow, but
his attendance at the free local grammar school, given his father's status
in the town, is highly plausible).
I repeat: you argue like a dishonest lawyer, not like a disinterested
scholar.
Peter G.
mylear
wrote:
> "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:dba7844e-4081-436b...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 2, 12:16 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And in any case, while the original post calls the OP's intelligence into
> > question, this throws doubt upon his/her honesty, given that no attendance
> > records for Stratford Grammar School survive from that period. To say
> > "there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education" without
> > pointing out that any such records must have been destroyed is to argue
> > not
> > like a scholar but like a two-bit shyster. Peter G.
>
> My good friend Peter,
>
> ***Sorry, I have higher standards.
>
standards.
>
> that little display of emotionalism and
> distortion is not what one would expect from a scholar. My honesty is
> not at issue here, nor would I wish to caste aspersions on your
> integrity.
>
> ***Whatever you may wish, I have given you no cause to; your post, however,
> has (as I have indicated) given me cause to doubt either your honesty or
> (more charitably but less plausibly) your intelligence,
>
>
> Obviously the educational records were destroyed -- one does not need
> to state the obvious.
>
> ***How can it be 'obvious'? It is neither a percept nor a deduction but a
> contingent historical fact, which you are hoping some possible new readers
> of HLAS will be ignorant of.
>
historical fact'. That is why I felt no need to mention it. More
interestingly, you are attempting to attribute to me motives which are
manifestly NOT obvious.
>
> Moreover I did not mention a Grammar School.
> My point is that any unambiguous record of attendance at an
> educational institution which allowed study of the classics and a
> range of other subjects, spanning several years, would add strong
> support to the Stratfordian case.
>
>
I don't know this, and neither do you. I said there is no direct
evidence, I did not say records have not survived. New discoveries are
made every year.
>
> it is
> simply dishonest to cite their non-existence
>
such records ever come to light then the Stratfordian position will be
strengthened.
>
> as evidence of their never having existed
> (we can all agree that he didn't attend Eton or Harrow, but
> his attendance at the free local grammar school, given his father's status
> in the town, is highly plausible).
>
Eton or Harrow), and also to universities, for children who were
recognised as being gifted. But Will did not get one. The usual
Stratfordian position on this is that Will was a late developer.
However genius usually shows itself early, and the fact is that Will
was around 29 before the world first became aware of his talents as a
poet.
>
> I repeat: you argue like a dishonest lawyer, not like a disinterested
> scholar.
>
honest and disinterested scholar, before your criticisms of others on
this account can be taken seriously.
JH
Peter G.
On Nov 3, 8:52 am, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
wrote:
> "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:dba7844e-4081-436b...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 2, 12:16 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And in any case, while the original post calls the OP's intelligence
> > into
> > question, this throws doubt upon his/her honesty, given that no
> > attendance
> > records for Stratford Grammar School survive from that period. To say
> > "there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education"
> > without
> > pointing out that any such records must have been destroyed is to argue
> > not
> > like a scholar but like a two-bit shyster. Peter G.
>
> My good friend Peter,
>
> ***Sorry, I have higher standards.
>
You are being insulting again. Not the mark of someone with superior
standards.
*****Non sequitur. When I see a spade, as Cecily Cardew says, I call it a
spade.
>
> that little display of emotionalism and
> distortion is not what one would expect from a scholar. My honesty is
> not at issue here, nor would I wish to caste aspersions on your
> integrity.
>
> ***Whatever you may wish, I have given you no cause to; your post,
> however,
> has (as I have indicated) given me cause to doubt either your honesty or
> (more charitably but less plausibly) your intelligence,
>
Once again you have chosen to be insulting.
>
> Obviously the educational records were destroyed -- one does not need
> to state the obvious.
>
> ***How can it be 'obvious'? It is neither a percept nor a deduction but a
> contingent historical fact, which you are hoping some possible new readers
> of HLAS will be ignorant of.
>
It is obvious to the meanest intellect that this is a 'contingent
historical fact'. That is why I felt no need to mention it.
*****Clearly you do not understand the phrase 'contingent historical fact'.
Such a thing cannot, by its very nature, be obvious, even if it is widely
known (it is not obvious, for example, that the Normans won the Battle of
Hastings, though it is widely known). Sensibly, however, you do not claim
that it is widely known that there are no student records for Stratford
Grammar School before 1700 (how could it be?). Since this inconvenient fact
makes nonsense of your objection that no such evidence survives, your
failure to mention it must call your motives into question.
More
interestingly, you are attempting to attribute to me motives which are
manifestly NOT obvious.
*****Unfortunately, they are only too obvious (see previous answer).
>
> Moreover I did not mention a Grammar School.
> My point is that any unambiguous record of attendance at an
> educational institution which allowed study of the classics and a
> range of other subjects, spanning several years, would add strong
> support to the Stratfordian case.
>
> ***But since you know that any such records will not have survived,
>
I don't know this, and neither do you. I said there is no direct
evidence, I did not say records have not survived. New discoveries are
made every year.
>
> it is
> simply dishonest to cite their non-existence
>
Once again, I did not say records have not survived. I said that if
such records ever come to light then the Stratfordian position will be
strengthened.
*****No you didn't: you claimed that the absence of such records, which we
can now agree is an irrelevance in evidentiary terms, casts doubt on
Shakespeare's authorship.
>
> as evidence of their never having existed
> (we can all agree that he didn't attend Eton or Harrow, but
> his attendance at the free local grammar school, given his father's status
> in the town, is highly plausible).
>
Scholarships were available to prestigious schools (and I don't mean
Eton or Harrow), and also to universities, for children who were
recognised as being gifted. But Will did not get one.
*****This, at least, is evidence of a kind for your case (since Marlowe did
indeed get such a scholarship), but since we know nothing of the
circumstances it is very weak evidence.
The usual
Stratfordian position on this is that Will was a late developer.
However genius usually shows itself early, and the fact is that Will
was around 29 before the world first became aware of his talents as a
poet.
>
> I repeat: you argue like a dishonest lawyer, not like a disinterested
> scholar.
>
You are under an obligation to establish your own credentials as an
honest and disinterested scholar, before your criticisms of others on
this account can be taken seriously.
*****Non sequitur again; a crook is in a better position to detect felony
than an honest person. However, my books and articles are out there; if you
can find any dishonesty in them, please let me know.
Peter G.
mylear
> mylear wrote:
> > I disagree. The point raised for discussion is why Shakespearean
> > authorship issues persist. It is my contention that a sufficient
> > number of anomalies surround the authorship of many works
>> conventionally attributed (wholly) to William Shakespeare of
>> Stratford to justify further scholarly investigation.
>
> No. You are conflating two distinct issues.
>
> 1. The extent and nature of Shakespeare's collaboration and
> co-authorship with the other playwrights of his day.
> 2. The 'authorship question': 'Whether William Shakespeare of
> Stratford-upon-Avon was the playwright William Shakespeare.
>
> The former is a legitimate area of scholarly enquiry the latter is not.
>
of positions on Will Shakespeare's involvement in the production of
the plays and poems and plays which bear his name.
>
> >>>> It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to
> >>>> compose his plays.
> >>> This is very debatable of course, but the usual arguments given for
> >>> Will getting everything he needed - in regard to foreign cultures,
> >>> customs etc - from the library of a supposed noble patron residing in
> >>> the south of England, are convoluted and unconvincing.
> >> No competent orthodox scholar believes that Shakespeare got his
> >> knowledge of (say) Italy from just perusing the books of "a supposed
> >> noble patron residing in the south of England." What they actually say
> >> is that shakespeare got his knowledge of Italy from a variety of
> >> sources - books, pamphlets, plays, the reports of returned travellers,
> >> the reports of Italian visitors to England and associates with Italian
> >> backgrounds (like Florio or Marston). [See, for instance: Schoenbaum,
> >> William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life; Duncan-Jones,
> >> Ungentle Shakespeare]
>
you mentioned are pure speculation. If John Florio was Will's source
of information about Italy then one might expect a record of it in
Florio's voluminous writings. But no such record has been discovered.
It has even been suggested that Will had an affair with John Florio's
wife, and that she is the dark lady of the sonnets. No evidence for
any of this whatsoever.
>
> > I remain unconvinced by that explanation. There are details in the
> > plays which strongly suggest personal familiarity with the venue.
>
> Perhaps you would like to offer some specific examples.
>
the usual practice in Italy to have evening masses (Pope Pius V and
the Council of Trent did away with it in 1566). But one of the few
places where it persisted was Verona, the scene of the play.
>
> > I acknowledge that there are limitations in Price's list of criteria
> > for a literary paper trail (what you prefer to describe as a filter).
> > However I do not believe her list is entirely misleading, which
> > is what you seem to be implying. I think it conveys useful
> > information.
>
> How is a partisan analysis of the historical record useful?
>
analysis. The missing items that you mentioned (in the context of
criteria for a literary paper trail) may be easily added to the list.
When this is done, the more restricted list - what you previously
described as a filter - becomes a valuable part of the larger
entity.
>
JH
mylear
wrote:
> "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > wrote:
>
> > My good friend Peter,
>
> > ***Sorry, I have higher standards.
>
> You are being insulting again. Not the mark of someone with superior
> standards.
>
>
Perhaps so, it is nevertheless insulting .. not the hallmark of a
scholar or a gentleman.
>
> > that little display of emotionalism and
> > distortion is not what one would expect from a scholar. My honesty is
> > not at issue here, nor would I wish to caste aspersions on your
> > integrity.
>
> > ***Whatever you may wish, I have given you no cause to; your post,
> > however,
> > has (as I have indicated) given me cause to doubt either your honesty or
> > (more charitably but less plausibly) your intelligence,
>
> Once again you have chosen to be insulting.
>
> Such a thing cannot, by its very nature, be obvious, even if it is widely
> known (it is not obvious, for example, that the Normans won the Battle of
> Hastings, though it is widely known). Sensibly, however, you do not claim
> that it is widely known that there are no student records for Stratford
> Grammar School before 1700 (how could it be?). Since this inconvenient fact
> makes nonsense of your objection that no such evidence survives, your
> failure to mention it must call your motives into question.
>
hand no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education stands.
Believe what you like about my motives. I don't really care what you
believe.
>
JH
Peter G.
That is to say, either you can't understand my argument (which is not, after
all, very complicated) or you have no rebuttal. I'm going with the latter.
BTW, it's also dishonest to snip material without indication just because
you can't handle it.
Peter G.
mylear
wrote:
>
> That is to say, either you can't understand my argument (which is not, after
> all, very complicated) or you have no rebuttal. I'm going with the latter.
>
as destructive as you.
>
JH
mylear
cooperative dialogue with someone, you should to avoid (a) making them
wrong, (b) insulting them, or (c) attacking their motives. JH
ignoto
> On Nov 3, 7:14 am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> mylear wrote:
>>> I disagree. The point raised for discussion is why Shakespearean
>>> authorship issues persist. It is my contention that a sufficient
>>> number of anomalies surround the authorship of many works
>>> conventionally attributed (wholly) to William Shakespeare of
>>> Stratford to justify further scholarly investigation.
>> No. You are conflating two distinct issues.
>>
>> 1. The extent and nature of Shakespeare's collaboration and
>> co-authorship with the other playwrights of his day.
>> 2. The 'authorship question': 'Whether William Shakespeare of
>> Stratford-upon-Avon was the playwright William Shakespeare.
>>
>> The former is a legitimate area of scholarly enquiry the latter is not.
>>
> In my view there is no single authorship question, there is a spectrum
> of positions on Will Shakespeare's involvement in the production of
> the plays and poems and plays which bear his name.
There is no spectrum. The evidence based methodologies of orthodox
scholars are quite different to the speculation based methodologies of
anti-stratfordians.
>>>>>> It is highly unlikely that he *needed* to travel abroad in order to
>>>>>> compose his plays.
>>>>> This is very debatable of course, but the usual arguments given for
>>>>> Will getting everything he needed - in regard to foreign cultures,
>>>>> customs etc - from the library of a supposed noble patron residing in
>>>>> the south of England, are convoluted and unconvincing.
>>>> No competent orthodox scholar believes that Shakespeare got his
>>>> knowledge of (say) Italy from just perusing the books of "a supposed
>>>> noble patron residing in the south of England." What they actually say
>>>> is that shakespeare got his knowledge of Italy from a variety of
>>>> sources - books, pamphlets, plays, the reports of returned travellers,
>>>> the reports of Italian visitors to England and associates with Italian
>>>> backgrounds (like Florio or Marston). [See, for instance: Schoenbaum,
>>>> William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life; Duncan-Jones,
>>>> Ungentle Shakespeare]
> Firstly it needs to be stated that all of the possible explanations
> you mentioned are pure speculation.
Yes, they are speculations. But I think you are missing the point. The
speculations I have offered above are made against the background of
documentary, testimonial and circumstantial evidence that shows William
Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to be the author William Shakespeare.
The speculations IOW do not prove that Shakespeare of Stratford was the
author, they merely fill in the blanks in the historical record- they
are inferences (or greater and lesser probability) from historical
fact. Anti-stratfordians otoh, ignoring the historical record, begin
and end with speculation (and as they very often begin from a
speculation or assumption of what they want to prove their arguments
are very often circular: Mark Andersen's 'Shakespeare by Another Name'
is a perfect example of an argument that moves in a speculative circle).
> If John Florio was Will's source
> of information about Italy then one might expect a record of it in
> Florio's voluminous writings.
Why on earth would expect that?
> But no such record has been discovered.
You might as well say one expects there should be some record of the
reason why Ovid was exiled, but as there is not we should suppose that
his Tristia were written when sitting in the bath of his Roman villa.
I repeat, the fact that no record has been discovered is not a serious
problem for the orthodox case because the orthodox case is not grounded
in speculation but in historical fact.
> It has even been suggested that Will had an affair with John Florio's
> wife, and that she is the dark lady of the sonnets. No evidence for
> any of this whatsoever.
>>> I remain unconvinced by that explanation. There are details in the
>>> plays which strongly suggest personal familiarity with the venue.
>> Perhaps you would like to offer some specific examples.
>>
> In Romeo and Juliet there is reference to "evening Mass". It was not
> the usual practice in Italy to have evening masses (Pope Pius V and
> the Council of Trent did away with it in 1566). But one of the few
> places where it persisted was Verona, the scene of the play.
It would be helpful if you specified the act, scene and line number.
I assume you mean 4.1.37-38:
are you at leisure holy father, now;
or shall I come to you at evening mass?
Delahoyde comments:
"The nervous Friar keeps quiet. Juliet arrives and, showing her
increasing maturity, converses politely until Paris leaves. A reference
to evening Mass shows Shakespeare's knowledge: evening Mass was
forbidden by the Pope, but Verona did continue it."
But there is no warrant to conclude that Shakespeare visited Italy on
the basis of this allusion. Mario Praz after listing the 'evening mass'
of RJ and sundry other apparently intimate references to Italy says:
"These allusions are confined to a definite part of Italy: Venice, and
the neighbouring towns of Verona, Padua, Mantua; and Milan. There are
two possible alternative explanations: either Shakespeare travelled to
the north of Italy, or he got this information from intercourse with
some Italian in London. There is no evidence for the first alternative.
As for the second, Shakespeare may have had frequent occasions to meet
Italian merchants; the Elephant Inn, which he mentions with praise as
being the one where it was "best to lodge" in the unknown Illyrian town
of Twelfth Night, and being of course nothing else but the inn called
"the Oliphant" on Bankside, was patronized by Italians ... it is today
well established that Shakespeare must have come across, at least, John
Florio, ... Florio and Shakespeare moved in the same circle: they were
fellow-members of Southampton's household. Florio supplied Ben Jonson
with whatever information the dramatist shows about Venice in Volpone. A
copy of this play in the British Museum has the autograph dedication:
"To his louing Father, & worthy Freind Mr. John Florio: The ayde of his
Muses. Ben: Jonson seals this testemony of Freindship, & Loue". Florio's
vocabulary has a prevailing Lombardo-Venetian character, Venice is for
him the foremost Italian town, as can be seen in the eighth chapter of
the First Fruites: this may help us to understand why the local
allusions in Shakespeare's Italian plays are limited to Venice and the
neighbouring towns."
Mario Praz, Shakespeare and Italy, Sydney Studies in English, 3
(1977-8), 31-7
>>> I acknowledge that there are limitations in Price's list of criteria
>>> for a literary paper trail (what you prefer to describe as a filter).
>>> However I do not believe her list is entirely misleading, which
>>> is what you seem to be implying. I think it conveys useful
>>> information.
>> How is a partisan analysis of the historical record useful?
>>
> It acts as a springboard for constructing a more comprehensive
> analysis. The missing items that you mentioned (in the context of
> criteria for a literary paper trail) may be easily added to the list.
> When this is done, the more restricted list - what you previously
> described as a filter - becomes a valuable part of the larger
> entity.
No, it doesn't act as a 'springboard'. It acts as propaganda. Why you
insist on defending it by claiming a third party can reconstruct it as a
'springboard' is really beyond me. A scholarly literary historian makes
use of ALL RELEVANT materials. He or she may well give greater or lesser
weight to certain materials based on a consideration of their
reliability but never arbitrarily excludes material because it results
in an unlooked for conclusion. Price's book otoh uses a filter that
excludes from consideration material that is both relevant and reliable
(the 1 year rule that excludes the FF testimony is a good example of
this selection bias). In sum 'Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography' is
rejected by orthodox scholars because its methods are not scholarly.
Ign.
> JH
lackpurity
> It is perhaps not too surprising that so many theories abound on the
> issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
> conjunction of facts:
>
> (a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
> literature,
MM:
That is right. It wouldn't be too surprising if literary thieves were
tempted.
> (b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
> european customs - especially Italy,
MM:
One who has access to Universal Mind can display very impressive
knowledge. This is tempting to thieves, also. One could know the
past and the future, for example.
> (c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
MM:
Whine, whine, whine. As if that is the only knowledge available.
Marlowe didn't exist? The Wilton Cult didn't exist? Hmmmm. I think
there is ample evidence that they existed.
> (d) it is highly unlikely that Will had any opportunity to travel
> abroad,
MM:
He could travel via the mind. Of course, he supplemented that with
knowing some who did travel abroad.
> (e) there exists no literary paper trail for Will,
MM:
That's because he was smart. He kept the sonnets and FF in a safe
place.
> (f) for whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> be those of a highly literate man,
MM:
Whine, whine, whine. A shaky hand has nothing to do with being
illiterate.
> (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> him in a literary context.
MM:
Many remembered him. Marlowe and Shakespeare had their enemies. The
famous always have their detractors. He was called an "upstart crow,"
from the gitgo, and it likely got more serious in the next 23 years.
Shakespeare was more of a Sat Guru than a literary giant, anyway.
Bacon said "remember thy predecessors or you might repent." IMO, all
the Wilton Cult remembered him well, but they had their reasons to
remain silent. They were to a great extent following the wishes of
William Herbert. He was the successor of Shakespeare, and he didn't
want too much attention, especially from Shakespeare's enemies.
> These are all legitimate issues for discussion, not to be avoided or
> swept under the carpet.
>
> John Hermann
MM:
They've been discussed previously. The problem is that Anti-Strats
don't want to face the truth. They prefer to live in their carefully
constructed fantasylands.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> It exists because people like you are educational snobs.
>
> You know Shakespeare went to school and learned to
> read and write.
>
> You know he took plots from existing plays, stories or
> legends.
>
> You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not in
> those years between leaving Stratford and becoming
> an actor and theatre co-owner.
>
> There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
>
> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people with
> TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
> In that case, most doctors are mentally retarded.
> (Well, okay, that was a bad example....considering all those
> diagnosis �and treatment mistakes they make �- but you get the drift
> of my argument).
>
> So how many "contemporaries" do you need to
> remember him in a literary context?
>
> I get tired of this snobbism, actually. It's no different from saying
> that black people can't have leading positions because their
> brains are less developed than white peoples'.
>
> Melanie
MM:
He ranks second to the Bible. I suppose that means that somebody
remembered him. They were following Shakespeare's orders, IMO. He
knew the great upheavals which were to come to England. He wanted
William Herbert, Emelia Lanier, etc., to maintain low profiles so they
could more effectively do their work. Same for Philip Herbert.
However, Oliver Cromwell's successor, John Milton, did remember
Shakespeare very nicely. William Blake, in turn, applauded John
Milton. So, the line of Masters certainly did remember William
Shakesspeare.
Michael Martin
> On 1 Nov., 08:49, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is perhaps not too surprising that so many theories abound on the
> > issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
> > conjunction of facts:
>
> > (a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
> > literature,
> > (b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
> > european customs - especially Italy,
> > (c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
> > (d) it is highly unlikely that Will had any opportunity to travel
> > abroad,
> > (e) there exists no literary paper trail for Will,
> > (f) for whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> > be those of a highly literate man,
> > (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> > him in a literary context.
>
> > These are all legitimate issues for discussion, not to be avoided or
> > swept under the carpet.
