The merit of "Lucrece" (Kathman's critics)
lowercase dave
replied
> I've never claimed to be particularly perceptive as a
> critic, so I'm not sure why lowercase dave dragged me
> into this. I guess it was because I disputed his claim
> that *Lucrece* is the work of a "master poet", and the
> concomitant implication that it was written much later
> in Shakespeare's career than *Venus and Adonis*. I don't
> think it requires any great degree of critical acumen
> to dispute such a statement, and even if it did,
I didn't MAKE such a statement, either. Venus and Adonis could not
have been written much before 1591-92, could it? Lucrece 1593-94.
I could
> point to the many critics who have agreed with me, many
> of whom are much more perceptive in these matters than I am.
Agreed with you about what? What many critics?
Can you (Dave K.) list a few who think it is not the work of a master
poet, with biblio refs, so I can read their essays?
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Paul Crowley
news:545b95a7.03080...@posting.google.com...
> In one of the corn hoarder threads, Dave Kathman states >, and I
> replied
>
> > I've never claimed to be particularly perceptive as a
> > critic, so I'm not sure why lowercase dave dragged me
> > into this. I guess it was because I disputed his claim
> > that *Lucrece* is the work of a "master poet", and the
> > concomitant implication that it was written much later
> > in Shakespeare's career than *Venus and Adonis*. I don't
> > think it requires any great degree of critical acumen
> > to dispute such a statement, and even if it did,
>
> I didn't MAKE such a statement, either. Venus and Adonis could not
> have been written much before 1591-92, could it? Lucrece 1593-94.
Sure, and as Archbishop Usher would agree,
the world could not possibly have been created
before 7,000 B.C. . .
Both sentiments come from a naive trust in
the received wisdom of the Sacred Texts.
Whatever you do, don't look at the facts.
Lucrece was probably written soon after 1560,
when the poet was ten. V& A probably a few
years later.
Paul.
lowercase dave
"Whatever you do, don't look at the facts," that should be your motto Paul.
lowercase dave
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Bob Grumman
> > > point to the many critics who have agreed with me, many
> > > of whom are much more perceptive in these matters than I am.
> >
> > Agreed with you about what? What many critics?
> > Can you (Dave K.) list a few who think it is not the work of a master
> > poet, with biblio refs, so I can read their essays?
One is William Hazlitt: "It has been the fashion of late to cry up our
author's poems as equal to his plays: this is the desperate cant of
modern criticism.
. . . The two poems of Venus and Adonis and of Tarquin and Lucrece
appear to us like a couple of ice houses. They are about as hard, as
glittering, and as cold. The authors seems all the time thinking of
his verses, and not of his subject."
Logan Pearsall Smith: "The two long poems, composed when he was nearly
thirty . . . are pedantic studies of lust, without the least evidence
of a dramatic gift."
These are excerpts from a compendium of many essays on the works of
Shakespeare edited by F. E. Halliday: Shakespeare and His Critics.
1958. Good book.
--Bob G.
David Kathman
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote:
>Just a reminder to David Kathman, about those critics, see below, thanks.
I didn't have time to do this tonight. Other things came up.
But for a start, lowercase dave, go to a library and find
Hyder Rollins's 1938 Variorum edition of Shakespeare's poems.
The section on "General Criticism of Venus and Lucrece" (pp. 476-523)
has a lot of opinions on these poems by critics from Coleridge
to the critics of the 1930s, most of whom do not seem to
have considered these poems the works of a "master poet",
and many of whom remarked on how they seem to have been
written by a young and relatively unformed poet. I'm also
looking at F. T. Prince's 1960 Arden edition of the poems,
which I happen to have within arm's reach, and I note
that he writes on pp. xxv-xxvi that "it will not be difficult
to argue that Venus is a complete artistic success, despite
some flaws or weaker passages, while Lucrece is undoubtedly
as a whole an artistic failure." He also repeatedly refers
to both poems as the work of a "young poet".
I may try to post some more stuff, including maybe something
from the new Oxford edition of the poems, but not tonight.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
lowercase dave
Nice work, Bob. Again I commend you and your running mate, old Knavey
for offering fresh EVIDENCE to support your view, instead of
gratuitous insults. (Perhaps your replacement Neil Brennen) will learn
as much. That said, Kathman said he could point to MANY critics, and I
don't think he was referring to Hazlitt or Smith, since both are long
dead.
Combined the two comments call Lucrece a "hard-glittering ice house'
and "a pedantic study" which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with: the
poems are tours de force, both of them. Curiously (shall we call it
"the mirror law"): Hazlitt's collected works stands like an ice house
and Smith wrote pedantic studies. So what do you expect them to say?
Neither is a poet, though both undoubtedly were great experts on many
topics.
Hazlitt is a distinguished essayist of 2 centuries ago.
<http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Literary/Hazlitt.htm>
Whereas Logan Pearsall Smith
<< ...was born on October 18, 1865, in Millville, N.J., and died on
March 2, 1946. He was the son of Robert Pearsall and Hannah Whitall
Smith. He attended Haverford College, Harvard and Balliol College in
Oxford, England. An essayist and critic. Smith found his inspiration
in Walter Pater. His work consists typically of epigrams. Among his
works are ... On Reading Shakespeare (1933), .... In his later years
he wrote mostly letters, especially to his young students such as ...
Hugh Trevor-Roper.>>
<http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/literature/prose/lsmith.html>
Thanks for the contribution. Still looking forward to getting a look
at some of the "many critics" Dave KL can point to that say Lucrece is
inferior (to, say, Titus Andronicus, or Comedy of Errors, both of
which were on the boards about this time). Also, i respectfully
disagree with the great Mr. Smith. For my money the scene where
Tarquin hovers over Lucrece's bed and wrestles with his conscience
before forcing her to submit (and Lucrece's own thoughts) are almost
stream of consciousness. Great dramatic poetry to be sure. True, the
author waxes pedantic on topics like "Opportunity" and "Night" but
otherwise he does a fine job of condensing the prequel to the founding
of Roman republic into these 1,855 lines of impeccable rime royal,
which is very difficult to write, as you now know.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Bob Grumman
> > Logan Pearsall Smith: "The two long poems, composed when he was nearly
> > thirty . . . are pedantic studies of lust, without the least evidence
> > of a dramatic gift."
> >
> > These are excerpts from a compendium of many essays on the works of
> > Shakespeare edited by F. E. Halliday: Shakespeare and His Critics.
> > 1958. Good book.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
>
> Nice work, Bob. Again I commend you and your running mate, old Knavey
> for offering fresh EVIDENCE to support your view, instead of
> gratuitous insults. (Perhaps your replacement Neil Brennen) will learn
> as much. That said, Kathman said he could point to MANY critics, and I
> don't think he was referring to Hazlitt or Smith, since both are long
> dead.
They are critics, and Hazlitt is considered a major critic by many.
It is instructive that Halliday's book, as I considered mentioning but
didn't, contains ONLY those two critics out of many possible for his
section on Lucrece.
Anyway, it looks like Dave has started a list of critics who don't
think much of Lucrece for you. Meanwhile, have you said how a
"master-poet" could have written the passages of Lucrece Jim quotes
yet?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:bh9sjh$m23$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> Hyder Rollins's 1938 Variorum edition of Shakespeare's poems.
> The section on "General Criticism of Venus and Lucrece" (pp. 476-523)
> has a lot of opinions on these poems by critics from Coleridge
> to the critics of the 1930s, most of whom do not seem to
> have considered these poems the works of a "master poet",
> and many of whom remarked on how they seem to have been
> written by a young and relatively unformed poet. I'm also
> looking at F. T. Prince's 1960 Arden edition of the poems,
> which I happen to have within arm's reach, and I note
> that he writes on pp. xxv-xxvi that "it will not be difficult
> to argue that Venus is a complete artistic success, despite
> some flaws or weaker passages, while Lucrece is undoubtedly
> as a whole an artistic failure." He also repeatedly refers
> to both poems as the work of a "young poet".
I think all around here (except lowercase
dave) will be fairly happy about all that.
So what the heck is going on with
(a) the order of publication with V&A being
followed by Lucrece?
(b) the author's statements about V&A being
'the first heir of my invention' . .and
implying that Lucrece will be
'a graver labour' ?
(c) Lucrece being presented as the author's
current work at much the same time
as he is writing Richard II . .?
Are they reasonable questions?
Will they get reasonable answers from a
Strat or a Marlite? (Or even a Baconian?)
Plainly, the author was lying. But why?
I say it was a joke . . a complex set of jokes.
What does everyone else say?
(Why, nothing of course. What is there
to be said . . . other than . . "Duh!" ?
A 'word' that sums up the whole of
Stratfordian, Marlite and Baconian
'scholarship'.)
Paul.
john_baker
Lichtenberg remarks, "Works like these are a mirror; if an ass looks
in you cannot expect an apostle to look out."
Now the opinion of those about V&A and L is interesting, in light of
Lichenberg's maxim. So asses think them immature, while genius sees
itself.
The fact is that the human race has decided that both of these
works are those of a great poet.
Seneca tells us that "fame follows merit as surely as the body casts a
shadow...sometimes in front...sometimes behind..."
And Schopenhauer reminds us "that it's often only after the lapse of
time that the persons really competent to judge them
appear...exceptional critics sitting in judgement on exceptional
works, and given their weighty verdicts in succession. These
collectively form a perfectly just appreciation; and though there are
cases where it has taken some hundreds of years to form it, no further
lapse of time is able to reverse the verdict; so secure and inevitable
is the fame of a great work."
Shakespeare's works are like this. They were not seen for what they
were at the period. How could they have been? They weren't about
what the common London person was all about. Again to quote
Schopenhauer,
"the dull person will like what is dull, the common person what is
common, a man whose ideas are mixed will be attracted by confusion of
thought and folly will appeal to him who has no brains at all.."
Shakespeare's works are great and they have been seen as great by the
greatest among us.
If one wants to suppose either of these two works aren't great, name
some that are better and more widely read. One from that period that
quickly springs to mind is Marlowe's Hero and Leander, but this we
know to be a sequel to Venus and Adonis by its own report.
None of the other _hundreds_ of similar poems from the period,
published and unpublished, come even close and have been collectively
set aside by the verdict and opinion of mankind as great works.
We are in the presence of Greatness when we are in their pages and if
it seems to some that this is not true, we know the problem to be in
the mind and personality of the critic. Not one of which has produced
a similar work, let alone a similar canon....
Not trying to single you out Kathman, but when you eventually realize
this you'll see why there is a Shakespeare problem...(:} ) The
world's greatest literary genius and political philosopher lived and
died in obscurity in the midst of a city like London...it's an
insensible proportion.
Even a dunce like me shines in a city the size of Centralia, which is
ten or twenty times the size of Stratford, and my fame here is well
established in the local records...men I don't know knock on my door
to put me on PBS.....but Willy was not known as a writer in
Stratford...only as an actor and supplier of plays....that this
doesn't bother you is quite curious to the rest of humanity....(:?)
John Baker
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com
"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler
richard kennedy
gas-bag paragraph below, August -03
"I've said many times that the only reason I read this newsgroup is
for entertainment purposes, though I'll sometimes correct especially
egregious falsehoods or answer straightforward factual questions if I
have the time. Some of the antistratfordians here actually seem to
expect me to waste my time "debating" them. I used to do some of that
here, years ago, but I long ago realized what a futile exercise it
was. Many of the articles on the Shakespeare Authorship web site
originated as posts on this newsgroup, so it has had that beneficial
effect, but I now have many far better things to do with my time. But
I still need doses of humor to leaven my day, and reading this group
is usually a great source of hilarity. There's plenty of depressing
stuff, too, but that's the hazard of dealing with antistrafordians.
Dave Kathman"
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<bh9sjh$m23$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>...
lowercase dave
of time "debating" true-believers in the HLAS newsgroup. And Dave, to
his credit, provides the group with (often) much-needed factual
correctives.
This is not take away from your own gadfly contributions, such as the
Wool Man thread, and the poem to William Peters (any poet could tell
that wasn't by Shakespeare, unless he was trying to write bad poem),
and your expose of the (semi-squalid) living conditions in Stratford
more than century after the First Folio came out, and the ignorance of
the townsfolk as to who William was also stands out.
If you were to make a list of your most significant contributions to
the group, what would you include? I think this would make an
interesting topic for a new thread. "My most important contribution(s)
to HLAS" I'd like to see how people see themselves. For instance,
threads or discussions that I feel I -- or my side-- won, may be
perceived quite differently by our interlocutors. (The close
relationship of V&A and H&L, e.g.) and it may engender renewed
discussion.
Sure Dave K's smugness can be annoying and frustrating at times, but
he does a good job of answering queries, and his paragraphs are never
gaseous, unlike some, who shall go nameless -- but your guess is
(near-rimes gaseous) as good as mine.
signed,
Wynn D. More
I say this because, RK wrote:
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Bob Grumman
> to HLAS" I'd like to see how people see themselves. For instance,
> threads or discussions that I feel I -- or my side-- won, may be
> perceived quite differently by our interlocutors. (The close
> relationship of V&A and H&L, e.g.) and it may engender renewed
> discussion.
How about a thread in which we indicate each of our opponents'
Stupidest Contribution? Lying Richard's would probably be his woolman
dissertation although his no one ever said Shakespeare was a writer
until he'd been dead for seven years is a close second. Crowley on
the fair youth as Elizabeth I may be his best. Yours may be your
assertion that one has to be able to write blank verse to be able to
comment on it intelligently. Peter Farey has done a few. A
front-runner is his argument that Shakespeare's name on title-pages is
as strong evidence that Marlowe wrote shakespeare's plays using
"Shakespeare" as a pseudonym as it that Shakespeare used his own name
to write those plays. I doubt anyone could determine Elizabeth's
stupidest contribution. As far as I can tell, Buckwack has only made
one contribution, so it would be both his best and worst contribution.
As for Streitz--hands down, the one where he argues that Oxford and
his mother, Elizabeth, were Southampton's parents (and that that kind
of thing was common back then). Price/Dooley went to rare heights
with their notion that posthumous evidence doesn't count, but their
stupidest contributions were not posted--I mean texts in Price's book
she and he referred us to--mainly the incredible misreadings of Jonson
and other poets.
I'd LOVE to find out which of my contributions seemed the stupidest to
you Shakespeare-rejecters. My authorship-related contributions, that
is. I've made a few possible candidates outside those.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) wrote:
> > An interesting topic for a new thread. "My most important contribution(s)
> > to HLAS" I'd like to see how people see themselves. For instance,
> > threads or discussions that I feel I -- or my side-- won, may be
> > perceived quite differently by our interlocutors. (The close
> > relationship of V&A and H&L, e.g.) and it may engender renewed
> > discussion.
> How about a thread in which we indicate each of our opponents'
> Stupidest Contribution?
But in the case of Elizabeth Weird or Mr. Streitz, how could one
possibly select just ONE?
> Lying Richard's would probably be his woolman
> dissertation although his no one ever said Shakespeare was a writer
> until he'd been dead for seven years is a close second.
I submit that one of his best is still this one,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=EtDxMG.KBD%40midway.uchicago.edu&ou
tput=gplain>,
in which he established conclusively that he cannot disinguish text from
commentary -- although his "Nom tibi de Vere" thread must surely rate as
one of his best.
> Crowley on
> the fair youth as Elizabeth I may be his best.
But what about his pronouncements that the "Ray Mignot" sonnet was
genuine:
"It's too good . It shows too great a degree of familiarity with the
Elizabethan world for it to be a hoax. Its author has too much
sympathy with, and understanding of, the Oxfordian cause. I have to
conclude that it really is Oxford's."
"But if it is a hoax, just who is good enough to create it?
Certainly no one in this ng. And the notion that anyone connected
with the Stratford Trust has such a capacity is close to unthinkable.
Seriously -- is there anyone alive with that sort of talent,
experience, knowledge and understanding?"
Do "aquatic ape" posts count, or are we to confine ourselves to h.l.a.s.?
> Yours may be your
> assertion that one has to be able to write blank verse to be able to
> comment on it intelligently. Peter Farey has done a few. A
> front-runner is his argument that Shakespeare's name on title-pages is
> as strong evidence that Marlowe wrote shakespeare's plays using
> "Shakespeare" as a pseudonym as it that Shakespeare used his own name
> to write those plays. I doubt anyone could determine Elizabeth's
> stupidest contribution. As far as I can tell, Buckwack has only made
> one contribution, so it would be both his best and worst contribution.
> As for Streitz--hands down, the one where he argues that Oxford and
> his mother, Elizabeth, were Southampton's parents (and that that kind
> of thing was common back then).
What about Streitz's claim that Oxford's first child was actually
fathered by Burghley, on his own daughter? What about his claim that
only one of Shakespeare's plays is set in a foreign country other than
Italy? What about his suspicion that, because his offer to purchase the
Ashbourne Portrait for $55,000 was refused, the Folger Library must be
aware that the sitter is Oxford and that Oxford is Shakespeare? In
fact, one can open Mr. Streitz's book at random and find stupidities
that rival these.
Mr. Streitz and Elizabeth Weird should be exempt, on the grounds that
identifying a *single* or even just a few stupidest contributions is
impossible in either of their cases -- and listing just the serious
candidates would be a task roughly on the scale of typing out _War and
Peace_.
> Price/Dooley went to rare heights
> with their notion that posthumous evidence doesn't count, but their
> stupidest contributions were not posted--I mean texts in Price's book
> she and he referred us to--mainly the incredible misreadings of Jonson
> and other poets.
Surely Dooley's etymological insight must be a contender?
> I'd LOVE to find out which of my contributions seemed the stupidest to
> you Shakespeare-rejecters. My authorship-related contributions, that
> is. I've made a few possible candidates outside those.
Aren't you going to give Stephanie Caruana and Art Neuendorffer a
fair chance, Bob?
lowercase dave
> Stupidest Contribution?
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you'd make this suggestion, Bob,
but i'd prefer to acCENtuate the positive.
<snip>
> Yours may be your
> assertion that one has to be able to write blank verse to be able to
> comment on it intelligently.
Never said it; said it was more difficult to write rime royal than
blank verse, and that people who can not write either, really
shouldn't be critizing Shakespeare's verses as inferior, without
justification. No less an authority than JWKennedy appears to agree
with this in another thread today, where he says that good poetry
critics have tried their hands at it themselves.
