sterility
Richard J Kennedy
A pretty decent post from Pavel, well-balanced, with some polite
inquiry, no name-calling, and some questions that require the
same sort of measured answers from the anti-Stratfordian camps.
One thing Pavel is certainly wrong about, however, is to call
this authorship discussion "sterile". The objections to the
Stratford man's authorship of the poems and plays are
accumulating, and the public, being made aware of the great
gulf between that man and a connection with the plays, etc.,
is being recognized and wondered at. And there are surely
many converts, and witness of this Newsgroup alone, where the
Stratfordians seem to do no better than to get a 2 to l vote
in favor of the Stratford man, when only a short time ago that
vote must certainly have gone 5 or 10 to one for the Stratford
man. This is not sterile, but shows a vigorous and potent
change of attitude. It's a mighty question and deserves the
turning about and careful examination it is receiving, inquiring
minds want to know, and all that. And we can't worry very much
about those who are not interested at all, for they are no support
for the Stratford argument and it's just as well they can't help
that camp except to say that they are bored. Good, let them
remain bored and not show up on the battlefield, that's very
agreeable to the anti-Stratfordians.
--
volker multhopp
Robert L Smith wrote:
> The first folio was a MAJOR job to prepare and a serious financial risk
> for the publishers. It may have taken several years to (a) persuade the
> other members of the King's Men to allow the plays to be published (b)
> transcribe and edit the plays (c) secure copyright permission on
> previously published plays (d) find a publisher (e) set type and print --
> best estimate is this last step alone took about two years.
A) and C) are complete nonsense because there was no copyright back
then. It was a huge risk, though; and that's why H&C worked hard to
keep the plays "anonymous"-- ie suggest they were written by a nobody in
Stratford, not a high noble who had intimate insight into the hereditary
political elite of the recent past.
--Volker
Pavel Pinkava
and on second thoughts I'm not sure Shake-speare would say it was
either...
Sonnet 54
Oh how much more doth beautie beautious seeme,
By that sweet ornament which truth doth give,
The Rose lookes faire, but fairer we it deeme
For that sweet odor,which doth in it live:
The Canker bloomes have full as deepe a die,
As the perfumed tincture of the Roses,
Hang on such thornes,and play as wantonly,
When sommers breath their masked buds discloses:
But for their virtue only is their show,
They live unwoo’d,and unrespected fade,
Die to themselves.Sweet Roses doe not so,
Of their sweet deathes,are sweetest odors made:
And so of you,beautious and lovely youth,
When that shall vade,by verse distils your truth.
In fact I have long maintained that there is a real core to the
anti-Stratfordian case although I think they are wrong to mis-identify
authorship as the issue:
WHAT I WOULD BE ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT SHAKESPEARE RETIRED IN SOME
KIND OF DISGRACE TO STRATFORD? His whole productive life had been in
London and he was known to be an agreeable person... Why then the
relative obscurity for his monument's location? Why no records of the
funeral of such a significant figure? Why the gushing support for WS
in the first folio a full SEVEN years after his death? Why the lack
of contemporary re-prints of the 1609 sonnets? Why were they so unknown
that by 1640 a mutilated version could be printed by an unscrupulous
publisher and presented as if they were previously unpublished? Does
this mean the 1609 print run was suppressed?
Now this is the kind of conspiracy that makes sense given that men of
genius can often upset people of lesser ability...
I feel the sonnets have yet to yield all the evidence they contain and
so am optimistic that the (in my opinion) spurious (but as you rightly
say not really sterile) authorship debate will be eclipsed.
Finally, I get the feeling that you have been "anti-Stratfordian" in your
views and that perhaps you have found some of my posts for the Stratford
case convincing. If so I would be most happy if you were to indicate this
to the group... perhaps by an official shift to "Stratford-skeptical" or
perhaps even "neutral" you could really show me that the debate has not been
sterile!! ;-)
Robert L Smith
volker multhopp (vol...@erols.com) wrote:
: Robert L Smith wrote:
: --Volker
Volker is incorrect. The King's Men owned the manuscripts and went so far
as to get a government official to forbid printers to print previously
unpublished King's Men plays without the actors' permission. There were
simple reasons for not publishing plays--the payment from the printer was
relatively low (about 2 pounds IIRC), publication might hurt ticket sales
and publication might allow other acting companies to perform the piece
(also ultimately hurting ticket sales). The King's Men also withheld most
of Beaumont & Fletcher's plays from publication until 1647 by which time
the actors had been out of work for 5 years, Fletcher had been dead for 22
years and Beaumont had been dead for 31 years.
