Frontline on Marlowe
Al Cunniff
"Much Ado About Something," which will explore the theory
that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.
I ask my fellow Stratfordians not to throw anything at me,
I'm just delivering the message.
The show apparently will include interviews with John Michell,
John Baker, and other, in addition to exploring theories
put forth by the late Calvin Hoffman.
Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time to the
theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
Here a link to a description of the show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/
-Al
Art Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Something
Thursday, January 2, at 9pm, 90 minutes
<<His name is synonymous with great literature. Author of timeless
masterpieces like Romeo and Juliet, Othello, and Hamlet, William
Shakespeare is widely considered to be the greatest writer who ever
lived--or was he?
In "Much Ado About Something," a documentary essay by producer Michael
Rubbo, FRONTLINE explores anew the centuries-old controversy over
whether the literary masterpieces attributed to Shakespeare were
actually written by someone else. The 90-minute documentary airs
Thursday, January 2, at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings).
"The question of whether William Shakespeare actually wrote the works
attributed to him is really a 16th century detective story," says Rubbo,
who takes viewers across England and to Italy in his quest to unravel
the Shakespeare puzzle. "There are those who consider it to be the
biggest literary cover-up in history."
Long the subject of debate among authors--with everyone from Henry James
to Mark Twain weighing in on the subject--the Shakespeare question has
captivated some of history's greatest thinkers.
"Sigmund Freud joined the debate," notes John Michell, author of Who
Wrote Shakespeare? "He believed the Earl of Oxford fitted the character
of Shakespeare as he psychologically characterized him."
Edward deVere--the seventeenth Earl of Oxford--has long been suspected
by some of being the true genius behind Shakespeare's works. In 1989, in
fact, FRONTLINE's "The Shakespeare Mystery" examined the case made by
deVere devotees. Sir Francis Bacon has also been mentioned as a
candidate for the authorship of Shakespeare's works.
"Much Ado About Something," instead, focuses primarily on another
playwright believed by some to be the "real Shakespeare": Christopher
Marlowe.
Born the same year as Shakespeare, Marlowe was at the height of his
literary career in 1593 when he was supposedly killed in an argument
over a tavern bill. Marlowe's death, however, has been clouded in
mystery, with some "Marlovians" insisting the playwright lived to write
another day--but under the name of Shakespeare.
To Shakespeare's stalwarts, such speculation is just that: speculation.
"To me, the people who think that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare
are either American snobs...or great British eccentrics," says Professor
Jonathan Bate, author of The Genius of Shakespeare.
Bate has no doubts that the Bard of Avon authored the works that have
earned him a place in literary history. But others aren't so sure. How,
critics ask, could a man with little if any formal education write such
literary masterpieces? How did he acquire the knowledge of the classics
that would have been required to write Troilus and Cressida or Hamlet?
And why did the death of the man Ben Jonson called "the soul of the age"
pass unnoticed and unmarked?
In "Much Ado About Something," Rubbo finds numerous Shakespeare
skeptics--often in surprising places.
"It would take a lot to convince me now that it was the Stratford man
[writing] by himself," says Mark Rylance, a Shakespearean actor and
artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London. "Someone has
to prove to me how he got the learning and experience that went with the
possible genius he had."
Author Michell agrees. "Of all the candidates, possibly Shakespeare...is
the weakest."
Perhaps the best-known Shakespeare skeptic was the late Calvin Hoffman.
"Much Ado About Something" recounts Hoffman's thirty-year crusade to
prove that Christopher Marlowe was the true author of Shakespeare's works.
Hoffman believed that Marlowe--a member of Queen Elizabeth I's secret
service--faked his own death and fled England to avoid being taken into
custody by the notorious "Star Chamber," which one observer in the
documentary calls an English Inquisition. Under this theory, Marlowe
fled to Italy, where his creativity flourished amid the Italian
Renaissance. It was there, some Marlovians say, that Marlowe wrote his
masterpieces, which he then sent back to his patron, Sir Thomas
Walsingham, in England. After having the works recopied in another hand,
Walsingham then passed the plays on to a convenient front man--actor
William Shakespeare--who launched them on the stage.
It's a theory fraught with mystery and intrigue. But is there any
evidence to support it?
John Baker thinks so. An American Marlovian, Baker believes the proof is
contained within the Shakespeare works themselves.
"How many [Shakespeare] plays are set in Italy?" Baker asks. "Or do you
realize that they're about exiles? Do you realize they're about false
identity...people who are resurrected from the grave?...If you really
think about what these plays mean, and you realize they were written by
an intellectual exile, an expatriate--bang! Everything makes sense again."
Hoffman also believed Shakespeare's works betray the hand of Christopher
Marlowe, but in a far more literal sense. After comparing Shakespeare's
plays with Marlowe's works, Hoffman claimed to have uncovered hundreds
of what he called "parallelisms": lines and passages from Marlowe's
plays that are strangely echoed in Shakespeare's plays.
An example: An early Marlowe play contains the passage "Holla, ye
pampered jades of Asia. What, can ye draw but twenty miles a day?" A
later Shakespeare work reads "And hollowed pampered jades of Asia, which
cannot go but thirty miles a day."
Shakespeare's supporters, however, dismiss such similarities as proof
only that the Bard borrowed rather liberally from his contemporaries.
They also point out differences in the playwrights' styles.
"Marlowe is more conspicuous as an innovator," says Professor Andy Gurr,
director of research at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. "He was really
radical...Shakespeare was much more slow moving in terms of his innovation."
Bate, the author, contends Marlowe was deficient in some aspects of
playwriting in which Shakespeare excelled. "[Marlowe] wasn't able to
write for women, and he wasn't able to write comedy," he says.
"Shakespeare did those things consummately."
Marlovians, however, attribute these differences to the natural
maturation that would have occurred in Marlowe's writing had he fled
England and continued his career in Italy as they believe.
"Think of Picasso--think of his Blue Period and what he painted before
[that]," says longtime Marlovian Dolly Walker-Wraight, who was
interviewed for the documentary prior to her death at age 81 in March
2002. "You would not think it was the same painter, would you?"
What Marlovians are missing, Shakespeare supporters say, is proof.
"There is no evidence whatsoever that Marlowe wasn't murdered," says
Charles Nicholl, author of The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher
Marlowe. "And there's a lot of evidence that he was killed."
The documentary concludes that further research will be required in
Italy if the Marlowe case is to be advanced and the Shakespeare mystery
finally resolved. What's not so certain is whether some people want it
to be resolved.
"The English take in Shakespeare with their mother's milk," says Susan
Hunt, who steadfastly believes in Shakespeare despite her husband's
preference for Marlowe. "We love him."
The late Walker-Wraight, however, had no such reservations about
toppling Shakespeare from his literary pedestal. "Our culture thrives on
myths," Wraight concluded in her book, The Story that the Sonnets Tell.
"It is entirely appropriate that the man we have revered for 400
years...should have been, in essence, a myth."
Following the broadcast, visit FRONTLINE's Web site at
www.pbs.org/frontline for extended coverage of this story, including:
* An interview with Michael Rubbo about what led him to the
Shakespeare/Marlowe mystery;
* A noted Elizabethan scholar's perspective on why Marlowe matters
as a poet and playwright--regardless of whether he wrote Shakespeare's
works;
* Extended comments from experts in the film, and others, about why
"who wrote Shakespeare" is important to them--or why it isn't;
* Related readings and links on Shakespeare, Marlowe, Elizabethan
England, and the larger authorship controversy.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
abcedminded
news:acunniff-1E24DD...@reader1.news.rcn.net...
What?? No Peter Farey?? If he was on, I'd watch it!
I wonder if Baker will be announced as "Dr." Baker...
Art Neuendorffer
> On Jan. 2 the PBS-TV show Frontline will run a show titled,
> "Much Ado About Something," which will explore the theory
> that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.
>
> I ask my fellow Stratfordians not to throw anything at me,
> I'm just delivering the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVOI LIVREURS: SENDING DELIVERYMEN . . .
LIVRE SOUVENIR: TO DELIVER MEMORY.
"NIL VERO-VERIUS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of the Annotations in Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible
---------------------------------------------------------------
Book |Chap|Verse|Verse Marks |
---------------|----|-----|------------|
Ecclus/Sirach | 19 | 4-5 | N |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirach 19:4 He that is HASTY to give credit is lightminded;
--------------------------------------------------------------
" H[ASTE] To my Loveinge
good ffrend & contreymann
Mr Wm. Shackespere
DELIVER thees."
http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/1600.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PSALM 40:13 DELIVER me: O LORD, make HASTE to help me.