That being said...it is of course possible to comment intelligently on
any activity without having done it, but experience in the field tends
to give the opinion more weight. Agreed, i hope.
And I doubt that Peter F. has made any "stupid" contributions in this
forum.
Peter Farey has done a few. A
> front-runner is his argument that Shakespeare's name on title-pages is
> as strong evidence that Marlowe wrote shakespeare's plays using
> "Shakespeare" as a pseudonym as it that Shakespeare used his own name
> to write those plays.
Really? That strikes me as a brilliant twist. Would like to read the
context in which he made that statement, if this is indeed what he
said.
<snip>
>
> I'd LOVE to find out which of my contributions seemed the stupidest to
> you Shakespeare-rejecters. My authorship-related contributions, that
> is. I've made a few possible candidates outside those.
I think it would be the very post to which i am responding, Bob. ;)
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Paul Crowley
> If you were to make a list of your most significant contributions to
> the group, what would you include? I think this would make an
> interesting topic for a new thread. "My most important contribution(s)
> to HLAS" I'd like to see how people see themselves. For instance,
> threads or discussions that I feel I -- or my side-- won, may be
> perceived quite differently by our interlocutors. (The close
> relationship of V&A and H&L, e.g.) and it may engender renewed
> discussion.
It helps if you take part.
When are we going to see a justification from
you of your theory that Lucrece is a great work
clearly produced by a 30-year-old mature poet?
We all know the answer -- never. Because it
can't be done.
Marlite theory == 'Duh!'
Paul.
Bob Grumman
> > assertion that one has to be able to write blank verse to be able to
> > comment on it intelligently.
>
> Never said it;
You said something like it.
> (I) said it was more difficult to write rime royal than
> blank verse, and that people who can not write either, really
> shouldn't be critizing Shakespeare's verses as inferior, without
> justification.
I'm not going to look it up, Dave, but I don't remember "without
justification." Seems to me you just said people who couldn't write
rime royal or (and?) blank verse had no right to criticize
Shakespeare--which seems to me pretty close to saying they need to be
able to write either or both to be able to comment on others' use of
it.
> No less an authority than JWKennedy appears to agree
> with this in another thread today, where he says that good poetry
> critics have tried their hands at it themselves.
But we were talking about doing it seriously. If we allow for doing
it at all, I doubt any critic has not tried his hand at poetry,
including blank verse, if not rime royal. In my high school, all
college prep students had to write a sonnet.
> That being said...it is of course possible to comment intelligently on
> any activity without having done it, but experience in the field tends
> to give the opinion more weight. Agreed, i hope.
Sure--and to the extent that the experience is extensive, intense and
successful. Except for super-geniuses like Paul Crowley.
> And I doubt that Peter F. has made any "stupid" contributions in this
> forum.
I'll wager he'll admit to a few. But not to the ones I think her
dumbest, such as the ones I've named.
> Peter Farey has done a few. A
> > front-runner is his argument that Shakespeare's name on title-pages is
> > as strong evidence that Marlowe wrote shakespeare's plays using
> > "Shakespeare" as a pseudonym as it that Shakespeare used his own name
> > to write those plays.
>
> Really? That strikes me as a brilliant twist. Would like to read the
> context in which he made that statement, if this is indeed what he
> said.
I said that was what he argued, not that that was what he said. If
he's right, then the title-page name is equal evidence that Martians
posing as Marlowe used Shakespeare's name as a pseudonym. Peter
argues that if you can make up a scenario that makes sense, then any
evidence that can be explained by the scenario is as validly in favor
of one's scenario as it is for any other scenario. As I understand
him.
> > I'd LOVE to find out which of my contributions seemed the stupidest to
> > you Shakespeare-rejecters. My authorship-related contributions, that
> > is. I've made a few possible candidates outside those.
>
> I think it would be the very post to which i am responding, Bob. ;)
> David More
Wow, I'd really love to believe THAT!
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
Paul, you make me smile, you do...
You say it was the work of a juvenile, I say it was the work of a
30-year-old man. I ask you to show me the evidence that it is
juvenile; you ask me to show you it is the work of a mature poet.
Okay, tell you what...since it's pointless to go back and forth this
way, I'll look into the critics whom Dave K. has pointed to and see
what they have to say.
Meanwhile, you start coming up with lines that are immature. Here,
I'll start with the first mature lines:
<http://www.marlovian.com/works/lucrecetext.html>
FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
Borne by the trustless wings of false desire,
Lust-breathed Tarquin leaves the Roman host,
And to Collatium bears the lightless fire
Which, in pale embers hid, lurks to aspire
And girdle with embracing flames the waist
Of Collatine's fair love, Lucrece the chaste.
the trustless wings of false desire is a mature line, but this is
stupid, the entire poem is. Crowley...sorry, I can't see this going
anywhere....Let me investigate Kathman's critics and get back to
you...
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Bob Grumman
what juvenile but will insert a few comments about the poetic level of
the stanza below:
FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
> Borne by the trustless wings of false desire,
bad line. "trustless" is superfluous, introduced only to bombast out
the line.
> Lust-breathed Tarquin leaves the Roman host,
okay, I guess, though I don't like "lust-breathed." It doesn't scan,
and contributes to an excessive focus on Tark's lust. Over-writing.
> And to Collatium bears the lightless fire
> Which, in pale embers hid, lurks to aspire
> And girdle with embracing flames the waist
what is the poet talking about? The flames of lust which, I take it,
are going to spurt out of his penis and embrace Lucrece? Do try to
picture this. What are the pale embers? Explain this very clumsy, to
me illogical, metaphorical complex, Dave. Then explain how a great
poet could have written the worse lines Jim quoted.
> Of Collatine's fair love, Lucrece the chaste.
cliched but nothing wrong with this line.
The stanza as a whole has too many nouns with a single adjective.
--Bob G.
john_baker
The group may not know this, so I hope you'll be ok with me
saying it.
Lowercase Dave is a poet himself. And unlike the rest of us
have a long epic like poem under his belt and in print.
So he speaks with more experience of these things than
the rest of us.
When I first became interested in the way these plays were
written it, I tried it...albeit in prose. You get to take an existing
play and "improve" it. And to do so you get to drag into it anything
in your reach without having to use footnotes to do it....
Quite an experience, really.
So Dave knows this work is by a mature poet. Why? because
these works are like mirrors, when a mature poet looks in, a mature
poet looks back.
An immature work doesn't afford this sort of reflection, when we look
into it we always see the boy...but here those of us who are mature
see ourselves....
If you look at it without your paradigm, you'll see that maturity....
john
john
Elizabeth Weir
You're right that it's a mature line and it was written by an
incomparable poet but it was something of a hack job, a
properly moral correction to the unexpected public reaction to
the erotic best seller Venus and Adonis. I think the V & A
was probably pirated since Bacon hated the cheap printed book
and Lucrece had to be written and printed as a moral pallative.
Paul Crowley
news:545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
> You say it was the work of a juvenile, I say it was the work of a
> 30-year-old man. I ask you to show me the evidence that it is
> juvenile; you ask me to show you it is the work of a mature poet.
Except that your case would be much easier to
demonstrate IF it was based on reality. I have
pointed out numerous things you could look
for -- the sort of thing that we readily see in
plays that were supposedly written earlier or
at about the same time.
The juvenility of RL (even of the seven lines
you quote) is extremely obvious to me.
For a start there is the whole choice of rime royal.
It's a great training exercise for a young poet -- on
metre and with all that riming -- but what a pain to
read! It's pretty clear that it was one of the first
major things he did. Once he started he had the
youth, the discipline and determination to finish . .
but it was, in a aesthetic sense, poor judgement.
> FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
> Borne by the trustless wings of false desire,
> Lust-breathed Tarquin leaves the Roman host,
> And to Collatium bears the lightless fire
> Which, in pale embers hid, lurks to aspire
> And girdle with embracing flames the waist
> Of Collatine's fair love, Lucrece the chaste.
>
> the trustless wings of false desire is a mature line,
Nope. Its poor stuff -- written by someone who
has only a theoretical imagination of that kind
of desire (i.e. I don't think he had even reached
puberty).
Paul.
Peter Groves
> "lowercase dave" <graydo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > You say it was the work of a juvenile, I say it was the work of a
> > 30-year-old man. I ask you to show me the evidence that it is
> > juvenile; you ask me to show you it is the work of a mature poet.
>
> Except that your case would be much easier to
> demonstrate IF it was based on reality. I have
> pointed out numerous things you could look
> for -- the sort of thing that we readily see in
> plays that were supposedly written earlier or
> at about the same time.
>
> The juvenility of RL (even of the seven lines
> you quote) is extremely obvious to me.
>
> For a start there is the whole choice of rime royal.
> It's a great training exercise for a young poet -- on
> metre and with all that riming -- but what a pain to
> read!
The man's a natural (in the Shakespearean sense, of course).
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
KQKnave
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) writes:
> FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
>
>okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
Why not?
>> Borne by the trustless wings of false desire,
>
>bad line. "trustless" is superfluous, introduced only to bombast out
>the line.
I don't think this is a great line either, but not for the reason you
give. In fact "trustless" is the only thing that makes it interesting.
The phrase "Borne by the wings of whatever" is a cliche. "Trustless"
gives some interest to the cliche. False desire is not to be trusted.
>> Lust-breathed Tarquin leaves the Roman host,
>
>okay, I guess, though I don't like "lust-breathed." It doesn't scan,
>and contributes to an excessive focus on Tark's lust. Over-writing.
It does scan if you pronounce the "lust" quickly, putting the stress
on "breath", so you have lust-BREATHed. What you call overwriting
I call "Gothic", and it isn't to my taste either.
>> And to Collatium bears the lightless fire
>> Which, in pale embers hid, lurks to aspire
>> And girdle with embracing flames the waist
>
>what is the poet talking about? The flames of lust which, I take it,
>are going to spurt out of his penis and embrace Lucrece?
Well, no. The lightless fire of lust (lightless because it can't
be seen) hidden inside the body of Tarquin (the pale embers),
wishes to seize Lucrece with its flames. Seems clear to me
(in a metaphorical kinda way). Here I think "aspire" and "girdle"
are superfluous, although "aspire" implies the rising of the penis.
>Do try to
>picture this. What are the pale embers? Explain this very clumsy, to
>me illogical, metaphorical complex, Dave. Then explain how a great
>poet could have written the worse lines Jim quoted.
>
>> Of Collatine's fair love, Lucrece the chaste.
>
>cliched but nothing wrong with this line.
>
>The stanza as a whole has too many nouns with a single adjective.
It's nothing great, but to me its mostly a matter of whether you like
tales of rape on dark and stormy nights with lightning flashes
illuminating the gargoyles.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
lowercase dave
Paul, you are hilarious!...what is your authority for making this
statement? (besides not having reached puberty yourself, that is.) Are
you a poet? A trained critic? Are you familiar with the use of rime
royal in verse narrative by Daniel and others? No, I didn't think so.
Your opinion isn't worth the ether it is printed on. UNLESS -- and
this is a limited-time offer -- you can demonstrate your competence in
this "juvenile" form yourself. Write two stanzas of rime royal about
how Edward wrote Lucrece when a boy. If you do, I'll agree with you
that it could have been written by a youngster...(i'm confident you
cannot, which is why i make bold to challenge you).
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
lowercase dave
> Dave,
>
> The group may not know this, so I hope you'll be ok with me
> saying it.
>
> Lowercase Dave is a poet himself. And unlike the rest of us
> have a long epic like poem under his belt and in print.
Really, John...i'm not a poet, but i play one on TV...Just have a
sense of rhythm, is all, like you. And I work at it in my spear time.
But Lorenzo and JWKennedy, those guys are real poets...
> So he speaks with more experience of these things than
> the rest of us.
Well, anybody who tries their hand at writing rime royal ought to have
more respect for Shakespeare's achievement: 265 stanzas, 1,855 lines
of impeccable verse in that format. Me, i just peck away.
> When I first became interested in the way these plays were
> written it, I tried it...albeit in prose. You get to take an existing
> play and "improve" it. And to do so you get to drag into it anything
> in your reach without having to use footnotes to do it....
>
> Quite an experience, really.
>
> So Dave knows this work is by a mature poet. Why? because
> these works are like mirrors, when a mature poet looks in, a mature
> poet looks back.
I have airs under my arms.
<snip>
David "Don't call me lowercase dave anymore" More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Peter Farey
"KQKnave" (Jim) wrote:
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
> >
> > okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
>
> Why not?
Because the poem's in rhyme royal?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
lowercase dave
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Elizabeth. But V&A was not a
cheap edition, as I understand it, but a handsome one, with clear
typeface, free of typographical errors. You're right about the moral
palliative, I think, but a HACK JOB?!?!!! Please. I've always been
willing to take your side against the slingers and arrowers who've
taken aim at you, but...(here, let me change hands real
quick....there) you haven't given proper consideration to Marlowe's
situation in the spring of 1593, and the fact that one of Essex's men
was "in on" CM's sudden end, and that Bacon was the Earl's chief
advisor at the time; and that HW was his (Essex's) protege; and that
V&A was already "in the can" at the time Marlowe was called before the
Privy Council; that he was released on his own recognizance while Kyd
languished in prison; that his (Marlowe's) alleged murderer was back
in the employ of his boss (Marlowe's patron) within weeks of the
murder; that V&A and Lucrece contain echoes of H&L (which was printed
until 1598); that (the concealed author) Shakespeare promised HW 'a
graver labor' (Marlowe loved wordplay as well as Shakespeare); that
Bacon (in any of his known writings, correct me if i'm wrong) gives no
evidence of being a poet at all; that ...well you get the idea. As
I've suggested to you in another thread, you might want to investigate
FB's role in orchestrating M's possible banishment. Didn't they (he
and Marlowe) have much in common? Also, if FB WAS Shakespeare, as you
claim, he owed a HUGE debt to CM, did he not? Why didn't Shakespeare
ever acknowledge it? Why didn't he write some memorial verses for the
man whose poem (H&L) he must have read in ms. and who "perfected" the
use of blank verse in drama.
Shakespeare (i suspect) already knew what his graver labor was going
to be when he promised it to Wriothesley at the first appearance in
print of V&A, so it wasn't a hurriedly written hack job. Have you read
it? It was carefully typeset and printed, like V&A.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Bob Grumman
> "KQKnave" (Jim) wrote:
> >
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >
> > > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
> > >
> > > okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because the poem's in rhyme royal?
>
only be stressed by someone determined by any means whatever to stress
it.
Bob Grumman
> >
> >okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
>
> Why not?
"the" cannot be stressed except by someone determined by any means to
stress it.
> >> Borne by the trustless wings of false desire,
> >
> >bad line. "trustless" is superfluous, introduced only to bombast out
> >the line.
>
> I don't think this is a great line either, but not for the reason you
> give. In fact "trustless" is the only thing that makes it interesting.
> The phrase "Borne by the wings of whatever" is a cliche. "Trustless"
> gives some interest to the cliche. False desire is not to be trusted.
He's telling us twice there's something here not to be trusted. Bad
writing.
> >> Lust-breathed Tarquin leaves the Roman host,
> >
> >okay, I guess, though I don't like "lust-breathed." It doesn't scan,
> >and contributes to an excessive focus on Tark's lust. Over-writing.
>
> It does scan if you pronounce the "lust" quickly, putting the stress
> on "breath", so you have lust-BREATHed. What you call overwriting
> I call "Gothic", and it isn't to my taste either.
What's "BREATHed" mean? Or is it "BRETHed"--about his breath, not his
breathing, I mean.
> >> And to Collatium bears the lightless fire
> >> Which, in pale embers hid, lurks to aspire
> >> And girdle with embracing flames the waist
> >
> >what is the poet talking about? The flames of lust which, I take it,
> >are going to spurt out of his penis and embrace Lucrece?
>
> Well, no. The lightless fire of lust (lightless because it can't
> be seen) hidden inside the body of Tarquin (the pale embers),
> wishes to seize Lucrece with its flames. Seems clear to me
> (in a metaphorical kinda way).
How are the flames going to do this? For me, it's either unclear or
clearly ridiculous. "Embers" is pretty strained, too. "Furnace"
would have made more sense. Tarquin is a whole, not pieces.
>Here I think "aspire" and "girdle"
> are superfluous, although "aspire" implies the rising of the penis.
>
> >Do try to
> >picture this. What are the pale embers? Explain this very clumsy, to
> >me illogical, metaphorical complex, Dave. Then explain how a great
> >poet could have written the worse lines Jim quoted.
> >
> >> Of Collatine's fair love, Lucrece the chaste.
> >
> >cliched but nothing wrong with this line.
> >
> >The stanza as a whole has too many nouns with a single adjective.
>
> It's nothing great, but to me its mostly a matter of whether you like
> tales of rape on dark and stormy nights with lightning flashes
> illuminating the gargoyles.
>
I think there is good Gothic writing and poor. This stanza is poor.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
No, again, there's nothing wrong with substituting a spondee or trochee
for a non-final iamb, as long as it is not done so often that the meter
breaks down and dies. Even Pope, the most metrically conservative of
major MnE poets, does it, and quite consciously.
True ease in writing comes from Art, not Chance,
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.
'Tis not enough no harshness gives offence;
The sound must seem an echo to the sense.
Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blows,
And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows;
But when loud surges lash the sounding shore,
The hoarse rough verse should like the torrent roar.
When Ajax strives some rock's vast weight to throw,
The line, too, labours, and the words move slow:
Not so when swift Camilla scours the plain,
Flies o'er th' unbending corn, and skims along the main.
-- An Essay on Criticism
(The final line being an intentional Alexandrine.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the "sea-story" and then criticizing _that_.
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > "KQKnave" (Jim) wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
> > > >
> > > > okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Because the poem's in rhyme royal?
> >
> Haw haw. So the line is not iambic pentameter. Because
> means whatever to stress it.
That's what I feared you thought, Bob. I'd stick
to "burstnorm" if I were you. Iambic pentameter
just isn't your thing. Trust me.
KQKnave
>news:<bhhs24$905$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> "KQKnave" (Jim) wrote:
>> >
>> > Bob Grumman wrote:
>> > >
>> > > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
>> > >
>> > > okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Because the poem's in rhyme royal?