In Shakespeare's day copyright in published material was vested in the
printer/publisher not in the author. Thus the printers of the First Folio
had to secure permission from publishers of earlier individual printed
plays, such as Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, Henry V, etc. See Greg's book on
the First Folio for a lengthy discussion of copyright problems.
Robert L. Smith
Pavel Pinkava
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>
> Pavel, I don't know who wrote the poems and plays, but how can I
> be neutral about the man from Stratford? I've tossed and turned
> about everything written about the man insofar as it relates to
> his being the author,and I don't find any connection that is
> plausible except that we allow divine intervention into the
> story, something miraculous you know. And I don't even rule
> that possibility out, but that's about all that's left to me.
I'll just repeat what I've said on another thread:-
I just don't see why the Shakespeare Stratford could not have risen to
become our greatest author if he had the native ability, the ambition
and a good start in education (perhaps with a bit of luck too!)...
... I feel that there are those who feel threatened by the idea of genetic
intelligence. To these people "We hold these truths to be self-evident
that all people are equal" is far more than just a powerful moral statement...
To them equal really means EQUAL and socialization into our life-time roles
is the dominant force over our native abilities. To their mind set "the poor
kid does good" is a story that should only happen in the world of business...
Academic advance seems only open to the advantaged never to the
disadvantaged with ability and ambition. To accept otherwise would fly in
the face of dearly held political beliefs...
> In a way, I'm sorry it's so. I wish someone would find a
> smoking gun for the man, something that prooves he wrote the
> things, and then I'd sell my Shakespeare library and get on to
> some other mystery, like what a woman wants or something.
But there are so many many facts my friend...
(BTW for other mysteries read "When the sky fell" by Rand & Rose Flem-Ath
AND for what a woman wants read "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker)
> Meanwhile I just remain amazed that people will insist he
> wrote the things, and with fervor, and with anger and insults,
> and with not even knowing the history of all this...
Insults are a fair-cop but not knowing the history seems a strectch to me...
perhaps you meant to say having a different interpretation of the history?
> Something religious there, I think. And it may be something anti-religious
> that prompts me, all anit-Stratfordians would have to admit that.
I feel the same way about Oxfordianism
> And yet there are documents and the lack of documents, and I
> hope that my attention to such things is not stupid or glossed
> by what I >wish< to believe. Best, Richard
I hope you don't mind me suggesting otherwise...
Regards,
Pavel
Richard J Kennedy
Pavel, I don't know who wrote the poems and plays, but how can I
be neutral about the man from Stratford? I've tossed and turned
about everything written about the man insofar as it relates to
his being the author,and I don't find any connection that is
plausible except that we allow divine intervention into the
story, something miraculous you know. And I don't even rule
that possibility out, but that's about all that's left to me.
In a way, I'm sorry it's so. I wish someone would find a
smoking gun for the man, something that prooves he wrote the
things, and then I'd sell my Shakespeare library and get on to
some other mystery, like what a woman wants or something.
Meanwhile I just remain amazed that people will insist he
wrote the things, and with fervor, and with anger and insults,
and with not even knowing the history of all this. Something
religious there, I think. And it may be something anti-religious
that prompts me, all anit-Stratfordians would have to admit that.
And yet there are documents and the lack of documents, and I
hope that my attention to such things is not stupid or glossed
by what I >wish< to believe. Best, Richard
--
Richard Nathan
rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
>Pavel, I don't know who wrote the poems and plays, but how can I
>be neutral about the man from Stratford? I've tossed and turned
>about everything written about the man insofar as it relates to
>his being the author,and I don't find any connection that is
>plausible except that we allow divine intervention into the
>story, something miraculous you know. And I don't even rule
>that possibility out, but that's about all that's left to me.
>In a way, I'm sorry it's so. I wish someone would find a
>smoking gun for the man, something that prooves he wrote the
>things, and then I'd sell my Shakespeare library and get on to
>some other mystery, like what a woman wants or something.
So, if Richard Kennedy found out that the man from Stratford wrote the
plays, he would see his Shakespeare library. I think this reveals more
about Kennedy than he intended.