>
> > John Hermann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mylear
> mylear wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 7:14 am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> >> mylear wrote:
> >>> I disagree. The point raised for discussion is why Shakespearean
> >>> authorship issues persist. It is my contention that a sufficient
> >>> number of anomalies surround the authorship of many works
> >>> conventionally attributed (wholly) to William Shakespeare of
> >>> Stratford to justify further scholarly investigation.
> >> No. You are conflating two distinct issues.
>
> >> 1. The extent and nature of Shakespeare's collaboration and
> >> co-authorship with the other playwrights of his day.
> >> 2. The 'authorship question': 'Whether William Shakespeare of
> >> Stratford-upon-Avon was the playwright William Shakespeare.
>
> >> The former is a legitimate area of scholarly enquiry the latter is not.
>
> > In my view there is no single authorship question, there is a spectrum
> > of positions on Will Shakespeare's involvement in the production of
> > the plays and poems and plays which bear his name.
>
> There is no spectrum. The evidence based methodologies of orthodox
> scholars are quite different to the speculation based methodologies of
> anti-stratfordians.
>
line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. And even within the community
of scholars you might be willing to recognise as orthodox, there
exists a spectrum of opinions on William Shakespeare of Stratford's
role in producing the plays and poems which bear his name. As for the
matter of evidence and speculation, owing to the poverty of available
factual information EVERYBODY speculates -- includng orthodox
scholars.
ignore historical records or fail to use good scholarly methodology.
It is equally inaccurate (and perhaps a little dishonest?) to insist
that ALL Stratfordians adhere strictly to the historical record and
always use good methodology.
>
> > If John Florio was Will's source
> > of information about Italy then one might expect a record of it in
> > Florio's voluminous writings.
>
> Why on earth would expect that?
>
some sort of record to be left in letters, diaries, biographical
footnotes, etc. Unless there was a good reason for keeping the nature
of their relationship secret.
>
> Why you insist on defending it by claiming a third party
> can reconstruct it as a 'springboard' is really beyond me.
>
criteria for establishing a literary paper trail, but - as you say -
her set of items is incomplete. All I am saying is that the list may
be easily added to in order to meet the objections of those who have
protested that it is incomplete and 'filtered'. It would not be an
overwhelmingly difficult operation to construct an 'unfiltered' set of
criteria and apply it to the same collection of authors. This matter
is surely of interest to literary historians. And presumably it would
demonstrate the inadequacy of Price's set in a convincing manner. Why
has no Stratfordian scholar felt impelled to do so thus far?
ignoto
Well, let's see:
-The records are patchy but most of the old ancient greek dramatists
began their careers in their late 20s- early 30s or later.
-Vergil was 33 when his Eclouges appeared.
-Chaucer's first public work, the book of the duchess, appeared when he
in his late 20s (27-30).
-John Webster collaborated (as a 'hack') on numerous plays until writing
two masterpieces, the Duchess of Malfi and White Devil in his mid 30s.
-Harold Pinter was 28 when the Birthday Party was first performed.
Ign.
mylear
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I repeat, most people in the genius category show their aptitude at a
very early age. Those who do not are an exception to the rule. It
might be that Shakespeare was one of the those exceptions. The breadth
and depth of his works, even his early works, suggest that he had a
lot of ground to make up over a relatively short time span.
JH
mylear
were written around 1590, when Will would have been 26. If you believe
Will was the original author of these works, and considering that he
married at 18, I would like to know how he managed to accommodate his
family responsibilities, business activities, acting, and also acquire
an adequate knowledge of literature, languages, history and many other
subjects, as well as playwriting, during the timespan 1583-1590. JH
lackpurity
Apparently, you have some desire to create a paper trail. If
Shakespeare left no paper trail, that doesn't mean we should launch
ourselves into fantasyland with Anti-Strats. Strats tend to stick
with the available evidence. Thomas Thorpe, Burbage, Cundell, and
Heminges, are sufficient. Shakespeare didn't want to leave a paper
trail. He wanted his followers to follow his successors, Emilia
Lanier, Francis Bacon, William Herbert, and Philip Herbert.
Ben Jonson set the standard by following Francis Bacon. He was not
interested in a "paper trail." He knew that the poet of the age,
William Shakespeare of Stratford, had written the sonnets and canon.
It just seems that Anti-Strats can't be happy with the status quo.
They seem to want to rewrite history, whether it makes any sense, or
not.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
He was 29, I suppose, when Groatsworth of Wit called him an "upstart
crow." I think that is early enough. No disciple wants to steal the
thunder of his Master, anyway. Marlowe was the main man, until he
died, then Shakespeare took command of the Wilton Cult. Your argument
is really meaningless.
If you read "Cosmic Consciousness," by Dr. Maurice Bucke, a disciple
of Walt Whitman, he concluded that Cosmic Consciousness usually is in
full bloom in the mid thirties. So, Shakespeare was earlier than
that.
Those who do not are an exception to the rule. It
> might be that Shakespeare was one of the those exceptions. The breadth
> and depth of his works, even his early works, suggest that he had a
> lot of ground to make up over a relatively short time span.
>
> JH
MM:
He was early. He was a child prodigy. There was no ground to make
up, at all. Many were jealous of him, as is evident in Groatsworth of
Wit.
Michael Martin
nordicskiv2
"Peter G." <Monti...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com> wrote:
> "mylear" <her...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2d14532b-9765-4dd7...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 8:52 am, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
> wrote:
> > "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
> >
> > news:dba7844e-4081-436b...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 2, 12:16 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > And in any case, while the original post calls the OP's intelligence
> > > into
> > > question, this throws doubt upon his/her honesty, given that no
> > > attendance
> > > records for Stratford Grammar School survive from that period. To say
> > > "there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education"
> > > without
> > > pointing out that any such records must have been destroyed is to argue
> > > not
> > > like a scholar but like a two-bit shyster. Peter G.
> > My good friend Peter,
> > ***Sorry, I have higher standards.
> You are being insulting again. Not the mark of someone with superior
> standards.
> *****Non sequitur. When I see a spade, as Cecily Cardew says, I call it a
> spade.
One would certainly be tempted to do so in the cases of Art, "Dr."
Faker, Elizabeth Weird, Mr. Innes, etc. were it not that Jokers belong
to none of the four suits.
[...]
Richard Kennedy
HLAS for several years, but today I'm looking for some discussion of a
recent project now finished I think, and have put it up on pdf which
can't be sent in that form to a Usenet Group, nor can I send it "reply
to author" of any posts, so I must depend on your trust that if you
give me your email address I'll get the bloody goods to you, a folding
puzzle from 1603. Six heads are chopped in the unfolding of the piece,
and the Maker (undiscovered) presents a case, cryptically pictured,
that reveals Queen Elizabeth as a mother to a child, the proper heir
to the throne of England. Kennedy
book...@yahoo.com
Are you sure you couldn't manage to unfold your unfolding at h.l.a.s.
in a thread? I posted here a thread of an entire play, my edition of
"The Witch of Edmonton," simply by doing one act at a time. This
would allow some discussion of each segment, if you wished. bookburn
Richard Kennedy
Schoenbaum's 'Shakespeare and the Globe', p. 98. The pdfs come with
many pictures, and the story moves along like a trundel cart on the
way to the gallows, you'll see, a picture puzzle full of treason and
what's to come, Elizabeth was on her deathbed and the Maker of the
puzzle..... But maybe I can make up some url or something, I'll ask
around, couldn't piece it out as you suggest, but thanks
On Nov 4, 6:17 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:53:46 -0800 (PST), Richard Kennedy
>
mylear
> He was early. He was a child prodigy.
Did this insight come to you in a dream Michael, or was it piped to
you directly from the Almighty during one of your meditation sessions?
JH
ignoto
> The thing is a picture puzzle, you can see a small portion of it in
> Schoenbaum's 'Shakespeare and the Globe', p. 98. The pdfs come with
> many pictures, and the story moves along like a trundel cart on the
> way to the gallows, you'll see, a picture puzzle full of treason and
> what's to come, Elizabeth was on her deathbed and the Maker of the
> puzzle..... But maybe I can make up some url or something, I'll ask
> around, couldn't piece it out as you suggest, but thanks
You can upload it here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/humanitieslitauthorsshakespearemoderated?hl=en
[you'll have to join, but anyone can download uploaded files]
or
The Forest of Arden
http://groups.google.com.au/group/ardenmanagers?lnk=srg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
or
here:
http://www.megaupload.com/
Ign.
ignoto
> On Nov 3, 9:12 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> mylear wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 7:14 am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>>>> mylear wrote:
>>>>> I disagree. The point raised for discussion is why Shakespearean
>>>>> authorship issues persist. It is my contention that a sufficient
>>>>> number of anomalies surround the authorship of many works
>>>>> conventionally attributed (wholly) to William Shakespeare of
>>>>> Stratford to justify further scholarly investigation.
>>>> No. You are conflating two distinct issues.
>>>> 1. The extent and nature of Shakespeare's collaboration and
>>>> co-authorship with the other playwrights of his day.
>>>> 2. The 'authorship question': 'Whether William Shakespeare of
>>>> Stratford-upon-Avon was the playwright William Shakespeare.
>>>> The former is a legitimate area of scholarly enquiry the latter is not.
>>> In my view there is no single authorship question, there is a spectrum
>>> of positions on Will Shakespeare's involvement in the production of
>>> the plays and poems and plays which bear his name.
>> There is no spectrum. The evidence based methodologies of orthodox
>> scholars are quite different to the speculation based methodologies of
>> anti-stratfordians.
>>
> I disagree. There is indeed a spectrum.
No, you just fail to understand the difference between legitimate
evidence based historical investigation and investigation based on
speculation.
> There is no firm demarcation
> line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
I see. So you think there is no distinction between evidence based
argument and speculation? - because the lack of such a distinction is
precisely what you are arguing for.
> And even within the community
> of scholars you might be willing to recognise as orthodox, there
> exists a spectrum of opinions on William Shakespeare of Stratford's
> role in producing the plays and poems which bear his name.
Nope.
There is a spectrum of opinions within the orthodox community about
particular aspects of Shakespeare's authorship, co-authorship and
collaboration. That spectrum does not include the 'authorship debate'
(ie denial that Shakespeare was the author) because the methodology
employed by anti-stratfordians is unscholarly.
As for the
> matter of evidence and speculation, owing to the poverty of available
> factual information EVERYBODY speculates -- includng orthodox
> scholars.
Yes, and the fact that orthodox scholars do speculate is not an
objection to my argument. I have never denied orthodox scholars
speculate. What I have denied is your claim that the *speculation based*
methodologies of anti-stratfordians are essentially indistinguishable
from the *evidence based* methodologies of the orthodox.
Such as?
> It is equally inaccurate (and perhaps a little dishonest?) to insist
> that ALL Stratfordians adhere strictly to the historical record and
> always use good methodology.
>>> If John Florio was Will's source
>>> of information about Italy then one might expect a record of it in
>>> Florio's voluminous writings.
>> Why on earth would expect that?
>>
> It would seem natural, if they had forged a working relationship, for
> some sort of record to be left in letters, diaries, biographical
> footnotes, etc. Unless there was a good reason for keeping the nature
> of their relationship secret.
Given the fact that MS of the period survived only in fractional
proportions, little amongst the middle class, less amongst the
professional playwrights of the period, I fail to see how such an
expectation is natural or reasonable. Moreover your assumption that such
a record would be made is doubtful. Creation of 'letters, diaries,
biographical footnotes' would be dependent on both the particular nature
of the relationship and the personalities and temperaments of the men
involved.
Of course that Florio was a source for Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy
is only one possible hypothesis. I'll note a couple of others:
1. The 'evening mass' reference was in his source (this is reported by
Frye in Shakespeare adn Christian Doctrine- I haven;t confirmed it- the
particular source isn't named)
2. It was contained in one of the numerous books and pamphlets on Italy
that were available in England at the time. Something I wonder: exactly
how many books of the period have you read to confirm that the 'evening
mass' of Verona was not a matter of common or easily obtainable
knowledge? Or have you just accepted it as an obscure reference on
faith. A little while some (of a particular disposition) were touting
the MOV reference to 'gobbo' as evidence of Shakespeare's intimacy with
Italy- blissfully ignorant of the fact that the term was in Florio's
dictionary.
But the list *has* already been added to, *before* 'Shakespeare's
Unorthodox Biography was written: See Samuel Schoenbaum's Shakespeare: A
Documentary Life. Given this, what do you suppose the purpose of
omitting documents in the 'Unorthodox Biography' was?
Of course, it's not just for the arbitrary exclusion of documents that
cause orthodox scholars find fault, it's the partial nature in which
those documents which are in the book are interpreted. To get the gist
of what I mean I suggest you take a close look at her exposition of
jonson's 'De Shakespeare Nostrat'.
> It would not be an
> overwhelmingly difficult operation to construct an 'unfiltered' set of
> criteria and apply it to the same collection of authors. This matter
> is surely of interest to literary historians. And presumably it would
> demonstrate the inadequacy of Price's set in a convincing manner. Why
> has no Stratfordian scholar felt impelled to do so thus far?
They probably have more interesting (and important) things to contemplate.
Ign.
mylear
>
> > There is no firm demarcation
> > line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
>
> I see. So you think there is no distinction between evidence based
> argument and speculation?
>
draw this conclusion.
>
- because the lack of such a distinction is
> precisely what you are arguing for.
>
>
> > And even within the community
> > of scholars you might be willing to recognise as orthodox, there
> > exists a spectrum of opinions on William Shakespeare of Stratford's
> > role in producing the plays and poems which bear his name.
>
> Nope.
>
> There is a spectrum of opinions within the orthodox community about
> particular aspects of Shakespeare's authorship, co-authorship and
> collaboration. That spectrum does not include the 'authorship debate'
> (ie denial that Shakespeare was the author) because the methodology
> employed by anti-stratfordians is unscholarly.
>
unscholarly. An example of an anti-Stratfordian scholar is Peter
Farey,who recently won a prestigiuous prize for an extended essay
which may be accessed on his web site about Marlowe. I am very
comfortable about saying this, even though I disagree with him on an
important issue (namely his belief that Marlowe's death was faked). He
has also written an excellent, and dare I say scholarly, article -
appearing on the website of the international Marlowe-Shakespeare
society - which very effectively demolishes the Oxfordian case
(insofar as there ever existed one).
And surely I do not need to provide you with the names of self-
professed Stratfordians (some of whom inhabit this forum) who have
demonstrated a complete inability to handle, or even comprehend,
scholarly methodology.
>
> > As for the
> > matter of evidence and speculation, owing to the poverty of available
> > factual information EVERYBODY speculates -- includng orthodox
> > scholars.
>
> Yes, and the fact that orthodox scholars do speculate is not an
> objection to my argument. I have never denied orthodox scholars
> speculate. What I have denied is your claim that the *speculation based*
> methodologies of anti-stratfordians are essentially indistinguishable
> from the *evidence based* methodologies of the orthodox.
>
That is not my claim at all. It is nothing less than a gross
misrepresentation of my position.
I have already given you one example. And one example is sufficinet
for the purpose of making my case.
>
> > It is equally inaccurate (and perhaps a little dishonest?) to insist
> > that ALL Stratfordians adhere strictly to the historical record and
> > always use good methodology.
> >>> If John Florio was Will's source
> >>> of information about Italy then one might expect a record of it in
> >>> Florio's voluminous writings.
> >> Why on earth would expect that?
>
> > It would seem natural, if they had forged a working relationship, for
> > some sort of record to be left in letters, diaries, biographical
> > footnotes, etc. Unless there was a good reason for keeping the nature
> > of their relationship secret.
>
> Given the fact that MS of the period survived only in fractional
> proportions, little amongst the middle class, less amongst the
> professional playwrights of the period, I fail to see how such an
> expectation is natural or reasonable. Moreover your assumption that such
> a record would be made is doubtful. Creation of 'letters, diaries,
> biographical footnotes' would be dependent on both the particular nature
> of the relationship and the personalities and temperaments of the men
> involved.
>
As literary men, each probably would have written thousands of letters
in their lifetime. Therefore it seems strange that no letter or
fragment pertaining to this matter has survived (and in the case of
Shakespeare, no letter or note on anything, period). And
notwithstanding the high level of destruction to be expected from the
ravages of time.
>
> Of course that Florio was a source for Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy
> is only one possible hypothesis.
>
It is the hypothesis most commonly used by Stratfordians in relation
to the Italian connection.
>
> I'll note a couple of others:
> 1. The 'evening mass' reference was in his source (this is reported by
> Frye in Shakespeare adn Christian Doctrine- I haven;t confirmed it- the
> particular source isn't named)
> 2. It was contained in one of the numerous books and pamphlets on Italy
> that were available in England at the time. Something I wonder: exactly
> how many books of the period have you read to confirm that the 'evening
> mass' of Verona was not a matter of common or easily obtainable
> knowledge?
>
It's common knowledge today that evening Mass was not a common
practice in Italy at the time; there are many scholarly articles
pertaining to it, easily accessed from the web. If you are sincere
about this matter, and cannot access this material for any reason, I
will undertake to provide you with the links.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
ignoto
Is that so. Then perhaps you can tell me which of these authors bears
out your argument.
-Are there any tales from the Greeks about the remarkable fecundity of
mind of the young Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides? Not of which I am
aware.
-Vergil: Education unknown: "Macrobius says that Virgil's father was of
a humble background; however scholars generally believe that he was from
an equestrian landowning family which could afford to give him an
education" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil)
-Chaucer: "Little information exists about Chaucer's education"
(http://www.gradesaver.com/author/geoffrey-chaucer/)
-Webster: Probably the second greatest dramatic poet of the English
renaissance after Shakespeare. Scholarship to university? No.
-Harold Pinter: Scholarship to university? No.
So, just like Shakespeare, there is no record of any of the above
authors being singled out as gifted when very young. Therefore,
according to your 'logic' as they were all in their late 20s or older
"before the world first became aware of [their] talents", they were all
late developers. Correct?
> Those who do not are an exception to the rule.
Literary genius requires both natural ability and life experience. There
is no such thing as a juvenile literary genius.
> It
> might be that Shakespeare was one of the those exceptions.
Nobody alive knows what literary talent Shakespeare exhibited at an
early age. His talent could have been suppressed, ignored or gone
unnoticed for any number of reasons.
> The breadth
> and depth of his works, even his early works,
> suggest that he had a
> lot of ground to make up over a relatively short time span.
So, you think works like 'The Comedy of Errors', 'Two Gentlemen of
Verona' and 'Henry VI' are works of 'breadth and depth'?
Ign.
>
> JH
>
>
>
>
>
mylear
from being an exhaustive list):
Edward de Vere, Christopher Marlowe, Alexander Pope, John Stuart Mill,
Harold Bloom, Lope de Vega, Thomas Chatterton, Dnyaneshwar, Maulvi
Ghulam Rasool, H. P. Lovecraft, William Cullen Bryant, Ervin Hatibi,
Amadeus Mozart, Franz Schubert, Felix Mendelssohn, Franz Liszt,
Frederick Chopin, Camille Saint-Saens, Serge Prokofieff, Georges
Bizet, Gian Menotti, Nicolo Paganini, Julian Scriabin, Samuel Barber,
Claudio Arrau, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, David Oistrakh,
Ruggiero Ricci, Morton Gould, Lorin Maazel, Daniel Barenboim, Michael
Jackson, Shirley Temple, Jackie Cooper, Tatum O'Neal, Pablo Picasso,
John Everett Millais, Albrecht Durer, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Jeremy
Bentham, Thomas Young, Bobby Fischer, José Raúl Capablanca
>
> -Are there any tales from the Greeks about the remarkable fecundity of
> mind of the young Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides? Not of which I am
> aware.
>
> -Vergil: Education unknown: "Macrobius says that Virgil's father was of
> a humble background; however scholars generally believe that he was from
> an equestrian landowning family which could afford to give him an
> education" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil)
>
They lived a long time ago. How far back in history do you need to go
to make a point?
>
> -Chaucer: "Little information exists about Chaucer's education"
> (http://www.gradesaver.com/author/geoffrey-chaucer/)
>
I noticed that Chaucer first appears in public records in 1357 as a
member of the house of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster. This was a
conventional arrangement in which sons of middle-class households were
placed in royal service so that they could obtain a courtly
education. Thats a lot more than we know about the education of
William Shakespeare of Stratford.
>
> -Webster: Probably the second greatest dramatic poet of the English
> renaissance after Shakespeare. Scholarship to university? No.
>
> -Harold Pinter: Scholarship to university? No.
>
> So, just like Shakespeare, there is no record of any of the above
> authors being singled out as gifted when very young. Therefore,
> according to your 'logic' as they were all in their late 20s or older
> "before the world first became aware of [their] talents", they were all
> late developers. Correct?
>
> > Those who do not are an exception to the rule.
>
> Literary genius requires both natural ability and life experience. There
> is no such thing as a juvenile literary genius.