Let them be ashamed & confounded together that seek after my soul
to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that
wish me evil. Let them be desolate for a reward of their shame
that say unto me, AHA, AHA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Cunniff wrote:
> The show apparently will include interviews with John Michell,
> John Baker, and other, in addition to exploring theories
> put forth by the late Calvin Hoffman.
>
> Here a link to a description of the show:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/
> Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time
> to the theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
Advocates for that theory have nothing to offer but epithets:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<"To me, the people who think that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare
are either American snobs...or great British eccentrics," says Professor
Jonathan Bate, author of The Genius of Shakespeare. Bate has no doubts
that the Bard of Avon authored the works that have earned him a place in
literary history.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
The *evidence* is:
Shake-speare has been plastered
into a common-man monument [i.e., Shakspeare]
which *must* be dissolved before we can view
OUR EVER-LIVING Virgil-like author
(i.e., whose epic works were published posthumously):
------------------------------------------------------------
1) Sweet SWAN of AVON! What a sight it were
To see the in our water yet appear,
And make those flights upon the Thames,
That so did take ELIZA and our JAMES!
--------------------------------------------------------------
2) STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,
READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH
HATH PLAST WITH IN THIS *MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE* :
--------------------------------------------------------------
3) "Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
*And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment*,
Here we alive shall view thee still." - Digges
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
KQKnave wrote:
> His monument in Stratford, which quite clearly states
> that he is a writer, and compares his art to Virgil:
---------------------------------------------------------------
The *Swan of Mantua* : VIRGIL.
Virgil's tomb, once treated like a shrine, has disappeared.
His epitaph was (supposedly):
Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc Parthenope.
Mantua GAVE me BIRTH, the Calabrians took me, now Naples holds me;
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNO.VERE-VIRGIL. POET.
OUR.EVER-LIVING. POET.
NIL.VERO-VERIUS. POET.
--------------------------------------------------------------
READ IF THOU CANST,
WHOM IS HETH-PLAST WITHIN
THIS (common man)
_MONUMENT SHAKSPEARE_
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm
The Solemn Temples,
The Great Globe itself
Yea all which it Inherit,
*Shall Dissolue* ;
And like the baseless *FnBRICK* of a Vision
Leave not a WRECK behind."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissolve, v.t. [L. dissolvere, dissolutum; dis- + solvere to loose,
free.] 1. To separate into competent parts; to disorganize;
to break up; hence, to bring to an end by separating the parts,
sundering a relation, etc.; to terminate; to destroy;
to deprive of force.
--------------------------------------------------------------
di*SSOL*vere
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loss, n. [AS. los loss, losing, fr. le['o]san to lose.]
1. The act of losing; failure; destruction; privation;
as, the loss of property; loss of health or reputation.
Assured loss before the match be played. --Shak.
2. The state of losing or having lost; the privation, defect,
misfortune, harm, etc., which ensues from losing.
Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss. --Shak
3. That which is lost or from which one has parted; waste.
4. The state of being lost or destroyed; especially,
the *wreck* or foundering of a ship or other vessel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissolve, v. t. [L. dissolvere, dissolutum; dis- + solvere to loose,
free.] 1. To separate into competent parts; to disorganize;
to break up; hence, to bring to an end by separating the parts,
sundering a relation, etc.; to terminate; to destroy;
to deprive of force.
Lest his ungoverned rage dissolve the life. --Shak.
2. To break the continuity of; to disconnect; to disunite;
to sunder; to loosen; to undo; to separate.
Nothing can dissolve us. --Shak.
Down fell the duke, his joints dissolved asunder. --Fairfax.
For one people to dissolve the political bands which have
connected them with another. --The Declaration of Independence.
3. To convert into a liquid by means of heat, moisture, etc.,;
to melt; to liquefy; to soften.
As if the world were all dissolved to tears. --Shak.
4. To solve; to clear up; to resolve.
``Dissolved the mystery.'' --Tennyson.
Make interpretations and dissolve doubts. --Dan. v. 16.
5. To relax by pleasure; to make powerless.
Angels dissolved in hallelujahs lie. --Dryden.
6. (Law) To annul; to rescind; to discharge or release.
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 4, Scene 4
CORDELIA All blest secrets,
All you unpublish'd virtues of the earth,
Spring with my tears! be aidant and remediate
In the good man's distress! Seek, seek for him;
Lest his ungovern'd rage *dissolve the life*
That wants the means to lead it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tad Davis
Al Cunniff <acun...@erols.com> wrote:
> Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time to the theory
> that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
Based on their atrocious coverage of the Oxfordian case several years
ago -- the program that destroyed my respect for PBS in general and for
Frontline in particular -- I would say no. (That was the program where
Charlton Ogburn embarrassed himself and his viewers, but apparently not
the producers, by actually weeping on camera about the injustice that
has supposedly been done to Edward de Vere.)
I doubt they will even mention the point that the Oxfordian and
Marlovian cranks can't both be right, or that they (meaning the
producers of the aforementioned Frontline program) have already strongly
endorsed the Oxfordian "theory." (Has any new "evidence" turned up in
the meantime, I wonder? Why the need to re-open the "case"? Hmm?)
--
Tad Davis
tadd...@ucwphilly.rr.com
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time
>> to the theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
Tad Davis wrote:
> Based on their atrocious coverage of the Oxfordian case several years
> ago -- the program that destroyed my respect for PBS in general and for
> Frontline in particular -- I would say no. (That was the program where
> Charlton Ogburn embarrassed himself and his viewers, but apparently not
> the producers, by actually weeping on camera about the injustice that
> has supposedly been done to Edward de Vere.)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Where their moist Marbles seem for grief to weep"
-----------------------------------------------------
richard kennedy wrote:
> In 1675 there was a publication -- "The legend of the
> thrice-honorable, ancient, and renowned Prince, his grace
> Humphrey, Duke of S. Pauls Cathedral Walk." It was written
> by Samuel Speed. Here are a few lines, original spelling:
>
> "On which the Duke, to shun a schorching doom,
> Perambulated to Ben Johnson's Tomb [i.e. Westminster Abbey]
> Where Shakespeare, Spencer, Camden, and the rest,
> Once rising Suns, are now set in the West:
> But still their lustres do so brightly shine,
> That they invite our Worthies there to dine,
> Where their moist Marbles seem for grief to weep,
> That they, but Stone, should sacred Relicks keep...."
>
> This seems to say that Shakespeare is buried in Westminster,
> or can the lines be read otherwise?
-----------------------------------------------------
Tad Davis wrote:
> I doubt they will even mention the point that the Oxfordian and
> Marlovian cranks can't both be right,
They are both right about one thing.
lyra
wrote in message news:<3E10F9BD...@comcast.net>...
> Al Cunniff wrote:
>
> > On Jan. 2 the PBS-TV show Frontline will run a show titled,
> > "Much Ado About Something," which will explore the theory
> > that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.
> >
> > I ask my fellow Stratfordians not to throw anything at me,
> > I'm just delivering the message.
> >
> > The show apparently will include interviews with John Michell,
> > John Baker, and other, in addition to exploring theories
> > put forth by the late Calvin Hoffman.
> >
> > Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time to the
> > theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
> >
> > Here a link to a description of the show:
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Something
> Thursday, January 2, at 9pm, 90 minutes
>
> <<His name is synonymous with great literature. Author of timeless
> masterpieces like Romeo and Juliet, Othello, and Hamlet, William
> Shakespeare is widely considered to be the greatest writer who ever
> lived--or was he?
<snip>
> The documentary concludes that further research will be required in
> Italy if the Marlowe case is to be advanced and the Shakespeare mystery
> finally resolved. What's not so certain is whether some people want it
> to be resolved.
>
> "The English take in Shakespeare with their mother's milk," says Susan
> Hunt, who steadfastly believes in Shakespeare despite her husband's
> preference for Marlowe. "We love him."
But what do they love???
The *plays*, by whatever writer?
Or the man, in Stratford???
Peter Farey
"abcedminded" wrote:
>
> What?? No Peter Farey?? If he was on, I'd watch it!
Oh, I put in a brief appearance or two, but my words of
wisdom are, alas, severely truncated!
Those who subscribe to the Marlovian theory tend to
come in three types, and all three are, I think,
represented in this film.