A single line can't be rhyme anything.
KQKnave
>> > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
>> >
>> >okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>"the" cannot be stressed except by someone determined by any means to
>stress it.
I think that what you mean is that it's not a line of perfect iambs.
No reason you can't substitute feet in any kind of iambic verse,
blank or rhyming.
Bob Grumman
> In article <5f7d2eb3.03081...@posting.google.com>,
> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) writes:
>
> >> > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
> >> >
> >> >okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >"the" cannot be stressed except by someone determined by any means to
> >stress it.
>
> I think that what you mean is that it's not a line of perfect iambs.
> No reason you can't substitute feet in any kind of iambic verse,
> blank or rhyming.
>
something other than an iambic pentameter.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:5f7d2eb3.03081...@posting.google.com...
No, Bob, Jim is perfectly correct here. Your rule would mean that there
were only three i.p.s in the first hundred lines of <Paradise Lost>, which
would make the whole concept pretty silly. The role of a theory of metre
is to determine the *limits* of variation from the prototypical ("Her eyes,
her hair, her cheek, her gait, her voice").
Bob Grumman
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:5f7d2eb3.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > kqk...@aol.com (KQKnave) wrote in message
> news:<20030815142915...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> > > In article <5f7d2eb3.03081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net (Bob Grumman) writes:
> > >
> > > >> > FROM the besieged Ardea all in post,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >okay line though not, for me, blank verse.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not?
> > > >
> > > >"the" cannot be stressed except by someone determined by any means to
> > > >stress it.
> > >
> > > I think that what you mean is that it's not a line of perfect iambs.
> > > No reason you can't substitute feet in any kind of iambic verse,
> > > blank or rhyming.
> > >
> > Of course not. But in doing so in an iambic pentameter, you make it
> > something other than an iambic pentameter.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> No, Bob, Jim is perfectly correct here. Your rule would mean that there
> were only three i.p.s in the first hundred lines of <Paradise Lost>, which
> would make the whole concept pretty silly.
Jim's rule would mean that there were only /three lines in the whole
English language that /were not ips, which would make the whole
concept/ pretty silly.
I believe in adhering to strict definitions of words. Therefore, for
me, Paradise Lost is not in iambic pentameter--though what it IS in is
close enough to it to work very well--probably better than iambic
pentameter.
> The role of a theory of metre
> is to determine the *limits* of variation from the prototypical ("Her eyes,
> her hair, her cheek, her gait, her voice").
I'd call it a theory of effective use of accents. What I think is
required are a few new technical terms to indicate variations (except
that such terms probably already exist, yes?--like "5-beat line.")
And perhaps some old terms should be redefined. "Blank verse," for
example, should be defined as unrhymed iambic pentameters and some
minority of lines that are close to iambic pentameter. I think it's
absurd to call a line iambic if it is not. How about "nighambic
verse" for Milton's? Then blank verse could be verse consisting of
iambic pentameter only or a mixture of iambic pentameter and nighambic
pentameter with the former predominant.
I think it interesting how people, bored with an old norm, slowly
abandon it for a new norm--but so often seem unable to admit they've
done that, so call the new norm by the name of the old norm.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
>
>I think it interesting how people, bored with an old norm, slowly
>abandon it for a new norm--but so often seem unable to admit they've
>done that, so call the new norm by the name of the old norm.
But there was never any purely iambic poetry in English at any time.
All "iambic pentameter" verse has always been full of variations. Certain
artists have a higher proportion of truly iambic lines than others in their
poems, but that is just part of their personal style. If you want to invent
new words for it go ahead, but I doubt many will pay attention because
"iambic pentameter" has always meant only one thing: verse that centers around
iambic pentameter lines.
Elizabeth Weir
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > You're right that it's a mature line and it was written by an
> > incomparable poet but it was something of a hack job, a
> > properly moral correction to the unexpected public reaction to
> > the erotic best seller Venus and Adonis. I think the V & A
> > was probably pirated since Bacon hated the cheap printed book
> > and Lucrece had to be written and printed as a moral pallative.
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Elizabeth. But V&A was not a
> cheap edition, as I understand it, but a handsome one, with clear
> typeface, free of typographical errors.
The upper class--Bacon was a provisional member--preferred
manuscripts and if they could afford it, had their printed books
recopied by scribes before they would read them.
> You're right about the moral
> palliative, I think, but a HACK JOB?!?!!! Please.
It was written under duress.
The V & A problem and the Lucrece solution begins
with Dr. John Whitgift, the Master of Trinity who was
Bacon's mentor for several years when Bacon was a
startling young genius at Cambridge. The Baconians
think that Elizabeth sent Bacon to live with Whitgift.
Whitgift--a very gifted man--was then Elizabeth's
private chaplain, her closest confident who later kneeled
at her bedside and held her hand as she was dying.
Whitgift was close to Bacon as well and happened to
be the censor when the V & A was approved and as
Archbishop of Canterbury had to clean up after it for
years to come.
The reason for Archbishop Whitgift's ban on satires in
1598 was the attack by Hall and Marston against the author
of the V & A.
Hall was the best friend of Edward Hoby, Bacon's first
cousin [the son of Bacon's uncle Thomas Hoby of the
Hamlet reference] and apparently Hall thought he knew
something about Bacon because Hall, who was then an
academic at Cambridge and a Puritan, started the fracas
by moralistically attacking Bacon in the Vergidemiarum,
"a bundle of sticks to beat someone with" in Latin.
Bacon is Hall's too-gifted poet who wastes his genius writing
trash--the V & A--he's a cynic who allows someone else to
wet his whistle at his drinking bole--a reference to Bacon's
use of masks who profited from Bacon's poetry--and on and on
for many pages.
Archbishop Whitgift freaked when he saw the Vergidemiarum
and ordered Hall's works burned. Marston, in the meantime
had already responded to the Vergidemiarum in his Reactio
with lines that made it all too clear who the "Labeo" [after a
Roman lawyer-poet] was Whitgift's former ward Francis Bacon.
Marston put Bacon's family motto in the Reactio to make
sure everyone got the drift.
Archbishop Whitgift ordered Marston's works to be burned
along with Hall's.
Hall managed to make a deal with Whitgift that he would
rewrite the Vergidemiarum to make his criticism of "Labeo"
a more general criticism of a "type of poets" which Hall was
allowed to do under the title Certaine Satyres.
Hall's and Marston's Vergidemiarum and the Reactio were
publicly burned--a few escaped the fire, obviously--and
Archibishop Whitgift banned all satires.
It was a major scandal, the ban put a chill on the writing
of all the poets and playwrights. Hall and Marston both took
Holy Orders and Hall at least, left town to specialize
in religious tracts from thereon.
Jonson invented a genre he called the "comic satire" and
Whitgift--who was not a Purian--let ta chastened
War of the Theatres carry on under the ban on satires.
So that's why Bacon had to produce Lucrece.
So the first wave of this reaction against a very "Italian" erotic
poem caused Bacon to write a highly moralistic poem --The
Rape of Lucrece--about a Roman wife who kills herself for the
sake of virtue. What could be less like the unvirtuous sexually
predatory Venus? The four characters are perfect role reversals
of each other, doncha know.
What other possible theme could compensate for the racy, erotic
V & A? I don't think it appeased the Puritan Burghley who must
have had a hemorrage over the V & A--Burghley wrote tracts
warning young men about the evils of poetry and his nephew!
had obviously paid no attention.
Anyway, the damage was done and Bacon found himself a
great celebrity in the Essex camp and more or less permanently on
the outs with his uncle who refused from that point on to
advance Bacon's career at Court.
> I've always been
> willing to take your side against the slingers and arrowers who've
> taken aim at you, but...
This is one of the most civil forums I've been in.
> (here, let me change hands real
> quick....there) you haven't given proper consideration to Marlowe's
> situation in the spring of 1593, and the fact that one of Essex's men
> was "in on" CM's sudden end,
I've been pondering that question for two years and I'm always
alert to any new evidence but the problem with Marlowe is
Not Enough Information.
If you want a theory, Marlowe was a free lancer who went
where the money was, he probably was one of the double
agents that sold information to both sides--he seems to have
known men that worked for those two mortal enemies, Essex
and Burghley. Burghley and Essex kept spies in each others'
houses as Leicester had kept spies in Oxford and Burghleys'
houses and I assume vice versa. They were all spying on each
other and Marlowe appears to have been a spy who had entre
to various houses. His relationship with Walsingham's son is
rather puzzling.
Marlowe may have been a courtier to the Sidney
faction in the 1580s but he didn't move on with that group
to be a courtier to Essex so he was an outsider in the
late 1580s and early 1590s, probably scrambling for money
on his own.
I think Marlowe had the bad luck to find himself at the locus
of the feud between Essex and Burghley. The feuding was
occasionally murderous--Leicester was a casualty--between
the Puritan party and the Catholics at Court. Essex was
really a silly ass most dangerous to himself but his opposite
number Arundel was a serious murderer.
The real problem was that the break with Rome was so fresh
that these people had not sorted themselves out and you see
individuals like Raleigh going back and forth between the Anglican
Puritan and Catholic factions whenever it served his purposes.
I see Southampton, an ultra-radical
Catholic, in the same light. He's fraternizing with both sides and
may have played a role--for his guardian Burghley--in the downfall of
Essex.
Southampton owed Burghley a great deal of money he couldn't
begin to pay and oddly the records show the debt to the Cecils
hadn't changed after 1615 so the Cecils were not collecting payments.
There is no doubt that Essex--who was volatile to say the least--
was upset that the Cecils were scheming behind his back to get the
one thing Essex wanted for himself--not the throne--Essex
wanted his father-in-law Walsingham's job as Secretary of State.
Lord Burghley had groomed Bacon's evil little cousin Robert
for that job since birth and Essex was becoming increasingly
Elizabeth's favorite. Robert was increasingly in danger of
losing out [Now we know why Richard III was written]. Both
Cecils were in a desperate financial situation as modern scholars
have discovered--one wrote "it's astonishing that the Cecils'
massive corruption was not noticed"--they were both hundreds
of thousands of pounds in debt--the nouveau riche have to buy
their own land since they couldn't inherit--a pity--and Elizbeth
was starting to transfer the monopolies to Essex as the Cecils
pressed their noses to the bakery shop window.
A possible situation leading to Marlowe's death is that he
was a courier for the Cecils to the Catholics in Europe who
were transferring very large sums of money from Philip II to
English Catholic aristocrats to try to encourage them to
rise up against Elizabeth in the event of the second Anglo-Spanish
War/ The second War didn't happen but Philip was preparing for it
--there was a big war scare as late as 1598.
Lady Elizabeth Howard,
the "Excellent Lady" of the Strachey letter married to one of
the manymanymany Catholic Howards--Theophilus, Earl of Sussex,
was getting a thousand pounds a year from Philip. I don't know
how much the desperately indigent Cecils were getting to keep their
dozen estates stocked with fine art and antiquities. A lot. Marlowe
wore "jewels on his clothes" so this may have been from a
little gold he was siphoning off or he may have been paid well.
Just a theory.
> and that Bacon was the Earl's chief
> advisor at the time; and that HW was his (Essex's) protege;
An earl can't be another earl's patron. HW was Essex' lover
it seems.
> and that
> V&A was already "in the can" at the time Marlowe was called before the
> Privy Council; that he was released on his own recognizance while Kyd
> languished in prison; that his (Marlowe's) alleged murderer was back
> in the employ of his boss (Marlowe's patron)
What patron? Southampton?
> within weeks of the
> murder;
Yes, well, that is a little suggestive.
> that V&A and Lucrece contain echoes of H&L (which was printed
> until 1598);
What was printed until 1598--Lucrece?
> that (the concealed author) Shakespeare promised HW 'a
> graver labor'
That's rather ominous in context.
> (Marlowe loved wordplay as well as Shakespeare); that
> Bacon (in any of his known writings, correct me if i'm wrong) gives no
> evidence of being a poet at all;
The first reference to Bacon as a poet that I know of is
in a letter from the French ambassador de Jesse who writes
that Bacon taught him more about poetry than the poets at
the Court of France which is a high compliment considering
that de Jesse is referring to La Pleiades--Bacon actually knew
these poets and discussed poetry with them when he was
at the Court of Henry IV for several years. There are small
bodies of French poetry that may have been written by Bacon
whose French was beyond superb. I doubt his Italian was
that good but he got by in it.
De Jesse makes Bacon a poet by at least the early 1580s.
There are probably two dozen references to Bacon as a poet,
about half of it in satires. Baconian evidence is so vast and
so messy it's hard to grapple with it. I've posted on some of
these references.
> that ...well you get the idea.
Don't ever believe anything the Strats have written. It's
all lies.
> As
> I've suggested to you in another thread, you might want to investigate
> FB's role in orchestrating M's possible banishment.
And FB's motive is . . .?
> Didn't they (he
> and Marlowe) have much in common?
I think FB overwrote Marlowe's old plays. The only thing
original with Bacon is the genius way he reassembles the
existing material. In other words, Bacon was a natural born
satirist and parodist. He reacts to phenomena in the environment--
that's the basis of his scientific theory. He played ironically with the
existing elements, even in science and law.
> Also, if FB WAS Shakespeare, as you
> claim, he owed a HUGE debt to CM, did he not?
I don't know what CM wrote. If Bacon is Immerito--and
the vile ethnic-cleansing Spenser is not--too old, not a lawyer,
not a courtier re: the Proper and Witty Familiar Letters--then
Bacon was in love with a noble woman, probably his cousin
Mary Sidney with whom he was raised at Lord Burghleys.
Immerito went directly to Wilton just at the moment Bacon
returned from nealy three years in France. Immerito helped Mary
edit the Sidney works--Sidnieans have found much
"Shakespearean" in them and some even think that
Immerito and Mary collaborated in writing them from scratch
--nothing was published at all by Sidney until after his extremely
political death.
It's possible that Immerito--who had at
least five other pseuds meaning forms of "Will" according
to Harvey's Bodleian notebooks--published to Mary under
the intials C.M.. Or not.
> Why didn't Shakespeare
> ever acknowledge it? Why didn't he write some memorial verses for the
> man whose poem (H&L) he must have read in ms. and who "perfected" the
> use of blank verse in drama.
The evidence for this is very scant. The fact that Chapman--who
loathed and despised Bacon and competed with him for patronage
with Essex--picked up the H & L and finished it says "fuck you, Bacon"
not "I'm doing this for Marlowe's memory." The second half is pretty
bad compared to the first half.
> Shakespeare (i suspect) already knew what his graver labor was going
> to be when he promised it to Wriothesley at the first appearance in
> print of V&A, so it wasn't a hurriedly written hack job. Have you read
> it?
Yes. It's no V & A but the quality of writing is the same.
>
It was carefully typeset and printed, like V&A.
It would be because Lucrece was CYA. It actually wasn't
a best seller.
John W. Kennedy
> I believe in adhering to strict definitions of words. Therefore, for
> me, Paradise Lost is not in iambic pentameter--though what it IS in is
> close enough to it to work very well--probably better than iambic
> pentameter.
If you insist on speaking your own language, rather than the language of
those about you, that's your privilege, but the plain fact is that no
poet or critic in English has ever meant by "iambic pentameter" what you
want it to mean.
> I think it interesting how people, bored with an old norm, slowly
> abandon it for a new norm--but so often seem unable to admit they've
> done that, so call the new norm by the name of the old norm.
Strictly speaking, _none_ of the standard metrical terms of English can
escape that charge, except for "poulters" and "fourteener", since they
are all the rest of them Greek terms that refer to patterns of long and
short syllables (truly long and short, none of the godforsaken nonsense
they taught you in school about "meet" being "long e" and "met" being
"short e"), not to verse accent as we understand it at all. Weep for
the poor and abused verse jargon coined by the ancients, raped by
barbarian thugs, twisted to mean other things.
But for the rest, even Chaucer, who _invented_ iambic pentameter, does
not write parades of iambs marching in lock step. Neither does Surrey,
who invented blank verse.
David L. Webb
sense of humor to read it in its entirety -- it just gets funnier and
funnier!
In article <efbc3534.03081...@posting.google.com>,
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message
> news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message
> > news:<efbc3534.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> [...]
> > > You're right that it's a mature line and it was written by an
> > > incomparable poet but it was something of a hack job, a
> > > properly moral correction to the unexpected public reaction to
> > > the erotic best seller Venus and Adonis. I think the V & A
> > > was probably pirated since Bacon hated the cheap printed book
> > > and Lucrece had to be written and printed as a moral pallative.
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Elizabeth. But V&A was not a
> > cheap edition, as I understand it, but a handsome one, with clear
> > typeface, free of typographical errors.
> The upper class--Bacon was a provisional member--preferred
> manuscripts and if they could afford it, had their printed books
> recopied by scribes before they would read them.
Can Elizabeth supply a source for this revelation? Or must one be
content with the usual variants of her habitual dodge ("This is the
perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search function yet,"
"The former I saw online and when Wayback gets a search engine I'll post
it," "Why else would a site on queer studies have a book on Southampton
listed in the biography [sic]?," etc., etc.)?
> > You're right about the moral
> > palliative, I think, but a HACK JOB?!?!!! Please.
> It was written under duress.
>
> The V & A problem and the Lucrece solution begins
> with Dr. John Whitgift, the Master of Trinity who was
> Bacon's mentor for several years when Bacon was a
> startling young genius at Cambridge. The Baconians
> think that Elizabeth sent Bacon to live with Whitgift.
"The Baconians" "think" all sorts of wildly improbable things, so
this locution is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the factoid's
accuracy; however, in view of Elizabeth's well-known disregard for
evidence, it's probably the best one can expect.
> Whitgift--a very gifted man--was then Elizabeth's
> private chaplain, her closest confident who later kneeled
> at her bedside and held her hand as she was dying.
> Whitgift was close to Bacon as well and happened to
> be the censor when the V & A was approved and as
> Archbishop of Canterbury had to clean up after it for
> years to come.
>
> The reason for Archbishop Whitgift's ban on satires in
> 1598 was the attack by Hall and Marston against the author
> of the V & A.