>
The following were juvenile literary prodigies:
Edward de Vere
Christopher Marlowe
Lope de Vega
Alexander Pope
John Stuart Mill
Harold Bloom
>
Dominic Hughes
Christopher Marlowe's first play was Dido Queen of Carthage, probably
written some time between 1587-1593. Since he was born in 1564, he
was 23-29 years old when he wrote the play. He attended The King's
School, Canterbury (where a house is now named after him) and Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge on a scholarship that was to prepare him
for a life in the church.
Alexander Pope's first literary effort was his 'Pastorals', published
in 1709, when he would have been 21 years of age.
John Stuart Mill
I’m not sure if Mill can be called a juvenile prodigy or if he wasn’t
the result of an experiment in educational engineering, all of which
caused him to have a nervous breakdown at age 20. His father set out
with the explicit purpose to create a genius intellect that would
carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after he
and Jeremy Bentham were dead. John Stuart was educated by his father,
with the advice and assistance of Bentham and Francis Place. He was
given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded
from association with children his own age other than his siblings.
There is no doubt he was brilliant, but would he have shown himself to
be a child prodigy if not for his father’s master plan.
Harold Bloom
What records do we have that Bloom was a juvenile prodigy? He was
well-read as a juvenile but what demonstrates that he was a prodigy?
Lope de Vega A definite child prodigy.
Edward de Vere:
What literary efforts or "good records" do we have that establish that
Edward de Vere was, in fact, a juvenile prodigy?
Dom
ignoto
I said juvenile literary genius. Which of the authors produced a work of
literary *genius* before the age of 14?
Ign.
ignoto
> the result of an experiment in educational engineering, all of which
> caused him to have a nervous breakdown at age 20. His father set out
> with the explicit purpose to create a genius intellect that would
> carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after he
> and Jeremy Bentham were dead. John Stuart was educated by his father,
> with the advice and assistance of Bentham and Francis Place. He was
> given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded
> from association with children his own age other than his siblings.
> There is no doubt he was brilliant, but would he have shown himself to
>
> Harold Bloom
> What records do we have that Bloom was a juvenile prodigy? He was
> well-read as a juvenile but what demonstrates that he was a prodigy?
>
> Lope de Vega A definite child prodigy.
>
> Edward de Vere:
> What literary efforts or "good records" do we have that establish that
> Edward de Vere was, in fact, a juvenile prodigy?
The ambiguous report of his tutor: 'i can teach him no more'
Ign.
> Dom
>
ignoto
Make that:
"my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required" (Nowell)
Ign.
> Ign.
>
>> Dom
>>
Dominic Hughes
> > the result of an experiment in educational engineering, all of which
> > caused him to have a nervous breakdown at age 20. His father set out
> > with the explicit purpose to create a genius intellect that would
> > carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after he
> > and Jeremy Bentham were dead. John Stuart was educated by his father,
> > with the advice and assistance of Bentham and Francis Place. He was
> > given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded
> > from association with children his own age other than his siblings.
> > There is no doubt he was brilliant, but would he have shown himself to
>
> > Harold Bloom
> > What records do we have that Bloom was a juvenile prodigy? He was
> > well-read as a juvenile but what demonstrates that he was a prodigy?
>
> > Lope de Vega A definite child prodigy.
>
> > Edward de Vere:
> > What literary efforts or "good records" do we have that establish that
> > Edward de Vere was, in fact, a juvenile prodigy?
>
> The ambiguous report of his tutor: 'i can teach him no more'
>
> Ign.
>
That is the only record I could recall but it doesn't show that
Oxenforde was, in fact, a "juvenile literary prodigy". There must be
more "good records" to make the case than that report.
Dom
Dom
mylear
Francis Bacon:
Francis Bacon was educated at home in his early years owing to poor
health (which plagued him throughout his life), receiving tuition from
John Walsall, a graduate of Oxford with a strong leaning towards
Puritanism. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, on 5 April 1573 at
the age of twelve, living for three years there together with his
older brother Anthony under the personal tutelage of Dr John Whitgift,
future Archbishop of Canterbury.
Christopher Marlowe:
Christopher Marlowe came from a humble background and received
scholarships to attend the prestigious King's School, Canterbury and
later at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge which he entered at age 17.
He received his BA in 1584 (age 20) and his MA in 1587 (age 23).
Scholars believe his very successful play Tamburlaine (part 1) was
written in 1587, probably while he was still at Cambridge.
Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford):
On 14 November 1558, at eight years of age, Edward de Vere
matriculated at Queens' College, Cambridge. His tutors included Thomas
Fowle of St John's College, Cambridge, a classical scholar and
diplomat, Sir Thomas Smith, and Laurence Nowell, one of the founding
fathers of Anglo-Saxon studies (his tutor in 1563). It has been
speculated that he was taught Latin by his maternal uncle, Arthur
Golding. In 1564 and 1566, de Vere was awarded a BA by the University
of Cambridge (age 14) and an MA from the University of Oxford (age
16). On 1 Feb 1566 he was admitted to Gray's Inn.
Alexander Pope:
Alexander Pope was a child prodigy as a poet, with gifts all but
universally acknowledged. He was taught to read by his aunt, then
went to Twyford School in about 1698, followed by two Catholic schools
in London. Such schools, while illegal, were tolerated in some areas.
His formal education ended at age 12, and from then on he mostly
educated himself by reading the works of classical writers such as
Horace, Juvenal, Homer and Virgil, as well as English authors such as
Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dryden. He also studied many languages and
read works by English, French, Italian, Latin, and Greek poets.
John Stuart Mill:
At age eight, John Stuart Mill he began learning Latin, Euclid, and
algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the
family. His main reading was history, but he went through all the
commonly taught Latin and Greek authors and by age ten could read
Plato and Demosthenes with ease. He also composed poetry, and one of
his earliest compositions was a continuation of the Iliad. In his
spare time, he enjoyed reading about natural sciences and popular
novels. At age twelve, he began a thorough study of the scholastic
logic, reading Aristotle's logical treatises in the original language.
In the following year he was introduced to political economy and
studied Adam Smith and David Ricardo. At age fourteen he attended
winter courses at Montpellier on chemistry, zoology, logic and higher
mathematics at the Faculté des Sciences.
Harold Bloom:
Bloom claims that as a child he went to the Melrose branch of the New
York Public Library and borrowed the works of Hart Crane, T. S. Eliot,
Auden, William Blake, and Shakespeare. He claims that: "I memorized
almost instinctively all of [William Blake's] long poems. I went from
Blake to Milton and from Milton to Shakespeare...I read my way through
the Melrose library. I am probably the largest monster of reading I
have ever known. I can read at a shocking rate and I can remember
nearly everything." In the 1940's, at the Fordham library, Bloom would
"ransack" the large and complex dictionaries and concordances. M. H.
Abrams, Bloom's advisor at Cornell, describes him during his
undergraduate years as "[A] formidable person. He was a prodigy,
beyond anything I'd ever seen -- and there was never anyone since who
came close."
JH
mylear
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I only claimed was that people regarded as being in the genius
category (literary or otherwise) usually show signs of their aptitude
at an early age. Once again, you have twisted and misrepresented what
I said.
I might add that the examples I gave omitted scientists and
mathematicians.
JH
mylear
> Recorded Early education
>
> Christopher Marlowe:
> Christopher Marlowe came from a humble background and received
> scholarships to attend the prestigious King's School, Canterbury and
> later at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge which he entered at age 17.
> He received his BA in 1584 (age 20) and his MA in 1587 (age 23).
> Scholars believe his very successful play Tamburlaine (part 1) was
> written in 1587, probably while he was still at Cambridge.
>
translations of Ovid's Elegies and Lucan's Pharsalia. These
translations were eventually published.
JH
ignoto
As the degrees Oxford received from Cambridge and Oxford were honorary
they can hardly be said to count as 'recorded early education'.
Ign.
>
> Alexander Pope:
> Alexander Pope was a child prodigy as a poet, with gifts all but
> universally acknowledged. He was taught to read by his aunt, then
> went to Twyford School in about 1698, followed by two Catholic schools
> in London. Such schools, while illegal, were tolerated in some areas.
> His formal education ended at age 12, and from then on he mostly
> educated himself by reading the works of classical writers such as
> Horace, Juvenal, Homer and Virgil, as well as English authors such as
> Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dryden. He also studied many languages and
> read works by English, French, Italian, Latin, and Greek poets.
>
> John Stuart Mill:
> At age eight, John Stuart Mill he began learning Latin, Euclid, and
> algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the
> family. His main reading was history, but he went through all the
> commonly taught Latin and Greek authors and by age ten could read
> Plato and Demosthenes with ease. He also composed poetry, and one of
> his earliest compositions was a continuation of the Iliad. In his
> spare time, he enjoyed reading about natural sciences and popular
> novels. At age twelve, he began a thorough study of the scholastic
> logic, reading Aristotle's logical treatises in the original language.
> In the following year he was introduced to political economy and
> studied Adam Smith and David Ricardo. At age fourteen he attended
> winter courses at Montpellier on chemistry, zoology, logic and higher
> mathematics at the Facult� des Sciences.
Dominic Hughes
> Recorded Early education
>
> Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford):
> On 14 November 1558, at eight years of age, Edward de Vere
> matriculated at Queens' College, Cambridge. His tutors included Thomas
> Fowle of St John's College, Cambridge, a classical scholar and
> diplomat, Sir Thomas Smith, and Laurence Nowell, one of the founding
> fathers of Anglo-Saxon studies (his tutor in 1563). It has been
> speculated that he was taught Latin by his maternal uncle, Arthur
> Golding. In 1564 and 1566, de Vere was awarded a BA by the University
> of Cambridge (age 14) and an MA from the University of Oxford (age
> 16). On 1 Feb 1566 he was admitted to Gray's Inn.
Wikipedia is your friend.
So how does any of that show that Lord Oxenforde was a "juvenile
literary prodigy"?
Dom
Dominic Hughes
I forgot to add:
Edward matriculated in Cambridge Universiry at the age of eight-and-a-
half (not surprising for the son of an earl), but remained less than a
year (five months?), and never received an earned degree from either
Cambridge or Oxford.
This is from an Oxenfordian website:
[[ Fowle’s biography as shown by his alma mater, St. John’s (Venn and
C.H. Cooper) shows him as Senior Fellow from January 4, 1559 to 1560,
as Senior Dean from January 7, 1559 to 1560, and again from January
14, 1560 to 1561. His appointments to one rectorship after another at
small towns in the vicinity of Norwich begin in March 1559, and
continue until 1581. These dates suggest that he was involved at the
university during the five months that de Vere was enrolled there.
That the same month that de Vere’s name leaves the records, Fowle
takes a rector’s post 50 miles northeast of Cambridge, suggests that
his duties for de Vere were over.
It’s true that such offices were often sinecures, allowing their
holders to follow more interesting or rewarding endeavors, but this
was no more true of these offices than it was of annuities or any
other of the multitude of ways in which Elizbethans of all ranks
created their networks of support and clientage.
Other than the months at Cambridge during de Vere’s four or five month
stay in 1558-59, the record does not show that Fowle resided with or
near him at any other time or location. Until more evidence to the
contrary appears, we can take Fowle as a minor influence on Edward
(though one is tempted to see him as Hubert in King John).
De Vere was one of a handful of youngsters enrolled at Cambridge as an
impubes, an underage scholar, that winter. Although these boys were
supposed to be studying with a tutor, they were not required to attend
lectures or disputations with the undergraduates, where, in fact, they
would probably not have been welcome. In all likelihood, they were
there less to study than to keep them out of harms way, having, for
any one of a number of reasons, nowhere else to go.
On the face of it, these five months at Cambridge during the winter of
1558-1559 could not have been a happy time in the nine-year-old’s
life. ]]
http://politicworm.com/oxford/a-taste-of-university-life/
Under these circumstances, matriculation at Cambridge doesn't look
like what we might assume it to mean, or even anything all that
special.
So where are all the "good records" that young Eddie was a "juvenile
literary prodigy"?
Dom
ignoto
>>>> -Are there any tales from the Greeks about the remarkable fecundity of
>>>> mind of the young Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides? Not of which I am
>>>> aware.
>>>> -Vergil: Education unknown: "Macrobius says that Virgil's father was of
>>>> a humble background; however scholars generally believe that he was from
>>>> an equestrian landowning family which could afford to give him an
>>>> education" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil)
>>> They lived a long time ago. How far back in history do you need to go
>>> to make a point?
>>>> -Chaucer: "Little information exists about Chaucer's education"
>>>> (http://www.gradesaver.com/author/geoffrey-chaucer/)
>>> I noticed that Chaucer first appears in public records in 1357 as a
>>> member of the house of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster. This was a
>>> conventional arrangement in which sons of middle-class households were
>>> placed in royal service so that they could obtain a courtly
>>> education.
> Thats a lot more than we know about the education of
>>> William Shakespeare of Stratford.
The record (found only by chance in the binding of a book.) shows that
Chaucer was a page in then house of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster at the
age of 17. When he went there and what he learnt is unknown.
As for Shakespeare, it has already been pointed out that there are no
records of attendance at the stratford school until the year 1700. The
evidence for his attendance is therefore circumstantial: Shakespeare's
works show a strong familiarity with the rhetorical curriculum taught
grammar schools; he was entitled to attend the school free of charge;
Jonson's phrase 'small latin and less greek' describes the kind of
knowledge one would expect the graduate of a grammar school to have, etc.
Now, before you complain that this is only a circumstantial case, I will
remind you that as there are no records of attendance at the school, the
evidence for anyone attending it will be, in the absence of direct
evidence, circumstantial.
You claimed that most people in the genius category showed aptitude at
an early age and that because there is no record of Shakespeare showing
aptitude at an early age he should be considered at late bloomer. I then
pointed out that for very many people who have produced works of
literary genius there is *no record* of aptitude at an early age.
I then said that there is, in any case, no such thing as a juvenile
literary genius- literary genius requiring both talent and experience.
To which you responded with a list of 'juvenile literary prodigies'. A
list which I rejected because they were only prodigies, who, having
produced no works of genius cannot be considered to be 'juvenile
literary geniuses'. IOW you are equate genius with 'aptitude', I equate
it with the production of actual works.
The fact is that most people who show aptitude at an early age do not go
on to produce works of genius (how many of your scholarship holders to
Cambridge and oxford went on to produce significant works of
literature); while many people who do not show aptitude at an early age
(or who are not known to have shown aptitude at an early age) go on to
produce works of genius.
IOW aptitude at an early age is neither a necessary or sufficient
condition for the production of works of literary genius.
The issue of whether Shakespeare showed any aptitude at an early age is
therefore not only unknowable, but redundant. The fact is that
irrespective of his early life he went on to produce a significant body
of work.
Ign.
mylear
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you Dominic. This all sounds plausible and I accept what you
have provided in good faith. I only repeated what my sources told me
about de Vere.
JH
ignoto
So you keep saying, but from what you write it is apparent that you do not.
>>> There is no firm demarcation
>>> line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
>> I see. So you think there is no distinction between evidence based
>> argument and speculation?
>>
> Where did you get this idea from? I have given you no valid reason to
> draw this conclusion.
You have indeed given reason. You rejected my distinction between
orthodox, evidence based methodologies and anti-stratfordian speculative
methodologies, insisting instead that they were all part of the same
'spectrum'.
> - because the lack of such a distinction is
>> precisely what you are arguing for.
>>
> No it is not.
Insofar as you see no distinction between orthodox and anti-stratfordian
methodologies, it is exactly what you are arguing for. Of course that
you do not believe you are arguing for such a position, does not show
that you are not arguing for it, only that you do not understand what
you are actually arguing for.
>>> And even within the community
>>> of scholars you might be willing to recognise as orthodox, there
>>> exists a spectrum of opinions on William Shakespeare of Stratford's
>>> role in producing the plays and poems which bear his name.
>> Nope.
>>
>> There is a spectrum of opinions within the orthodox community about
>> particular aspects of Shakespeare's authorship, co-authorship and
>> collaboration. That spectrum does not include the 'authorship debate'
>> (ie denial that Shakespeare was the author) because the methodology
>> employed by anti-stratfordians is unscholarly.
>>
> I disagree with your assertion that ALL anti-Stratfordians are
> unscholarly. An example of an anti-Stratfordian scholar is Peter
> Farey,who recently won a prestigiuous prize for an extended essay
> which may be accessed on his web site about Marlowe.
Perhaps you can point out to me which of the following arguments (from
that paper) are not speculative:
* First, that Shakespeare's monument at Stratford can be read as a
riddle saying that Christopher Marlowe is somehow 'in' the monument with
Shakespeare, and that the probability of this possible interpretation
appearing just by chance is as near to zero as makes no difference.
* Second, that the most likely single explanation for the many
anomalies surrounding Marlowe's apparent death at Deptford is that it
was actually faked, using a substitute body, and that Marlowe was
instead sent into exile with a changed identity.
* Third, that there is no difference between the styles of Marlowe
and Shakespeare which cannot be perfectly well explained by the passage
of time, or by the various changed circumstances which Marlowe - had he
survived 1593 - almost certainly experienced.
* Fourth, that the many difficulties found in relating the Sonnets
to what we know of Shakespeare's life disappear if we examine very
carefully what they actually say, and assume that it was really a
surviving Christopher Marlowe who wrote them.
* Finally, that the 'Mr W.H.' mystery is solved if we assume 'W.H.'
to have been the initials of the name under which he was living in May
1609, and that the 'well-wishing adventurer' - who had the Sonnets
published by Thomas Thorpe as a gift to the poet - was one of the two
highest ranking 'adventurers' (i.e. Southampton and Pembroke) on the
council of the Virginia Company, which was granted its charter just
three days after the Sonnets were registered.
(http://www.marlowe-society.org/news/news2008/news2008_002_fareyhoffman.html)
> I am very
> comfortable about saying this, even though I disagree with him on an
> important issue (namely his belief that Marlowe's death was faked). He
> has also written an excellent, and dare I say scholarly, article -
> appearing on the website of the international Marlowe-Shakespeare
> society - which very effectively demolishes the Oxfordian case
> (insofar as there ever existed one).
I don't think individual anti-stratfordians are incapable of writing
scholarly articles. I do think the arguments used by anti-stratfordians
to reject the orthodox attribution are sophistic, speculative and
unscholarly.
>
> And surely I do not need to provide you with the names of self-
> professed Stratfordians (some of whom inhabit this forum) who have
> demonstrated a complete inability to handle, or even comprehend,
> scholarly methodology.
Yes, some 'stratfordians' are not scholarly, but this does not change
the fact that the arguments used by anti-stratfordians to reject the
orthodox attribution are sophistic and speculative.
>>> As for the
>>> matter of evidence and speculation, owing to the poverty of available
>>> factual information EVERYBODY speculates -- includng orthodox
>>> scholars.
>> Yes, and the fact that orthodox scholars do speculate is not an
>> objection to my argument. I have never denied orthodox scholars
>> speculate. What I have denied is your claim that the *speculation based*
>> methodologies of anti-stratfordians are essentially indistinguishable
>> from the *evidence based* methodologies of the orthodox.
>>
> That is not my claim at all. It is nothing less than a gross
> misrepresentation of my position.
Is that so. I spelled out a distinction between orthodox evidence based
methodology and anti-stratfordian speculative methodology. You denied
this distinction.
Yes, you have just furnished an example above. You sound indignant. Am I
supposed to be able to read your mind and predict what you will do
before you have done it?
No, it is not:
"Most of the professional dramatists of the time are in exactly the
same position as ... Shakespeare. There are no records to connect
them with authorship, not even a letter to show that they had anything
to do with books and writing."
"The Shakespeare Claimants", H. N. Gibson wrote.
>> Of course that Florio was a source for Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy
>> is only one possible hypothesis.
>>
> It is the hypothesis most commonly used by Stratfordians in relation
> to the Italian connection.
>> I'll note a couple of others:
>> 1. The 'evening mass' reference was in his source (this is reported by
>> Frye in Shakespeare adn Christian Doctrine- I haven;t confirmed it- the
>> particular source isn't named)
>> 2. It was contained in one of the numerous books and pamphlets on Italy
>> that were available in England at the time. Something I wonder: exactly
>> how many books of the period have you read to confirm that the 'evening
>> mass' of Verona was not a matter of common or easily obtainable
>> knowledge?
>>
> It's common knowledge today that evening Mass was not a common
> practice in Italy at the time; there are many scholarly articles
> pertaining to it, easily accessed from the web. If you are sincere
> about this matter, and cannot access this material for any reason, I
> will undertake to provide you with the links.
No, I'm asking YOU what background reading YOU have done in the primary
adn secondary literature to ascertain whether it was common knowledge
during the 1590s.
Ign.
mylear
You claimed that most people in the genius category showed aptitude
at
an early age and that because there is no record of Shakespeare
showing
aptitude at an early age he should be considered at late bloomer. I
then
pointed out that for very many people who have produced works of
literary genius there is *no record* of aptitude at an early age.
But for those cases where educational
and anecdotal records exist, I believe
the correlation is valid.
I then said that there is, in any case, no such thing as a juvenile
literary genius- literary genius requiring both talent and
experience.
To which you responded with a list of 'juvenile literary prodigies'.