The first are those who, having come across the theory
as presented by someone else, are convinced that it is
true, and therefore spend their time learning the
arguments for it, and trying to convince others of its
truth. The bookshop owner John Hunt, and the Warwick-
shire couple, Peter and Frieda Barker, seem to be like
this.
The second are those who, having discovered the theory,
also find it convincing, but go on to try and find
other evidence for themselves to really 'prove' that
it is true. Dolly Wraight and John Baker appear to be
in this category.
The third, of which I think I was the only represen-
tative (other than Mike Rubbo himself perhaps), are
those who, having discovered the theory and found it
appealing, try to find out what is wrong with it, and
- while failing to disprove it - become more and more
convinced of its probability.
The problem Mike had is that the more interesting
items for a TV programme on this subject tend to come
from the first two types, but also (imho) possibly the
rather less factually reliable. My own several hours
of filmed input, by contrast, tended to be far more
long-winded, wishy-washy, and largely negative, and my
major contribution therefore was probably off-screen,
correcting many of the mistakes that appeared in
earlier versions.
Some of these errors nevertheless survived my
criticism: the 'parallelisms' that weren't; the
'changed' monument; the 'uniquely' book-free will;
the 'special' wording of Frizer's pardon, etc.
Having said that, however, I do think that the film
provides an entertaining outline of why some people
think this way and why many more don't. Whilst only
the most gullible will be convinced by any of it, my
hope is that most of those who are prepared to approach
it with an open mind will find it worth spending a bit
more time to find out a little more.
And for those who are not able to approach it with an
open mind, let's hope they simply enjoy watching the
"scallywag crackpots" (to use Mike Rubbo's own descrip-
tion of us) being allowed their fifteen minutes of fame,
spouting on a subject in which many of us here share an
interest.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>What?? No Peter Farey?? If he was on, I'd watch it!
Peter Farey wrote:
> Oh, I put in a brief appearance or two, but my words
> of wisdom are, alas, severely truncated!
>
> Those who subscribe to the Marlovian theory tend to
> come in three types, and all three are, I think,
> represented in this film.
>
> The first are those who, having come across the theory
> as presented by someone else, are convinced that it is
> true, and therefore spend their time learning the
> arguments for it, and trying to convince others of its
> truth. The bookshop owner John Hunt, and the Warwick-
> shire couple, Peter and Frieda Barker, seem to be like
> this.
>
> The second are those who, having discovered the theory,
> also find it convincing, but go on to try and find
> other evidence for themselves to really 'prove' that
> it is true. Dolly Wraight and John Baker appear to be
> in this category.
>
> The third, of which I think I was the only represen-
> tative (other than Mike Rubbo himself perhaps), are
> those who, having discovered the theory and found it
> appealing, try to find out what is wrong with it, and
> - while failing to disprove it - become more and more
> convinced of its probability.
Of course, the main problem is the *naive assumption*
that a common glover, bricklayer, or *cobbler*
would ever be allowed to publish
*controversial works under their own names*
(even if they were capable of writing them).
Even high ranking nobles weren't allowed to do this.
A cobbler's son may well have written Mar(f)loW
but it was *not* a cobbler's son named Mar(f)loW
--------------------------------------------------------------
1) Percival: Galois/Son of the widow/finder of holy Grail
2) hiRAM: PRIEST GASHED ON FOREHEAD/Son of the widow
3) MARlo: May 30th violent death/PRIEST GASHED ON FOREHEAD
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B E G E T T
E R O F T {H} E S E I N S V I N G
S O N N {E} T S (M) R W H A L L H A
P P I {N} E S S E (A) N D T H A T E
T E {R} N I T I E P (R)O M I S E D
B {Y} O V R E V E R L(I) V I N G P
O E T W I S H E T H T (H) E W E L
L [W] I S H I N G A D V E N T V R
E [R] I N S E T T I N G F O R T H
T O T H E O N L I [E| B E G E T T E R
O F T H E S E I N [S| V I N G S O N N
E T S M r W H A L [L|H] A P P I N E S
S E A N D T H A T [E|T] E R N I T I E
P R O M I S E D B [Y|O] U R E V E R L
I V I N G P O E T(W) |I] S H E T H T H
E W E L L W I S H(I) N G A D V E N T
V R E R I N S E T(T) I N G F O R T H
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The [Laurence] Nowell Codex(1563) provides three sources for names:
1 - The Life of St. Christopher [=> Christopher Marlo/hiraM]
2 - The Wonders of the East
3 - Alexander's Letter to Aristotle
4 - BEOWULF [=> John HEMMING]
5 - Judith [=> JUDITH Shakspere]
http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/eBeowulf/nwell.htm
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/manuscript.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
However, tradition suits these simple professions
to providing phoney front men.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME*,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving *NO HEIR* begotten of his body--
*A R L O* : [Celtic] a PLEDGE
{Arles/Earles penny}, earnest money; money paid to bind a bargain.
TOTHEO /N/ LIEB/E/G E. TTER *oF* THES /E/ IN [S]
UINGS /O/ NNET/ß/MRW \H\ ALLH *A* PPI /N/ ESS [E]
[A] NDT /H/ ATET/E/RNITI \E\ PRO *M* IS /E/ DBYO [U]
[R] EV /E/ RLIV/I/NGPOETW \I\ SH *E* T /H/ THEWE [L]
[L] W /I/ SHIN/G/ADVENTURE \R\ IN /S/ ETTING [F]
[O] /R/ TH
<= 28 DOTS =>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE.INSUING.SONNETS.
Mr.W.H.ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OUR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Crows Dog
What?? No Peter Farey?? If he was on, I'd watch it! I wonder if Baker will be
announced as "Dr." Baker...
There's an official "Much Ado About Something" web page that does indeed refer
to Baker as being Reverend Doctor Baker. It says he got the title from a
church, rather than a university.
Crows Dog
Something" site:
http://www.muchadoaboutsomething.com/morePeople-2.html#JohnBaker
David Kathman
(Crows Dog) wrote:
>http://www.muchadoaboutsomething.com/morePeople-2.html#JohnBaker
Of course, Baker and the other Marlovians get much more space
in this list than Jonathan Bate, Stanley Wells, and Charles Nicholl,
each of whom only get a brief paragraph. Typical. Rubbo
told me while he was making the film that he had also talked
to several other real scholars, such as Andrew Butcher of
the University of Kent at Canterbury and Michael Hattaway
of Sheffield University, who were apparently cut out of the
final film. If he had gotten around to interviewing me,
I might have been cut anyway.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Grumman
> tative (other than Mike Rubbo himself perhaps), are
> those who, having discovered the theory and found it
> appealing, try to find out what is wrong with it, and
> - while failing to disprove it - become more and more
> convinced of its probability.
So, Peter, to try to disprove that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare, you went to
the Shakespeare monument to what? See if it contradicted the Marlowe
theory? And, without looking for evidence for Marlowe, you found that it
did not! Hmmmmm! But Happy New New, anyway!
> The problem Mike had is that the more interesting
> items for a TV programme on this subject tend to come
> from the first two types, but also (imho) possibly the
> rather less factually reliable. My own several hours
> of filmed input, by contrast, tended to be far more
> long-winded, wishy-washy, and largely negative, and my
> major contribution therefore was probably off-screen,
> correcting many of the mistakes that appeared in
> earlier versions.
This also is the problem Shakespeare-Affirmers have.
> Some of these errors nevertheless survived my
> criticism: the 'parallelisms' that weren't; the
> 'changed' monument; the 'uniquely' book-free will;
> the 'special' wording of Frizer's pardon, etc.
> Having said that, however, I do think that the film
> provides an entertaining outline of why some people
> think this way and why many more don't. Whilst only
> the most gullible will be convinced by any of it, my
> hope is that most of those who are prepared to approach
> it with an open mind will find it worth spending a bit
> more time to find out a little more.
> And for those who are not able to approach it with an
> open mind, let's hope they simply enjoy watching the
> "scallywag crackpots" (to use Mike Rubbo's own descrip-
> tion of us) being allowed their fifteen minutes of fame,
> spouting on a subject in which many of us here share an
> interest.
I'll watch it with a closed but not locked mind. If I remember to watch it,
that is!
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey wrote:
I saw the film and was surprised it was so entertaining.
I couldn't imagine people paying in a theatre to watch
one side of an argument, but I was engrossed the whole
time. And I came away just liking Marlowe all the more.