>
> Hall was the best friend of Edward Hoby, Bacon's first
> cousin [the son of Bacon's uncle Thomas Hoby of the
> Hamlet reference] and apparently Hall thought he knew
> something about Bacon because Hall, who was then an
> academic at Cambridge and a Puritan, started the fracas
> by moralistically attacking Bacon in the Vergidemiarum,
> "a bundle of sticks to beat someone with" in Latin.
>
> Bacon is Hall's too-gifted poet who wastes his genius writing
> trash--the V & A--he's a cynic who allows someone else to
> wet his whistle at his drinking bole [sic?]
Huh?
> --a reference to Bacon's
> use of masks who profited from Bacon's poetry--and on and on
> for many pages.
>
> Archbishop Whitgift freaked when he saw the Vergidemiarum
> and ordered Hall's works burned. Marston, in the meantime
> had already responded to the Vergidemiarum in his Reactio
> with lines that made it all too clear who the "Labeo" [after a
> Roman lawyer-poet] was Whitgift's former ward Francis Bacon [sic].
>
> Marston put Bacon's family motto in the Reactio to make
> sure everyone got the drift.
>
> Archbishop Whitgift ordered Marston's works to be burned
> along with Hall's.
>
> Hall managed to make a deal with Whitgift that he would
> rewrite the Vergidemiarum to make his criticism of "Labeo"
> a more general criticism of a "type of poets" which Hall was
> allowed to do under the title Certaine Satyres.
>
> Hall's and Marston's Vergidemiarum and the Reactio were
> publicly burned--a few escaped the fire, obviously--and
> Archibishop Whitgift banned all satires.
>
> It was a major scandal, the ban put a chill on the writing
> of all the poets and playwrights. Hall and Marston both took
> Holy Orders and Hall at least, left town to specialize
> in religious tracts from thereon [sic].
>
> Jonson invented a genre he called the "comic satire" and
> Whitgift--who was not a Purian [sic] --let ta [sic?] chastened
> War of the Theatres carry on under the ban on satires.
>
> So that's why Bacon had to produce Lucrece.
Well, now we know!
Can Elizabeth supply credible sources for these revelations? Or must
one be content with the usual variants of her habitual dodge ("This is
the perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search function yet,"
"The former I saw online and when Wayback gets a search engine I'll post
it," "Why else would a site on queer studies have a book on Southampton
listed in the biography [sic]?," etc.)?
> So the first wave of this reaction against a very "Italian" erotic
> poem caused Bacon to write a highly moralistic poem --The
> Rape of Lucrece--about a Roman wife who kills herself for the
> sake of virtue. What could be less like the unvirtuous sexually
> predatory Venus? The four characters are perfect role reversals
> of each other, doncha know.
>
> What other possible theme could compensate for the racy, erotic
> V & A? I don't think it appeased the Puritan Burghley who must
> have had a hemorrage [sic] over the V & A--Burghley wrote tracts
> warning young men about the evils of poetry and his nephew! [sic]
> had obviously paid no attention.
> Anyway, the damage was done and Bacon found himself a
> great celebrity in the Essex camp and more or less permanently on
> the outs with his uncle who refused from that point on to
> advance Bacon's career at Court.
> > I've always been
> > willing to take your side against the slingers and arrowers who've
> > taken aim at you, but...
> This is one of the most civil forums I've been in.
> > (here, let me change hands real
> > quick....there) you haven't given proper consideration to Marlowe's
> > situation in the spring of 1593, and the fact that one of Essex's men
> > was "in on" CM's sudden end,
> I've been pondering that question for two years and I'm always
> alert to any new evidence but the problem with Marlowe is
> Not Enough Information.
But I thought that Elizabeth Weird claimed to have shown, supposedly
by refuting Dave Kathman's essay, that Bacon's authorship was a
*certainty*:
"Since I defeated Kathman's Strachey thesis I can say that Bacon's
authorship is a certainty."
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0308141648.5f755bbb%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>
If indeed it is a *certainty*, as Elizabeth claims, what conceivable
point could there be in considering the possibility of Marlowe's
authorship?
> If you want a theory,
Elizabeth's largesse in inventing theories is well-known; she is much
less generous when it comes to furnishing any evidence.
> Marlowe was a free lancer who went
> where the money was, he probably was one of the double
> agents that sold information to both sides--he seems to have
> known men that worked for those two mortal enemies, Essex
> and Burghley. Burghley and Essex kept spies in each others'
> houses as Leicester had kept spies in Oxford and Burghleys'
> houses and I assume vice versa. They were all spying on each
> other and Marlowe appears to have been a spy who had entre [sic]
Elizabeth really should refrain from using words borrowed from
languages that she does not know (or at the very least she should ask
someone to look them up in a dictionary for her).
Now we know!
> Both
> Cecils were in a desperate financial situation as modern scholars
> have discovered--one wrote "it's astonishing that the Cecils'
> massive corruption was not noticed"--they were both hundreds
> of thousands of pounds in debt--the nouveau riche have to buy
> their own land since they couldn't inherit--a pity--and Elizbeth
> was starting to transfer the monopolies to Essex as the Cecils
> pressed their noses to the bakery shop window.
In that case, Elizabeth Weird would no doubt enthusiastically endorse
Mr. Streitz's suggestion that Burghley fathered -- on his own daughter
-- the child generally accepted as Oxford's first born, then tried to
have Oxford killed by pirates in order to insure the child's (and hence
the Cecils') succession to the throne.
> A possible situation leading to Marlowe's death is that he
> was a courier for the Cecils to the Catholics in Europe who
> were transferring very large sums of money from Philip II to
> English Catholic aristocrats to try to encourage them to
> rise up against Elizabeth in the event of the second Anglo-Spanish
> War/ The second War didn't happen but Philip was preparing for it
> --there was a big war scare as late as 1598.
>
> Lady Elizabeth Howard,
> the "Excellent Lady" of the Strachey letter married to one of
> the manymanymany Catholic Howards--Theophilus, Earl of Sussex,
> was getting a thousand pounds a year from Philip. I don't know
> how much the desperately indigent Cecils were getting to keep their
> dozen estates stocked with fine art and antiquities. A lot. Marlowe
> wore "jewels on his clothes" so this may have been from a
> little gold he was siphoning off or he may have been paid well.
>
> Just a theory.
And a very entertaining one! Can Elizabeth supply any evidence for
any of these creative fabrications? I thought not.
> > and that Bacon was the Earl's chief
> > advisor at the time; and that HW was his (Essex's) protege;
> An earl can't be another earl's patron. HW was Essex' lover
> it seems.
> > and that
> > V&A was already "in the can" at the time Marlowe was called before the
> > Privy Council; that he was released on his own recognizance while Kyd
> > languished in prison; that his (Marlowe's) alleged murderer was back
> > in the employ of his boss (Marlowe's patron)
> What patron? Southampton?
> > within weeks of the
> > murder;
> Yes, well, that is a little suggestive.
> > that V&A and Lucrece contain echoes of H&L (which was printed
> > until 1598);
> What was printed until 1598--Lucrece?
> > that (the concealed author) Shakespeare promised HW 'a
> > graver labor'
> That's rather ominous in context.
Elizabeth has adopted the habit of concluding each post with a touch
of paranoia, and she does not disappoint here.
> > (Marlowe loved wordplay as well as Shakespeare); that
> > Bacon (in any of his known writings, correct me if i'm wrong) gives no
> > evidence of being a poet at all;
> The first reference to Bacon as a poet that I know of is
> in a letter from the French ambassador de Jesse who writes
> that Bacon taught him more about poetry than the poets at
> the Court of France which is a high compliment considering
> that de Jesse is referring to La Pleiades--Bacon actually knew
> these poets and discussed poetry with them when he was
> at the Court of Henry IV for several years. There are small
> bodies of French poetry that may have been written by Bacon
> whose French was beyond superb.
Was his French as good as Stephanie showed that Oxford's was?
> I doubt his Italian was
> that good but he got by in it.
>
> De Jesse makes Bacon a poet by at least the early 1580s.
>
> There are probably two dozen references to Bacon as a poet,
> about half of it in satires. Baconian evidence is so vast and
> so messy it's hard to grapple with it. I've posted on some of
> these references.
> > that ...well you get the idea.
> Don't ever believe anything the Strats have written. It's
> all lies.
I defy anyone to read Elizabeth's post without laughing aloud!
> > As
> > I've suggested to you in another thread, you might want to investigate
> > FB's role in orchestrating M's possible banishment.
> And FB's motive is . . .?
> > Didn't they (he
> > and Marlowe) have much in common?
> I think FB overwrote Marlowe's old plays. The only thing
> original with Bacon is the genius way he reassembles the
> existing material. In other words, Bacon was a natural born
> satirist and parodist. He reacts to phenomena in the environment--
> that's the basis of his scientific theory. He played ironically with the
> existing elements, even in science and law.
> > Also, if FB WAS Shakespeare, as you
> > claim, he owed a HUGE debt to CM, did he not?
> I don't know what CM wrote. If Bacon is Immerito--
If frogs had wings...
> and
> the vile ethnic-cleansing Spenser is not--too old, not a lawyer,
> not a courtier re: the Proper and Witty Familiar Letters--then
> Bacon was in love with a noble woman, probably his cousin
> Mary Sidney with whom he was raised at Lord Burghleys.
...they could fly.
> Immerito went directly to Wilton just at the moment Bacon
> returned from nealy three years in France. Immerito helped Mary
> edit the Sidney works--Sidnieans [sic] have found much
> "Shakespearean" in them and some even think that
> Immerito and Mary collaborated in writing them from scratch
> --nothing was published at all by Sidney until after his extremely
> political death.
>
> It's possible that Immerito--who had at
> least five other pseuds meaning forms of "Will" according
> to Harvey's Bodleian notebooks--published to Mary under
> the intials C.M.. Or not.
Well, that certainly covers all the possibilities.
> > Why didn't Shakespeare
> > ever acknowledge it? Why didn't he write some memorial verses for the
> > man whose poem (H&L) he must have read in ms. and who "perfected" the
> > use of blank verse in drama.
> The evidence for this is very scant. The fact that Chapman--who
> loathed and despised Bacon and competed with him for patronage
> with Essex--picked up the H & L and finished it
Let me get this straight -- it is a *fact*, according to Elizabeth,
that Chapman completed the work?!
> says "fuck you, Bacon"
...must be yet another obscure Baconian cipher...
> not "I'm doing this for Marlowe's memory." The second half is pretty
> bad compared to the first half.
Has anyone read this far without laughing aloud helplessly?
> > Shakespeare (i suspect) already knew what his graver labor was going
> > to be when he promised it to Wriothesley at the first appearance in
> > print of V&A, so it wasn't a hurriedly written hack job. Have you read
> > it?
> Yes. It's no V & A but the quality of writing is the same.
> > It was carefully typeset and printed, like V&A.
> It would be because Lucrece was CYA. It actually wasn't
> a best seller.
My hat is off to lowercase dave for inspiring such a hilarious riff!
Elizabeth's inventions just get funnier by the day, impossible though
that might seem.
lowercase dave
but somewhat daunting, because you're so immersed in Immerito, whereas
my expertise is more in matters of Marlowe, and even there others
exceed my poor candle in brightness. But we do what we can (below):
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-ED03...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
Yes, Elizabeth. The notion that Field's version of V&A was a pirate
edition because Bacon didn't like printed books doesn't make sense.
Why would FB had printed Lucrece with the same printer?
> > > You're right about the moral
> > > palliative, I think, but a HACK JOB?!?!!! Please.
>
> > It was written under duress.
Are signs of duress evident in the poem? Please point to them.
> > The V & A problem and the Lucrece solution begins
> > with Dr. John Whitgift, the Master of Trinity who was
> > Bacon's mentor for several years when Bacon was a
> > startling young genius at Cambridge. The Baconians
> > think that Elizabeth sent Bacon to live with Whitgift.
>
> "The Baconians" "think" all sorts of wildly improbable things, so
> this locution is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the factoid's
> accuracy; however, in view of Elizabeth's well-known disregard for
> evidence, it's probably the best one can expect.
I agree with Webb here. Your evidence please.
Also, we do know that Nashe lived with Whitgift for a spell, during
the Marprelate crisis, and that Essex read Martin approvingly. Where
did FB stand?
> > Whitgift--a very gifted man--was then Elizabeth's
> > private chaplain, her closest confident who later kneeled
> > at her bedside and held her hand as she was dying.
> > Whitgift was close to Bacon as well and happened to
> > be the censor when the V & A was approved and as
> > Archbishop of Canterbury had to clean up after it for
> > years to come.
What evidence is there that Bacon and Whitgift were close? We know
that the Archbishop knew who Marlowe was because of the poet's
outspoken opinions and powers of persuasion.
<snip Hall Marston flap>
This is very interesting, E. but those events don't occur until 1598.
Let's get to that later. For now, let's stay focused on 1593-94.
Nay, E, there is Enough Information. Stay focused on 1593-94.
The greatest poet dramatist of his generation is suddenly killed, and
less than two weeks later the greatest poet dramatist of his
generation is born in print, promising a graver labor to a man with
whom he attended Cambridge in the mid 80's.
> But I thought that Elizabeth Weird claimed to have shown, supposedly
> by refuting Dave Kathman's essay, that Bacon's authorship was a
> *certainty*:
>
> "Since I defeated Kathman's Strachey thesis I can say that Bacon's
> authorship is a certainty."
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0308141648.5f755bbb%40post
> ing.google.com&output=gplain>
>
WEBB:
> If indeed it is a *certainty*, as Elizabeth claims, what conceivable
> point could there be in considering the possibility of Marlowe's
> authorship?
Good point, DW. Her theory hasn't adequately accounted for the
Marlowe factor, just as mine hasn't taken Bacon sufficiently into
account. (Or William! I can hear the Williamists say). Perhaps this
little exchange will remedy those deficiencies.
> > If you want a theory,
WEBB:
> Elizabeth's largesse in inventing theories is well-known; she is much
> less generous when it comes to furnishing any evidence.
Evidence rules! I am going to set up a chart on my website with the
main contenders for Shakespeare name, and the evidence pro and con.
> > Marlowe was a free lancer who went
> > where the money was,
And your evidence for this is...?
Here, let me help you....As a writer, perhaps yes, because it's what a
writer did to survive as a writer! Greene did it, so did Bacon, who
recognized the Cecil freeze-out and hitched his wagon to Essex, then
young and promising.
he probably was one of the double
> > agents that sold information to both sides--he seems to have
> > known men that worked for those two mortal enemies, Essex
> > and Burghley. Burghley and Essex kept spies in each others'
> > houses as Leicester had kept spies in Oxford and Burghleys'
> > houses and I assume vice versa. They were all spying on each
> > other and Marlowe appears to have been a spy who had entre [sic]
>
> Elizabeth really should refrain from using words borrowed from
> languages that she does not know (or at the very least she should ask
> someone to look them up in a dictionary for her).
>
> > to various houses. His relationship with Walsingham's son is
> > rather puzzling.
Walsingham's son???? Do you mean Thomas? Elizabeth, get hold of A.D.
Wraight's book "In Search of Christopher Marlowe," and read it, okay?
It's a pictorial biography and very readable and factual. Also,
Nicholl's book The Reckoning. I tell you, Ms. W, your Bacon theory is
woefully incomplete as is. Your picture of Marlowe is a crude cartoon
of a complex literary genius, who, by the time of his untimely end had
produced several plays that can stand next to early Shakespeare's (Dr.
F and Titus; EII and RII, e.g.) and poems too. Better brush up on
Marlowe.
> > Marlowe may have been a courtier to the Sidney
> > faction in the 1580s but he didn't move on with that group
> > to be a courtier to Essex so he was an outsider in the
> > late 1580s and early 1590s, probably scrambling for money
> > on his own.
CM was a) writing successful poems and plays during those years, and
b) working as a "secret agent" for Burghley, who as late as 1592,
bailed him out of trouble. This is also the first time we learn that
CM was "very well known" to Lord Strange.
> > I think Marlowe had the bad luck to find himself at the locus
> > of the feud between Essex and Burghley.
<snip
> > Both
> > Cecils were in a desperate financial situation as modern scholars
> > have discovered--one wrote "it's astonishing that the Cecils'
> > massive corruption was not noticed"--they were both hundreds
> > of thousands of pounds in debt--the nouveau riche have to buy
> > their own land since they couldn't inherit--a pity--and Elizbeth
> > was starting to transfer the monopolies to Essex as the Cecils
> > pressed their noses to the bakery shop window.
But Bacon also had his nose pressed to that window, and he was an
Essex man at the time. 1593... Were the Cecils in debt then?
<snip Webb's "Science Fiction Theater-like commentary>
> > A possible situation leading to Marlowe's death is that he
> > was a courier for the Cecils to the Catholics in Europe who
> > were transferring very large sums of money from Philip II to
> > English Catholic aristocrats to try to encourage them to
> > rise up against Elizabeth in the event of the second Anglo-Spanish
> > War/ The second War didn't happen but Philip was preparing for it
> > --there was a big war scare as late as 1598.
Not sure how this scenario adds up to the events at Deptford. Or to
Marlowe's arrest....
> > Just a theory.
>
> And a very entertaining one! Can Elizabeth supply any evidence for
> any of these creative fabrications? I thought not.
>
> > > and that Bacon was the Earl's chief
> > > advisor at the time; and that HW was his (Essex's) protege;
>
> > An earl can't be another earl's patron. HW was Essex' lover
> > it seems.
I didn't say "patron," meant "mentor" ...
> > > and that
> > > V&A was already "in the can" at the time Marlowe was called before the
> > > Privy Council; that he was released on his own recognizance while Kyd
> > > languished in prison; that his (Marlowe's) alleged murderer was back
> > > in the employ of his boss (Marlowe's patron)
>
> > What patron? Southampton?
Note to Ms. Weir...PLEASE get hold of Wraight's book, okay?
> > > within weeks of the
> > > murder;
>
> > Yes, well, that is a little suggestive.
Good. I'm glad you can see that.
> > > that V&A and Lucrece contain echoes of H&L (which was printed
> > > until 1598);
>
> > What was printed until 1598--Lucrece?
H&L = Hero and Leander, printed in 1598. Registered Sept. 1593.
> > > that (the concealed author) Shakespeare promised HW 'a
> > > graver labor'
>
> > That's rather ominous in context.