A
list which I rejected because they were only prodigies, who, having
produced no works of genius cannot be considered to be 'juvenile
literary geniuses'. IOW you are equate genius with 'aptitude', I
equate
it with the production of actual works.
You introduced the expression 'juvenile
literary genius', I only used the word
prodigy, meaning a young person with
prodigious talent. If it was not clear to
you that I was using the word genius
in relation to adults, please allow me
to correct your misunderstanding now.
The fact is that most people who show aptitude at an early age do not
go
on to produce works of genius (how many of your scholarship holders
to
Cambridge and oxford went on to produce significant works of
literature); while many people who do not show aptitude at an early
age
(or who are not known to have shown aptitude at an early age) go on
to
produce works of genius.
IOW aptitude at an early age is neither a necessary or sufficient
condition for the production of works of literary genius.
So what? That is not relevant to the
correlation I have pointed out - that
those adults recognised as possessing
genius usually (ie, the majority) display
prodigious talent as children and/or
teenagers.
The issue of whether Shakespeare showed any aptitude at an early age
is
therefore not only unknowable, but redundant. The fact is that
irrespective of his early life he went on to produce a significant
body
of work.
It is certainly 'knowable' if appropriate
records were to show up. Such records
would not be without significance, as
their existence would strengthen the
Stratfordian version of how and why the
plays and poems bear William's name.
JH
mylear
> Perhaps you can point out to me which of the following arguments (from that paper) are not speculative (etc ..)
I did not claim that Peter's paper is free
from speculation. I said he uses scholarly
methods and has scholarly habits.
Moreover it is no exaggeration to say that
those who undertake to write a biography
about William Shakespeare almost always
feel obliged to speculate endlessly, owing
to the extreme paucity of hard evidence
of his literary activity or literary associations.
JH
Dominic Hughes
You're welcome. Thank you as well -- in examining this question I
discovered a good number things I had not known before.
Dom
mylear
1. Asking interesting questions which address important issues and/or
challenge existing beliefs.
2. Generating new knowledge. New knowledge changes the way individuals
think about a problem or solve a vexing conundrum.
3. Sound empirics. Whether scholars measure or manipulate constructs,
it is important that these constructs accurately reflect underlying
conceptual variables. Careful scholarship establishes causal
relationships by disentangling confounds, ruling-out competing
explanations, and maintaining internal consistency.
4. Generating implications. Good scholarship has implications for
theory, practice, or both.
5. Finally, good scholarship is broadly disseminated and widely
consumed.
(extracted from the Harvard Business School working paper “On Good
Scholarship, Goal Setting, and Scholars Gone Wild”; published 20 May,
2009)
JH
Peter Farey
"ignoto" wrote:
>
> > "mylear" wrote:
> >
> > I never understood this remark made by Jonson. It does not seem
> > consistent with the works. I suppose "small" by todays standards
> > is, as you say, not the same as "small" by Jonson's standards.
>
> Right.
And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse Greeke,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seeke
For names;
If the addressee is dead, as most people would see it, 'though'
means 'even though' and 'thou hadst' is past indicative. In this
case the meaning would be something like "even though you had
small Latin and less Greek...". In other words this *is* true
of the addressee if this was the dead Shakespeare.
If, on the other hand, it is being addressed to someone who
is still alive (as I think Marlowe must have been), then the
whole meaning changes. 'Though' now means 'even if', 'hadst'
becomes present subjunctive, and the meaning would now be
"even if you had small Latin and less Greek...". In other
words this is *not* true of the addressee, if this was
Marlowe and he was still alive.
I think that he was being particularly clever.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Peter Farey
"ignoto" wrote:
>
> "mylear" wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your assertion that ALL anti-Stratfordians are
> > unscholarly. An example of an anti-Stratfordian scholar is Peter
> > Farey,who recently won a prestigiuous prize for an extended essay
> > which may be accessed on his web site about Marlowe.
Thanks, John.
> Perhaps you can point out to me which of the following arguments
> (from that paper) are not speculative:
>
> * First, that Shakespeare's monument at Stratford can be
> read as a riddle saying that Christopher Marlowe is somehow 'in'
> the monument with Shakespeare, and that the probability of this
> possible interpretation appearing just by chance is as near to
> zero as makes no difference.
> * Second, that the most likely single explanation for the
> many anomalies surrounding Marlowe's apparent death at Dept-
> ford is that it was actually faked, using a substitute body, and
> that Marlowe was instead sent into exile with a changed identity.
> * Third, that there is no difference between the styles of
> Marlowe and Shakespeare which cannot be perfectly well explained
> by the passage of time, or by the various changed circumstances
> which Marlowe - had he survived 1593 - almost certainly exper-
> ienced.
> * Fourth, that the many difficulties found in relating the
> Sonnets to what we know of Shakespeare's life disappear if we
> examine very carefully what they actually say, and assume that
> it was really a surviving Christopher Marlowe who wrote them.
> * Finally, that the 'Mr W.H.' mystery is solved if we assume
> 'W.H.' to have been the initials of the name under which he was
> living in May 1609, and that the 'well-wishing adventurer' - who
> had the Sonnets published by Thomas Thorpe as a gift to the poet
> - was one of the two highest ranking 'adventurers' (i.e. South-
> ampton and Pembroke) on the council of the Virginia Company,
> which was granted its charter just three days after the Sonnets
> were registered.
No, Nigel, none of these is "speculative" in the way you would like
us to understand the word - simply wild ideas picked out of the air
and based upon nothing more than a desire to sell a predetermined
solution.
Each of them is a conclusion arrived at by way of inductive logic
which offers a better solution to a perceved problem than any other
suggested solution. The only place where speculation inevitably
comes into this is in coming up with various possible solutions,
from amongst which one must choose the most logical answer.
Look again at each of the above, and you will see that what I was
offering is an answer to a perceived problem. Look at the body of
my essay, and you will see the logical process by which I arrived at
each of them. By all means accuse me of being wrong (although I'd
naturally like to know why you think I am) but please don't just
dismiss my conclusions as simply speculative (or even worse as
"unscholarly" as your remarks in answer to John's clearly implied).
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/hoffman.htm> is the direct link to
the article.
Paul Crowley
> And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse
> Greeke, From thence to honour thee, I would not
> seeke For names;
>
> If the addressee is dead, as most people would see
> it,
It is absurd to suggest that Jonson was,
with this phrase, seeking to indicate that
'Shake-speare' was still alive. This is an
encomium, made after the death of the
subject, and that he is dead (or, if you like,
"supposed to be dead") is apparent from
numerous phrases, and from the whole
tone.
> 'though' means 'even though' and 'thou hadst'
> is past indicative. In this case the meaning would
> be something like "even though you had small Latin
> and less Greek...". In other words this *is* true
> of the addressee if this was the dead Shakespeare.
>
> If, on the other hand, it is being addressed to
> someone who is still alive (as I think Marlowe must
> have been), then the whole meaning changes.
Much of the encomium _IS_ in the present tense.
See: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/benshake.htm
The applause ! delight ! the wonder of our stage!
My SHAKSPEARE rise ! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room :
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still while thy book doth live
And we have wits to read, and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportioned Muses :
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
>From thence to honour thee, I would not seek
For names : but call forth thund'ring Aeschylus,
[..]
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James !
But stay, I see thee in the hemisphere
Advanced, and made a constellation there !
Shine forth, thou Star of Poets, and with rage
Or influence, chide or cheer the drooping stage,
Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourned like night,
And despairs day, but for thy volume's light.
> 'Though' now means 'even if'
' Though ' can mean ' even if ' without
any supposition that the poet is still
alive.
> 'hadst' becomes present subjunctive, and the
> meaning would now be "even if you had small
> latin and less greek...". In other words this is
> *not* true of the addressee, if this was Marlowe
> and he was still alive.
Since much of the encomium is in the
present tense, it was fairly easy for
Jonson to insert a phrase in a subjunctive
present tense (introduced by a 'though':
> I think that he was being particularly clever.
He was, indeed. The 'though' was meant to
be read by the mob as introducing a simple
statement of fact, applying to the barely-
educated Stratman, but with better informed
readers understanding it in a different way:
" Yea, though I walk through the valley of the
shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou
art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort
me."
Ps 23:4
" Though I speak with the tongues of men and of
angels, and have not charity, I am become as
sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
" And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and
though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
" And though I bestow all my goods to feed the
poor, and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. "
1 Corinthians 13
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> It is perhaps not too surprising that so many theories abound on the
> issue of Shakespearean authorship, when one considers the following
> conjunction of facts:
>
> (a) the plays and poems represent the pinnacle of renaissance
> literature,
> (b) they display immense learning and experience of life, including
> european customs - especially Italy,
> (c) there exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education,
And this is why there will always be an authorship issue: because
there will always be people incapable of learning, only of being
taught, who therefore cannot believe anyone can create works of genius
with little or no formal education.
> (d) it is highly unlikely that Will had any opportunity to travel
> abroad,
> (e) there exists no literary paper trail for Will,
> (f) for whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> be those of a highly literate man,
> (f) apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> him in a literary context.
These other points simply show how completely blocked to sanity about
the authorship issue rigidnikry, the main cause of anti-
Stratfordianism (because rigidnikry, among other things, prevents one
from learning), makes anti-Stratfordians.
> These are all legitimate issues for discussion, not to be avoided or
> swept under the carpet.
>
> John Hermann
They are not legitimate issues for discussion; nonetheless, they have
not been swept under any carpets, but shown beyond reasonable doubt to
be moronic.
--Bob G.
ignoto
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
>> And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse
>> Greeke, From thence to honour thee, I would not
>> seeke For names;
>>
>> If the addressee is dead, as most people would see
>> it,
>
> It is absurd to suggest that Jonson was,
> with this phrase, seeking to indicate that
> 'Shake-speare' was still alive. This is an
> encomium, made after the death of the
> subject, and that he is dead (or, if you like,
> "supposed to be dead") is apparent from
> numerous phrases, and from the whole
> tone.
The subject of the encomium is clearly given by the title: "To the
Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare and What He
hath Left Us", ie "the following verse is written in the memory of the
Mr William Shakespeare and his works." 'Mr' here contextualises the
subject as a gentleman, a title which William Shakespeare of Stratford
is known to have held. Furthermore, as Crowley says, the numerous
phrases and the whole tone of the poem make it clear that the author is
dead and will write no more.
The perverse reading (against the plain meaning of the text) that 'the
real author is still alive' is made possible by two things. Firstly the
ambiguities inherent in any natural language. Secondly, the assumption
that the real author is indeed still alive (if one does not make this
assumption there is no warrant for reading against the plain meaning of
the text). As the perverse reading assumes the 'real author' was still
alive it cannot be used to prove the 'real author' was still alive.
So, sure it's *possible* to interpret the text as addressed to a 'real
author' who is still alive, just as it's possible to interpret the text
as secretly addressed to Oxford. But the question to be asked when
interpreting a text is not whether a particular interpretation is
possible, but whether an interpretation is justified. IOW unless someone
can come up with some actual evidence that Marlowe was still alive and
used 'Mr William Shakespeare' as a pseudonym or Oxford was still alive
and used 'Mr William Shakespeare' as a pseudonym or Bacon used used 'Mr
William Shakespeare' as a pseudonym then the best interpretation remains
that the encomium was addressed "To the ... Author, Mr. William
Shakespeare".
Ign.
lackpurity
MM:
Now, that is scholarly, not just indulging in fantasies. Reasonable
individuals will not accept a rewriting of history based on
fantasies. They (Various Anti-Strats) will try to blur the difference
between evidence and fantasy, or even between orthodoxy and
heterodoxy. They will even try to convince us that guessing, or
conjecture, is scholarly.
Michael Martin
> > Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John W Kennedy
> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people with
> TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
I spent 14 hours Tuesday working a signature station for the elections,
in a town with an annual per-capita income of $72,689. Few of the
hundreds of signatures that I saw were legible. A good many looked more
like snippets of Arabic or Gregg shorthand than any imaginable form of
the Latin alphabet.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"
art
>>
>> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
>> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people with
>> TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I spent 14 hours Tuesday working a signature station for the elections,
> in a town with an annual per-capita income of $72,689.
Snob!
John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Few of the hundreds of signatures that I saw were legible.
> A good many looked more like snippets of Arabic
> or Gregg shorthand than any imaginable form of
> the Latin alphabet.
There is a difference between:
1) a signature that is illegible because it is written in a rushed
flourish
http://www.annakoren.com/signature1.html
http://www.annakoren.com/signature2.html
http://www.purplehousepress.com/sig.htm
and
2) a signature that is illegible because it is scratched out painfully
slowly.
http://home.att.net/~tleary/sigs.htm
Art Neuendorffer
Brad Filippone
To address a couple of points made.
1. "There exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education, "
Why would there have to be. We know he was given a basic eduction.
It's not a stretch to believe that he learned to read. With literacy,
a whole world would be opened up to him. To use a modern example, my
knowledge of the theater of his time would be extremely limited indeed
if it only included what I learned in school. That brief instruction
got me interested and I learned an immense amount through reading
after my formal education. Similarly, my great interests in other
topics, such as chess, and British history to name only two were fed
completely by my own desire to learn more. Surely Shakespeare had
that same option open to him? He could read Holinshed, for example
and Plutarch. He could learn of other countries and could therefore
write plays set in them without having to actually visit them.
2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
at all.
3. For whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
be those of a highly literate man,
I'M certainly literate, and yet MY signature is an absolute mess! Are
doctors who write perscription illiterate because of poor penmanship?
Ever examine a facsimale of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript? Not one
of the five hands is easily legible! Why complain about a few
signature scrawls?
4. Apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
him in a literary context.
Do those making this claim even bother to do the slightest bit of
research? Jonson isn't the only person to put versus at the beginning
of the Folio. And that work was put together by Hemmings and Condel,
two men who most certainly would have first hand knowledge of who
wrote the plays!
The poster who made these points I'm quoting sums them (and I few
other points I omit here for time) up with his final statement:
"These are all legitimate issues for discussion, not to be avoided or
swept under the carpet."
Well, all I can say to that is, I can only avoid sweeping them under
the carpet, if I also sweep under the carpet the fact that none of
these issues can stand up to serious scrutiny.
Brad
nordicskiv2
<3f1bddee-067d-41d9...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> > Melanie Sands wrote:
> >>
> >> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
> >> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people with
> >> TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > I spent 14 hours Tuesday working a signature station for the elections,
> > in a town with an annual per-capita income of $72,689.
> Snob!
Huh? There is nothing remotely snobbish about working a voting
station, an activity that makes an important contribution to the
democratic electoral process. You are missing the point, Art -- not
that that lamentable state of affairs is at all unusual or
unexpected. John's point is that, *even* in a town with a very high
per-capita mean income, a town whose residents are apt to be very
highly educated professionals, few of the hundreds of signatures were
legible. That is entirely consistent with my experience as well: I
know scores of extremely gifted, superbly educated professionals --
scientists, physicians, writers, scholars, technocrats, etc. -- whose
writing (especially their signatures) is best described as a barely
legible or even completely illegible scrawl.
> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > Few of the hundreds of signatures that I saw were legible.
> > A good many looked more like snippets of Arabic
> > or Gregg shorthand than any imaginable form of
> > the Latin alphabet.
> There is a difference between:
> 1) a signature that is illegible because it is written in a rushed
> flourish
>
> http://www.annakoren.com/signature1.html
> http://www.annakoren.com/signature2.html
> http://www.purplehousepress.com/sig.htm
>
> and
> 2) a signature that is illegible because it is scratched out painfully
> slowly.
>
> http://home.att.net/~tleary/sigs.htm
And what makes you "think" (if I may continue a long-standing abuse
of terminology in reference to your aberrant mental processes) that
the signature in question was "scratched out painfully slowly," Art?
By means of your Elizabeth Weird-style ability to hallucinate what
"must" have occurred some four centuries ago? In fact, I see no
indication whatever that the signature was "scratched out painfully
slowly" -- indeed, its quality is entirely consistent with what one
would expect of a quill pen (very apt to blot) writing on a rough,
irregular surface. HoweVER, one would scarcely expect the illiterate
District Heights boob to be any more expert at paleography than he is
at mathematics, foreign languages, English, the chronology of Virgil
versus Herodotus, etc.
> Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<5592f266-5fff-42bb...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> It exists because people like you are educational snobs.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Charlie Chaplin on Shakespeare:
> >> .
> >> <<In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble
> >> beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one
> >> cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare...
> >> Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude.>>
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > While nobody reVEREs Chaplin's genius more than I,
> > he is a rather poor judge of aristocratic manners.
> But is Chaplin anti-Stratfordian because he is an educational snob?
Melanie said people like *you*, Art, not people like Chaplin;
Chaplin was merely poorly informed -- not that you aren't abysmally
ignorant yourself, Art.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, his Dickensian early life of abject poVERty,
> > time in the workhouse, and the local district school
> > for paupers left him with little formal education and scant
> > familiarity with anything even remotely close to the aristocracy.
> > Yet Dryden, who much closer to that milieu both socially and
> > temporally, reported that Shakespeare portrayed aristocratic
> > life less convincingly than seVERal of his peers.
> I'm sure that Oxford's peers who also wrote under pseudonyms
There is no evidence whateVER for such an absurd fantasy.
> did an excellent job of portraying aristocratic life; but
> who am I (or Dryden for that matter) to judge.
Dryden would be a good judge, since he was quite close to that
milieu socially and temporally. You, on the other hand, are a VERy
poor judge, as you acknowledge.
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You know Shakespeare went to school
> >>> and learned to read and write.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> All we really know is that
> >> Shakspere never learned to write legibly.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The same could be said about many well-educated contemporary
> > professionals, among whom physicians are proVERbial.
> Show me one physician who has published books
> who has illegible handwriting.
I personally know people in a variety of walks of intellectual life
who have published highly esteemed books and research papers, yet
whose penmanship is illegible. (Of course, *any* handwriting would
perforce -- or per farce -- be illegible to an illiterate District
Heights boob.)
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You know he took plots from existing plays,
> >>> stories or legends.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Many of them only available in foreign languages.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > To someone familiar with Latin, the mainstay of the curriculum at
> > the Stratford Grammar School, it is quite easy to read sources in
> > French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. As I have said before, the
> > only Slavic language that I ever actually spoke with any fluency is
> > Russian, yet I have at need read and/or translated texts in Ukrainian,
> > Slovak, Polish, etc. without difficulty. The same observation
> > pertains to Romance languages: a good working ability in one of them
> > confers the ability to read texts of interest in (but not to speak)
> > the others. In fact, some years ago, the best introductory text on
> > Riemannian geometry, by a Brazilian mathematician, was only available
> > in Portuguese; yet the graduate students at a major Ivy League
> > mathematics department were routinely assigned the book as their
> > primary course text, on the assumption that their familiarity
> > with French or Spanish would enable them to read Portuguese
> > -- as indeed it did.
> I take it that it had ilustrações numerosas.
No, it had very few, and virtually none that contributed to an
understanding of the more difficult points. You can check it
yourself: the book in question was the original Portuguese version of
Manfredo do Carmo's book on Riemannian geometry -- not that I expect
you to have any better success understanding the English translation
than you would have with the Portuguese original, Art.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Your problem -- well, one of many, at any rate -- is that you judge
> > the linguistic competence of others by your own. Not eVERyone is as
> > incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art. In fact, much more
> > can be said, by a simple alteration of quantifiers: not *anyone*
> > is as incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art,
> You've cut me to the quick!
Huh? You've neVER shown any indication of quickness, Art.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The notion that one of the most gifted writers in history was as
> > inept as you are in foreign languages is just as ludicrous as
> > Elizabeth's ideologically motivated denigration of Einstein's
> > supposedly meager achievements in physics.
> Shaksper was one of the most grifted [sic] pseudonyms in history
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I'm beginning to consider it more likely that your
> > native tongue was something primitive, like FORTRAN
> > -- and indeed, FORTRAN is an anagram of "For Art N."
> > [...]
> > The explanation for the monstrous volume
> > of your moronic VERbiage is not the intrinsic wordiness
> > of the language itself (which is what suggested COBOL),
> > but rather the fact that you neVER progressed far enough
> > to have mastered the DO loop or the GOTO construction, forcing
> > you to produce thousands of iterations of *exactly the same thing*.
> > Indeed, if one imagines the form that a program intended to find (say)
> > the first ten thousand prime numbers would take if the programmer
> > had not yet learned about GOTO or DO, the result bears a remarkable
> > resemblance to your posts, which merely repeat the same idiotic
> > crap oVER and oVER and oVER with little (if any) variation.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> . Troilus and Cressida > Act II, scene I
>
> THERSITES: I sERVE (*ICH DIEN*) thee not.
>
> AJAX: Well, *GOTO, GOTO* .
No, Art; Ajax says "go to, go to." He is speaking English, not
FORTRAN -- not that I would expect to be able to distinguish the two.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> The cabalistic NAME for this knowledge,
That's *cabalistic*, Art, not COBOListic. No wonder you fondly
imagined that you understood it.