Dame Wraight is the star, and I've heard she has died,
though she appears quite energetic here. Baker is as
modest and informative as he can be, as he walks
between the graves of his many ex-wives. I feel Peter
Farey comes off very well and makes sense, so it is
good to know Peter's words (above) going in.
The laughable aspect for me is that Rubbo uses the
front seat of several automobiles as his set, which makes
his interviewee responsible for speaking and driving at
the same time. That is an unneeded burden on the
subjects, I feel.
I doubt any other faction could present as much good
historical detail and keep it coherently in a viewpoint.
Oxfordians would be all over the place and it would be
uncomfortable to watch them floating their loose,
unconnected, unVERifiable half-truths. Baconians, well,
I don't know where they'd start--they have nothing to
present and just busy themselves insulting the known and
accepted Shakespeare. Weir has flipped off more burghers
than Ray Kroc, and she's still starving for any real fare.
But Marlovians are the charmers, and this film is
enjoyable, informative, and worthwhile. The title is
cute, but do not expect any conclusions. Please
ring in if you find your mind changing on anything.
I remember a few years back that both Dave Kathman
and Dave More were to be included in this film,
but that Rubbo shortened his American swing and
never made it to the midwest to shoot them. Those would
have been some important ingredients, I feel, and could
likely have made for a different film entirely.
Both Peter Farey and Dave Kathman have mentioned
inconsistencies in the content, at least in part, so be on
the lookout.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> I saw the film and was surprised it was so entertaining.
> I couldn't imagine people paying in a theatre to watch
> one side of an argument,
Did a responsible adult pay for your ticket?
> but I was engrossed the whole time.
Careful! Remember what happened to Paul Reubens.
> And I came away just liking Marlowe all the more.
> Dame Wraight is the star, and I've heard she has died,
> though she appears quite energetic here.
Do you suppose it was faked?
> Baker is as
> modest and informative as he can be, as he walks
> between the graves of his many ex-wives. I feel Peter
> Farey comes off very well and makes sense, so it is
> good to know Peter's words (above) going in.
>
> The laughable aspect for me is that Rubbo uses the
> front seat of several automobiles as his set, which makes
> his interviewee responsible for speaking and driving at
> the same time. That is an unneeded burden on the
> subjects, I feel.
Can you imagine just being in a moving car
while some of the more vocal HLASers go at it.
> I doubt any other faction could present as much good
> historical detail and keep it coherently in a viewpoint.
> Oxfordians would be all over the place and it would be
> uncomfortable to watch them floating their loose,
> unconnected, unVERifiable half-truths.
Why imagine. Frontline has already done that one.
> Baconians, well,
> I don't know where they'd start--they have nothing to
> present and just busy themselves insulting
> the known and accepted Shakespeare.
You mean the illiterate Stratford boob?
> Weir has flipped off more burghers
> than Ray Kroc, and she's still starving for any real fare.
>
> But Marlovians are the charmers, and this film is
> enjoyable, informative, and worthwhile. The title is
> cute, but do not expect any conclusions. Please
> ring in if you find your mind changing on anything.
>
> I remember a few years back that both Dave Kathman
> and Dave More were to be included in this film,
> but that Rubbo shortened his American swing and
> never made it to the midwest to shoot them.
We would have come away liking More all the Marlowe.
> Those would
> have been some important ingredients, I feel, and could
> likely have made for a different film entirely.
>
> Both Peter Farey and Dave Kathman have mentioned
> inconsistencies in the content, at least in part,
> so be on the lookout.
If there is one thing I can't abide
it is inconsistency in content.
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > I saw the film and was surprised it was so entertaining.
> > I couldn't imagine people paying in a theatre to watch
> > one side of an argument,
>
> Did a responsible adult pay for your ticket?
Not exactly.
> > but I was engrossed the whole time.
>
> Careful! Remember what happened to Paul Reubens.
Touching, very touching.
> > And I came away just liking Marlowe all the more.
> > Dame Wraight is the star, and I've heard she has died,
> > though she appears quite energetic here.
>
> Do you suppose it was faked?
She never flinched in the autopsy. I guess so.
> > Baker is as
> > modest and informative as he can be, as he walks
> > between the graves of his many ex-wives. I feel Peter
> > Farey comes off very well and makes sense, so it is
> > good to know Peter's words (above) going in.
> >
> > The laughable aspect for me is that Rubbo uses the
> > front seat of several automobiles as his set, which makes
> > his interviewee responsible for speaking and driving at
> > the same time. That is an unneeded burden on the
> > subjects, I feel.
>
> Can you imagine just being in a moving car
> while some of the more vocal HLASers go at it.
Your own fine print reads like a Tasmanian rental car contract.
Enough to make a dervish whirl, I swear.
> > I doubt any other faction could present as much good
> > historical detail and keep it coherently in a viewpoint.
> > Oxfordians would be all over the place and it would be
> > uncomfortable to watch them floating their loose,
> > unconnected, unVERifiable half-truths.
>
> Why imagine. Frontline has already done that one.
And thanks to Terry Ross for pointing out their chicanery
in misquoting their own texts.
Wake me up when the paradigm shifts, Artie.
> > Baconians, well,
> > I don't know where they'd start--they have nothing to
> > present and just busy themselves insulting
> > the known and accepted Shakespeare.
>
> You mean the illiterate Stratford boob?
You're painfully forming again.
> > Weir has flipped off more burghers
> > than Ray Kroc, and she's still starving for any real fare.
> >
> > But Marlovians are the charmers, and this film is
> > enjoyable, informative, and worthwhile. The title is
> > cute, but do not expect any conclusions. Please
> > ring in if you find your mind changing on anything.
> >
> > I remember a few years back that both Dave Kathman
> > and Dave More were to be included in this film,
> > but that Rubbo shortened his American swing and
> > never made it to the midwest to shoot them.
>
> We would have come away liking More all the Marlowe.
Yes, Dave More is about the funnest read here when he
isn't depriving us.
> > Those would
> > have been some important ingredients, I feel, and could
> > likely have made for a different film entirely.
> >
> > Both Peter Farey and Dave Kathman have mentioned
> > inconsistencies in the content, at least in part,
> > so be on the lookout.
>
> If there is one thing I can't abide
> it is inconsistency in content.
Down in front. Shhhhh!
Peter Farey
>
> Al Cunniff wrote:
>
> > Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time
> > to the theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
I don't know. Is any independent film-maker making such
a film? This one was not commissioned by Frontline,
simply offered to them.
> Based on their atrocious coverage of the Oxfordian
> case several years ago -- the program that destroyed
> my respect for PBS in general and for Frontline in
> particular -- I would say no. (That was the program
> where Charlton Ogburn embarrassed himself and his
> viewers, but apparently not the producers, by actually
> weeping on camera about the injustice that has
> supposedly been done to Edward de Vere.)
A MAN? Weeping? Thank God we don't get 'Frontline' over
here! We Marlovians are made of sterner stuff.
> I doubt they will even mention the point that the
> Oxfordian and Marlovian cranks can't both be right,
I think you will find that many viewpoints are mentioned,
including the Stratfordian one, and whilst this is deemed
by one speaker to have the weakest case, its adherents
are nevertheless treated with the greatest respect. May
I recommend your watching it, Tad?
> producers of the aforementioned Frontline program)
> have already strongly endorsed the Oxfordian "theory."
> (Has any new "evidence" turned up in the meantime, I
> wonder? Why the need to re-open the "case"? Hmm?)
I'm sorry, but I have yet to see any suggestion that
the producers are 'endorsing' any theory. They are
providing a pleasant opportunity for their viewers to
see what a few more of those who do not accept the
orthodox story are thinking. You are frightened of this?
That neither of you has even seen the show yet, but are
nevertheless both already frothing at the mouth about it
would certainly seem to indicate that this is the case.
As for new evidence, Tad - yes indeed, it is turning
up all the time. That's what makes it so much more fun
to be an anti-Stratfordian.
Peter Farey
David Kathman wrote:
>
> Of course, Baker and the other Marlovians get much more space
> in this list than Jonathan Bate, Stanley Wells, and Charles Nicholl,
> each of whom only get a brief paragraph. Typical.
As far as I know, we were all invited to write our own
potted biography for Mike Rubbo's page, and given no
guidance as to how long or short it should be. That, if
they bothered to do so at all, they were less ready to
oblige with much, is hardly surprising.
> Rubbo
> told me while he was making the film that he had also talked
> to several other real scholars, such as Andrew Butcher of
> the University of Kent at Canterbury and Michael Hattaway
> of Sheffield University, who were apparently cut out of the
> final film. If he had gotten around to interviewing me,
> I might have been cut anyway.