Rather telling, i'd say. (if a man's wit isn't understood, it strikes
a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room)
WEBB:
> Elizabeth has adopted the habit of concluding each post with a touch
> of paranoia, and she does not disappoint here.
She should lighten up, right Dave?
> > > (Marlowe loved wordplay as well as Shakespeare); that
> > > Bacon (in any of his known writings, correct me if i'm wrong) gives no
> > > evidence of being a poet at all;
>
> > The first reference to Bacon as a poet that I know of is
> > in a letter from the French ambassador de Jesse who writes
> > that Bacon taught him more about poetry than the poets at
> > the Court of France which is a high compliment considering
> > that de Jesse is referring to La Pleiades--Bacon actually knew
> > these poets and discussed poetry with them when he was
> > at the Court of Henry IV for several years. There are small
> > bodies of French poetry that may have been written by Bacon
> > whose French was beyond superb.
> Was his French as good as Stephanie showed that Oxford's was?
>
> > I doubt his Italian was
> > that good but he got by in it.
> >
> > De Jesse makes Bacon a poet by at least the early 1580s.
Okay, so both Bacon and Marlowe were poets by at least the early
1580's.
> > There are probably two dozen references to Bacon as a poet,
> > about half of it in satires. Baconian evidence is so vast and
> > so messy it's hard to grapple with it. I've posted on some of
> > these references.
Let's stay focused in 1593-94.
> > > that ...well you get the idea.
>
> > Don't ever believe anything the Strats have written. It's
> > all lies.
Ever and all. Ha. that IS funny. By contrast I should believe
everything you say? Well, you CAN believe what I tell YOU.
WEBB:
> I defy anyone to read Elizabeth's post without laughing aloud!
I'm not laughing, Dave. Elizabeth's going to prove a tough nut to
crack, though I'm looking forward to seeing her theory include a more
realistic assessment of FB's relationship with CM prior to May 30,
1593.
> > > As
> > > I've suggested to you in another thread, you might want to investigate
> > > FB's role in orchestrating M's possible banishment.
>
> > And FB's motive is . . .?
Hmmm. I was hoping you could tell ME! I don't know enough about
Bacon, but here goes:
MAY MAY MAY
I see Bacon as something of a fixer, who gave Essex helpful advice
that the Earl might ignore, but nevertheless... he may have suggested
the banishment option to Essex as a way of settling he score with
Whitgift. Essex could have pitched it to Burghley (who was also in
CM's corner, it seems). Such rallying of contentious forces behind a
cause celebre was not unprecedented. The previous Fall, Udall escaped
hanging through the combined efforts of Raleigh and Essex. Similarly,
no one wanted to see the greatest poet dramatist of his generation
dead, either, except maybe Whitgift, or Baines. England had everything
to gain by preserving his gift for poetry and drama, useful for
propaganda and national theater. I'm out on a limb here with the bare
ruined choirs.
> > > Didn't they (he
> > > and Marlowe) have much in common?
>
> > I think FB overwrote Marlowe's old plays.
Certainly Shakespeare rewrote old plays. But let's stay focused on
1592-93 and before.
Bacon and Marlowe were about the same age. Both had close
relationships with Burghley. Bacon was jockeying for position at
Court; Marlowe was jockeying for position in the pantheon of all-time
great literary geniuses. He had embarked on what Patrick Cheney calls
an "Ovidian cursus" (literary career model), in contrast to Spenser's
"Virgilian cursus." He had two acclaimed translations of Latin master
poets under his belt, and several hit plays and an equally brilliant
narrative poem (written, but not published until five years after he
was quilled in Deptford)
The only thing
> > original with Bacon is the genius way he reassembles the
> > existing material.
Well, if you are an exponent of FB, then you too must reassemble the
existing material. And the Marley case is existing material, and you
appear to be unfamiliar with it...suggest you read more. I HAVE read
the books that put forward the Bacon case, and have found them very
persuasive and entertaining, but they were written without knowledge
of the Inquest report disc. by Hotson in 1925.
In other words, Bacon was a natural born
> > satirist and parodist.
I think YOU are a natural born satyrist and parottist, Elizabeth!
We know from reading his early plays that Marley was the same. Jean
Jofen thinks he wrote the Marprelate Tracts...I think he may have
written the first one, despite Carlson's Throckmorton identification.
The styles of the 6 tracts are very different.
He reacts to phenomena in the environment--
> > that's the basis of his scientific theory.
That's what I do, what we all do.
He played ironically with the
> > existing elements, even in science and law.
Marlowe too
> > > Also, if FB WAS Shakespeare, as you
> > > claim, he owed a HUGE debt to CM, did he not?
>
> > I don't know what CM wrote.
He wrote *Hero & Leander* (a must read) and "much much more."
<snip Immerito>
> > > Why didn't Shakespeare
> > > ever acknowledge it? Why didn't he write some memorial verses for the
> > > man whose poem (H&L) he must have read in ms. and who "perfected" the
> > > use of blank verse in drama.
>
> > The evidence for this is very scant.
The evidence isn't scant, it's your familiarity with it. Chapman
doesn't get into the picture Marlowe-wise until 1598.
The poem was registered in Sept. 1593 (six months after V&A was
REGISTERED)
Published in 1598 with dedication from Blount to Thomas Walsingham,
whose associate and confidante, Frizer, reportedly killed Marley. It
testifies to how much TW favored Kit. You can read the dedicatory
epistle here. <http://www.marlovian.com/docs/blountlet.html>
Read Wraight.
The fact that Chapman--who
> > loathed and despised Bacon and competed with him for patronage
> > with Essex--picked up the H & L and finished it
What is the first evidence Chapman gives that he loathed and despised
Bacon?
WEBB
> Let me get this straight -- it is a *fact*, according to Elizabeth,
> that Chapman completed the work?!
Let me get this straight--Dave, do you doubt this?
> > says "fuck you, Bacon"
Why would Chapman want to say fuck you Bacon in 1598? Why would Bacon
care who completed the poem? I'm sure (if he was Shakespeare) he could
have if he wanted to.
> ...must be yet another obscure Baconian cipher...
>
> > not "I'm doing this for Marlowe's memory." The second half is pretty
> > bad compared to the first half.
It's less erotic. Not bad. Written for the Walsingham's wedding I
think. Tom and Audrey. Contains much wedding poetry, "epithalamia?"
It begins:
New light gives new directions, Fortunes new
To fashion our endeavors that ensue,
More harsh (at least more hard) more GRAVE and high
Our subject runs, and our stern Muse must fly.
Loves edge is taken off, and that light flame,
those thoughts, joys, longings, that before became,
High inexperienced blood, and maid's sharp plights,
Must now grow staid, and censure the delights,
That being enjoyed ask judgment now we praise
As having parted: Evenings crown the days.
That's how it begins, pretty good stuff, imo.
The only really bad part is the few lines Chapman wrote, imo, though
the part about "Late Desires" is interesting. Reminds me of
"ever-living poet."
Now (as swift as Time
Doth follow Motion) find th'eternal clime
Of his free soul, whose living subject stood
Up to the chin in the Pierian flood,
And drunk me half this Musaean story,
Inscribing it to deathless memory:
Confer with it, and make my pledge as deep,
That neither's draught be consecrate to sleep;
Tell it how much his LATE DESIRES I tender
(If yet it know not), and to light surrender
My soul's dark offspring, willing it should die
To loves, to passions, and society.
> > > Shakespeare (i suspect) already knew what his graver labor was going
> > > to be when he promised it to Wriothesley at the first appearance in
> > > print of V&A, so it wasn't a hurriedly written hack job. Have you read
> > > it?
>
> > Yes. It's no V & A but the quality of writing is the same.
>
> > > It was carefully typeset and printed, like V&A.
>
> > It would be because Lucrece was CYA. It actually wasn't
> > a best seller.
WEBB
> My hat is off to lowercase dave for inspiring such a hilarious riff!
> Elizabeth's inventions just get funnier by the day, impossible though
> that might seem.
Keep 'em coming, EW. After you've factored Marlowe into the equation,
Webb will need to wear a diaper to keep from wetting his pants in
uncontrolled paroxysms of laughter.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
David L. Webb
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote:
Don't expect Elizabeth to make sense, Dave.
> > > > You're right about the moral
> > > > palliative, I think, but a HACK JOB?!?!!! Please.
> > > It was written under duress.
> Are signs of duress evident in the poem? Please point to them.
"This is the perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search
function yet."
> > > The V & A problem and the Lucrece solution begins
> > > with Dr. John Whitgift, the Master of Trinity who was
> > > Bacon's mentor for several years when Bacon was a
> > > startling young genius at Cambridge. The Baconians
> > > think that Elizabeth sent Bacon to live with Whitgift.
> > "The Baconians" "think" all sorts of wildly improbable things, so
> > this locution is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the factoid's
> > accuracy; however, in view of Elizabeth's well-known disregard for
> > evidence, it's probably the best one can expect.
> I agree with Webb here. Your evidence please.
Asking Elizabeth for evidence is pointless.
> Also, we do know that Nashe lived with Whitgift for a spell, during
> the Marprelate crisis, and that Essex read Martin approvingly. Where
> did FB stand?
> > > Whitgift--a very gifted man--was then Elizabeth's
> > > private chaplain, her closest confident who later kneeled
> > > at her bedside and held her hand as she was dying.
> > > Whitgift was close to Bacon as well and happened to
> > > be the censor when the V & A was approved and as
> > > Archbishop of Canterbury had to clean up after it for
> > > years to come.
> What evidence is there that Bacon and Whitgift were close? We know
> that the Archbishop knew who Marlowe was because of the poet's
> outspoken opinions and powers of persuasion.
Asking Elizabeth for evidence is pointless.
> <snip Hall Marston flap>
>
> This is very interesting, E. but those events don't occur until 1598.
> Let's get to that later. For now, let's stay focused on 1593-94.
[...]
> > > I've been pondering that question for two years and I'm always
> > > alert to any new evidence but the problem with Marlowe is
> > > Not Enough Information.
> Nay, E, there is Enough Information. Stay focused on 1593-94.
>
> The greatest poet dramatist of his generation is suddenly killed, and
> less than two weeks later the greatest poet dramatist of his
> generation is born in print, promising a graver labor to a man with
> whom he attended Cambridge in the mid 80's.
> > But I thought that Elizabeth Weird claimed to have shown, supposedly
> > by refuting Dave Kathman's essay, that Bacon's authorship was a
> > *certainty*:
> >
> > "Since I defeated Kathman's Strachey thesis I can say that Bacon's
> > authorship is a certainty."
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0308141648.5f755bbb%40post
> > ing.google.com&output=gplain>
> >
> WEBB:
> > If indeed it is a *certainty*, as Elizabeth claims, what conceivable
> > point could there be in considering the possibility of Marlowe's
> > authorship?
> Good point, DW. Her theory hasn't adequately accounted for the
> Marlowe factor, just as mine hasn't taken Bacon sufficiently into
> account. (Or William! I can hear the Williamists say). Perhaps this
> little exchange will remedy those deficiencies.
The exchange may encourage you to look into Bacon, but I seriously
doubt that it will induce Elizabeth to look into Marlowe. After all,
Elizabeth has said -- and repeated -- that Bacon's authorship is a
*certainty* Her mind, such as it is, is made up -- don't confuse her
with irrelevant distractions like evidence.
> > > If you want a theory,
> WEBB:
> > Elizabeth's largesse in inventing theories is well-known; she is much
> > less generous when it comes to furnishing any evidence.
> Evidence rules!
Not with Elizabeth it doesn't! I've been trying for over a year (and
I'm not the only one) to get her to disclose the "evidence" for her
extraordinary claim that "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre
slang for the factotum who toted scenery around between acts," an
assertion presented as bald *fact*, not as conjecture, without having
seen any results. Evidently Elizabeth just made it up, as she does so
much of her "research."
> I am going to set up a chart on my website with the
> main contenders for Shakespeare name, and the evidence pro and con.
> > > Marlowe was a free lancer who went
> > > where the money was,
> And your evidence for this is...?
When are you ever going to learn, Dave?! "This is the perishable
internet and Wayback doesn't have a search function yet."
[...]
> > > he probably was one of the double
> > > agents that sold information to both sides--he seems to have
> > > known men that worked for those two mortal enemies, Essex
> > > and Burghley. Burghley and Essex kept spies in each others'
> > > houses as Leicester had kept spies in Oxford and Burghleys'
> > > houses and I assume vice versa. They were all spying on each
> > > other and Marlowe appears to have been a spy who had entre [sic]
> > Elizabeth really should refrain from using words borrowed from
> > languages that she does not know (or at the very least she should ask
> > someone to look them up in a dictionary for her).
> > > to various houses. His relationship with Walsingham's son is
> > > rather puzzling.
> Walsingham's son???? Do you mean Thomas? Elizabeth, get hold of A.D.
> Wraight's book "In Search of Christopher Marlowe," and read it, okay?
Read?! ELIZABETH??! Her track record -- Akrigg, Rips, Poincaré,
Drosnin, Einstein, etc. -- is not very promising, and all these sources
are *far* more easily obtainable than Wraight's book.
> It's a pictorial biography
Well, perhaps Elizabeth could indeed look at the pictures, at that.
> and very readable and factual. Also,
> Nicholl's book The Reckoning. I tell you, Ms. W, your Bacon theory is
> woefully incomplete as is. Your picture of Marlowe is a crude cartoon
> of a complex literary genius, who, by the time of his untimely end had
> produced several plays that can stand next to early Shakespeare's (Dr.
> F and Titus; EII and RII, e.g.) and poems too. Better brush up on
> Marlowe.
[...]
[...]
> > > Don't ever believe anything the Strats have written. It's
> > > all lies.
> Ever and all. Ha. that IS funny.
See what I mean?
> By contrast I should believe
> everything you say?
Of course -- Elizabeth's hallucinations are evidently strikingly
vivid.
> Well, you CAN believe what I tell YOU.
>
>
> WEBB:
> > I defy anyone to read Elizabeth's post without laughing aloud!
> I'm not laughing, Dave. Elizabeth's going to prove a tough nut
"Nut" is indeed the operative word.
> to
> crack,
She's already cracked.
> though I'm looking forward to seeing her theory include a more
> realistic assessment of FB's relationship with CM prior to May 30,
> 1593.
[...]
> > > The only thing
> > > original with Bacon is the genius way he reassembles the
> > > existing material.
>
> Well, if you are an exponent of FB, then you too must reassemble the
> existing material. And the Marley case is existing material, and you
> appear to be unfamiliar with it...
Surprise!
> suggest you read more.
It's been suggested that expedient many times -- indeed, I've even
suggested that it would behove Elizabeth to read at the very least the
texts that she haplessly attempts to cite as sources (rather than merely
inferring their probable content from appearance in a bibliography), but
so far to no avail.
> I HAVE read
> the books that put forward the Bacon case, and have found them very
> persuasive and entertaining,
You found Delia Bacon "persuasive and entertaining"?! But perhaps
you would rightly regard her book as one that sets back the Bacon case
rather than putting it forward. The same could be said of the book of
Durning-Lawrence (or "Lawrence-Durning," as the ever erudite Elizabeth
prefers to denominate him); see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=040720011301072556%25David.L.Webb%4
0Dartmouth.edu&output=gplain>
for some quintessential Weird hilarity -- among other things, she
credits me and/or Art Neuendorffer (of all people!) for pointing out a
Nabokov parody of Baconian misreadings well-known to readers of Nabokov
for decades.
> but they were written without knowledge
> of the Inquest report disc. by Hotson in 1925.
> In other words, Bacon was a natural born
> > > satirist and parodist.
> I think YOU are a natural born satyrist and parottist, Elizabeth!
Elizabeth's forte is not parody but rather hilarity.
[...]
> > > > Also, if FB WAS Shakespeare, as you
> > > > claim, he owed a HUGE debt to CM, did he not?
> > > I don't know what CM wrote.
Surprise!
> He wrote *Hero & Leander* (a must read) and "much much more."
>
>
> <snip Immerito>
[...]
> The evidence isn't scant, it's your familiarity with it. Chapman
> doesn't get into the picture Marlowe-wise until 1598.
>
> The poem was registered in Sept. 1593 (six months after V&A was
> REGISTERED)
>
> Published in 1598 with dedication from Blount to Thomas Walsingham,
> whose associate and confidante, Frizer, reportedly killed Marley. It
> testifies to how much TW favored Kit. You can read the dedicatory
> epistle here. <http://www.marlovian.com/docs/blountlet.html>
>
> Read Wraight.
> > > The fact that Chapman--who
> > > loathed and despised Bacon and competed with him for patronage
> > > with Essex--picked up the H & L and finished it
>
> What is the first evidence Chapman gives that he loathed and despised
> Bacon?
>
> WEBB
> > Let me get this straight -- it is a *fact*, according to Elizabeth,
> > that Chapman completed the work?!
> Let me get this straight--Dave, do you doubt this?
I doubt that he completed it with the intention of saying "fuck you,
Bacon."
> > > says "fuck you, Bacon"
> Why would Chapman want to say fuck you Bacon in 1598?
I wondered the same thing. Because Elizabeth hallucinated it?
[...]
lowercase dave
questions about, my queries. Unlike you, i don't have much history of
debate with her, but have always admired her resourceful research and
in-your-face approach to presenting evidence (although from what you
say, she is not so bold in putting up evidence for many of the claims
she makes). Will she give me evidence for the claims she makes below?
Will she be brave enough to explore the evidence surrounding Marlowe's
sudden end, the immediate (re)birth of Shakespeare in print; and the
posthumous history of Marlowe's reputation and literary publications?
The balls (sic) in her court ...
p.s. to Kathman on the Subject of this thread:
How about those contemporary critics who say Lucrece is inferior
goods!? The last reference you offered was 43 years ago. Critical
opinion and scholarly research into V&A and Lucrece has changed and
expanded greatly since then, no?
Thanks!
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
If you're interested in what prompted the above, read below:
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-7EA7...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
Elizabeth Weir
> questions about, my queries.
Had a little electrical event here and lost the post.
> Unlike you, i don't have much history of
> debate with her,
Webb and I have never debated. Webb doesn't know how.