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not
> >>> in those years between leaving Stratford and
> >>> becoming an actor and theatre co-owner.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> We know that of the hundreds of thousands of folks who
> >> supposedly attended public plays in Elizabethan London each
> >> year only foreigners (or kooks) wrote about having done so.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Huh? If thousands of people did *not* attend the theater,
> > then how did the many theaters and acting companies survive?
> By being something else...which is the reason they will
> NEVER allow the old Globe "Theatre" to be excavated.
You're oVERplaying your Petulant Paranoid persona again, Art.
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Mostly lawsuits for shillings & pence for Shaksper.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > So? There is no reason to surmise that a middle-class actor and
> > playwright who depends for his livelihood upon his art cannot be a
> > canny businessman, nor that he should he merely write off loans that
> > he could legally recoVER. Shakespeare struggled to collect loans --
> > just as I struggle to correct loons (present company included).
> And you both kowtow to the same Rosicrucian/Freemason conspiracy.
By no means, Art -- members of the Desposyni/Rex Deus bloodline
kowtow to nobody (indeed, the other conspirators kowtow to us).
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
> >>> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people
> >>> with TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
It is indeed. But Art is certainly old-fashioned, his mind (or
what's left of it, at any rate) is narrow, etc.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Isn't it downright STOOOPID to think
> >> that prolific writers of the 16th century
> >> didn't *ALL* have legible handwriting?
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Huh? Melanie is right: is IS idiotic (not to mention
> > narrow-minded) to assume that tidy penmanship
> > is a necessary condition for genius.
> Legible penmanship was certainly a necessary
> condition for genius in the 16th century.
Of course not, Art -- it's just that an illiterate District Heights
boob cannot read *any* surviving signature.
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> So how many "contemporaries" do you need
> >>> to remember him in a literary context?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> It would be nice to have *just ONE* "contemporary" connect
> >> (the illiterate Stratford boob) 'Shaksper' with the works.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > Plenty of them do, Art; it is just that cretins like yourself
> > refuse to accept literary references to William Shakespeare as
> > references to the actor by that name, thereby jettisoning
> > a huge body of evidence capriciously by fiat.
> A huge body of crap.
No, Art, I was not referring to your h.l.a.s. posts, which contain
no evidence at all in any case.
> >> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> I get tired of this snobbism, actually. It's no different from
> >>> saying that black people can't have leading positions
> >>> because their brains are less developed than white peoples'.
>
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> > (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Tell it to Doudou Diene.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Swiss Fury at Foreigners Boiling Over
> >> Grisly Attack on African Underscores Race Issue In a Harsh Campaign
> >> By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service
> >> Tuesday, October 9, 2007
> >> http://tinyurl.com/yavx9uj
> >
> >> ZURICH -- At 1:30 a.m., Antonio da Costa heard a knock at the back
> >> entrance of the McDonald's restaurant where he worked as a janitor
> >> after-hours. He opened the door, he recalled in an interview. There
> >> stood two men, each gripping a chain saw. One yanked the cord on his
> >> saw, stepped toward da Costa and shouted above the roaring machine:
> >> "We don't need Africans in our country. We're here to kill you!" The
> >> two masked assailants cornered da Costa and began raking him with the
> >> whirring chain-saw blades. They slashed one arm to the bone, nearly
> >> sliced off his left thumb and hacked his face, neck and chest, the 37-
> >> year-old Angolan said, his voice quavering as he recounted the May 1
> >> attack.
>
> >> Da Costa, who came to Switzerland 11 years ago as an Angolan war
> >> refugee, said he had grown accustomed to the racial slurs and looks of
> >> suspicion from white Swiss over the years. But he said nothing
> >> prepared him for the two men and their chain saws. "We know
> >> Switzerland is a nice country, there's security everywhere," said da
> >> Costa, who speaks three languages but has worked most of his time in
> >> Switzerland as a janitor. "You never think something like this can
> >> happen. I couldn't defend myself against two chain saws," he said. As
> >> they slashed at him with the buzzing blades, da Costa said, he tried
> >> in vain to protect his face with his arms. "I couldn't feel my
> >> fingers. I was on my knees. I tried to tell them I didn't want
> >> trouble, I just came here to work. They were treating me like I was an
> >> animal. One put the chain saw on top of my head and said, 'We're going
> >> to cut you in half.'" He closed his eyes at the memory. "I tried to
> >> hide my eyes. I didn't want to see the way they were going to kill
> >> me," he continued, in French. "I was praying. In my head I'd already
> >> died. I'd lost all hope of living. Then it was a miracle. He saved
> >> me," da Costa said, referring to God. "I found the courage inside. I
> >> got up and pushed open the door with my chest because I couldn't use
> >> my arms, and ran." He fell, breaking his teeth; the men stood over him
> >> and tried to restart the saws, but could not, he said. He sprang up
> >> and jumped a fence, eluding them.
> >
> >> That night he underwent six hours of surgery to stitch the cuts on his
> >> face, chest and arms and reattach his left thumb. Five months after
> >> the attack, half of his face is slathered in a white salve, his left
> >> arm remains in a red cast, 16 purple slashes are outlined on his right
> >> arm and damaged teeth continue to fall out. "My own children are
> >> afraid of me -- my own children," said da Costa, his eyes welling with
> >> tears. "They want to know, 'Why did somebody cut up my daddy?' " >>
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > It is indeed shocking, but there are racists eVERywhere
> > (and oVERall Switzerland is plagued by fewer
> > than its fair share of such dangerous crazies).
> The evidence is clearly otherwise.
> (In fact, their national hero,
> William Tell, was a dangerous crazy.)
By no means, Art. If you had spent any time at all in Switzerland,
you would know that, while not immune to racism, Swiss society is one
of the more peaceful and tolerant.
> > Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point was, Art --
> My point to Melanie was that "people who live in glass houses.."
> > if you actually believe that many anti-Stratfordians
> > are not actuated by snobbery...
> I would probably agree that many anti-Stratfordians
> may well be actuated by greed ...
Surely not, Art -- if so, they are remarkably dense, for there is
VERy little to be gained thereby. (Mr. Streitz is reported to be an
example, he is already covered by the "remarkably dense" phrase.)
> but NOT snobbery
> and certainly NOT any form of Fascism.
You don't think that Enoch Powell is connected with Fascism, Art?
Evidently you are unfamiliar with his writings.
> Mostly, however, I agree with John Michell:
...a borderline crackpot. Have you checked out his other work,
Art?
But if you liked Michell, here are some other books that you would
probably like, Art:
[...]
> Art Neuendorffer
art
>
>>>>> You know Shakespeare went to school
>>>>> and learned to read and write.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> All we really know is that
>>>> Shakspere never learned to write legibly.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> The same could be said about many well-educated contemporary
>>> professionals, among whom physicians are proVERbial.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Show me one physician who has published books
>> who has illegible handwriting.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> I personally know people in a variety of walks of intellectual
> life who have published highly esteemed books and
> research papers, yet whose penmanship is illegible.
You probably would.
>>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You know he took plots from existing plays,
>>>>> stories or legends.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> Many of them only available in foreign languages.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> To someone familiar with Latin, the mainstay of the curriculum at
>>> the Stratford Grammar School, it is quite easy to read sources in
>>> French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. As I have said before, the
>>> only Slavic language that I ever actually spoke with any fluency is
>>> Russian, yet I have at need read and/or translated texts in Ukrainian,
>>> Slovak, Polish, etc. without difficulty. The same observation
>>> pertains to Romance languages: a good working ability in one of them
>>> confers the ability to read texts of interest in (but not to speak)
>>> the others. In fact, some years ago, the best introductory text on
>>> Riemannian geometry, by a Brazilian mathematician, was only available
>>> in Portuguese; yet the graduate students at a major Ivy League
>>> mathematics department were routinely assigned the book as their
>>> primary course text, on the assumption that their familiarity
>>> with French or Spanish would enable them to read Portuguese
>>> -- as indeed it did.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I take it that it had ilustrações numerosas.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> No, it had very few, and virtually none that contributed to an
> understanding of the more difficult points. You can check it
> yourself: the book in question was the original Portuguese version of
> Manfredo do Carmo's book on Riemannian geometry -- not that I expect
> you to have any better success understanding the English translation
> than you would have with the Portuguese original, Art.
Mighty Manfredo , the Wonder Dog?
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/tom-terrific.gif
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Your problem -- well, one of many, at any rate -- is that you judge
>>> the linguistic competence of others by your own. Not eVERyone is as
>>> incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art. In fact, much more
>>> can be said, by a simple alteration of quantifiers: not *anyone*
>>> is as incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art,
>> You've cut me to the quick!
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Huh? You've neVER shown any indication of quickness, Art.
>
I'm sure not dead yet.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> The notion that one of the most gifted writers in history was as
>>> inept as you are in foreign languages is just as ludicrous as
>>> Elizabeth's ideologically motivated denigration of Einstein's
>>> supposedly meager achievements in physics.
>> Shaksper was one of the most grifted [sic] pseudonyms in history
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> I'm beginning to consider it more likely that your
>>> native tongue was something primitive, like FORTRAN
>>> -- and indeed, FORTRAN is an anagram of "For Art N."
>>> [...]
>>> The explanation for the monstrous volume
>>> of your moronic VERbiage is not the intrinsic wordiness
>>> of the language itself (which is what suggested COBOL),
>>> but rather the fact that you neVER progressed far enough
>>> to have mastered the DO loop or the GOTO construction, forcing
>>> you to produce thousands of iterations of *exactly the same thing*.
>>> Indeed, if one imagines the form that a program intended to find (say)
>>> the first ten thousand prime numbers would take if the programmer
>>> had not yet learned about GOTO or DO, the result bears a remarkable
>>> resemblance to your posts, which merely repeat the same idiotic
>>> crap oVER and oVER and oVER with little (if any) variation.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> . Troilus and Cressida > Act II, scene I
>
>> THERSITES: I sERVE (*ICH DIEN*) thee not.
>
>> AJAX: Well, *GOTO, GOTO* .
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> No, Art; Ajax says "go to, go to."
> He is speaking English, not FORTRAN
Not the Formulating Cleanser?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> The cabalistic NAME for this knowledge,
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That's *cabalistic*, Art, not COBOListic.
[FW 4.5] Where the Baddelaries partisans are
still out to mathmaster Malachus Micgranes
and the VERDons catapelting the camibalistics
out of the Whoyteboyce of Hoodie Head.
>
>>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not
>>>>> in those years between leaving Stratford and
>>>>> becoming an actor and theatre co-owner.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> We know that of the hundreds of thousands of folks who
>>>> supposedly attended public plays in Elizabethan London each
>>>> year only foreigners (or kooks) wrote about having done so.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Huh? If thousands of people did *not* attend the theater,
>>> then how did the many theaters and acting companies survive?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> By being something else...which is the reason they will
>> NEVER allow the old Globe "Theatre" to be excavated.
<<The Anchor Terrace Residents association was formed in July 2009 to
serve the needs and aspirations of the residents of Anchor Terrace,
promoting a community approach to the enjoyment and maintenance of
this delightful and historic building. The redevelopment of the
building was not without controversy, as it sits on the site once
occupied by the renowned Globe Theatre, where Shakespeare wrote and
produced his plays. And so this Grade II listed building sits on a
listed historic site and an uneasy truce has been called between the
present owners and those who want to excavate the theatre site which
lies beneath it. It is the intention of the Anchor Terrace Residents
Association that this building will remain a joy to live in for a long
time into the future.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 15:24:28 -0500
Subject: 18.0031 Globe-ness
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
Carol Barton <cbart...@earthlink.net>
>It has always struck me funny that the "new" Globe on
>Thames is unrecognizable as anything remotely resembling
>that, except from the river---and that it was built several at
>considerable distance from the site of the original (now an
>apartment complex).
The building in the original location is itself a listed (protected
historic) building.
>Call me a traditionalist, but if you're going to bother to recreate
>the bloody thing, at a cost of millions of dollars (pounds-foreign
>exchange equivalents), why not do it as accurately as you can?
They did.
>It was funny, to see the number of bewildered people wandering
>around Southwark, looking for wattle and daub where only red
>brick was visible to the pedestrian eye.
My wife and I had no difficulty finding it. For the rest, the
ancillary
structures are plainly necessary, and it was hard enough to get
exemptions from the fire laws (some of them in force since 1666)
for the theater proper.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gabriel Egan <ma...@GabrielEgan.com>
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 21:06:26 -0000
Subject: 18.0031 Globe-ness
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
The annual account of Carol Barton's disappointment at the historical
sites of Shakespeare comes early this year. In April-May 2006
Stratford-upon-Avon was scathed; now it's Bankside's turn:
>. . . the "new" Globe on Thames is at considerable
>distance from the site of the original
>(now an apartment complex)
Well, a Georgian building called Anchor Terrace.
>. . . if you're going to bother to recreate the bloody
>thing . . . why not do it as accurately as you can?
If that means destroying a Georgian terrace to put up a replica of
what
was previously on the site, almost everyone involved in the
scholarship
of old buildings-indeed almost everyone at all-would rightly oppose
the
plan. From a theatre-historical point of view, the more interesting
proposition would be to do a full, destructive archaeological
excavation
of the Globe site. This would mean destroying properties within
Anchor
Terrace but the facade could be maintained. English Heritage (= The
Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) have in the
past indicated that they would oppose such a proposition.
Of course, making the replica on a nearby site in no way harms the
accuracy of the replica. The work of theatre historians, architect
Jon
Greenfield, and Tudor timber-framed buildings expert Peter McCurdy is
unfairly insulted by Barton's ignorant claim that the building is not
accurate. Its makers would not claim that it's perfect, but they can
with justice assert that it's well researched and has itself advanced
theatre history considerably.
>It was funny, to see the number of bewildered
>people wandering around Southwark, looking
>for wattle and daub where only red brick was
>visible to the pedestrian eye.
Not that the Globe was "wattle and daub". It was timber framed with
'lath and plaster' between the timbers.
>Why don't they resurrect the submerged (for
>its own good) Rose instead?
It depends who 'they' are. In Barton's complaints about
Stratford-upon-Avon of April 2006 she conflated the Royal Shakespeare
Company, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and the Stratford tourist
industry. Here the International Shakespeare's Globe Centre
(Wanamaker's
project) is seemingly conflated with the Rose Theatre Trust, English
Heritage, and the owners of the office block constructed over the
Rose
foundations in 1989-90. If these disparate groups all thought and
felt
the same way, the matters that Barton seems to think are trivial would
be.
----------------------------------------------------
>>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> Mostly lawsuits for shillings & pence for Shaksper.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> So? There is no reason to surmise that a middle-class actor and
>>> playwright who depends for his livelihood upon his art cannot be a
>>> canny businessman, nor that he should he merely write off loans that
>>> he could legally recoVER. Shakespeare struggled to collect loans --
>>> just as I struggle to correct loons (present company included).
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> And you both kowtow to the same Rosicrucian/Freemason conspiracy.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> By no means, Art -- members of the Desposyni/Rex Deus bloodline
> kowtow to nobody (indeed, the other conspirators kowtow to us).
Which other conspirators?
>>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Give me a break! Isn't it a bit old-fashioned and narrow-minded,
>>>>> not to say downright STOOOPID to think that only people
>>>>> with TIDY, NEAT handwriting are intelligent?
>
> It is indeed. But Art is certainly old-fashioned, his mind (or
> what's left of it, at any rate) is narrow, etc.
>
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> Isn't it downright STOOOPID to think
>>>> that prolific writers of the 16th century
>>>> didn't *ALL* have legible handwriting?
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Huh? Melanie is right: is IS idiotic (not to mention
>>> narrow-minded) to assume that tidy penmanship
>>> is a necessary condition for genius.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Legible penmanship was certainly a necessary
>> condition for genius in the 16th century.
>>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> So how many "contemporaries" do you need
>>>>> to remember him in a literary context?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> It would be nice to have *just ONE* "contemporary" connect
>>>> (the illiterate Stratford boob) 'Shaksper' with the works.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Plenty of them do, Art; it is just that cretins like yourself
>>> refuse to accept literary references to William Shakespeare as
>>> references to the actor by that name, thereby jettisoning
>>> a huge body of evidence capriciously by fiat.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> A huge body of crap.
>>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> By no means, Art. If you had spent any time at all in Switzerland,
> you would know that, while not immune to racism, Swiss society
> is one of the more peaceful and tolerant.
Tell it to Roman Polanski.
---------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell
<<William Tell, who originally hailed from Bürglen, was known as an
expert marksman with the crossbow. At the time, the Habsburg emperors
of Austria were seeking to dominate Uri. Hermann Gessler, the newly
appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, raised a pole in the village's
central square, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the
local townsfolk bow before the hat. But Tell passed by the hat without
bowing to it, and he was arrested. He received the punishment of being
forced to shoot an apple off the head of his son, Walter, or else both
would be executed. Tell had been promised freedom if he successfully
shot the apple. On the 18th of November, 1307, Tell split the fruit
with a single bolt from his crossbow, without mishap.>>
-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard
<<The history of the Swiss Guards has its origins in the 15th century.
Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) already made a previous alliance with the
Swiss Confederation and built barracks in Via Pellegrino after
foreseeing the possibility of recruiting Swiss mercenaries. The pact
was renewed by Innocent VIII (1484-1492) in order to use them against
the Duke of Milan. Alexander VI (1492-1503) later actually used the
Swiss mercenaries during their alliance with the King of France.
During the time of the Borgias, however, the Italian Wars began in
which the Swiss mercenaries were a fixture in the front lines among
the warring factions, sometimes for France and sometimes for the Holy
See or the Holy Roman Empire. The mercenaries enlisted when they heard
King Charles VIII of France was going to raise a war against Naples.
Among the participants in the war against Naples was Cardinal Giuliano
della Rovere, the future Pope Julius II (1503-1513), who was well
acquainted with the Swiss having been Bishop of Lausanne years
earlier. The expedition failed in part thanks to new alliances made by
Alexander VI against the French. When Cardinal della Rovere became
pope Julius II in 1505, he asked the Swiss Diet to provide him with a
constant corps of 200 Swiss mercenaries. In September 1505, the first
contingent of 150 soldiers started their march towards Rome, under the
command of Kaspar von Silenen, and entered the city on January 22,
1506, today given as the official date of the Guard's foundation. "The
Swiss see the sad situation of the Church of God, Mother of
Christianity, and realize how grave and dangerous it is that any
tyrant, avid for wealth, can assault with impunity, the common Mother
of Christianity," declared Huldrych Zwingli, a Swiss Catholic who
later became a Protestant reformer. Pope Julius II later granted them
the title "Defenders of the Church's freedom".
......................................................................
# the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)
# the Portuguese Inquisition (1536–1821)
# the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860 )
......................................................................
Its first, and most significant, hostile engagement was on May 6, 1527
when 147 of the 189 Guards, including their commander, died fighting
the unruly troops of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V during the Sack of
Rome in order to allow Clement VII to escape through the Passetto di
Borgo, escorted by the other 40 guards. The last stand battlefield is
located on the left side of St Peter's Basilica, close to the Campo
Santo Teutonico (German Graveyard). The Swiss Guard has served the
popes since the 1500s. At the end of 2005, there were 134 members of
the Swiss Guard. This number consisted of a Commandant (bearing the
rank of oberst or Colonel), a chaplain, three officers, one sergeant
major (feldwebel), 30 NCOs, and 99 halberdiers, the rank equivalent to
private.>>
------------------------------------------------
Harry Lime (Orson Welles): "Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not
that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the
Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they
produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In
Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy
and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold
<<"Nazi gold" refers to the assets in gold transferred by Nazi Germany
to overseas banks during the Second World War. The regime executed a
policy of looting the assets of its victims to finance the war,
collecting the looted assets in central depositories. The present
whereabouts of Nazi gold that disappeared into European banking
institutions in 1945 has been the subject of several books, conspiracy
theories, and a civil suit brought in January 2000 against the Vatican
Bank, the Franciscan Order, and other defendants.
The Swiss National Bank, the largest gold distribution centre in
continental Europe before the war, was the logical venue through which
Nazi Germany could dispose of its gold. During the war, the SNB
received $440m in gold from Nazi sources, of which $316m is estimated
to have been looted. There have also been conspiracy theories about
Mafia connections to the Swiss National Bank. Some authorities
estimate that, under the regime of Mob boss Charlie "Lucky" Luciano
during the last months of World War II, Luciano's top associate, Meyer
Lansky, who had close connections within the Swiss National Bank,
facilitated the transfer of over $300m in Nazi gold. Lansky then
allegedly laundered the gold through several unknown bank accounts,
and returned to the United States of America. This thesis has never
been proven, but it is known that Lansky had hundreds of associates in
Switzerland, and it remains feasible that missing Nazi gold could have
been stolen and used to finance the expansion of the Cosa Nostra into
a global organization.>>
-------------------------------------------------
>>> Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point was, Art --
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I would probably agree that many anti-Stratfordians
>> may well be actuated by greed ...
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Surely not, Art -- if so, they are remarkably dense,
> for there is VERy little to be gained thereby.