Indeed you might. Tom Merriam was too. But so was
another Marlovian, Wolfgang Deninger.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > The third, of which I think I was the only represen-
> > tative (other than Mike Rubbo himself perhaps), are
> > those who, having discovered the theory and found it
> > appealing, try to find out what is wrong with it, and
> > - while failing to disprove it - become more and more
> > convinced of its probability.
>
> So, Peter, to try to disprove that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare, you went to
> the Shakespeare monument to what? See if it contradicted the Marlowe
> theory? And, without looking for evidence for Marlowe, you found that it
> did not! Hmmmmm!
As I have explained too many times for you to be
seriously posing this question, I was simply joining
in a discussion going on here about what the poem
on the monument really meant. I have recently done the
same with the first of the 'dark lady' sonnets, you may
have noticed, and suggested nothing of relevance to the
'authorship' question.
In the case of the monument, however, I stumbled upon
something totally unexpected, which quite significantly
changed my views as to the probable truth of the
Marlovian authorship theory.
I therefore promptly submitted what I had found to this
group to make quite sure that I was not just seeing
what I wanted to see there, and the responses I received
pretty much convinced me that I wasn't.
> But Happy New New, anyway!
And to you, Bob, and to everyone.
Nothing is more certain than that you will remember, Bob.
Tom Reedy
in message
news:av0p5f$ff3$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> David Kathman wrote:
> >
> > Of course, Baker and the other Marlovians get much
more space
> > in this list than Jonathan Bate, Stanley Wells, and
Charles Nicholl,
> > each of whom only get a brief paragraph. Typical.
>
> As far as I know, we were all invited to write our
own
> potted biography for Mike Rubbo's page, and given no
> guidance as to how long or short it should be.
<snip>
So in other words, Baker wrote his own bio, in which he
now claims to be a "Reverend Doctor." I was wondering
who called him "a published authority on English
handwriting."
So now we know it's all just typical Baker bullshit.
TR
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time
>>>to the theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
> Tad Davis wrote:
>>Based on their atrocious coverage of the Oxfordian
>>case several years ago -- the program that destroyed
>>my respect for PBS in general and for Frontline in
>>particular -- I would say no. (That was the program
>>where Charlton Ogburn embarrassed himself and his
>>viewers, but apparently not the producers, by actually
>>weeping on camera about the injustice that has
>>supposedly been done to Edward de Vere.)
Peter Farey wrote:
> A MAN? Weeping? Thank God we don't get 'Frontline'
> over here! We Marlovians are made of sterner stuff.
What about British TV producers? Will they ever have the courage
to air a program questioning the legitimacy of the Stratman?
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
> > So, Peter, to try to disprove that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare, you went
to
> > the Shakespeare monument to what? See if it contradicted the Marlowe
> > theory? And, without looking for evidence for Marlowe, you found that
it
> > did not! Hmmmmm!
>
> As I have explained too many times for you to be
> seriously posing this question, I was simply joining
> in a discussion going on here about what the poem
> on the monument really meant.
You have said this kind of thing many times. I admit to continually
forgetting--due to an inability to assimilate it, since it makes no sense to
me. I am to take you as "neutral" on the authorship question at that time
although you seemed to just about everyone to be a Marlowe advocate, though
claiming simply to be considering the hypothesis that Marlowe was
Shakespeare, as you are now. And you came to the Shakespeare inscription as
a straight-forward text with no authorship significance hoping to help with
its interpretation and . . .
Look, at some point, you decided to consider the inscription's relation to
your Big Question. At that point you were either looking to see if it
contradicted your theory (as it does, since it establishes Shakespeare as a
writer of sufficient stature to be compared with Virgil and given a place on
Mount Olympus) or if it confirmed a hypothesis you had not yet accepted,
according to you. From that point on, you dug clues out of the text and
energetically defended them. Not hunting for evidence to defend your
hypothesis that the message you found was authentic--so that you could use
the message as evidence that Marlowe was Shakespeare? Sorry, Peter, I can't
buy it.
Also, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your argument about Jacques
whoever preceded your discovery concerning the inscription, and you were
touting that as convincing evidence for Marlowe, so you were not quite a
neutral when you started analyzing the inscription.
***
> > I'll watch it with a closed but not locked mind. If > > I remember to
watch it, that is!
> Nothing is more certain than that you will
> remember, Bob.
> Peter F.
Ha, you don't know what kind of memory I have.
And how I can get wrapped up in my writing or some stupid computer game, and
lose track of the time. But it does look like I'll watch it since it's
tonight, and I'm still thinking about it. I have a tape in ready to record,
and everything!
--Bob G.
BCD
Frontline's show: "Indeed, the case for Marlowe comes off as weak and
borderline elitist, but it makes for a colorful look at both Elizabethan
times and the modern skeptics devoting their lives to this 16th century
whodunit. Even flimsy and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Roundtable
I searched Google for "American Fellowship Church" and found:
"Become ordained with the American Fellowship Church..."
Roundtable
Elizabeth Weir
> Last paragraph (in the *Los Angeles Times*, 1/2/03) of the review of
> Frontline's show: "Indeed, the case for Marlowe comes off as weak and
> borderline elitist, but it makes for a colorful look at both Elizabethan
> times and the modern skeptics devoting their lives to this 16th century
> whodunit. Even flimsy
Flimsy?
Marlovians should aspire to "flimsy."
Marlovians cannot produce a single item of evidence to
prove that Marlowe wrote either the Shakespare works or
the six plays ascribed to him after his death, the last
in 1661.
Marlowe has the worst authorial paper trail of any
presumptive author.
> and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
It will remain an unsolved mystery because Marlovians can offer
nothing to prove Marlowe's authorship.
And it isn't funny because our irrational anti-Renaissance
culture takes these delusional systems seriously.
My guess is that the Frontline interviewers won't even
press the Marlovians for substantive evidence.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>Last paragraph (in the *Los Angeles Times*, 1/2/03) of the review of
>>Frontline's show: "Indeed, the case for Marlowe comes off as weak and
>>borderline elitist, but it makes for a colorful look at both Elizabethan
>>times and the modern skeptics devoting their lives to this 16th century
>>whodunit. Even flimsy
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> Marlovians cannot produce a single item of evidence to
> prove that Marlowe wrote either the Shakespare works or
> the six plays ascribed to him after his death, the last
> in 1661.
>
> Marlowe has the worst authorial paper trail of any
> presumptive author.
>
>>and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
>
> It will remain an unsolved mystery because Marlovians
> can offer nothing to prove Marlowe's authorship.
>
> And it isn't funny because our irrational anti-Renaissance
> culture takes these delusional systems seriously.
>
> My guess is that the Frontline interviewers won't
> even press the Marlovians for substantive evidence.
----------------------------------------------------
While Marlowe is my 2nd least favorite candidate
he does have the advantage of:
1) being a recognized dramatist
2) matching word length distribution as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Length: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare
non-comedies: 20246 81182 104078 111597 59962 36201 26057 15314
Late Marlowe: 2535 11182 14276 15263 8223 4697 3391 2065
------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes for a quite acceptable fit *except for the fact* that
Shakespeare uses *far more one-letter* words than Marlowe!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm
------------------------------------------
1 to 2 letter words
------------------------------------------
TABLE = [ 2535 , 11182 , 20246 , 81182 ]
Left : p-value = 0.00002054943377554582
Right : p-value = 0.9999814143379697
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00004138202998428299
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/mmarley.htm
<<According to Mendenhall every writer consistently and unconsciously
followed a definite pattern denoted by the frequency of word lengths in
his writing. Mendenhall's theory was that in any two substantial samples
of anyone's writing there is the same pattern of relative word-lengths:
so many two-letter, three-letter, four-letter words per thousand in each
sample.>>
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx4a.htm
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/appx3a.htm
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap8.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Groves
news:3E144282...@comcast.net...
It's a bit like the Charge of the Light Brigade, Art: what is required is
stupidity as much as courage.
Peter G.
Peter Groves
news:fd6ab3a4.03010...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for this, Sir Lancelot -- it clears up a few little questions about
Faker's credentials:
"It is not necessary to study to become ordained with our Church. ... We
offer various materials and certificates to help you - you can even become a
Doctor of Divinity ... You may becomey [sic] ordained right now by ordering
a License and ID Card. To become ordained legally, click here."