> but have always admired her resourceful research and
> in-your-face approach to presenting evidence (although from what you
> say, she is not so bold in putting up evidence for many of the claims
> she makes).
Webb ignores evidence he doesn't like, i.e., JP Hsu's L-P
relativity minus Einstein's superfluous c., the evidence I
posted that refutes Kathman's thesis, the forty or more
URLs I posted showing that Southampton did, in fact,
wear drag.
Will she give me evidence for the claims she makes below?
?
> Will she be brave enough to explore the evidence surrounding Marlowe's
> sudden end, the immediate (re)birth of Shakespeare in print; and the
> posthumous history of Marlowe's reputation and literary publications?
? ? ?
David L. Webb
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message
> news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Well, Dave, I guess we'll have to see if Elizabeth has answers to, or
> > questions about, my queries.
Of course not -- when *will* you ever learn, Dave?
> Had a little electrical event here and lost the post.
"This is the perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a
search function...."
> > Unlike you, i don't have much history of
> > debate with her,
> Webb and I have never debated. Webb doesn't know how.
> > but have always admired her resourceful research
Her research is "resourceful," all right! She just makes up complete
crap, states it blandly as unassailable fact, and, if asked for sources
or evidence, protests that she saw it online somewhere but "This is the
perishable internet...."
> > and
> > in-your-face approach
I would characterize it rather as an "in *her* face approach" -- the
image to keep in mind is that of an exploding cigar.
> > to presenting evidence (although from what you
> > say, she is not so bold in putting up evidence for many of the claims
> > she makes).
Now *there's* an understatement!
> Webb ignores evidence he doesn't like, i.e., JP Hsu's L-P
> relativity minus Einstein's superfluous c.,
Elizabeth, of course, doesn't understand a word of his work. She
even hallucinates that he is "[my] Dartmouth colleague," since Elizabeth
cannot distinguish between Dartmouth College (a private, Ivy League
institution in New Hampshire) and the University of Massachussets at
Dartmouth, (a public institution in a completely different state).
> the evidence I
> posted that refutes Kathman's thesis,
What "evidence" was that?
> the forty or more
> URLs I posted showing that Southampton did, in fact,
> wear drag.
Now *this* is funny! Let's revisit the supposed "evidence" Elizabeth
adduced for her assertion that
"Southampton was overly fond of drag and used to hang about the
theatres hoping to play female roles. He was given a few parts
and was apparently very convincing as a girl."
When I asked for evidence, Elizabeth replied:
"It's in the record that Southampton acted in theatrical
productions, probably at Court instead of the public theatres.
He is supposed
[What "record"? "Supposed" by whom? Elizabeth Weird?]
"to have taken a female role in MSND which was played for his
mother's wedding according to some Strat scholars.
[*Which* "Strat scholars"? Note Elizabeth's signature vagueness here --
there are no names, no sources, no details -- just the assurance that
Elizabeth has "read" somewhere that....]
"Strats have a problem separating fact from theory but I've read that
[Read ***WHERE***??? (Oh, I get it -- "This is the perishable
internet....")]
"Southampton acted several times."
Not content with even such an avalanche of overwhelming evidence,
Elizabeth continued:
"Here are some academic pages that point to the fact that Wriothesley
was gay
[Note that Elizabeth here hopelessly confuses homosexuality with
transvestism.]
"followed by A.L. Rowe's rapturous appreciation of Southampton's
femininity:
"'"W.H." reversed could be the initials of the poet's patron Henry
Wriothesley (pronounced "Risley"), Earl of Southampton. He was
beautiful, young, and of dubious sexuality. . .'
http://open.durhamtech.edu/british/shakespeare.htm"
[Elizabeth evidently hasn't a clue that sexual orientation is distinct
from transvestism.]
"Here's a site on gender studies where a bibliography of
transexualism features a book on Southampton.
http://faculty.washington.edu/alvin/gaycat.htm"
A visit to that URL discloses a presumably list of Gay and Lesbian
holdings of the University of Washington Library; the only one having
anything whatever to do with the Earl of Southampton is the book by
Akrigg, _Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton_. Now, unlike
Elizabeth, I had actually *read* Akrigg, and knew that he said nothing
about Southampton being "overly fond of drag." Accordingly, I asked:
"The only reference I see to Southampton is to Akrigg's _Shakespeare
and the Earl of Southampton_; is that *really* the book you had in
mind? If so, where does Akrigg opine that Southamtpon was 'overly fond
of drag,' that he used to 'hang about the theatres hoping to play
female roles,' or that he was 'very convincing as a girl'? Or did you
just make that up?" Astonishingly, Elizabeth rejoined:
"Why else would a site on queer studies have a book on Southampton
listed in the biography?"
So much for Elizabeth's idea of what constitutes "evidence." Akrigg
says nothing about Southampton being "overly fond of drag," far less
that he used to hang around the theatres hoping to play female roles!
In fact, even allowing for Elizabeth's idiotic inability to distinguish
transvestism from homosexuality, Elizabeth is even wrong about what
Akrigg says even about Southampton's sexual orientation. Indeed, Akrigg
writes quite explicitly:
"It all adds up to one thing: nothing would be less surprising
than to learn that during certain periods of his early life
Southampton passed through homosexual phases but, until better
evidence is found, only a fool will declare that he did."
Rarely, if ever, have I seen such farcical incompetence so blatantly and
proudly displayed -- the possible exception would be Elizabeth's crank
relativity-denial thread, in which she "argues" -- SIMULTANEOUSLY! --
that special relativity is hopelessly wrong, AND that Einstein
"plagerized [sic]" the "equasions [sic]" from Lorentz and Poincaré, who
thereby have been robbed of the laurels they deserve for discovering the
theory -- which, according to Elizabeth, is wrong anyway! But by all
means, see the entire Southampton "drag" thread at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=efbc3534.
0205171839.919dd88%40posting.google.com&rnum=13&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl2
035743231d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Defbc3534.02051
71839.919dd88%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D13>
for a good laugh. See especially
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2035743231d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&selm=190520021434216779%25David.L.Webb%40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=18>.
Amusingly, Elizabeth grouses in this same thread:
"When are you going to make a *factual* contribution to the discussion
in HLAS, Webb?"
and puts Tom Lay in his place with devastating wit:
"You wouldn't know a fact if it flew up your nose."
> Will she give me evidence for the claims she makes below?
>
> ?
You're kidding, right?
[...]
lowercase dave
sorry it's taken so long to get back to your ? and ???
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Well, Dave, I guess we'll have to see if Elizabeth has answers to, or
> > questions about, my queries.
>
> Had a little electrical event here and lost the post.
>
> > Unlike you, i don't have much history of
> > debate with her,
>
> Webb and I have never debated. Webb doesn't know how.
If you don't mind, we can leave your ongoing hassle with Webb, who
insists you hallucinate your facts, out of it. Clean slate. Facts.
Evidence. Reasonable interpretation of same.
<snip>
> Will she give me evidence for the claims she makes below?
>
> ?
See below.
> > Will she be brave enough to explore the evidence surrounding Marlowe's
> > sudden end, the immediate (re)birth of Shakespeare in print; and the
> > posthumous history of Marlowe's reputation and literary publications?
>
> ? ? ?
See below three times.
I repeat my question: The notion that Field's version of V&A was a
pirate
edition because Bacon didn't like printed books doesn't make sense.
Why would FB had printed Lucrece with the same printer?
> > > > > > > You're right about the moral
> > > > > > > palliative, I think, but a HACK JOB?!?!!! Please.
>
> > > > > > It was written under duress.
>
> > > > Are signs of duress evident in the poem? Please point to them.
Or are you imposing duress from the outside? Do you think if Marlowe
had written the poem from exile he would be feeling duress? (answer:
yes,if Southampton was wearing it?)
> > > "This is the perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search
> > > function yet."
> > >
> > > > > > The V & A problem and the Lucrece solution begins
> > > > > > with Dr. John Whitgift, the Master of Trinity who was
> > > > > > Bacon's mentor for several years when Bacon was a
> > > > > > startling young genius at Cambridge. The Baconians
> > > > > > think that Elizabeth sent Bacon to live with Whitgift.
>
> > > > > "The Baconians" "think" all sorts of wildly improbable things, so
> > > > > this locution is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the factoid's
> > > > > accuracy; however, in view of Elizabeth's well-known disregard for
> > > > > evidence, it's probably the best one can expect.
>
> > > > I agree with Webb here. Your evidence please.
> > > Asking Elizabeth for evidence is pointless.
Prove Webb wrong EW, although I am willing to take the Baconians word
for it since it matters not a whit to my thesis or yours vis a vis
Shakespeare.
> > > > Also, we do know that Nashe lived with Whitgift for a spell, during
> > > > the Marprelate crisis, and that Essex read Martin approvingly. Where
> > > > did FB stand?
Yeah, where DID FB stand re: Marprelate and the bishops?
> > > > > > Whitgift--a very gifted man--was then Elizabeth's
> > > > > > private chaplain, her closest confident who later kneeled
> > > > > > at her bedside and held her hand as she was dying.
> > > > > > Whitgift was close to Bacon as well and happened to
> > > > > > be the censor when the V & A was approved and as
> > > > > > Archbishop of Canterbury had to clean up after it for
> > > > > > years to come.
>
> > > > What evidence is there that Bacon and Whitgift were close? We know
> > > > that the Archbishop knew who Marlowe was because of the poet's
> > > > outspoken opinions and powers of persuasion.
> > >
> > > Asking Elizabeth for evidence is pointless.
What evidence that Bacon and Whitgift associated beyond Oxford. Any
correspondence between them? I would think B to be an agnostic. Was he
religious?
> > > > <snip Hall Marston flap>
> > > >
> > > > This is very interesting, E. but those events don't occur until 1598.
> > > > Let's get to that later. For now, let's stay focused on 1593-94.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > I've been pondering that question for two years and I'm always
> > > > > > alert to any new evidence but the problem with Marlowe is
> > > > > > Not Enough Information.
>
> > > > Nay, E, there is Enough Information. Stay focused on 1593-94.
> > > >
> > > > The greatest poet dramatist of his generation is suddenly killed while with his friends, and
> > > > less than two weeks later the greatest poet dramatist of his
> > > > generation is born in print, promising a graver labor to a man with
> > > > whom he attended Cambridge in the mid 80's.
Have you meditated on the above scenario, Elizabeth? Why would FB have
decided to launch a a pseudonym with V&A at the time he did?
> > > > > But I thought that Elizabeth Weird claimed to have shown, supposedly
> > > > > by refuting Dave Kathman's essay, that Bacon's authorship was a
> > > > > *certainty*:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since I defeated Kathman's Strachey thesis I can say that Bacon's
> > > > > authorship is a certainty."
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0308141648.5f755bbb%40post
> > > > > ing.google.com&output=gplain>
> > > > >
> WEBB:
> > > > > If indeed it is a *certainty*, as Elizabeth claims, what conceivable
> > > > > point could there be in considering the possibility of Marlowe's
> > > > > authorship?
>
> > > > Good point, DW. Her theory hasn't adequately accounted for the
> > > > Marlowe factor, just as mine hasn't taken Bacon sufficiently into
> > > > account. (Or William! I can hear the Williamists say). Perhaps this
> > > > little exchange will remedy those deficiencies.
> > >
> > > The exchange may encourage you to look into Bacon, but I seriously
> > > doubt that it will induce Elizabeth to look into Marlowe. After all,
> > > Elizabeth has said -- and repeated -- that Bacon's authorship is a
> > > *certainty* Her mind, such as it is, is made up -- don't confuse her
> > > with irrelevant distractions like evidence.
Is Webb correct, Eliz.? Is your mind made up, without investigating
the evidence surrounding Marlowe's life and sudden end?
> > > > > > If you want a theory,
> > >
> > > WEBB:
> > > > > Elizabeth's largesse in inventing theories is well-known; she is much
> > > > > less generous when it comes to furnishing any evidence.
>
> > > > Evidence rules!
> > >
> > > Not with Elizabeth it doesn't! I've been trying for over a year (and
> > > I'm not the only one) to get her to disclose the "evidence" for her
> > > extraordinary claim that "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre
> > > slang for the factotum who toted scenery around between acts," an
> > > assertion presented as bald *fact*, not as conjecture, without having
> > > seen any results. Evidently Elizabeth just made it up, as she does so
> > > much of her "research."
> > >
> > > > I am going to set up a chart on my website with the
> > > > main contenders for Shakespeare name, and the evidence pro and con.
>
> > > > > > Marlowe was a free lancer who went
> > > > > > where the money was,
didn't everyone? How was Francis earning a living in 1592-93?
> > > > And your evidence for this is...?
> > >
> > > When are you ever going to learn, Dave?! "This is the perishable
> > > internet and Wayback doesn't have a search function yet."
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > he probably was one of the double
> > > > > > agents that sold information to both sides--he seems to have
> > > > > > known men that worked for those two mortal enemies, Essex
> > > > > > and Burghley. Burghley and Essex kept spies in each others'
> > > > > > houses as Leicester had kept spies in Oxford and Burghleys'
> > > > > > houses and I assume vice versa. They were all spying on each
> > > > > > other and Marlowe appears to have been a spy who had entre [sic] to various houses.
Even if this is true, and i have no reason to doubt, it doesn't
disqualify CM from writing Rape of Lucrece.
<snip DW's helpful advice>
Suggestive indeed.
No Dave, maybe persuasive was too strong a term...interesting and
entertaining. I particularly liked that engraving from 1624
cryptographic book. The Bacon website probably has it posted....YOu
know the one I mean, don't make me dig out Lawrence of Durning, what
do you make of it?
> > > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=040720011301072556%25David.L.Webb%4
> > > 0Dartmouth.edu&output=gplain>
> > >
> > > for some quintessential Weird hilarity -- among other things, she
> > > credits me and/or Art Neuendorffer (of all people!) for pointing out a
> > > Nabokov parody of Baconian misreadings well-known to readers of Nabokov
> > > for decades.
> > >
> > > > but they were written without knowledge
> > > > of the Inquest report disc. by Hotson in 1925.
>
> > > > In other words, Bacon was a natural born
> > > > > > satirist and parodist.
>
> > > > I think YOU are a natural born satyrist and parottist, Elizabeth!
> > >
> > > Elizabeth's forte is not parody but rather hilarity.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > > Also, if FB WAS Shakespeare, as you
> > > > > > > claim, he owed a HUGE debt to CM, did he not?
>
> > > > > > I don't know what CM wrote.
> > >
> > > Surprise!
> > >
> > > > He wrote *Hero & Leander* (a must read) and "much much more."
Will you read some more Marlowe? esp. Edw. II, Hero & Leander.
> > > >
> > > > <snip Immerito>
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > The evidence isn't scant, it's your familiarity with it. Chapman
> > > > doesn't get into the picture Marlowe-wise until 1598.
> > > >
> > > > The poem was registered in Sept. 1593 (six months after V&A was
> > > > REGISTERED)
> > > >
> > > > Published in 1598 with dedication from Blount to Thomas Walsingham,
> > > > whose associate and confidante, Frizer, reportedly killed Marley. It
> > > > testifies to how much TW favored Kit. You can read the dedicatory
> > > > epistle here. <http://www.marlovian.com/docs/blountlet.html>
> > > >
> > > > Read Wraight.
ARe you getting this Elizabeth? The reason you have NOT ENOUGH
INFORMATION is because you haven't been looking. Take your eyes of the
Coarse Corn Hoarder Horse Holder long enough to investigate CM's bio
via A.D. Wraight's fine book, In Search of Christopher Marlowe.
> > > > > > The fact that Chapman--who
> > > > > > loathed and despised Bacon and competed with him for patronage
> > > > > > with Essex--picked up the H & L and finished it
> > > >
> > > > What is the first evidence Chapman gives that he loathed and despised
> > > > Bacon?
> > > >
> > > > WEBB
> > > > > Let me get this straight -- it is a *fact*, according to Elizabeth,
> > > > > that Chapman completed the work?!
>
> > > > Let me get this straight--Dave, do you doubt this?
> > >
> > > I doubt that he completed it with the intention of saying "fuck you,
> > > Bacon."
> > >
> > > > > > says "fuck you, Bacon"
>
> > > > Why would Chapman want to say fuck you Bacon in 1598?
> > >
> > > I wondered the same thing. Because Elizabeth hallucinated it?
> > >
> > > [...]
So why would GC say "fy" to FB in 1598?
And on that note,
best wishes for a speedy and full reply,
dave
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Elizabeth Weir
> I repeat my question: The notion that Field's version of V&A was a
> pirate
> edition because Bacon didn't like printed books doesn't make sense.
Bacon didn't like printed books and he would have circulated the
manuscript "among his private friends" as long as he could but
the V & A and Lucrece are in a different category because Bacon
was in trouble, because he desperately needed a patron in 1593
and because poetry was the equivalent of a resumé in that era.
> Why would FB had printed Lucrece with the same printer?
Richard Field was at Twickenham--I assume the record of
his presence at Twickenham is in Spedding--so there may
have been some relationship between Field and Bacon but
I don't know that.
Since someone is finally asking me questions that push my
research in the right direction I'm going to take this post
one part at a time.
I just had a breakthrough--thanks to your query below--on the
question of doctrine in the works. Bacon's chief tormentor, the
Strat scholar Edwin Abbott--actually a very fine scholar but
a zealot for the Stratfordian cause--wrote a chapter on
Bacon's return to Puritanism after the anti-Puritan
Elizabeth died. [Puritanism in this instance is not to be
confused with Protestant Puritanism--the Anglican Puritans
had a radically different world view] Bacon wrote treatises on
doctrine which resonate with the Marprelate tracts. That,
together with facts about about Bacon's association with
Leicester [from Spedding] I find that the Baconians have an
unexpectedly good circumstantial case for his authorship of
the Marprelate tracts. The only thing is, I don't think the
Baconians would care.
I don't know why the Marlovians interested in the Marprelate
tracts. Why do the Oxfordians care? The Oxfordians have
have put together a lot of evidence--none of it relevant to
Oxford--in support of their belief that Oxford was the author
of the Marprelate tracts.