There's alway a first time.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> but NOT snobbery and certainly NOT any form of Fascism.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You don't think that Enoch Powell is connected with Fascism, Art?
...a borderline Fascist.
------------------------------------------
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/tapes/shakespearescript.html
<<This is a rare visit to Stratford for former British cabinet
minister Enoch Powell, whose study of Shakespeare's plays convinced
him that the town was built on a lie.
Enoch Powell, Former British Cabinet Minister: At that time I had been
a member of the cabinet and I'd been in politics for twenty years and
I had some idea of what it's like in the kitchen. And my astonishment
was to discover that these were the best works of somebody who'd been
in the kitchen. They're written by someone who has lived the life, who
has been part of a life of politics and power, who knows what people
feel when they are near to the center of power, near to the heat of
the kitchen. It's not something which can be transferred, it's not
something on which an author, just an author, can be briefed: "Oh,
this is how it happened"; it comes straight out of experience--
straight out of personal observation--straight out of personal
feeling, that's the difference which comes over you when you read
Shakespeare detached from the Stratfordian fantasy.
For Powell, the British politician, just as for Twain, the American
riverboater, the Stratford man had failed the crucial test of
experience. The real Shakespeare was at home in worlds they believed
the glovemaker's son could not have known, and the Stratford fantasy
had made a bard out of bumpkin, transforming a common duck into the
"Swan of Avon."
Enoch Powell: Heminge and Condell-- his friends and colleagues during
his lifetime who were able to perform this service for him after his
death. Well we have Shakespeare's will. And in his will, as it
happens, he remembered Heminge and Condell, but unfortunately, and
that is one of the accidents which keep happening to William
Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon, the references to Heminge and
Condell in the will are interlineations by another hand. Isn't that an
unfortunate accident, that the link between the actors, who are the
editors, or purport to be the editors, of this mass of new material
never released before, have apparently been introduced into his will.
By the way, having mentioned Shakespeare's will, that is a will in
which this great spirit, this man is a man of immense learning and
vision, not only bequeathed no books, that can be perhaps explained
away. But he bequeathed not even the most valuable thing which he had
to bequeath-- the remaining manuscripts of his plays, which would
eventually be published seven years after his death. Trouble is
there's a puzzle with which one is confronted-- it doesn't run right--
nothing's right.>>
------------------------------------------
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Mostly, however, I agree with John Michell:
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...a borderline crackpot.
Why borderline?
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<65af2797-8274-4688...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> You know Shakespeare went to school
> >>>>> and learned to read and write.
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>> All we really know is that
> >>>> Shakspere never learned to write legibly.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> The same could be said about many well-educated contemporary
> >>> professionals, among whom physicians are proVERbial.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Show me one physician who has published books
> >> who has illegible handwriting.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I personally know people in a variety of walks of intellectual
> > life who have published highly esteemed books and
> > research papers, yet whose penmanship is illegible.
> You probably would.
Then you concede the point, Art. VERy good -- then let's not have
any more of that recycled idiotic crap about how Shakespeare could not
have written his works because an illiterate District Heights boob
with no competence whateVER (let alone any expertise) in paleography
cannot read Shakespeare's extant signatures!
No, Art, it was Mighty Manfred (you know, like that hero of Byron's
poem), not Mighty Manfredo, but he was before my time in any case. Is
it from Tom Terrific that you conceived the idea of wearing your
tinfoil helmet, Art? But I take it from your hapless attempt to
change the subject to something juvenile -- that is, at your own level
-- that you concede this point as well.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Your problem -- well, one of many, at any rate -- is that you judge
> >>> the linguistic competence of others by your own. Not eVERyone is as
> >>> incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art. In fact, much more
> >>> can be said, by a simple alteration of quantifiers: not *anyone*
> >>> is as incompetent in foreign languages as you are, Art,
> >> You've cut me to the quick!
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Huh? You've neVER shown any indication of quickness, Art.
> I'm sure not dead yet.
Well, not from the neck down, at any rate (electric signals
propagate at finite speed).
> Not the Formulating Cleanser?
If "verdons" referred to Oxford, then the following would have to
have been "catamiting" rather than "catapelting," Art.
> the camibalistics
> out of the Whoyteboyce of Hoodie Head.
> >>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> You DON'T know whether he went abroad or not
> >>>>> in those years between leaving Stratford and
> >>>>> becoming an actor and theatre co-owner.
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>> We know that of the hundreds of thousands of folks who
> >>>> supposedly attended public plays in Elizabethan London each
> >>>> year only foreigners (or kooks) wrote about having done so.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Huh? If thousands of people did *not* attend the theater,
> >>> then how did the many theaters and acting companies survive?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> By being something else...which is the reason they will
> >> NEVER allow the old Globe "Theatre" to be excavated.
If they were to dig up the site and rename it so that Oxford
received his due, then it would have to be denominated "Wanker
Terrace."
[...]
> From: John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net>
> Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 2007 15:24:28 -0500
> Subject: 18.0031 Globe-ness
> Comment: Re: SHK 18.0031 Globe-ness
>
> Carol Barton <cbart...@earthlink.net>
But Art -- "Carol Barton" is an anagram of "Bar Art N., loco" --
and in the wake of your incessant, idiotic spamming of the newsgroup
by endlessly recycled idiotic crap, there has arisen a robust
consensus that, were it possible, you should be indeed be barred from
h.l.a.s., as you are from the Forest of Arden, the Fellowship,
Phaeton, etc.
[...]
> >>>> Melanie Sands <Melanie_Sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> There IS a "paper trail" for Shakespeare.
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com>> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>> Mostly lawsuits for shillings & pence for Shaksper.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> So? There is no reason to surmise that a middle-class actor and
> >>> playwright who depends for his livelihood upon his art cannot be a
> >>> canny businessman, nor that he should he merely write off loans that
> >>> he could legally recoVER. Shakespeare struggled to collect loans --
> >>> just as I struggle to correct loons (present company included).
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> And you both kowtow to the same Rosicrucian/Freemason conspiracy.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By no means, Art -- members of the Desposyni/Rex Deus bloodline
> > kowtow to nobody (indeed, the other conspirators kowtow to us).
> Which other conspirators?
Don't you know which hermetic orders are affiliated with the
Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspiracy by now, Art?
[...]
Roman Polanski is a fugitive from justice who is accused of raping
a minor, Art; since Switzerland has an extradition treaty with the
U.S., it was perfectly normal for the Swiss government to accede to
American requests for his extradition.
[...]
> >>> Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point was, Art --
>
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> My point to Melanie was that "people who live in glass houses.."
"People who live in glass houses"?! That's odd advice coming from
someone who just called Wilhelm Tell a crazy! There's another old
adage about the pot calling the kettle black, Art, but I doubt that
you'll have any more luck interpreting that one than you did "Know
thyself."
> >>> if you actually believe that many anti-Stratfordians
> >>> are not actuated by snobbery...
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> I would probably agree that many anti-Stratfordians
> >> may well be actuated by greed ...
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Surely not, Art -- if so, they are remarkably dense,
> > for there is VERy little to be gained thereby.
> There's alway a first time.
Mr. Streitz couldn't even make enough money to finance his Senate
campaign!
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> but NOT snobbery and certainly NOT any form of Fascism.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You don't think that Enoch Powell is connected with Fascism, Art?
>
> ...a borderline Fascist.
"Borderline"? You must be unfamiliar with his "riVERs of blood"
speech, Art. And while you're at it, you might try familiarizing
yourself with the writings of Joseph Sobran and Raeto West.
[...]
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Mostly, however, I agree with John Michell:
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > ...a borderline crackpot.
> Why borderline?
If you insist, then, a full-fledged crackpot obsessed with
Atlantis, "sacred geometry," encounters with aliens, etc. Are you
happy now, Art? And did you have a look at the reading list that I
suggested? Some of those volumes would be perfect for you!
> Art Neuendorffer
mylear
> On Nov 8, 12:00 pm, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To address a couple of points made.
>
> 1. "There exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education, "
>
> Why would there have to be. We know he was given a basic eduction.
> It's not a stretch to believe that he learned to read. With literacy,
> a whole world would be opened up to him. To use a modern example, my
> knowledge of the theater of his time would be extremely limited indeed
> if it only included what I learned in school. That brief instruction
> got me interested and I learned an immense amount through reading
> after my formal education. Similarly, my great interests in other
> topics, such as chess, and British history to name only two were fed
> completely by my own desire to learn more. Surely Shakespeare had
> that same option open to him? He could read Holinshed, for example
> and Plutarch. He could learn of other countries and could therefore
> write plays set in them without having to actually visit them.
>
would be required to possess at least basic literacy, but how he
acquired that literacy is unknown.
>
> 2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
>
> Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
> Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
> in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
> existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
> at all.
>
suspect, the issues relating to authorship would largely fade away.
>
> 3. For whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> be those of a highly literate man,
>
> I'M certainly literate, and yet MY signature is an absolute mess! Are
> doctors who write perscription illiterate because of poor penmanship?
> Ever examine a facsimale of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript? Not one
> of the five hands is easily legible! Why complain about a few
> signature scrawls?
>
doctors) tend to write legibly.
>
> 4. Apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> him in a literary context.
>
> Do those making this claim even bother to do the slightest bit of
> research? Jonson isn't the only person to put versus at the beginning
> of the Folio. And that work was put together by Hemmings and Condel,
> two men who most certainly would have first hand knowledge of who
> wrote the plays!
>
the person who presented these plays to them. But one cannot assume
they were aware of any revisions made by Will, nor for that matter
whether Will was the original author (or co-author).
ignoto
> On Nov 9, 3:22 am, Brad Filippone <Brad_Filipp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 12:00 pm, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To address a couple of points made.
>>
>> 1. "There exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education, "
>>
>> Why would there have to be. We know he was given a basic eduction.
>> It's not a stretch to believe that he learned to read. With literacy,
>> a whole world would be opened up to him. To use a modern example, my
>> knowledge of the theater of his time would be extremely limited indeed
>> if it only included what I learned in school. That brief instruction
>> got me interested and I learned an immense amount through reading
>> after my formal education. Similarly, my great interests in other
>> topics, such as chess, and British history to name only two were fed
>> completely by my own desire to learn more. Surely Shakespeare had
>> that same option open to him? He could read Holinshed, for example
>> and Plutarch. He could learn of other countries and could therefore
>> write plays set in them without having to actually visit them.
>>
> It is simply (and not unreasonably) assumed that a competent actor
> would be required to possess at least basic literacy, but how he
> acquired that literacy is unknown.
Wrong. There is an excellent circumstantial case for Shakespeare having
attended the Stratford school. That is:
1. We know he was literate and as he was raised in Stratford he in all
likelihood obtained that literacy (or at least some of it) from the
local school.
2. He was entitled to attend the school free of charge
3. The Shakespeare works show a strong familiarity with the standard
grammar school curriculum.
4. Shakespeare's comment that WS had 'small Latin and less Greek' is
exactly what we should expect him to say of someone with a grammar
school education.
There are (as has been pointed out to you many times before) no official
record of anyone having attended the school- are we to take it then that
because there are no official records that no one attended the school
and that the masters spent their days pissing in the avon? Of course
not, obviously the locals sent their children there and which locals did
so, can, given relevant knowledge of a particular individual's
circumstances, be inferred with a reasonable degree of likelihood.
>> 2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
>>
>> Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
>> Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
>> in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
>> existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
>> at all.
>>
> If there was a satifactory literary paper trail for Will then, I
> suspect, the issues relating to authorship would largely fade away.
They have faded away, except for people who prefer (willingly or
unwillingly) sophistry and speculation to actual evidence.
>> 3. For whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
>> be those of a highly literate man,
>>
>> I'M certainly literate, and yet MY signature is an absolute mess! Are
>> doctors who write perscription illiterate because of poor penmanship?
>> Ever examine a facsimale of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript? Not one
>> of the five hands is easily legible! Why complain about a few
>> signature scrawls?
>>
> It's not a complaint. And professional writers (as opposed to
> doctors) tend to write legibly.
It's good to see you have addressed yourself to the facts at hand. In
response to the argument that the 'Sir Thomas More' MS is barely
legible, you claim that professional writers tend to write legibly! Am I
to take it then that you don;t think the MS of 'Sir Thomas More' is the
work of professional writers?
>> 4. Apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
>> him in a literary context.
>>
>> Do those making this claim even bother to do the slightest bit of
>> research? Jonson isn't the only person to put versus at the beginning
>> of the Folio. And that work was put together by Hemmings and Condel,
>> two men who most certainly would have first hand knowledge of who
>> wrote the plays!
>>
> They were fellow actors. They would have been aware of the identity of
> the person who presented these plays to them. But one cannot assume
> they were aware of any revisions made by Will, nor for that matter
> whether Will was the original author (or co-author).
On the contrary it's your assumption that they could have not known that
is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Shakespeare worked with the
same group of actors for well over a decade (writing plays for that that
specific group of actors) and twenty odd years in the London theatre
scene. To suggest that he could have been a front as an author for all
that time in that kind of environment without anyone becoming aware of
'the truth' is complete nonsense. O, wait, let me anticipate your next
argument they ALL knew and it was one big conspiracy- a conspiracy that
left not one bit of evidence of having ever existed, thanks to the
efforts of the unknowable conspirators who did unknowable things in
order to protect the unknowable author(s) who were afraid of the
Queen/King doing unknowable things to them.
Ign.
mylear
> mylear wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 3:22 am, Brad Filippone <Brad_Filipp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 8, 12:00 pm, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> To address a couple of points made.
>
> >> 1. "There exists no direct evidence of Will Shakespeare's education, "
>
> >> Why would there have to be. We know he was given a basic eduction.
> >> It's not a stretch to believe that he learned to read. With literacy,
> >> a whole world would be opened up to him. To use a modern example, my
> >> knowledge of the theater of his time would be extremely limited indeed
> >> if it only included what I learned in school. That brief instruction
> >> got me interested and I learned an immense amount through reading
> >> after my formal education. Similarly, my great interests in other
> >> topics, such as chess, and British history to name only two were fed
> >> completely by my own desire to learn more. Surely Shakespeare had
> >> that same option open to him? He could read Holinshed, for example
> >> and Plutarch. He could learn of other countries and could therefore
> >> write plays set in them without having to actually visit them.
>
> > It is simply (and not unreasonably) assumed that a competent actor
> > would be required to possess at least basic literacy, but how he
> > acquired that literacy is unknown.
>
> Wrong. There is an excellent circumstantial case for Shakespeare having
> attended the Stratford school. That is:
> 1. We know he was literate
>
>
and as he was raised in Stratford he in all
> likelihood obtained that literacy (or at least some of it) from the
> local school.
>
>
> 2. He was entitled to attend the school free of charge
>
>
> 3. The Shakespeare works show a strong familiarity with the standard
> grammar school curriculum.
>
>
> 4. Shakespeare's comment that WS had 'small Latin and less Greek' is
> exactly what we should expect him to say of someone with a grammar
> school education.
>
interpretation of Jonson's remark is what he intended. I find Peter
Farey's interpretation more convincing.
>
> There are (as has been pointed out to you many times before) no official
> record of anyone having attended the school
>
common knowledge.
>
- are we to take it then that
> because there are no official records that no one attended the school
> and that the masters spent their days pissing in the avon?
>
>
Of course
> not, obviously the locals sent their children there and which locals did
> so, can, given relevant knowledge of a particular individual's
> circumstances, be inferred with a reasonable degree of likelihood.
>
individual's circumstances".
>
> >> 2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
>
> >> Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
> >> Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
> >> in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
> >> existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
> >> at all.
>
> > If there was a satifactory literary paper trail for Will then, I
> > suspect, the issues relating to authorship would largely fade away.
>
> They have faded away, except for people who prefer (willingly or
> unwillingly) sophistry and speculation to actual evidence.
>
>
> >> 3. For whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> >> be those of a highly literate man,
>
> >> I'M certainly literate, and yet MY signature is an absolute mess! Are
> >> doctors who write perscription illiterate because of poor penmanship?
> >> Ever examine a facsimale of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript? Not one
> >> of the five hands is easily legible! Why complain about a few
> >> signature scrawls?
>
> > It's not a complaint. And professional writers (as opposed to
> > doctors) tend to write legibly.
>
> It's good to see you have addressed yourself to the facts at hand. In
> response to the argument that the 'Sir Thomas More' MS is barely
> legible, you claim that professional writers tend to write legibly! Am I
> to take it then that you don;t think the MS of 'Sir Thomas More' is the
> work of professional writers?
>
There are always exceptions to ny rule.
>
> >> 4. Apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
> >> him in a literary context.
>
> >> Do those making this claim even bother to do the slightest bit of
> >> research? Jonson isn't the only person to put versus at the beginning
> >> of the Folio. And that work was put together by Hemmings and Condel,
> >> two men who most certainly would have first hand knowledge of who
> >> wrote the plays!
>
> > They were fellow actors. They would have been aware of the identity of
> > the person who presented these plays to them. But one cannot assume
> > they were aware of any revisions made by Will, nor for that matter
> > whether Will was the original author (or co-author).
>
> On the contrary it's your assumption that they could have not known that
> is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Shakespeare worked with the
> same group of actors for well over a decade (writing plays for that that
> specific group of actors) and twenty odd years in the London theatre
> scene. To suggest that he could have been a front as an author for all
> that time in that kind of environment without anyone becoming aware of
> 'the truth' is complete nonsense.
>
are unresolved authorship issues. You make unwarranted assumptions.
>
O, wait, let me anticipate your next
> argument
>
made such a mess of interpreting my statements already,
notwithstanding that I've bent over backwards to make my meanings
crystal clear.
>
> they ALL knew and it was one big conspiracy- a conspiracy that
> left not one bit of evidence of having ever existed, thanks to the
> efforts of the unknowable conspirators who did unknowable things in
> order to protect the unknowable author(s) who were afraid of the
> Queen/King doing unknowable things to them.
>
in a conspiracy explanation of the unresolved authorship issues.
>
> Ign.
>
>
>
> >> The poster who made these points I'm quoting sums them (and I few
> >> other points I omit here for time) up with his final statement:
> >> "These are all legitimate issues for discussion, not to be avoided or
> >> swept under the carpet."
>
> >> Well, all I can say to that is, I can only avoid sweeping them under
> >> the carpet, if I also sweep under the carpet the fact that none of
> >> these issues can stand up to serious scrutiny.
>
mylear
"small Latin end less Greek", in the Literature Network Forums (the
link is: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=779738)
If Shakespeare had attended the local grammar, King's New School as is
widely supposed, he would have attained a good education. Far from
having "small Latin and less Greek" as per the charge of Ben Johnson,
a tremendous amount of time would have been spent on reading, writing
and reciting Latin ad infinitum. Through such exercises he would have
learned every possible rhetorical device and ploy. According to
Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, in their introduction to the Oxford
edition of the Complete Works, "any grammar school pupil of the day
would have received a more thorough grounding in Latin rhetoric and
literature than most present-day holders of a university degree in
classics."
JH
Paul Crowley
> The subject of the encomium is clearly given by the
> title: "To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr.
> William Shakespeare and What He hath Left Us", ie
> "the following verse is written in the memory of the
> Mr William Shakespeare and his works." 'Mr' here
> contextualises the subject as a gentleman, a title
> which William Shakespeare of Stratford is known to
> have held.
[..]
> The perverse reading (against the plain meaning of
> the text) that 'the real author is still alive' is
> made possible by two things. Firstly the ambiguities
> inherent in any natural language. Secondly, the
> assumption that the real author is indeed still alive [..]
There are three main ways to read Jonson's
encomium:
1) As straight . . the Strats choice.
2) As substantially straight . . . but with
a tiny deviation . . . which is what Farey
seems to do. (Although he is so obscure,
it is hard to know whether or not he is
proposing any kind of theory.)
3) As systematically ambiguous . . . which
is the Oxfordian option.
How are we to decide which applies?
Actually, it is not hard. Encomiums avoid
possible ambiguities -- and other possibly
confusing forms of speech, such as irony.
It is their task to set out the virtues and
achievements of their subject, in a fairly
plain and simple manner. It is not difficult
to avoid ambiguities in prepared texts.
Everyone who works with words does it
as a matter of routine.
Did Jonson avoid potential ambiguities?
Or are the ones we see in the encomium
"inherent in any natural language" (as
Nigel suggests)?
Paul.
ignoto
> On Nov 6, 4:04 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps you can point out to me which of the following arguments (from that paper) are not speculative (etc ..)
>
> I did not claim that Peter's paper is free
> from speculation.
This is a non sequitur. I asked which of the arguments were not
speculative. They are all speculative.
> I said he uses scholarly
> methods and has scholarly habits.
>
> Moreover it is no exaggeration to say that
> those who undertake to write a biography
> about William Shakespeare almost always
> feel obliged to speculate endlessly, owing
> to the extreme paucity of hard evidence
> of his literary activity or literary associations.
IOW you are incapable of grasping the distinction between evidence based
methodologies and speculation based methodologies.
Ign.
>
> JH
ignoto
Wrong. We know he was literate.