And to think of all those saps actually studying for their theological
degrees and doctorates in Divinity. Faker must have taken the de luxe plan,
because I notice from Rubbo's site that he's apparently a bishop.
As P. T Barnum said . . .
Peter G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>
>>>>>Will Frontline one day run a show giving equal time
>>>>>to the theory that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?
>>>>
>> > Tad Davis wrote:
>>>>Based on their atrocious coverage of the Oxfordian
>>>>case several years ago -- the program that destroyed
>>>>my respect for PBS in general and for Frontline in
>>>>particular -- I would say no. (That was the program
>>>>where Charlton Ogburn embarrassed himself and his
>>>>viewers, but apparently not the producers, by actually
>>>>weeping on camera about the injustice that has
>>>>supposedly been done to Edward de Vere.)
>>>
>>Peter Farey wrote:
>>>A MAN? Weeping? Thank God we don't get 'Frontline'
>>> over here! We Marlovians are made of sterner stuff.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> What about British TV producers? Will they ever have the courage
>> to air a program questioning the legitimacy of the Stratman?
Peter Groves wrote:
> It's a bit like the Charge of the Light Brigade, Art: what is required is
> stupidity as much as courage.
Maybe someone will write a poem about it.
Art
Tom Reedy
in message
news:j54R9.15328$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
How much does it cost to be a pope? I'm thinking of
getting out of the writing racket.
TR
Tad Davis
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A MAN? Weeping? Thank God we don't get 'Frontline' over here! We
> Marlovians are made of sterner stuff.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me redirect your attention to the whole
sentence:
"That was the program where Charlton Ogburn embarrassed himself and his
viewers, but apparently not the producers, by actually weeping on
camera about the injustice that has supposedly been done to Edward de
Vere."
The point, which I thought was clear, was that Ogburn embarrassed
himself by WHAT drove him to tears -- not by the fact of his weeping per
se.
I have nothing against seeing grown men cry. I do it often myself,
particularly when reading the abundant anti-Shakespearean claptrap on
this newsgroup.
> I think you will find that many viewpoints are mentioned, including
> the Stratfordian one, and whilst this is deemed by one speaker to
> have the weakest case, its adherents are nevertheless treated with
> the greatest respect. May I recommend your watching it, Tad?
You may. Fortunately I'm otherwise engaged.
> I'm sorry, but I have yet to see any suggestion that the producers
> are 'endorsing' any theory.
NOT having seen the program, maybe I AM getting riled up about nothing.
Are you saying that the producers provided ample opportunity for
qualified scholars to rebut, in detail, every piece of nonsense offered
by the anti-Shakespeareans? That they allowed the anti-Shakespeareans to
look like the wannabe snobs, the half-baked, need-a-life nincompoops
they actually are?
Otherwise, I'd have to say they WERE endorsing a theory -- the "theory,"
God help us, that there is any question or mystery about who wrote the
plays of William Shakespeare.
> As for new evidence, Tad - yes indeed, it is turning up all the time.
I'm gratified to hear it. Someday maybe you can share it with us.
--
Tad Davis
tadd...@ucwphilly.rr.com
KQKnave
Davis <tadd...@ucwphilly.rr.com> writes:
>
>NOT having seen the program, maybe I AM getting riled up about nothing.
>Are you saying that the producers provided ample opportunity for
>qualified scholars to rebut, in detail, every piece of nonsense offered
>by the anti-Shakespeareans? That they allowed the anti-Shakespeareans to
>look like the wannabe snobs, the half-baked, need-a-life nincompoops
>they actually are?
The were certainly favoring the Marlovian side, and allowed Bate to
get himself caught in the trap when he didn't know that V&A wasn't
attributed to Shakespeare in the Stationer's Register, and when
Wells was asked about where did Shakespeare get his learning,
Wells just shrugged rather than question how much learning
Shakespeare actually had. A responsible documentarian would
not have shown those moments, and would have pressed the
interviewees a little more about the question. The Marlovians were portrayed as
assertive and "knowlegeable", although those of us who actually
know something about the matter laugh at loud at their comments.
Baker's assertion that there are "500 page-thick studies of literacy at
that time showing that if the father's could read and write, the
daughters could too" was a riot (I guess there's something really
impressive about 500 page-thick books, even if they don't exist),
as was Wraight's comment that because Marlowe has his arms
folded in his portrait, he must be hiding a secret.
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
KQKnave
is poking fun at everyone involved with Shakespeare and the
authorship question. He manages to make everyone look at
least a little foolish.
Art Neuendorffer
> The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that Rubbo
> is poking fun at everyone involved with Shakespeare and the
> authorship question. He manages to make everyone look at
> least a little foolish.
But everyone is at least a little foolish.
A.N.
Peter Groves
news:20030103001331...@mb-ce.aol.com...
> The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that Rubbo
> is poking fun at everyone involved with Shakespeare and the
> authorship question. He manages to make everyone look at
> least a little foolish.
>
He doesn't have to try hard with Baker. But you're right: it's such a
parade of misfits, most of whom clearly have kangaroos in their their top
paddocks, that I can't believe he really expects anyone to take the
arguments seriously. But it's certainly got him talked about, where a
documentary on the life-cycle of the tsetse-fly might not have.
Peter G.
Art Neuendorffer
> Interesting film. We got to see quite a bit of Peter Farey, and what kind
> of computer he uses, even.
Yes, from what Peter had said I thought there would be only about
20 seconds of him - but no doubt a lot got cut out.
> And I'm sorry to say I _have_ met people like
> John Baker; he's not too improbable to possibly exist.
Or impossible to probably exist.
> Dolly
> Walker-Wraight did indeed come off well (in my opinion), even though her
> assertion that "it was the biggest cover-up in history -- _of course_
> you've never heard anything about it!" doesn't seem supported by much.
At least she didn't cry. She wasn't much pleased that Rubbo stuck
in his own theory that included the Stratman as a Falstaffean co-author.
> Though whoever mentioned the thing about the cars was right -- I'm not
> sure what was going on, with the cars, and the train, and the punts. . .
Doesn't anyone watch documentaries these days?
The short attention span of modern TV viewers requires that all
sorts of techniques are required when 'talking heads' are involved.
My favorite was the close-ups of Baker's collie.
Art Neuendorffer
KQKnave
<Monti...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com> writes:
>"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comcrashed> wrote in message
>news:20030103001331...@mb-ce.aol.com...
>> The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that Rubbo
>> is poking fun at everyone involved with Shakespeare and the
>> authorship question. He manages to make everyone look at
>> least a little foolish.
>>
>
>He doesn't have to try hard with Baker. But you're right: it's such a
>parade of misfits, most of whom clearly have kangaroos in their their top
>paddocks, that I can't believe he really expects anyone to take the
>arguments seriously. But it's certainly got him talked about, where a
>documentary on the life-cycle of the tsetse-fly might not have.
>
Baker didn't appear to be any more out of it than Wells, to be honest.
I mean his manner, anyway. His arguments ("500 page thick books"!)
were just as silly as his posts though.
Elizabeth Weir
> > "BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Last paragraph (in the *Los Angeles Times*, 1/2/03) of the review of
> >>Frontline's show: "Indeed, the case for Marlowe comes off as weak and
> >>borderline elitist, but it makes for a colorful look at both Elizabethan
> >>times and the modern skeptics devoting their lives to this 16th century
> >>whodunit. Even flimsy
>
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > Marlovians cannot produce a single item of evidence to
> > prove that Marlowe wrote either the Shakespare works or
> > the six plays ascribed to him after his death, the last
> > in 1661.
> >
> > Marlowe has the worst authorial paper trail of any
> > presumptive author.
> >
> >>and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
> >
> > It will remain an unsolved mystery because Marlovians
> > can offer nothing to prove Marlowe's authorship.
> >
> > And it isn't funny because our irrational anti-Renaissance
> > culture takes these delusional systems seriously.
> >
> > My guess is that the Frontline interviewers won't
> > even press the Marlovians for substantive evidence.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> While Marlowe is my 2nd least favorite candidate
> he does have the advantage of:
>
> 1) being a recognized dramatist
Other than printed title pages, what evidence proves
that Marlowe was a "recognized dramatist?" There is
absolutely nothing that tied Marlowe to the plays
when he was alive. Not one Elizabethan noticed that
Marlowe was a playwright until his name appeared
posthumously on Faustus.
The stats below only tend to prove that one author wrote
the Marlowe-Shakespeare plays. There's nothing in this
data that indicates that Marlowe was that author.