The politics could not be more wrong. I posted on an article
by a leading Catholic scholar, Thomas McCoog, SJ, on
Oxford's records Jesuits are holding at the English College
at Rome . The idea that an ulta Catholic seditionist would be
ghostwriting for the Anglican Puritans, particularly for Leicester
who essentially stole Oxford blind, is inconceivable. Download
the Marprelate docs before they figure it out.
Elizabeth
<http://www3.telus.net/oxford/marprelate.html>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0209200322.5c8742b7%40posting.google.com&rnum=5>
lowercase dave
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I repeat my question: The notion that Field's version of V&A was a
> > pirate
> > edition because Bacon didn't like printed books doesn't make sense.
>
> Bacon didn't like printed books and he would have circulated the
> manuscript "among his private friends" as long as he could but
> the V & A and Lucrece are in a different category because Bacon
> was in trouble, because he desperately needed a patron in 1593
> and because poetry was the equivalent of a resumé in that era.
>
> > Why would FB had printed Lucrece with the same printer?
>
> Richard Field was at Twickenham--I assume the record of
> his presence at Twickenham is in Spedding--so there may
> have been some relationship between Field and Bacon but
> I don't know that.
>
> Since someone is finally asking me questions that push my
> research in the right direction I'm going to take this post
> one part at a time.
I'm gonna work ya, Joe Buck!
> I just had a breakthrough--thanks to your query below--on the
> question of doctrine in the works. Bacon's chief tormentor, the
> Strat scholar Edwin Abbott--actually a very fine scholar but
> a zealot for the Stratfordian cause--wrote a chapter on
> Bacon's return to Puritanism after the anti-Puritan
> Elizabeth died. [Puritanism in this instance is not to be
> confused with Protestant Puritanism--the Anglican Puritans
> had a radically different world view] Bacon wrote treatises on
> doctrine which resonate with the Marprelate tracts. That,
> together with facts about about Bacon's association with
> Leicester [from Spedding] I find that the Baconians have an
> unexpectedly good circumstantial case for his authorship of
> the Marprelate tracts. The only thing is, I don't think the
> Baconians would care.
IMPORTANT POINT #1
Why would Bacon be so impolitic as to write the Martin tracts in
1588-90? The idea is risible.*
> I don't know why the Marlovians interested in the Marprelate
> tracts. Why do the Oxfordians care? The Oxfordians have
> have put together a lot of evidence--none of it relevant to
> Oxford--in support of their belief that Oxford was the author
> of the Marprelate tracts.
If Marlowe wrote the first two tracts, and Whitgift suspected it, one
more reason to "silence the mouth of so dangerous a member." It was
said that Marlowe was VERY PERSUASIVE against organized religion,
which made him an "atheist."
> The politics could not be more wrong. I posted on an article
> by a leading Catholic scholar, Thomas McCoog, SJ, on
> Oxford's records Jesuits are holding at the English College
> at Rome . >The idea that an ulta Catholic seditionist would be
> ghostwriting for the Anglican Puritans, particularly for Leicester
> who essentially stole Oxford blind, is inconceivable. Download
> the Marprelate docs before they figure it out.
The first two Marprelate tracts were out-fucking-rageous for the time.
They heaped ridicule and contempt on the Bishops, Bridges, in
particular, but others including Whitgift, whom he called a
"Canterbury Caiphas", were mocked by Martin. I transcribed the tracts
myself a few years ago for a new "facsimile edition" with footnotes,
which this exhange may goose to completion.
How's the bird counting going? Are you a committed Baconian,
Elizabeth? (i know, groves or webb might say you should be committed,
but I mean) Are you committed to discovering the truth, even if it
means modifying your apriori(?) concept of who FB was? We can probably
settle the whole thing right here. If it leads to the conclusion that
Bacon or William wrote Venus & Adonis and *Lucrece*, so be it. But the
literary evidence points strongly to Marlowe, based on the parallels
to Hero & Leander, which I demonstrated a few years ago, and Marlowe's
demonstrated competence as a scholar, Latinist and poet.
Coming soon: Marlowe's Ovidian Cursus (Patrick Cheney's thesis in
verses)
I've just eaten half a bar of dark chocolate and had a nap, so I'm
good to go.
Do you write poetry Elizabeth? I have theory that any candidate that's
any good will have a bard or two to sing their praises or story. So
far, the Strats have come up with nothing. Only DeVere (sorta) and
Marlowe have offered verses. Are any of your Baconian friends poets?
Or all attorneys. Just wondering.
If you're very busy, just answer important point #1.
dave
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
*remember the Webbster!
lowercase dave
I'm never certain if you're ignoring me, or just busy, but since i'm
pretty busy myself, and took the trouble to write to you, a simple:
"You're right, Dave, the thought that Bacon would write the Marprelate
Tracts is risible" would do. If you have more to say, of course I'd
love to hear it. But with all the "metatextual(?)" interpersonal stuff
going on (egged by others on the sidelines, with nothing good to say,
or anything evidence to contribute, beyond stupid insults) it is
difficult at times to assess what is gained, what is lost. For
instance: you think you've proven that only Bacon could have seen the
Strachey letter (and you were going to post a list of names of people
who may have.) Oops, I'm top posting . However, yesterday's queries
remain unanswered below:
YOU ARE RIGHT, absurd that DeVere would write Martin, same with
Bacon...
> The first two Marprelate tracts were out-fucking-rageous for the time.
> They heaped ridicule and contempt on the Bishops, Bridges, in
> particular, but others including Whitgift, whom he called a
> "Canterbury Caiphas", were mocked by Martin. I transcribed the tracts
> myself a few years ago for a new "facsimile edition" with footnotes,
> which this exhange may goose to completion.
>
> How's the bird counting going? Are you a committed Baconian,
> Elizabeth? (i know, groves or webb might say you should be committed,
> but I mean) Are you committed to discovering the truth, even if it
> means modifying your apriori(?) concept of who FB was? We can probably
> settle the whole thing right here. If it leads to the conclusion that
> Bacon or William wrote Venus & Adonis and *Lucrece*, so be it. But the
> literary evidence points strongly to Marlowe, based on the parallels
> to Hero & Leander, which I demonstrated a few years ago, and Marlowe's
> demonstrated competence as a scholar, Latinist and poet.
>
> Coming soon: Marlowe's Ovidian Cursus (Patrick Cheney's thesis in
> verses)
<snip my own chatter>
David L. Webb
graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote:
[...]
> For
> instance: you think you've proven that only Bacon could have seen the
> Strachey letter (and you were going to post a list of names of people
> who may have.) Oops, I'm top posting . However, yesterday's queries
> remain unanswered below:
And so they will forever remain -- this is the perishable internet
and Wayback doesn't have a search function yet.
While you're at it, Dave, why don't you ask Elizabeth what evidence
she has for her extraordinary claim:
"The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
Of course, the realist in me knows the answer quite well ("Sometimes I
have to cook from scratch"), but the optimist in me keeps hoping that
perhaps someone like you might have better luck.
[...]
Elizabeth Weir
> I'm never certain if you're ignoring me
I'm not ignoring you. I'd explain why this is my
fourth stab at this post but why give Webb material.
> pretty busy myself, and took the trouble to write to you, a simple:
> "You're right, Dave, the thought that Bacon would write the Marprelate
> Tracts is risible" would do.
There's no obstacle that I can see to Bacon's authorship of
the Marprelate tracts. Leicester was his patron, Bacon's
doctrinal stance is correct, he knew the Bible thoroughly,
he is the only candidate raised by Puritans--Burghley and
Lady Anne--Nicholas Bacon was a moderate Anglican.
Shakespeare scholars of the Bible state that the author
memorized large sections of the Geneva Bible--of the
four candidates, that is only likely in Bacon's case. The
Geneva is overwhelmingly the biblical source for
the Shakespeare works. The Kentish Marlowes appear
to have some connection with the Anglican Church. I
doubt if they would have the Geneva but I could be wrong.
> If you have more to say, of course I'd
> love to hear it. But with all the "metatextual(?)" interpersonal stuff
> going on (egged by others on the sidelines, with nothing good to say,
> or anything evidence to contribute, beyond stupid insults) it is
> difficult at times to assess what is gained, what is lost.
Forums are serendipitous. I went to Pais
to refute Webb and found Bohr's restatement of Bacon's
concern about the use of precise language in describing the
phenomena of scientific experiments. What a find!
> For
> instance: you think you've proven that only Bacon could have seen the
> Strachey letter
I'm pretty sure I've proven it because the best response yet
is Webb's "I don't know how it got to Stratford."
(and you were going to post a list of names of people
> who may have.)
I've made the list. The question is whether it made it onto
the pasteboard before the post was blown away. If not I've
got the book, I'll make the list again and post it separately
one way of the other. I am not moving from this chair until
I finish this post.
> Oops, I'm top posting . However, yesterday's queries
> remain unanswered below:
>
>
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > A longer response to this got lost, so ...
> >
> > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > I repeat my question: The notion that Field's version of V&A was a
> > > > pirate
> > > > edition because Bacon didn't like printed books doesn't make sense.
> > >
> > > Bacon didn't like printed books and he would have circulated the
> > > manuscript "among his private friends" as long as he could but
> > > the V & A and Lucrece are in a different category because Bacon
> > > was in trouble, because he desperately needed a patron in 1593
> > > and because poetry was the equivalent of a resumé in that era.
> > >
> > > > Why would FB had printed Lucrece with the same printer?
> > >
> > > Richard Field was at Twickenham--I assume the record of
> > > his presence at Twickenham is in Spedding--so there may
> > > have been some relationship between Field and Bacon but
> > > I don't know that.
> > >
> > > Since someone is finally asking me questions that push my
> > > research in the right direction I'm going to take this post
> > > one part at a time.
> >
> > I'm gonna work ya, Joe Buck!
I'm going to guess that's not from Steinbeck.
> > > I just had a breakthrough--thanks to your query below--on the
> > > question of doctrine in the works. Bacon's chief tormentor, the
> > > Strat scholar Edwin Abbott--actually a very fine scholar but
> > > a zealot for the Stratfordian cause--wrote a chapter on
> > > Bacon's return to Puritanism after the anti-Puritan
> > > Elizabeth died. [Puritanism in this instance is not to be
> > > confused with Protestant Puritanism--the Anglican Puritans
> > > had a radically different world view] Bacon wrote treatises on
> > > doctrine which resonate with the Marprelate tracts. That,
> > > together with facts about about Bacon's association with
> > > Leicester [from Spedding] I find that the Baconians have an
> > > unexpectedly good circumstantial case for his authorship of
> > > the Marprelate tracts. The only thing is, I don't think the
> > > Baconians would care.
> >
> > IMPORTANT POINT #1
> >
> > Why would Bacon be so impolitic as to write the Martin tracts in
> > 1588-90? The idea is risible.*
He was a courtier to Leicester. Bacon's politics are more radical
than they appear after 1593. Strats assume that Elizabeth and
Burghley spanked Bacon for his speech against the Triple Subsidy
and that Bacon backed down and became a Court toady. That's
the Strat party line--"Bacon was a Court sycophant." Nothing could
be further from the truth. Bacon wrote that he would conceal his
works--they weren't paying attention--and he went on to make
radical reforms in law right under the noses of Coke and James I.
Bacon's influence on the course of modern law could not be
greater. Jefferson was completely devoted to Bacon--he kept
a picture of Bacon on his person. The rest is constitutional
history.
> > > I don't know why the Marlovians interested in the Marprelate
> > > tracts. Why do the Oxfordians care? The Oxfordians have
> > > have put together a lot of evidence--none of it relevant to
> > > Oxford--in support of their belief that Oxford was the author
> > > of the Marprelate tracts.
> >
> > If Marlowe wrote the first two tracts, and Whitgift suspected it, one
> > more reason to "silence the mouth of so dangerous a member." It was
> > said that Marlowe was VERY PERSUASIVE against organized religion,
> > which made him an "atheist."
The Marprelate tracts are Puritan, not atheist. They're not even
Separatist. Leicester was accurately described as a small "p"
presbyterian.
The presbyterians had no intention of abandoning the Church of England
in 1588 and even when "P"resbyterianism left after the English Civil
War
it did so with great regret--the Scots Presbyterians wouldn't join
the C of E because Clan Weir said it would drop its kilts and
expose its bums if it did so the Church backed down.
> > > The politics could not be more wrong. I posted on an article
> > > by a leading Catholic scholar, Thomas McCoog, SJ, on
> > > Oxford's records Jesuits are holding at the English College
> > > at Rome . >The idea that an ulta Catholic seditionist would be
> > > ghostwriting for the Anglican Puritans, particularly for Leicester
> > > who essentially stole Oxford blind, is inconceivable. Download
> > > the Marprelate docs before they figure it out.
>
> YOU ARE RIGHT, absurd that DeVere would write Martin, same with
> Bacon...
Bacon is only too perfect for the Marprelate tracts. I wish
they had more connection with the Shakespeare plays--
they do doctrinally, of course--so I could abandon pounding
on Webb and have an excuse to study them.
> > The first two Marprelate tracts were out-fucking-rageous for the time.
I honestly have to say that I didn't really think that much about them
until you brought it up but now that I've had a look at them I will
read them. Would you mind reading that back to me.
> > They heaped ridicule and contempt on the Bishops, Bridges, in
> > particular, but others including Whitgift, whom he called a
> > "Canterbury Caiphas", were mocked by Martin.
I bet Whitgift loved that. At that time Leicester and Whitgift
were at each others' throats over Church rite. Leicester and
Burghley had a falling out over the Catholic Marriage--here's
Burghley trying desperately to get the Catholic Marriage resolved
because it's crucial to his Kissingerian reorganization of the
Known World while Leicester is printing pamphlets propagandizing
against the Catholic Marriage. I see young Francis Bacon with a
bad case of hero-worship of Leicester--I've already
stated that Spedding has Bacon writing for Leicester [so did
Immerito--imagine that]--which may have been intensified
by the fact--the Baconians have a fairly good circumstantial
case--that Bacon was Leicester's bastard eigne as Hamlet puts it.
That would be Bacon's motive for abandoning the *appearance*
of the doctrinal stance of Elizabeth and Whitgift--as it turns out
Bacon was more of a Puritan than he let on according to Abbott.
That puts Bacon in place for writing the Marprelate tracts for
Leicester. Since there are two Marprelate authors Harvey--another
courtier to Leicester--has got to be the second not only in terms
of style but for the fact that his battle with Nashe picks up where
the
Marprelate tracts leave off.
> > I transcribed the tracts
> > myself a few years ago for a new "facsimile edition" with footnotes,
> > which this exhange may goose to completion.
That would be fun.
> > How's the bird counting going?
Three Stellar jays just had a food fight on the front porch.
They quack like ducks. I didn't know that.
> > Are you a committed Baconian,
> > Elizabeth?
I'm committed to no candidate. If the Marlovians or
Oxfordians can come up with something that beats Bacon's
evidence-it would require an authenticated manuscript--then
I'm that. The Stratfordians couldn't convince me if they
produced a First Folio in the Corn Hoarder's barbaric scrawls.
> > (i know, groves or webb might say you should be committed,
> > but I mean)
> > Are you committed to discovering the truth, even if it
> > means modifying your apriori(?) concept of who FB was?
That's the whole point. Bacon's case is a posteriori. We can know
it directly. It's not a "thought experiment."
> > We can probably
> > settle the whole thing right here. If it leads to the conclusion that
> > Bacon or William wrote Venus & Adonis and *Lucrece*, so be it.
Willlllllllliam? He was banned by rank. Didn't happen. He was
licensed to various earls. Like a dog. Couldn't be *licensed*
to who--Pembroke?--and sucking up to Southampton.
Southampton would never have accepted a dedication from
William. If he did Essex would have bitch slapped him, wiped his
pretty tears and given him a kiss and there's no record of that.
It's either Bacon or Marlowe, Dave. Oxford is out. Rank is an
insurmountable problem for Oxfordians. William is a joke.
> > But the
> > literary evidence points strongly to Marlowe, based on the parallels
> > to Hero & Leander, which I demonstrated a few years ago, and Marlowe's
> > demonstrated competence as a scholar, Latinist and poet.
I don't doubt it.
Elizabeth
lowercase dave
I appreciate the good wishes. I'm beginning to think it might be
futile, but I hope not. It depends on what she comes back
with...Evidence or theories. Theories are okay, when grounded in
evidence, or the absence of evidence. So we'll see.
I think I already did ask her about the "shake scene" phrase.
Personally, I'm waiting for her to show me how/why Bacon would have
written Marprelate tracts in late 1580's, I'll become a Baconian.
Speaking of the absence of evidence, what about C. Burbage's petition
to P. Herbert in 1635? That calls for a separate thread.
This one is supposed to be about the "many critics" who think Rape of
Lucrece is a sub-par performance. I'm waiting for the book Dave K.
recommended to arrive from interlibrary loan and reading Appleton
Morgans book about William's Warwickshire dialect which there are no
traces of in those highly stylized plays "Venus and Adonis" and "Rape
of Lucrece." It's an anomaly, no? I still am hoping Dave K. will
refer me to some CONTEMPORARY critics of those poems.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Lorenzo4344
>From: graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave)
>Date: 8/26/2003
>This one is supposed to be about the "many critics" who think Rape of
>Lucrece is a sub-par performance. I'm waiting for the book Dave K.
>recommended to arrive from interlibrary loan and reading Appleton
>Morgans book about William's Warwickshire dialect which there are no
>traces of in those highly stylized plays "Venus and Adonis" and "Rape
>of Lucrece." It's an anomaly, no? I still am hoping Dave K. will
>refer me to some CONTEMPORARY critics of those poems.
"The younger sort take much delight in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, but his
Lucrece and his tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, have it in them to
please the wiser sort." - Gabriel Harvey
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message
> news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Elizabeth--
> > I'm never certain if you're ignoring me
> I'm not ignoring you. I'd explain why this is my
> fourth stab at this post but why give Webb material.
"This is the perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search
function yet."
[Delusions of grandeur snipped]
> > For
> > instance: you think you've proven that only Bacon could have seen the
> > Strachey letter
[...]
> (and you were going to post a list of names of people
> > who may have.)
> I've made the list. The question is whether it made it onto
> the pasteboard before the post was blown away. If not I've
> got the book, I'll make the list again and post it separately
> one way of the other. I am not moving from this chair until
> I finish this post.