> and as he was raised in Stratford he in all
>> likelihood obtained that literacy (or at least some of it) from the
>> local school.
>>
> Not necessarily. He might have received private tuition.
No, of course not necessarily. I said it was a CIRCUMSTANTIAL case. The
fact that he could *possibly* have received private tuition or been sent
away to another school or been divinely inspired ala Caedmon does not
change the fact the the most PROBABLE explanation for his literacy is
that he went to the Stratford school.
You have a very poor grasp of logical inference.
>> 2. He was entitled to attend the school free of charge
>>
> Perhaps, but there is so little we actually know for sure.
Another demonstration of a failure to negotiate the difference between
the possible and the probable.
>> 3. The Shakespeare works show a strong familiarity with the standard
>> grammar school curriculum.
>>
> Please substantiate this statement with examples.
I've already given you the reference: T.W. Baldwin, 'Shakspere's Small
Latina and Less Greek'. I suggest you read it yourself (if you can).
>> 4. Shakespeare's comment that WS had 'small Latin and less Greek' is
>> exactly what we should expect him to say of someone with a grammar
>> school education.
>>
> You mean Johnson's comment.
Well done you finally get something right (although I'm surprised you
didn't float the possibility that it's not really by Jonson).
> And it is not at all clear that your
> interpretation of Jonson's remark is what he intended. I find Peter
> Farey's interpretation more convincing.
Of course I never denied Farey's and the other anti-stratfordian's
interpretation is not *possible* I denied, given what we know about
Shakespeare, that it was probable. So, once again you demonstrate your
inability to tell the difference between something that is merely
possible and something that is probable.
>> There are (as has been pointed out to you many times before) no official
>> record of anyone having attended the school
>>
> Thank you, but it is quite unnecessary to point this out to me. It is
> common knowledge.
Well, you seem incapable of grasping it.
> - are we to take it then that
>> because there are no official records that no one attended the school
>> and that the masters spent their days pissing in the avon?
>>
> hehe ...What an absurd suggestion.
Uh, yes, in case you didn;t notice it was *meant* to be absurd.
> Of course
>> not, obviously the locals sent their children there and which locals did
>> so, can, given relevant knowledge of a particular individual's
>> circumstances, be inferred with a reasonable degree of likelihood.
>>
> Yes, unfortunately we have virtually no knowledge of "a particular
> individual's circumstances".
Wrong. I just made a circumstantial case based on knowledge of a
particular individual's circumstances.
>>>> 2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
>>>> Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
>>>> Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
>>>> in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
>>>> existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
>>>> at all.
>>> If there was a satifactory literary paper trail for Will then, I
>>> suspect, the issues relating to authorship would largely fade away.
>> They have faded away, except for people who prefer (willingly or
>> unwillingly) sophistry and speculation to actual evidence.
>>
> You keep asserting this. I disagree.
Yeah, you keep asserting it is still an issue even though every
competent scholar in the field considers it a non issue.
>>>> 3. For whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
>>>> be those of a highly literate man,
>>>> I'M certainly literate, and yet MY signature is an absolute mess! Are
>>>> doctors who write perscription illiterate because of poor penmanship?
>>>> Ever examine a facsimale of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript? Not one
>>>> of the five hands is easily legible! Why complain about a few
>>>> signature scrawls?
>>> It's not a complaint. And professional writers (as opposed to
>>> doctors) tend to write legibly.
>> It's good to see you have addressed yourself to the facts at hand. In
>> response to the argument that the 'Sir Thomas More' MS is barely
>> legible, you claim that professional writers tend to write legibly! Am I
>> to take it then that you don;t think the MS of 'Sir Thomas More' is the
>> work of professional writers?
>>
> You really should try to read more carefully. I said "tend to".
> There are always exceptions to ny rule.
I see, so you consider your *unevidenced* claim that professional
writers 'tend to' write legibly a rebuttal of the empirical claim that
the 5 professional authors of the Thomas More MS wrote in hands that
were not 'easily legible'. In any case if there was a 'tendency' for
professional writers to write legibly (as you claim) we should
reasonably expect at least ONE of the authors of the Thomas More MS to
have an easily legible hand.
>>>> 4. Apart from Jonson, none of Will's contemporaries seem to remember
>>>> him in a literary context.
>>>> Do those making this claim even bother to do the slightest bit of
>>>> research? Jonson isn't the only person to put versus at the beginning
>>>> of the Folio. And that work was put together by Hemmings and Condel,
>>>> two men who most certainly would have first hand knowledge of who
>>>> wrote the plays!
>>> They were fellow actors. They would have been aware of the identity of
>>> the person who presented these plays to them. But one cannot assume
>>> they were aware of any revisions made by Will, nor for that matter
>>> whether Will was the original author (or co-author).
>> On the contrary it's your assumption that they could have not known that
>> is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Shakespeare worked with the
>> same group of actors for well over a decade (writing plays for that that
>> specific group of actors) and twenty odd years in the London theatre
>> scene. To suggest that he could have been a front as an author for all
>> that time in that kind of environment without anyone becoming aware of
>> 'the truth' is complete nonsense.
>>
> I did not ever say Will was a "front" for another writer.
Is that so.
You said: "one cannot assume [Heminge and Condell] were aware ...
whether Will was the original author..."
If he is not the original author and he is presenting MS to his
colleagues as the original author then he is acting as a front for the
original author(s).
> I said there
> are unresolved authorship issues. You make unwarranted assumptions.
No, you are making unwarranted assumptions about what Heminge and
Condell could and could not know.
> O, wait, let me anticipate your next
>> argument
>>
> Please spare me any further interpretations of my arguments.
Uh, in case you didn't notice this wasn't an interpretation of your
argument, but a prediction, based on the arguments you have presented so
far of the kind of thing one can reasonably expect you to argue.
> You have
> made such a mess of interpreting my statements already,
> notwithstanding that I've bent over backwards to make my meanings
> crystal clear.
On the contrary, the difficulty appears to be getting you to understand
your own arguments.
O, and btw, snipping text without answer or acknowledgement is not
conducive to making your meanings 'crystal clear'.
>> they ALL knew and it was one big conspiracy- a conspiracy that
>> left not one bit of evidence of having ever existed, thanks to the
>> efforts of the unknowable conspirators who did unknowable things in
>> order to protect the unknowable author(s) who were afraid of the
>> Queen/King doing unknowable things to them.
>>
> Wrong again. Please show me where I have stated or implied any belief
> in a conspiracy explanation of the unresolved authorship issues.
As I just said:
"Uh, in case you didn't notice this wasn't an interpretation of your
argument, but a prediction, based on the arguments you have presented so
far of the kind of thing one can reasonably expect you to argue."
Ign.
mylear
>
> >> 2. He was entitled to attend the school free of charge
>
> > Perhaps, but there is so little we actually know for sure.
>
> Another demonstration of a failure to negotiate the difference between
> the possible and the probable.
>
"perhaps", which has a probability implication. I then qualified it in
order to establish the weakness of your claim.
>
> >> 3. The Shakespeare works show a strong familiarity with the standard
> >> grammar school curriculum.
>
> > Please substantiate this statement with examples.
>
> I've already given you the reference: T.W. Baldwin, 'Shakspere's Small
> Latina and Less Greek'. I suggest you read it yourself (if you can).
>
having to pay an exhorbitant fee? Incidentally your rather juvenile
and deliberately insulting remark in brackets is really quite
unecessary. Don't you agree?
>
> >> 4. Shakespeare's comment that WS had 'small Latin and less Greek' is
> >> exactly what we should expect him to say of someone with a grammar
> >> school education.
>
> > You mean Johnson's comment.
>
> Well done you finally get something right (although I'm surprised you
> didn't float the possibility that it's not really by Jonson).
>
wit.
>
> > And it is not at all clear that your
> > interpretation of Jonson's remark is what he intended. I find Peter
> > Farey's interpretation more convincing.
>
> Of course I never denied Farey's and the other anti-stratfordian's
> interpretation is not *possible* I denied, given what we know about
> Shakespeare, that it was probable. So, once again you demonstrate your
> inability to tell the difference between something that is merely
> possible and something that is probable.
>
improbable.
>
> >> There are (as has been pointed out to you many times before) no official
> >> record of anyone having attended the school
>
> > Thank you, but it is quite unnecessary to point this out to me. It is
> > common knowledge.
>
> Well, you seem incapable of grasping it.
>
knowledge.
>
> > - are we to take it then that
> >> because there are no official records that no one attended the school
> >> and that the masters spent their days pissing in the avon?
>
> > hehe ...What an absurd suggestion.
>
> Uh, yes, in case you didn;t notice it was *meant* to be absurd.
>
responded in a mildly sarcastic vein.
> > Of course
> >> not, obviously the locals sent their children there and which locals did
> >> so, can, given relevant knowledge of a particular individual's
> >> circumstances, be inferred with a reasonable degree of likelihood.
>
> > Yes, unfortunately we have virtually no knowledge of "a particular
> > individual's circumstances".
>
> Wrong. I just made a circumstantial case based on knowledge of a
> particular individual's circumstances.
>
You don't possess that knowledge.
>
> >>>> 2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
> >>>> Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
> >>>> Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
> >>>> in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
> >>>> existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
> >>>> at all.
> >>> If there was a satifactory literary paper trail for Will then, I
> >>> suspect, the issues relating to authorship would largely fade away.
> >> They have faded away, except for people who prefer (willingly or
> >> unwillingly) sophistry and speculation to actual evidence.
>
> > You keep asserting this. I disagree.
>
> Yeah, you keep asserting it is still an issue even though every
> competent scholar in the field considers it a non issue.
>
I disagree with your assessment of what competent scholars think.
>
> >>>> 3. For whatever reason, the existing few signatures do not appear to
> >>>> be those of a highly literate man,
> >>>> I'M certainly literate, and yet MY signature is an absolute mess! Are
> >>>> doctors who write perscription illiterate because of poor penmanship?
> >>>> Ever examine a facsimale of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript? Not one
> >>>> of the five hands is easily legible! Why complain about a few
> >>>> signature scrawls?
> >>> It's not a complaint. And professional writers (as opposed to
> >>> doctors) tend to write legibly.
> >> It's good to see you have addressed yourself to the facts at hand. In
> >> response to the argument that the 'Sir Thomas More' MS is barely
> >> legible, you claim that professional writers tend to write legibly! Am I
> >> to take it then that you don;t think the MS of 'Sir Thomas More' is the
> >> work of professional writers?
>
> > You really should try to read more carefully. I said "tend to".
> > There are always exceptions to any rule.
>
> I see, so you consider your *unevidenced* claim that professional
> writers 'tend to' write legibly a rebuttal of the empirical claim that
> the 5 professional authors of the Thomas More MS wrote in hands that
> were not 'easily legible'. In any case if there was a 'tendency' for
> professional writers to write legibly (as you claim) we should
> reasonably expect at least ONE of the authors of the Thomas More MS to
> have an easily legible hand.
>
You don't seem able to distinguish petween the particular and the
general.
Not necessarily. it is not necessary to assume that Will might have
presented manuscripts to his fellow actors with the intention of
posing as the original author. There is insufficient evidence to allow
an assessment of his intentions. In any case, the word "front" implies
a conspiracy, with the actual author alive and passing manuscripts on
to Will - perhaps via an intermediary. I have never suggested that
such a possibility is likely. There is a stronger possibiity that at
least some of plays presented by Will to his fellow actors were
revised versions of plays written by one or more other authors,
perhaps deceased. Such revisions would have occurred for quite
plausible reasons, including adaptation for stage performance. A
number of recent stylometric studies using advanced statistical
techniques have demonstrated "co-authorship" for a significant number
of Shakespearean plays. The "co-authored" works might, in fact, be
revised works.
>
> > I said there
> > are unresolved authorship issues. You make unwarranted assumptions.
>
> No, you are making unwarranted assumptions about what Heminge and
> Condell could and could not know.
>
Not at all. You are making unwarranted assumptions about what you
imagine are my unwarranted assumptions.
>
> > O, wait, let me anticipate your next
> >> argument
>
> > Please spare me any further interpretations of my arguments.
>
> Uh, in case you didn't notice this wasn't an interpretation of your
> argument, but a prediction, based on the arguments you have presented so
> far of the kind of thing one can reasonably expect you to argue.
>
Please spare me your crazy predictions.
>
> > You have
> > made such a mess of interpreting my statements already,
> > notwithstanding that I've bent over backwards to make my meanings
> > crystal clear.
>
> On the contrary, the difficulty appears to be getting you to understand
> your own arguments.
>
That's your story.
>
> O, and btw, snipping text without answer or acknowledgement is not
> conducive to making your meanings 'crystal clear'.
>
> >> they ALL knew and it was one big conspiracy- a conspiracy that
> >> left not one bit of evidence of having ever existed, thanks to the
> >> efforts of the unknowable conspirators who did unknowable things in
> >> order to protect the unknowable author(s) who were afraid of the
> >> Queen/King doing unknowable things to them.
>
> > Wrong again. Please show me where I have stated or implied any belief
> > in a conspiracy explanation of the unresolved authorship issues.
>
> As I just said:
>
> "Uh, in case you didn't notice this wasn't an interpretation of your
> argument, but a prediction, based on the arguments you have presented so
> far of the kind of thing one can reasonably expect you to argue."
>
Your interpretations and your predictions have both fallen far short
of the mark. And I have noticed that whenever you cannot make headway
in an argument, you resort to sarcasm or insult.
> Ign.
>
>
>
> >> Ign.
>
> >>>> The poster who made these points I'm quoting sums them (and I few
> >>>> other points I omit here for time) up with his final statement:
> >>>> "These are all legitimate issues for
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
> ignoto wrote:
> > The subject of the encomium is clearly given by the
> > title: "To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr.
> > William Shakespeare and What He hath Left Us", ie
> > "the following verse is written in the memory of the
> > Mr William Shakespeare and his works." 'Mr' here
> > contextualises the subject as a gentleman, a title
> > which William Shakespeare of Stratford is known to
> > have held.
> [..]
> > The perverse reading (against the plain meaning of
> > the text) that 'the real author is still alive' is
> > made possible by two things. Firstly the ambiguities
> > inherent in any natural language. Secondly, the
> > assumption that the real author is indeed still alive [..]
>
> There are three main ways to read Jonson's
> encomium:
>
> 1) As straight . . �the Strats choice.
MM:
It can be taken straight with some wiggle room. Jonson was brave to
write such an enconium. There would have been a lot more such
enconiums for Shakespeare, but the writers thought it best not to go
public. They had a similar love and devotion for Shakespeare, but
thought it might adversely affect their work. Probably privately, all
the members of the Wilton Cult shared the same love, devotion, and
faith, which Jonson had.
> 2) As substantially straight �. . . but with
> a tiny deviation . . . �which is what Farey
> seems to do. �(Although he is so obscure,
> it is hard to know whether or not he is
> proposing any kind of theory.)
MM:
Jonson had to leave as little ambiguity, as even he couldn't just
write the straight truth. Mr. Farey will take that ball and run with
it, as in American Football. LOL IOW, he will take whatever
ambiguity is there to help his Marlovian cause.
> 3) As systematically ambiguous �. . . which
> is the Oxfordian option.
MM:
This is risky, obviously. This runs the risk of misinterpreting what
Jonson wrote. What he wrote was fairly clear, without indulging in
Oxfordian fantasies, IMO.
> How are we to decide which applies?
MM:
We have to use our intellect and discernment, as best we can. That's
all.
> Actually, it is not hard. �Encomiums avoid
> possible ambiguities �-- and other possibly
> confusing forms of speech, such as irony.
MM:
Jonson didn't write the straight truth. If he had written it, he
would have mentioned that Shakespeare was Jesus. He would have
mentioned that Shakespeare had realized God. That is why I say that
wrote with some ambiguity, a little wiggle room. He had to write that
way, just as Shakespeare, himself, had to write cryptically. Again, I
think Jonson was very brave to write the enconium as clearly as he
did.
> It is their task to set out the virtues and
> achievements of their subject, in a fairly
> plain and simple manner. �It is not difficult
> to avoid ambiguities in prepared texts.
> Everyone who works with words does it
> as a matter of routine.
MM:
Some enconiums have to be written with some ambiguity in them.
> Did Jonson avoid potential ambiguities?
MM:
He was clear, sometimes, and ambiguous sometimes.
> Or are the ones we see in the encomium
> "inherent in any natural language" (as
> Nigel suggests)?
>
> Paul.
MM:
Jonson was a Master of the language. His ambuities were necessary and
purposeful.
Michael Martin
ignoto
No, you are deliberately twisting my words, I obviously meant 'if you
can get a copy of it'.
>>>> 4. Shakespeare's comment that WS had 'small Latin and less Greek' is
>>>> exactly what we should expect him to say of someone with a grammar
>>>> school education.
>>> You mean Johnson's comment.
>> Well done you finally get something right (although I'm surprised you
>> didn't float the possibility that it's not really by Jonson).
>>
> Do I detect a smidgen of sarcasm in this remark? The lowest form of
> wit.
>>> And it is not at all clear that your
>>> interpretation of Jonson's remark is what he intended. I find Peter
>>> Farey's interpretation more convincing.
>> Of course I never denied Farey's and the other anti-stratfordian's
>> interpretation is not *possible* I denied, given what we know about
>> Shakespeare, that it was probable. So, once again you demonstrate your
>> inability to tell the difference between something that is merely
>> possible and something that is probable.
>>
> If their interpretation is improbable, then yours is equally
> improbable.
I see so you think my interpretation which is based on the historical
record (ie evidence) is as improbable as a speculative argument which is
based on conjecture.
You have a very poor grasp of logic.
>>>> There are (as has been pointed out to you many times before) no official
>>>> record of anyone having attended the school
>>> Thank you, but it is quite unnecessary to point this out to me. It is
>>> common knowledge.
>> Well, you seem incapable of grasping it.
>>
> No I don't. You seem incapable of grasping that it is common
> knowledge.
Gee, so if I ask the gardener he'll be able to tell me?
It's not common knowledge in fact, as I recall it is quite often omitted
by anti-stratfordian 'biographies' - but I guess they just assume it's
common knowledge to. It's all just one big misunderstanding! Of course,
how could I be so silly.
>>> - are we to take it then that
>>>> because there are no official records that no one attended the school
>>>> and that the masters spent their days pissing in the avon?
>>> hehe ...What an absurd suggestion.
>> Uh, yes, in case you didn;t notice it was *meant* to be absurd.
>>
> Uh, yes, in case you didn't notice I was aware of your intention and
> responded in a mildly sarcastic vein.
>
>>> Of course
>>>> not, obviously the locals sent their children there and which locals did
>>>> so, can, given relevant knowledge of a particular individual's
>>>> circumstances, be inferred with a reasonable degree of likelihood.
>>> Yes, unfortunately we have virtually no knowledge of "a particular
>>> individual's circumstances".
>> Wrong. I just made a circumstantial case based on knowledge of a
>> particular individual's circumstances.
>>
> You don't possess that knowledge.
You have a very poor grasp of logical inference.
>>>>>> 2. "There exists no literary paper trail for Will,"
>>>>>> Again, why would there have to be? There is no paper trail for
>>>>>> Aristophanes, yet does anyone dispute that he wrote HIS plays? Even
>>>>>> in Shakespeare's own time, there are scores of playwrights with no
>>>>>> existing paper trail, and yet their authorship is barely disputed, if
>>>>>> at all.
>>>>> If there was a satifactory literary paper trail for Will then, I
>>>>> suspect, the issues relating to authorship would largely fade away.
>>>> They have faded away, except for people who prefer (willingly or
>>>> unwillingly) sophistry and speculation to actual evidence.
>>> You keep asserting this. I disagree.
>> Yeah, you keep asserting it is still an issue even though every
>> competent scholar in the field considers it a non issue.
>>
> I disagree with your assessment of what competent scholars think.
You have a very poor grasp of what competent scholars think.
You don't seem to understand that 'the general' is merely a collection
of 'particulars', nor that your unevidenced assertion of what is the
case is not good evidence that something is the case.
What, so you think that having regularly presented MS to Heminge and
Condell and that MS regularly having been accepted by Heminge and
Condell as having been by him (even though it was not) that he could not
be said to have had the intention to deceive them? One could only say
that if the intention to deceive was absent in such circumstances it
could only be because of some mental defect (or as you would say: it's
possible the Earl of Oxford hypnotised him into believing that he really
was the author).
> In any case, the word "front" implies
> a conspiracy, with the actual author alive and passing manuscripts on
> to Will - perhaps via an intermediary. I have never suggested that
> such a possibility is likely.
This is just more evidence of your bad faith argumentation - shifting
the goal posts from mere possibility to 'likelihood'.
> There is a stronger possibiity that at
> least some of plays presented by Will to his fellow actors were
> revised versions of plays written by one or more other authors,
> perhaps deceased. Such revisions would have occurred for quite
> plausible reasons, including adaptation for stage performance. A
> number of recent stylometric studies using advanced statistical
> techniques have demonstrated "co-authorship" for a significant number
> of Shakespearean plays. The "co-authored" works might, in fact, be
> revised works.