Porter
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.03010...@posting.google.com...
Jonson (praising Shakespeare):
"And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line''.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > So, Peter, to try to disprove that Marlowe wrote
> > > Shakespeare, you went to the Shakespeare monument
> > > to what? See if it contradicted the Marlowe
> > > theory? And, without looking for evidence for
> > > Marlowe, you found that it did not! Hmmmmm!
> >
> > As I have explained too many times for you to be
> > seriously posing this question, I was simply joining
> > in a discussion going on here about what the poem
> > on the monument really meant.
>
> You have said this kind of thing many times.
Indeed I have. What you seem unable to accept is that
it is actually possible for someone with unorthodox
views to be interested in Shakespeare *qua* Shake-
speare without necessarily wanting to turn everything
into an authorship discussion.
> I admit
> to continually forgetting--due to an inability to
> assimilate it, since it makes no sense to me.
I realise that. The basic problem is that a scientific
approach to determining the truth of something is *not*
what most people would think of as common sense. The
'common sense' approach, having discovered something
that one would quite like to be true, is to try and
find 'proof' that it is correct - in other words to
look for more and more evidence in *support* of it.
The scientific approach, on the other hand, is exactly
the opposite, which is to try to prove that it is *not*
true, and fail. This is the approach which I try as far
as possible to follow. Unfortunately the only person
around here who seems to be able to grasp and accept
this is Peter Groves.
> I am to take you as "neutral" on the authorship
> question at that time although you seemed to just
> about everyone to be a Marlowe advocate, though
> claiming simply to be considering the hypothesis that
> Marlowe was Shakespeare, as you are now.
No, of course I'm not neutral. I think it highly likely
that Marlowe survived and played a large part in writing
what we think of as Shakespeare's works. I am also on
record as saying that I find the story a very appealing
one. The *danger* inherent in such views and feelings,
however, is demonstrated daily on HLAS, where people of
all persuasions simply see what they want to see, and
automatically reject any evidence that does not match
their own preconceived 'solution'.
It is precisely such a danger that the scientific
approach was devised to counter.
> And you came to the Shakespeare inscription as a
> straight-forward text with no authorship significance
> hoping to help with its interpretation and . . .
Yes, Bob. The major difference, however, is that I was
prepared to follow up the possibility that 'READ' in
fact meant 'discover' in the sense of answering a riddle,
whereas few, if any, Stratfordians would have been.
> Look, at some point, you decided to consider the
> inscription's relation to your Big Question.
No I didn't. I followed up the instruction to 'read'
who was there 'with' Shakespeare. It could have been
anbody or nobody, but in fact it turned out to be
'Christofer Marley'.
> At that
> point you were either looking to see if it contradic-
> ted your theory (as it does, since it establishes
> Shakespeare as a writer of sufficient stature to be
> compared with Virgil and given a place on Mount
> Olympus)
It does not in any way contradict 'my' theory, which
happily accepts that most people at the time assumed
William Shakespeare of Stratford to be the author.
> or if it confirmed a hypothesis you had not
> yet accepted, according to you. From that point on,
> you dug clues out of the text and energetically
> defended them.
What I did was to try to work out what the rest of the
text must be saying IF the name of the person 'in' the
monument with Shakespeare was indeed 'Christofer Marley'.
I then discussed these findings with the rest of you.
Of course I had to support that interpretation in the
discussion. That is what I was testing.
> Not hunting for evidence to defend your hypothesis
> that the message you found was authentic--so that you
> could use the message as evidence that Marlowe was
> Shakespeare?
All I wanted to do was to establish whether my own
conclusions as to what the monument was actually saying
stood up to the most severe scrutiny that was available
to me. This is 'trying to find out what was wrong' with
them. That is the best way I know of discovering the
errors of information and reasoning that I am just as
likely as anyone to make initially.
> Sorry, Peter, I can't buy it.
No, Bob, I know you can't. And I very much doubt
whether you ever will be able to.
> Also, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your
> argument about Jacques whoever preceded your discovery
> concerning the inscription, and you were touting that
> as convincing evidence for Marlowe,
I was presenting that side of the agument for precisely
the same reason.
> so you were not quite a
> neutral when you started analyzing the inscription.
I am *NOT* neutral! I simply use an approach which
helps me to remain as unbiased in my *thinking* as
as I possibly can.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>>>Last paragraph (in the *Los Angeles Times*, 1/2/03) of the review of
>>>>Frontline's show: "Indeed, the case for Marlowe comes off as weak and
>>>>borderline elitist, but it makes for a colorful look at both Elizabethan
>>>>times and the modern skeptics devoting their lives to this 16th century
>>>>whodunit. Even flimsy
>>>
>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>
>>>Marlovians cannot produce a single item of evidence to
>>>prove that Marlowe wrote either the Shakespare works or
>>>the six plays ascribed to him after his death, the last
>>>in 1661.
>>>
>>>Marlowe has the worst authorial paper trail of any
>>>presumptive author.
>>>
>>>>and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
>>>
>>>It will remain an unsolved mystery because Marlovians
>>> can offer nothing to prove Marlowe's authorship.
>>>
>>>And it isn't funny because our irrational anti-Renaissance
>>> culture takes these delusional systems seriously.
>>>
>>>My guess is that the Frontline interviewers won't
>>> even press the Marlovians for substantive evidence.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>> While Marlowe is my 2nd least favorite candidate
>> he does have the advantage of:
>>
>> 1) being a recognized dramatist
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> Other than printed title pages, what evidence proves
> that Marlowe was a "recognized dramatist?"
I meant that he is *today* a "recognized dramatist?"
(Other than printed title pages, what evidence
proves that Bacon was a "recognized essayist?")
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> There is
> absolutely nothing that tied Marlowe to the plays
> when he was alive. Not one Elizabethan noticed that
> Marlowe was a playwright until his name appeared
> posthumously on Faustus.
>
> The stats below only tend to prove that one author wrote
> the Marlowe-Shakespeare plays.
. . . a necessary if not sufficient condition in demonstrating that
Marlowe was Shakespeare. (One might point out that this was all part of
a test paid for by a Baconian in hopes of using the data to prove that
Bacon was Shakespeare.)
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> There's nothing in this data
> that indicates that Marlowe was that author.
There's something in this data that suggests that Marlowe might be
that author, especially when one considers that:
"Great Shakespearians Hazlitt, Fleay, Chalmers, Dyce, Verity, Thorndike,
Jane Lee, Algernon Swinburne and the supremely orthodox Sir Sidney Lee,
identified Marlowe as solely, principally or partly responsible for
_Titus Andronicus_, _Richard II_, _Richard III_ and the three parts of
_Henry VI_." - p.227 _Who Wrote Shakespeare_
Stephanie
Well, I certainly enjoyed that program! It was great to see Peter
Farey and John Baker in the flesh, so to speak, as well as Dolly
Wraight and the other Marlovians in their cheery British settings, and
all the Stratfordian and Canterbury sites, as well as the site of
Marlowe's murder and all that! As usual, the Marlovians made an
excellent case for Shaksper's "non-authorship", which is easy enough
to do, but couldn't quite come up with a smoking gun which pointed at
Marlowe's turning into "Shakespeare," even if he did manage to escape
from his own execution. (It's the writing, man....)
I liked Baker's collie a lot, too. Not to mention his tractor, or
whatever that was.
Stephanie Caruana
http://gemstone-file.com
Bob Grumman
Peter Farey said:
> The basic problem is that a scientific
> approach to determining the truth of something is *not*
> what most people would think of as common sense. The
> 'common sense' approach, having discovered something
> that one would quite like to be true, is to try and
> find 'proof' that it is correct - in other words to
> look for more and more evidence in *support* of it.
No, the common sense approach is to see how one's conclusions fit with what
one knows of the ordinary world. It is common sense, for instance, to
reject Marlowe's faked death because perfect conspiracies don't often happen
in the real world, real people don't disappear without a trace too often in
the real world, etc. The common sense approach can be wrong, of course, but
it's a fair way to start in examining a conclusion.
> The scientific approach, on the other hand, is exactly
> the opposite, which is to try to prove that it is *not*
> true, and fail.
No, the scientific approach is to gather as much additional hard evidence as
possible, and weigh that which supports a conclusion against that which does
not.
>This is the approach which I try as far
> as possible to follow. Unfortunately the only person
> around here who seems to be able to grasp and accept
> this is Peter Groves.