"This is the perishable internet and Wayback doesn't have a search
function yet."
[...]
> > > IMPORTANT POINT #1
> > >
> > > Why would Bacon be so impolitic as to write the Martin tracts in
> > > 1588-90? The idea is risible.*
[...]
> The Marprelate tracts are Puritan, not atheist. They're not even
> Separatist. Leicester was accurately described as a small "p"
> presbyterian.
> The presbyterians had no intention of abandoning the Church of England
> in 1588 and even when "P"resbyterianism left after the English Civil
> War
> it did so with great regret--the Scots Presbyterians wouldn't join
> the C of E because Clan Weir said it would drop its kilts and
> expose its bums if it did so the Church backed down.
That sounds like Clan Weir, all right.
[...]
> Bacon is only too perfect for the Marprelate tracts. I wish
> they had more connection with the Shakespeare plays--
> they do doctrinally, of course--so I could abandon pounding
> on Webb and have an excuse to study them.
Normally, when Elizabeth wishes something to be true, she merely
invents some outrageously funny factoid and states it as fact, with no
evidence (e.g., "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang
for the factotum who toted scenery around between acts."). Why her
uncharacteristic reticence to engage in sheer fabrication this time?
> > > The first two Marprelate tracts were out-fucking-rageous for the time.
> I honestly have to say that I didn't really think that much about them
> until you brought it up but now that I've had a look at them I will
> read them. Would you mind reading that back to me.
Stop the presses! Elizabeth is actually going to get around to
READING something?! Elizabeth wrote above "The Marprelate tracts are
Puritan, not atheist." Not having read them, how would she know? Pure
invention? That's what I thought.
> > > They heaped ridicule and contempt on the Bishops, Bridges, in
> > > particular, but others including Whitgift, whom he called a
> > > "Canterbury Caiphas", were mocked by Martin.
> I bet Whitgift loved that. At that time Leicester and Whitgift
> were at each others' throats over Church rite. Leicester and
> Burghley had a falling out over the Catholic Marriage--here's
> Burghley trying desperately to get the Catholic Marriage resolved
> because it's crucial to his Kissingerian reorganization of the
> Known World while Leicester is printing pamphlets propagandizing
> against the Catholic Marriage. I see young Francis Bacon
One wonders what it must be like to experience hallucinations this
vivid and immediate.
> with a
> bad case of hero-worship of Leicester--I've already
> stated that Spedding has Bacon writing for Leicester [so did
> Immerito--imagine that]--which may have been intensified
> by the fact--the Baconians have a fairly good circumstantial
> case--that Bacon was Leicester's bastard eigne as Hamlet puts it.
Has anyone managed to read this far without laughing aloud?
> That would be Bacon's motive for abandoning the *appearance*
> of the doctrinal stance of Elizabeth and Whitgift--as it turns out
> Bacon was more of a Puritan than he let on according to Abbott.
> That puts Bacon in place for writing the Marprelate tracts for
> Leicester. Since there are two Marprelate authors Harvey--another
> courtier to Leicester--has got to be the second not only in terms
> of style but for the fact that his battle with Nashe picks up where
> the
> Marprelate tracts leave off.
[...]
> > > How's the bird counting going?
> Three Stellar jays just had a food fight on the front porch.
> They quack like ducks. I didn't know that.
Jays have quite a varied repertoire of vocalizations.
> > > Are you a committed Baconian,
> > > Elizabeth?
> I'm committed to no candidate.
Nor has she been committed yet, although such a step seems long
overdue.
> If the Marlovians or
> Oxfordians can come up with something that beats Bacon's
> evidence-it would require an authenticated manuscript--then
> I'm that. The Stratfordians couldn't convince me if they
> produced a First Folio in the Corn Hoarder's barbaric scrawls.
> > > (i know, groves or webb might say you should be committed,
> > > but I mean)
> > > Are you committed to discovering the truth, even if it
> > > means modifying your apriori(?) concept of who FB was?
> That's the whole point. Bacon's case is a posteriori.
Yes, quite a few equine posteriors have attempted to make Bacon's
"case."
> We can know
> it directly.
By hallucination?
> It's not a "thought experiment."
It is indeed fortunate that thought is not required.
> > > We can probably
> > > settle the whole thing right here. If it leads to the conclusion that
> > > Bacon or William wrote Venus & Adonis and *Lucrece*, so be it.
> Willlllllllliam? He was banned by rank. Didn't happen. He was
> licensed to various earls. Like a dog. Couldn't be *licensed*
> to who--Pembroke?--and sucking up to Southampton.
>
> Southampton would never have accepted a dedication from
> William. If he did Essex would have bitch slapped him, wiped his
> pretty tears and given him a kiss and there's no record of that.
The insights vouchsafed the delusional into what others who have been
dead for some four centuries would have done is fascinating.
> It's either Bacon or Marlowe, Dave. Oxford is out. Rank is an
> insurmountable problem for Oxfordians. William is a joke.
Elizabeth apparently has never read Giliov's case for the Earl of
Rutland.
> > > But the
> > > literary evidence points strongly to Marlowe, based on the parallels
> > > to Hero & Leander, which I demonstrated a few years ago, and Marlowe's
> > > demonstrated competence as a scholar, Latinist and poet.
> I don't doubt it.
"Doubt" is not a word in Elizabeth's vocabulary -- except where
Einstein or "the Burgher" is concerned.
lowercase dave
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm never certain if you're ignoring me
>
> I'm not ignoring you. I'd explain why this is my
> fourth stab at this post but why give Webb material.
>
> > pretty busy myself, and took the trouble to write to you, a simple:
> > "You're right, Dave, the thought that Bacon would write the Marprelate
> > Tracts is risible" would do.
>
> There's no obstacle that I can see to Bacon's authorship of
> the Marprelate tracts. Leicester was his patron, Bacon's
> doctrinal stance is correct, he knew the Bible thoroughly,
> he is the only candidate raised by Puritans--Burghley and
> Lady Anne--Nicholas Bacon was a moderate Anglican.
You haven't read the Marprelate Tracts yet, have you? The first two
are not about doctrine, but about the incompetence and venality of
the Bishops. Martin's message: NO MORE LORD BISHOPS.
For what it's worth, Marley also knew the Bible thoroughly. He
attended Cambridge on an Archbishop Parker scholarship. He assumed
that he was expected to take holy orders.
> Shakespeare scholars of the Bible state that the author
> memorized large sections of the Geneva Bible--of the
> four candidates, that is only likely in Bacon's case.
Sorry. Not true.
Marley also would have had been well familiar with the Geneva Bible.
The
> Geneva is overwhelmingly the biblical source for
> the Shakespeare works. The Kentish Marlowes appear
> to have some connection with the Anglican Church.
Marley appears to be a Maranno Jew! (read Jean Jofen) (there's some
Anglo-Yada for ya) <http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1840/newpage11.htm>
I
> doubt if they would have the Geneva but I could be wrong.
It's good that you recognize that.
> > If you have more to say, of course I'd
> > love to hear it. But with all the "metatextual(?)" interpersonal stuff
> > going on (egged by others on the sidelines, with nothing good to say,
> > or anything evidence to contribute, beyond stupid insults) it is
> > difficult at times to assess what is gained, what is lost.
>
> Forums are serendipitous. I went to Pais
> to refute Webb and found Bohr's restatement of Bacon's
> concern about the use of precise language in describing the
> phenomena of scientific experiments. What a find!
Did you find A.D. Wraight's book yet? (photos by Virginia Stern)
> > For
> > instance: you think you've proven that only Bacon could have seen the
> > Strachey letter
>
> I'm pretty sure I've proven it because the best response yet
> is Webb's "I don't know how it got to Stratford."
>
> (and you were going to post a list of names of people
> > who may have.)
>
> I've made the list. The question is whether it made it onto
> the pasteboard before the post was blown away.
I understand. I've lost posts myself lately.
> If not I've
> got the book, I'll make the list again and post it separately
> one way of the other. I am not moving from this chair until
> I finish this post.
Good and good.
> > Oops, I'm top posting . However, yesterday's queries
> > remain unanswered below:
> >
> >
> > graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > A longer response to this got lost, so ...
> > >
> > > elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > > I repeat my question: The notion that Field's version of V&A was a
> > > > > pirate
> > > > > edition because Bacon didn't like printed books doesn't make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Bacon didn't like printed books and he would have circulated the
> > > > manuscript "among his private friends" as long as he could but
> > > > the V & A and Lucrece are in a different category because Bacon
> > > > was in trouble, because he desperately needed a patron in 1593
> > > > and because poetry was the equivalent of a resumé in that era.
> > > >
> > > > > Why would FB had printed Lucrece with the same printer?
> > > >
> > > > Richard Field was at Twickenham--I assume the record of
> > > > his presence at Twickenham is in Spedding--so there may
> > > > have been some relationship between Field and Bacon but
> > > > I don't know that.
> > > >
> > > > Since someone is finally asking me questions that push my
> > > > research in the right direction I'm going to take this post
> > > > one part at a time.
> > >
> > > I'm gonna work ya, Joe Buck!
>
> I'm going to guess that's not from Steinbeck.
Midnight Cowboy
It's one thing to have approved of Marprelate's work, another to have
written it. (Btw, I'm not claiming that Marlowe wrote all or any of
the tracts, but based on my reading of Leland Carlson's evidence and
careful reading of the tracts themselves, it appears that someone
other than Job Throckmorton wrote the first two.)
> Bacon's influence on the course of modern law could not be
> greater. Jefferson was completely devoted to Bacon--he kept
> a picture of Bacon on his person. The rest is constitutional
> history.
No doubt FB was a great man.
> > > > I don't know why the Marlovians interested in the Marprelate
> > > > tracts. Why do the Oxfordians care? The Oxfordians have
> > > > have put together a lot of evidence--none of it relevant to
> > > > Oxford--in support of their belief that Oxford was the author
> > > > of the Marprelate tracts.
> > >
> > > If Marlowe wrote the first two tracts, and Whitgift suspected it, one
> > > more reason to "silence the mouth of so dangerous a member." It was
> > > said that Marlowe was VERY PERSUASIVE against organized religion,
> > > which made him an "atheist."
>
> The Marprelate tracts are Puritan, not atheist. They're not even
> Separatist. Leicester was accurately described as a small "p"
> presbyterian.
That's fine, but Marley would have been knowledgable and satirical
enough (having graduated MA from Cambridge) to write the first two,
which did not espouse doctrine so much as expose the ignorance of the
Bishops and ridicule them! Early HLAS stuff. Whoever wrote it had a
keen sense of humor and supreme confidence in his knowledge of the
material in question. The tracts weren't pious pleadings, but ribald
ribbings.
> The presbyterians had no intention of abandoning the Church of England
> in 1588 and even when "P"resbyterianism left after the English Civil
> War
> it did so with great regret--the Scots Presbyterians wouldn't join
> the C of E because Clan Weir said it would drop its kilts and
> expose its bums if it did so the Church backed down.
Do you know Ann Weir of Maine? She has published a couple of books
about Marlowe/Shakespeare.
> > > > The politics could not be more wrong. I posted on an article
> > > > by a leading Catholic scholar, Thomas McCoog, SJ, on
> > > > Oxford's records Jesuits are holding at the English College
> > > > at Rome . >The idea that an ulta Catholic seditionist would be
> > > > ghostwriting for the Anglican Puritans, particularly for Leicester
> > > > who essentially stole Oxford blind, is inconceivable. Download
> > > > the Marprelate docs before they figure it out.
> >
> > YOU ARE RIGHT, absurd that DeVere would write Martin, same with
> > Bacon...
>
> Bacon is only too perfect for the Marprelate tracts.
Are you serious?!! TOO perfect?
Please, find something that Bacon wrote in 1588 or so, and we'll
compare the style to this:
EXCERPT FROM BEGINNING OF TRACT ONE:
<<Again, may it please you to give me leave to play the dunce for the
nonce as well as he; otherwise, dealing with master doctor's book, I
cannot keep decorum personæ. And may it please you, if I be too absurd
in any place (either in this Epistle or that Epitome), to ride to
Sarum and thank his Deanship for it, because I could not deal with his
book commendably, according to order, unless I should be sometimes
tediously dunsticall and absurd. For I have heard some clergymen say
that Mr.Bridges was a very patch and a dunce when he was in Cambridge.
And some say, saving your reverences that are bishops, that he is as
very a knave and enemy unto the sincerity of religion as any popish
prelate in Rome. But the patch can do the cause of sincerity no hurt.
Nay, he has in this book wonderfully graced the same by writing
against it. For I have heard some say that whosoever will read his
book shall as evidently see the goodness of the cause of reformation,
and the poor, poor, poor [2] nakedness of your government, as almost
in reading all master Cartwright's works. This was a very great
oversight in his grace of Canterbury, to suffer such a book to come
out. For besides that an archbishop is very weakly defended by mass...
>>
<http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/Tract1m.htm>
I wish
> they had more connection with the Shakespeare plays--
> they do doctrinally, of course--so I could abandon pounding
> on Webb and have an excuse to study them.
Pounding on Webb sounds sexistish, Elizabeth. Can I watch?
> > > The first two Marprelate tracts were out-fucking-rageous for the time.
>
> I honestly have to say that I didn't really think that much about them
> until you brought it up but now that I've had a look at them I will
> read them. Would you mind reading that back to me.
>
> > > They heaped ridicule and contempt on the Bishops, Bridges, in
> > > particular, but others including Whitgift, whom he called a
> > > "Canterbury Caiphas", were mocked by Martin.
>
> I bet Whitgift loved that.
Ironic right? He hired Nash to write a literary answer, and Nash
stayed at his place at Lambeth for a short while.
At that time Leicester and Whitgift
> were at each others' throats over Church rite. Leicester and
> Burghley had a falling out over the Catholic Marriage--here's
> Burghley trying desperately to get the Catholic Marriage resolved
> because it's crucial to his Kissingerian reorganization of the
> Known World while Leicester is printing pamphlets propagandizing
> against the Catholic Marriage. I see young Francis Bacon with a
> bad case of hero-worship of Leicester--I've already
> stated that Spedding has Bacon writing for Leicester [so did
> Immerito--imagine that]--which may have been intensified
> by the fact--the Baconians have a fairly good circumstantial
> case--that Bacon was Leicester's bastard eigne as Hamlet puts it.
> That would be Bacon's motive for abandoning the *appearance*
> of the doctrinal stance of Elizabeth and Whitgift--as it turns out
> Bacon was more of a Puritan than he let on according to Abbott.
All of this just shows that he would have enjoyed Martin's writings,
not that he wrote them, or would have taken the risk himself. He had
big plans for himself in those years, being busted as Martin would
have ruined his life. No, Francis would have contracted the job--to
Harvey maybe, as you suggest, or, who knows?, to Marley. Since Gabe's
brother Richard was prelate, though, it seems like Gabe wouldn't be
the one to ask. Surely there were others in that highly literate
society who could get the job done besides Marley or Bacon, but of the
two, Marley seems more likely.
> That puts Bacon in place for writing the Marprelate tracts for
> Leicester.
Well, someone did. The playfulness doesn't seem "Baconian." I'd expect
him to write a more sober treatise....Why wouldn't Bacon just as
easily have ARRANGED for the tracts to be written? Hell, I bet Robert
Greene would have taken the job. Not to mention Job Throckmorton.
> Since there are two Marprelate authors
at least two, more like 3 or 4 authors, the "Sons of Martin" (and then
there was Martin Junior)
Harvey--another
> courtier to Leicester--has got to be the second not only in terms
> of style but for the fact that his battle with Nashe picks up where
> the
> Marprelate tracts leave off.
Got to be? I admire your confidence, but I see why DW laughs. I'm
smiling myself as i write. Here let me change hands. The styles differ
greatly from the first to the last. Gabriel Harvey could have written
the first two, but it's doubtful. Good suggestion, though, I hadn't
thought of him before. Haven't done much with Martin for quite a
while.
> > > I transcribed the tracts
> > > myself a few years ago for a new "facsimile edition" with footnotes,
> > > which this exhange may goose to completion.
>
> That would be fun.
>
> > > How's the bird counting going?
>
> Three Stellar jays just had a food fight on the front porch.
> They quack like ducks. I didn't know that.
Perhaps your didn't know that Marley quacks like Shakespeare, either?
> > > Are you a committed Baconian,
> > > Elizabeth?
>
> I'm committed to no candidate. If the Marlovians or
> Oxfordians can come up with something that beats Bacon's
> evidence-it would require an authenticated manuscript--then
> I'm that.
Sounds contradictory to me...sounds like you ARE committed to Francis
as "Shakespeare," so let's go to 1592-94, when *Venus & Adonis* and
*Lucrece* were written, okay? I can produce an AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENT
that puts Marley in bed with the author of those poems. Can you? If
so, present it, please, or say you have none, and I will present mine.
And then you will be a Marlovian.
The Stratfordians couldn't convince me if they
> produced a First Folio in the Corn Hoarder's barbaric scrawls.
> > > (i know, groves or webb might say you should be committed,
> > > but I mean)
> > > Are you committed to discovering the truth, even if it
> > > means modifying your apriori(?) concept of who FB was?
>
> That's the whole point. Bacon's case is a posteriori. We can know
> it directly. It's not a "thought experiment."
Can you explain the "whole point" further please?
> > > We can probably
> > > settle the whole thing right here. If it leads to the conclusion that
> > > Bacon or William wrote Venus & Adonis and *Lucrece*, so be it.
>
> Willlllllllliam? He was banned by rank. Didn't happen. He was
> licensed to various earls. Like a dog. Couldn't be *licensed*
> to who--Pembroke?--and sucking up to Southampton.
>
> Southampton would never have accepted a dedication from
> William. If he did Essex would have bitch slapped him, wiped his
> pretty tears and given him a kiss and there's no record of that.
LOL
> It's either Bacon or Marlowe, Dave. Oxford is out. Rank is an
> insurmountable problem for Oxfordians. William is a joke.
Alrighty then. On with the show and tell.
> > > But the
> > > literary evidence points strongly to Marlowe, based on the parallels
> > > to Hero & Leander, which I demonstrated a few years ago, and Marlowe's
> > > demonstrated competence as a scholar, Latinist and poet.
>
> I don't doubt it.
I don't doubt it either.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>