>>> I said there
>>> are unresolved authorship issues. You make unwarranted assumptions.
>> No, you are making unwarranted assumptions about what Heminge and
>> Condell could and could not know.
No, I am making a case based on the historical records (and inferences
from those records), you, otoh are attempting to deny that case with
something that could only be called bad sophistry.
> Not at all. You are making unwarranted assumptions about what you
> imagine are my unwarranted assumptions.
>>> O, wait, let me anticipate your next
>>>> argument
>>> Please spare me any further interpretations of my arguments.
Too late.
>> Uh, in case you didn't notice this wasn't an interpretation of your
>> argument, but a prediction, based on the arguments you have presented so
>> far of the kind of thing one can reasonably expect you to argue.
>>
> Please spare me your crazy predictions.
>>> You have
>>> made such a mess of interpreting my statements already,
>>> notwithstanding that I've bent over backwards to make my meanings
>>> crystal clear.
>> On the contrary, the difficulty appears to be getting you to understand
>> your own arguments.
>>
> That's your story.
It's more than little disingenuous to say that whilst still covered in
snake oil.
>> O, and btw, snipping text without answer or acknowledgement is not
>> conducive to making your meanings 'crystal clear'.
>>
>>>> they ALL knew and it was one big conspiracy- a conspiracy that
>>>> left not one bit of evidence of having ever existed, thanks to the
>>>> efforts of the unknowable conspirators who did unknowable things in
>>>> order to protect the unknowable author(s) who were afraid of the
>>>> Queen/King doing unknowable things to them.
>>> Wrong again. Please show me where I have stated or implied any belief
>>> in a conspiracy explanation of the unresolved authorship issues.
>> As I just said:
>>
>> "Uh, in case you didn't notice this wasn't an interpretation of your
>> argument, but a prediction, based on the arguments you have presented so
>> far of the kind of thing one can reasonably expect you to argue."
>>
> Your interpretations and your predictions have both fallen far short
> of the mark. And I have noticed that whenever you cannot make headway
> in an argument, you resort to sarcasm or insult.
As your arguments are frivolous you should expect nothing less. Welcome
to usenet.
Ign.
mylear
> >> You said: "one cannot assume [Heminge and Condell] were aware ...
> >> whether Will was the original author..."
> >> If he is not the original author and he is presenting MS to his
> >> colleagues as the original author then he is acting as a front for the
> >> original author(s).
>
> > Not necessarily.
> > it is not necessary to assume that Will might have
> > presented manuscripts to his fellow actors with the intention of
> > posing as the original author. There is insufficient evidence to allow
> > an assessment of his intentions.
>
> What, so you think that having regularly presented MS to Heminge and
> Condell and that MS regularly having been accepted by Heminge and
> Condell as having been by him
>
original versions of the plays. The precise authorship mix was not a
big deal. The plays were perceived as being good theatrical stock, and
once received by the acting company each play became the property of
that company -- to be altered, revised, and adapted for stage
performance in any way that seemed appropriate. Their eventual
attribution of all the plays to Will, seven years after his death,
simply gave Will credit for acquiring, revising and preparing the
plays in a suitable form. And I suspect the fact that actors felt
justified in doing so was part of the basis for Robert Greene's set of
complaints, as expressed in "Groatsworth of Wit" and elsewhere.
>
(even though it was not) that he could not
> be said to have had the intention to deceive them?
>
deceive.
>
One could only say
> that if the intention to deceive was absent in such circumstances it
> could only be because of some mental defect
>
>
(or as you would say: it's
> possible the Earl of Oxford hypnotised him into believing that he really
> was the author).
>
making loopy suggestions. Moreover I am neither an Oxfordian in
particular, nor an anti-Stratfordian in general.
>
> > In any case, the word "front" implies
> > a conspiracy, with the actual author alive and passing manuscripts on
> > to Will - perhaps via an intermediary. I have never suggested that
> > such a possibility is likely.
>
> This is just more evidence of your bad faith argumentation - shifting
> the goal posts from mere possibility to 'likelihood'.
>
in either your ability to concentrate or your general level of
intelligence.
>
> > There is a stronger possibiity that at
> > least some of plays presented by Will to his fellow actors were
> > revised versions of plays written by one or more other authors,
> > perhaps deceased. Such revisions would have occurred for quite
> > plausible reasons, including adaptation for stage performance. A
> > number of recent stylometric studies using advanced statistical
> > techniques have demonstrated "co-authorship" for a significant number
> > of Shakespearean plays. The "co-authored" works might, in fact, be
> > revised works.
> >>> I said there
> >>> are unresolved authorship issues. You make unwarranted assumptions.
> >> No, you are making unwarranted assumptions about what Heminge and
> >> Condell could and could not know.
>
> No, I am making a case based on the historical records (and inferences
> something that could only be called bad sophistry.
>
mantra - that only you adhere to historical records and never engage
in speculation, while I invariably have the reverse disposition. You
also keep asserting that I am pushing an anti-Stratfordian position
(i.e., that I believe in some sort of "front" theory, in which Will
plays no role in writing and producing the plays). Notwithstanding
that I have denied this. The only possible interpretation one can put
upon such perverse behaviour is that you have (a) a few screws loose,
or (b) malevolent intent, or (c) both.
>
JH
Peter G.
news:1086258a-f932-4fee...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 10, 12:25 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> >> You said: "one cannot assume [Heminge and Condell] were aware ...
> >> whether Will was the original author..."
> >> If he is not the original author and he is presenting MS to his
> >> colleagues as the original author then he is acting as a front for the
> >> original author(s).
>
> > Not necessarily.
> > it is not necessary to assume that Will might have
> > presented manuscripts to his fellow actors with the intention of
> > posing as the original author. There is insufficient evidence to allow
> > an assessment of his intentions.
>
> What, so you think that having regularly presented MS to Heminge and
> Condell and that MS regularly having been accepted by Heminge and
> Condell as having been by him
>
Will's fellow actors were not particularly interested in who wrote the
original versions of the plays. The precise authorship mix was not a
big deal. The plays were perceived as being good theatrical stock, and
once received by the acting company each play became the property of
that company -- to be altered, revised, and adapted for stage
performance in any way that seemed appropriate. Their eventual
attribution of all the plays to Will, seven years after his death,
simply gave Will credit for acquiring, revising and preparing the
plays in a suitable form.
****Who says this bozo relies on groundless prejudiced speculation? Clearly
he has learned the technique of time-telepathy from his co-religionist
Crowley.
Peter G.
ignoto
You know, your groundless speculations are not anywhere near as
interesting as you suppose them to be.
>> be said to have had the intention to deceive them?
>>
> I'm interested in why you think there might have been an intention to
> deceive.
> One could only say
>> that if the intention to deceive was absent in such circumstances it
>> could only be because of some mental defect
>>
> No, I have explained the circumstances above.
> (or as you would say: it's
>> possible the Earl of Oxford hypnotised him into believing that he really
>> was the author).
>>
> Why would I say a silly thing like that? I am not in the habit of
> making loopy suggestions. Moreover I am neither an Oxfordian in
> particular, nor an anti-Stratfordian in general.
Well based on your arguments in this NG you are one of the club of
honorary anti-stratfordians.
Well, now you are just telling outright lies. Here's what I said on 5
November:
"Yes, and the fact that orthodox scholars do speculate is not an
objection to my argument. I have never denied orthodox scholars speculate."
> while I invariably have the reverse disposition. You
> also keep asserting that I am pushing an anti-Stratfordian position
Correct. As you fail to understand the distinction between a methodology
grounded in evidence and a methodology grounded in speculation you are
pushing an anti-stratfordian agenda.
> (i.e., that I believe in some sort of "front" theory, in which Will
> plays no role in writing and producing the plays). Notwithstanding
> that I have denied this.
Your denials only serve to demonstrate your complete and absolute
failure to understand the issue that is under discussion.
> The only possible interpretation one can put
> upon such perverse behaviour is that you have (a) a few screws loose,
> or (b) malevolent intent, or (c) both.
Well, as far as abuse goes that's some of the most pathetic I've eVER
read. Do try to do better next time.
Ign.
> JH
Peter Farey
>
> "mylear" wrote:
> >
> > "ignoto" wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can point out to me which of the following
> > > arguments (from that paper) are not speculative (etc ..)
> >
> > I did not claim that Peter's paper is free
> > from speculation.
>
> This is a non sequitur. I asked which of the arguments were not
> speculative. They are all speculative.
<...>
> IOW you are incapable of grasping the distinction between
> evidence based methodologies and speculation based method-
> ologies.
Am I invisible? Do I merely festoon the room with my presence?
I have tried, as nicely as it is possible for me to be in the
presence of foolishness, to explain to you that ALL respectable
historical research is both evidence-based AND speculation-
based. A problem, as indicated by the evidence, is recognized
in terms of the deviations evident from what might be expected.
Speculation is then required in identifying all possible expl-
anations for those deviations. By inductive reasoning, one then
selects which of all those possible explanations best explains
all of the deviations indicated by the evidence.
As I said earlier, and you declined to answer:
"No, Nigel, none of these is "speculative" in the way you would like
us to understand the word - simply wild ideas picked out of the air
and based upon nothing more than a desire to sell a predetermined
solution.
Each of them is a conclusion arrived at by way of inductive logic
which offers a better solution to a perceived problem than any other
suggested solution. The only place where speculation inevitably
comes into this is in coming up with various possible solutions,
from amongst which one must choose the most logical answer.
Look again at each of the above, and you will see that what I was
offering is an answer to a perceived problem. Look at the body of
my essay, and you will see the logical process by which I arrived at
each of them. By all means accuse me of being wrong (although I'd
naturally like to know why you think I am) but please don't just
dismiss my conclusions as simply speculative (or even worse as
"unscholarly" as your remarks in answer to John's clearly implied).
That you ignored what I said on the subject whilst continuing to
claim exactly the same as you did before tells us rather more about
the confidence you have in your own knowledge of this area than any
answer might have done.
mylear
>
> Your denials only serve to demonstrate your complete and absolute
> failure to understand the issue that is under discussion.
>
guidelines for it. You are the person who has misunderstood the issues
under discussion. As for the definition of "anti-Stratfordian", a
reasonable definition is someone who believes that (a) Will was a
front man for one or more other authors, (b) his intention was to
deceive his fellow actors and posterity, and (c) he contributed
virtually nothing to writing the plays. I don't accept any of these
propositions, and therefore am somewhat mystified at your insistence
that I am some sort of undercover anti-Stratfordian or (in your wilder
statements) a liar. As I said previously, to persist with this
perversion signifies that you are either a crank, or a person with
malevolent intent, or both.
JH
mylear
wrote:
> ****Who says this bozo relies on groundless prejudiced speculation? Clearly
> he has learned the technique of time-telepathy from his co-religionist
> Crowley.
>
> Peter G.
>
to the discussion. However it reveals much about the aggressive mind-
set of Peter G.
JH
Peter G.
On Nov 10, 10:50 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
wrote:
> ****Who says this bozo relies on groundless prejudiced speculation?
> Clearly
> he has learned the technique of time-telepathy from his co-religionist
> Crowley.
>
> Peter G.
>
This type of neanderthal knee-jerk response adds nothing of substance
to the discussion.
****No-one can see what it adds because the coward has snipped its context.
Obviously in retrospect even he is embarrassed by the remarks I was
objecting to.
However it reveals much about the aggressive mind-
set of Peter G.
****"aggressive mind-set"? Either this is more Crowleyan telepathy or we
must assume that all that affectation of wounded innocence about imputed
motives was merely projection (or dissimulation). As it happens, in
debating with scholars I behave with scholarly decorum; as Aristotle
observes, however, there is such a thing as right anger. I hope I shall
always maintain my aggression towards this kind of weaselly sanctimonious
insinuation of falsehood. In the face of bad faith and dishonest
argumentation one does not debate; one merely seeks to expose the fraud.
Peter G.
mylear
wrote:
> "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:ca8f7ea0-7db4-43e5...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 10:50 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
> wrote:> ****Who says this bozo relies on groundless prejudiced speculation?
> > Clearly
> > he has learned the technique of time-telepathy from his co-religionist
> > Crowley.
>
> > Peter G.
>
> This type of neanderthal knee-jerk response adds nothing of substance
> to the discussion.
>
> ****No-one can see what it adds because the coward has snipped its context.
> Obviously in retrospect even he is embarrassed by the remarks I was
> objecting to.
>
easily locate the full text. And certainly nothing for me to feel
embarrassed about.
>
> However it reveals much about the aggressive mind-
> set of Peter G.
>
> ****"aggressive mind-set"? Either this is more Crowleyan telepathy or we
> must assume that all that affectation of wounded innocence about imputed
> motives was merely projection (or dissimulation).
>
>
As it happens, in
> debating with scholars I behave with scholarly decorum; as Aristotle
> observes, however, there is such a thing as right anger.
>
forum. Your apparent need to behave aggressively reveals you for what
you are -- an immensely insecure individual.
>
> I hope I shall
> always maintain my aggression towards this kind of weaselly sanctimonious
> insinuation of falsehood.
>
>
> In the face of bad faith and dishonest
> argumentation one does not debate; one merely seeks to expose the fraud.
>
>
> Peter G.
mylear
> Will's fellow actors were not particularly interested in who wrote the
> original versions of the plays. The precise authorship mix was not a
> big deal. The plays were perceived as being good theatrical stock, and
> once received by the acting company each play became the property of
> that company -- to be altered, revised, and adapted for stage
> performance in any way that seemed appropriate. Their eventual
> attribution of all the plays to Will, seven years after his death,
> simply gave Will credit for acquiring, revising and preparing the
> plays in a suitable form. And I suspect the fact that actors felt
> justified in doing so was part of the basis for Robert Greene's set of
> complaints, as expressed in "Groatsworth of Wit" and elsewhere.
>
Will. Stylometric studies reveal that around one third of the plays in
the canon were "co-authored". My contention is that the "co-authored"
plays were revised, amended and adapted versions of plays written by
other authors.
JH
lackpurity
> On Nov 10, 12:25�pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> You said: "one cannot assume [Heminge and Condell] were aware ...
> > >> whether Will was the original author..."
> > >> If he is not the original author and he is presenting MS to his
> > >> colleagues as the original author then he is acting as a front for the
> > >> original author(s).
>
> > > Not necessarily.
> > > it is not necessary to assume that Will might have
> > > presented manuscripts to his fellow actors with the intention of
> > > posing as the original author. There is insufficient evidence to allow
> > > an assessment of his intentions.
>
> > What, so you think that having regularly presented MS to Heminge and
> > Condell and that MS regularly having been accepted by Heminge and
> > Condell as having been by him
>
> Will's fellow actors were not particularly interested in who wrote the
> original versions of the plays.
MM:
My opinion is THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN WHO WROTE THE PLAYS. He
was famous, and he was The Master of the Wilton Cult. Even Queen
Elizabeth was interested in Will Shakespeare.
The precise authorship mix was not a
> big deal.
MM:
There was no "authorship mix," except possibly in the minds of some
Anti-Strats.
The plays were perceived as being good theatrical stock, and
> once received by the acting company each play became the property of
> that company -- to be altered, revised, and adapted for stage
> performance in any way that seemed appropriate.
MM:
If you're trying to say that Will Shakespeare didn't own his own
plays, you haven't posted any evidence to corroborate that, and on the
face of it appears outrageous.
Remember, Burbage, Cundell, and Heminges said to approach the FF
religiously, not in the flippant manner which you suggest. Your
theory is not congruent with the facts.
Their eventual
> attribution of all the plays to Will, seven years after his death,
> simply gave Will credit for acquiring, revising and preparing the
> plays in a suitable form.
MM:
What a clown! Why do you think they said to approach the FF
religiously? Try answering that one, and come back to earth from
fantasyland.
You imply that Will "acquired" his own plays? LOL
And I suspect the fact that actors felt
> justified in doing so was part of the basis for Robert Greene's set of
> complaints, as expressed in "Groatsworth of Wit" and elsewhere.
MM:
You're way off base and incongruent to boot. Robert Greene had a
spiritual grudge with Marlowe, and indirectly to Marlowe's successor
Shakespeare. He felt that he was terminally ill and God wasn't
helping him, so he blamed Marlowe and Shakespeare. It had nothing to
do with what you imply.
> �(even though it was not) that he could not
> be said to have had the intention to deceive them?
MM:
Robert Greene was trying to deceive the followers of Shakespeare.
That much is crystal clear. He (Greene) was very deceived, himself.
> I'm interested in why you think there might have been an intention to
> deceive.
MM:
I might have lost your deception theme?
MM:
Maybe Anti-Shakespearian would apply to you? I don't think you've
done the Ever-Living Bard justice. It does seem to me that Ignoto
deals more with the evidence, while you tend to fly off into
fantasies.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
wrote:
> "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
MM:
Now, Anti-Strats are using telepathy? What messages does Crowley send
him telepathically? Fantasies? LOL I don't know who has the least
respect for Will Shakespeare, Mylear or Crowley, but I'm leaning
towards Crowley and his contrived name theory. LOL
Michael Martin
> JH- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
wrote:
> "mylear" <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:ca8f7ea0-7db4-43e5...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 10:50 pm, "Peter G." <Montive...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com>
> wrote:> ****Who says this bozo relies on groundless prejudiced speculation?
> > Clearly
> > he has learned the technique of time-telepathy from his co-religionist
> > Crowley.
>
> > Peter G.
>
> This type of neanderthal knee-jerk response adds nothing of substance
> to the discussion.
MM:
Well, it adds Peter G's opinion. I'm more on his side, then yours,
this time. This whole thread has been very disrespectful to the
Stratford Bard, considering your posts. Ignoto has responded well.
Peter G. has responded well. Get over it.
> ****No-one can see what it adds because the coward has snipped its context.
> Obviously in retrospect even he is embarrassed by the remarks I was
> objecting to.
MM:
I know what you objected to, and I objected in another message in this
same thread.
> However it reveals much about the aggressive mind-
> set of Peter G.
MM:
Well, you're not exactly harmonizing with Strats. You seem to be
supplying the same old Anti-Strat fantasies, the same old questions,
which have been answered so many times.
> ****"aggressive mind-set"? �Either this is more Crowleyan telepathy or we
> must assume that all that affectation of wounded innocence about imputed
> motives was merely projection (or dissimulation). �As it happens, in
> debating with scholars I behave with scholarly decorum; as Aristotle
> observes, however, there is such a thing as right anger. �I hope I shall
> always maintain my aggression towards this kind of weaselly sanctimonious
> insinuation of falsehood. �In the face of bad faith and dishonest
> argumentation one does not debate; one merely seeks to expose the fraud.
>
> Peter G.
MM:
I think Peter G's response was justified. Maybe Mylear needs to
review his own posts? :-)
Michael Martin
Peter G.
deserve a response).
Peter G.
"mylear" <her...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:ee6a37b4-eefb-4296...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
sasheargold
> On Nov 10, 10:28 pm, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:> Will's fellow actors were not particularly interested in who wrote the
> > big deal. The plays were perceived as being good theatrical stock, and
> > once received by the acting company each play became the property of
> > that company -- to be altered, revised, and adapted for stage
> > performance in any way that seemed appropriate. Their eventual
> > attribution of all the plays to Will, seven years after his death,
> > simply gave Will credit for acquiring, revising and preparing the
> > plays in a suitable form. And I suspect the fact that actors felt
> > justified in doing so was part of the basis for Robert Greene's set of
> > complaints, as expressed in "Groatsworth of Wit" and elsewhere.
>
> This does not imply that none of the plays were wholely written by
> Will. Stylometric studies reveal that around one third of the plays in
> the canon were "co-authored". My contention is that the "co-authored"
> plays were revised, amended and adapted versions of plays written by
> other authors.
> JH
John - I think the above scenario is far more plausible than some of
the ludicrous notions put forward by various anti-Stratfordians (not
saying you're one!). Could you give examples of some of the plays you
think may have been revised and who might have originally written
them? I'd be interested to know.
SB.
mylear
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unfortunately there is not a consensus view on the identity of the
principal co-authors. However, based on my background reading of books
and papers published by reputable scholars, I am prepared to put my
head on the chopping block. The plays listed below have been
associated with the name William Shakespeare, and various stylometric
studies have suggested the co-authors listed. JH
Non-canon:
Edward 3 Marlowe
Sir Thomas More Munday/Chettle/Heywood/Dekker
Arden of Feversham Kyd
Two Noble Kinsmen Fletcher
Canon:
Pericles Wilkins
Timon of Athens Middleton
Macbeth Middleton
Titus Andronicus Peele
Henry 8 Fletcher
Henry 5 Marlowe
1 Henry 6 Marlowe/Peele/Greene/Nashe
2 Henry 6 Marlowe
3 Henry 6 Marlowe
King John Marlowe
Richard 2 Marlowe
Richard 3 Marlowe
Brad Filippone
of the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript. Very hard to read, but certainly
it was written by literate people, (Munday, Chettle, Heywood,
Shakespere (ok, or whoever!) and Dekker).
Brad