I don't know about Peter Groves, Peter, but most of us think that you go
looking for evidence to support Marlowe because of the strained way it seems
to us you interpret such texts as the inscription and the to-us implausible
scenarios you concoct.
But, enough. From now on, I'll try to stop trying to demonstrate that you
are not the objective scholar you try to portray yourself as. There's no
way of finally determining whether you are or not. And it has nothing to do
with the validity of your hypotheses and arguments.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> Well, I certainly enjoyed that program! It was great
> to see Peter Farey and John Baker in the flesh, so to speak,
"John Baker in the flesh" . . .
. . . a disturbing image indeed!
> as well as Dolly Wraight
> and the other Marlovians in their cheery British settings, and
> all the Stratfordian and Canterbury sites, as well as the site of
> Marlowe's murder and all that!
What if that kid had hit Rubbo in the head with his stone!
> As usual, the Marlovians made an
> excellent case for Shaksper's "non-authorship",
> which is easy enough to do,
Yet it didn't prevent Rubbo, himself, from suggesting Shaksper
as "co-author" (much to Dolly's chagrin.)
> but couldn't quite come up with a smoking gun which pointed at
> Marlowe's turning into "Shakespeare,"
That would be a smoking knife.
> even if he did manage to escape from his own execution.
> (It's the writing, man....)
Do you suppose he read the script while Frizer reacted in slo-mo?
> I liked Baker's collie a lot, too.
> Not to mention his tractor, or whatever that was.
I think it was a Lunar Excursion Module.
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
> NOT having seen the program, maybe I AM getting riled up about nothing.
> Are you saying that the producers provided ample opportunity for
> qualified scholars to rebut, in detail, every piece of nonsense offered
> by the anti-Shakespeareans? That they allowed the anti-Shakespeareans to
> look like the wannabe snobs, the half-baked, need-a-life nincompoops
> they actually are?
In the case of the older, pro-Oxford program, they refused even to
withdraw a proven lie. See http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/putt2.html.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
John W. Kennedy
> Peter Farey said:
>>The scientific approach, on the other hand, is exactly
>>the opposite, which is to try to prove that it is *not*
>>true, and fail.
> No, the scientific approach is to gather as much additional hard evidence as
> possible, and weigh that which supports a conclusion against that which does
> not.
No, Peter's quite right. Obviously, one has to deal with positive
evidence whilst originally casting about for a theory, and one has to
deal statistically with nondeterminate phenomena, but when dealing with
true/false questions, the scientific process is to try all the
experiments one can think of that might prove one's hypothesis to be
wrong. That's why "unfalsifiable" is a damning word in science.
John W. Kennedy
> "It is not necessary to study to become ordained with our Church. ... We
> offer various materials and certificates to help you - you can even become a
> Doctor of Divinity ... You may becomey [sic] ordained right now by ordering
> a License and ID Card. To become ordained legally, click here."
> And to think of all those saps actually studying for their theological
> degrees and doctorates in Divinity. Faker must have taken the de luxe plan,
> because I notice from Rubbo's site that he's apparently a bishop.
> As P. T Barnum said . . .
In the US Episcopal Church, at least, DD is always an honorary degree
automatically granted to all bishops. ThD is the earned academic degree.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > Flimsy?
> >
> > Marlovians should aspire to "flimsy."
> >
> > Marlovians cannot produce a single item of evidence to
> > prove that Marlowe wrote either the Shakespare works or
> > the six plays ascribed to him after his death, the last
> > in 1661.
> >
> > Marlowe has the worst authorial paper trail of any
> > presumptive author.
>
> Walsingham had all the manuscripts copied over when he received them. Are
> you supporting a version in which the copyist was a Bacon?
No evidence for any of that. Qualified Marlowe scholars
conjecture that Walsingham was Marlowe's lover, not his
literary patron.
> > > and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
> >
> > It will remain an unsolved mystery because Marlovians can offer
> > nothing to prove Marlowe's authorship.
>
> It's kind of astonishing how you think "it will remain an unsolved
> mystery" somehow follows from the factual statement (or opinion as to
> fact) that the mystery in question is at present unsolved.
Only the Burgher and the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon possess
evidence of Shakespeare authorship. The Burgher's evidence does
not contradict Bacon's at any point, i.e., the Burgher has printed
title pages, Bacon has manuscripts [the commonplace book written
in 1594-05 concurrently with Romeo and Juliet containing 112 references
found in the play, the Northumberland Manuscript and the Henry IV
fragment].
The Marlovians, Oxfordians and Derbyites have an abundance of
speculation-presented-as-fact, but between them they possess not
a shred of the *empirical* evidence that their candidates wrote the
Shakespeare works.
Can you not tell the difference between *observable* evidence
and unfounded fancies, Janice?
> > And it isn't funny because our irrational anti-Renaissance
> > culture takes these delusional systems seriously.
>
> Don't you think you're being a little harsh, describing a theory about a
> genius as a "delusional system," and tarring a perfectly good modern
> culture (ours) as "irrational"?
There's no evidence that Marlowe was "a genius." Unlike Bacon, who
has multiple attestations by contemporaries to his genius, no
contemporaries noticed that Marlowe, Oxford or Derby possessed
genius.
Re: your "perfectly good modern culture," this modern era is
not heir to Bacon's English Renaissance science, politics and
law but rather a "renaissance" of the Medieval age of ideology.
> John Baker and others, as shown by their
> participation here and their maintenance of elaborate web sites, have
> spent a lot of time on this question -- would you tell them, to their
> faces, that their research wasn't worthwhile?
I've already done that. Repeatedly. And with civility.
> Then how can you, or
> anyone, think you have the right to disparage the hard work of such
> venerable gentlemen?
I now see that you are jesting.
> >
> > My guess is that the Frontline interviewers won't even
> > press the Marlovians for substantive evidence.
>
> It wouldn't be tough to guess, given that the film came out months ago and
> has been discussed here and in the press, already.
I saw it for the first time last night.
> If you don't pay
> attention to the discussion that's already appeared, and think that a film
> presented by the producers of Frontline is going to be broadcast, somehow,
> with the ability for the Americans involved somehow to interview the
> experts *who are on FILM*
What experts?
Rylance didn't get much air time but he had
the best line when he said that he discovered that Hamlet
was filled with "immense learning" and therefore Bacon must
have written Hamlet.
As a matter of fact Hamlet is a Menippean satire and the
first qualification for a writer of Menippea is "immense
learning." Hamlet is layered with submerged knowledge and
that fact alone disqualifies Marlowe, Oxford or the illiterate
Tradesman of Stratford. Only the English Renaissance genius
Bacon could have written Hamlet.
(do you imagine it something like "Mystery
> Science Theater 3000"?), nobody's ever going to take you seriously, and
> every argument you post will just go to waste.
You're such a scolder, Janice.
Bob Grumman
evidence as
> > possible, and weigh that which supports a conclusion against that which
does
> > not.
> No, Peter's quite right. Obviously, one has to deal with positive
> evidence whilst originally casting about for a theory, and one has to
> deal statistically with nondeterminate phenomena, but when dealing with
> true/false questions, the scientific process is to try all the
> experiments one can think of that might prove one's hypothesis to be
> wrong. That's why "unfalsifiable" is a damning word in science.
I suspect that there are differing definitions of "the scientific process."
It seems to me that science has to do with testing assumptions, not trying
either to prove or disprove them.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:
I don't think there is any "scientific method" that applies to every area
of science. It depends on what kind of problem you are trying to solve.
Someone who is trying to synthesize a particular molecule does one
set of things, someone who is trying create computer models that
replicate the behavior of some physical process like the weather
or gas molecules diffracting from a surface do another set of things,
someone who is trying to come up with a theory that combines
electromagnetism with gravity does another set of things, etc.
Elizabeth Weir
The first Faustus quarto with Marlowe's name on it
was printed in 1594.
Elizabeth Weir
> >>>"BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >>----------------------------------------------------
> >> While Marlowe is my 2nd least favorite candidate
> >> he does have the advantage of:
> >>
> >> 1) being a recognized dramatist
>
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > Other than printed title pages, what evidence proves
> > that Marlowe was a "recognized dramatist?"
>
> I meant that he is *today* a "recognized dramatist?"
In the Authorship Dispute, *today* doesn't mean anything.
The only thing that counts is *reliable contemporaneous
witnesses.*
Plug Marlowe + genius into a search engine and you will get
a zillion hits but none of his contemporaries considered
Marlowe to be a genius if he was considered at all.
Modern Marlovians have propagandized Marlowe into "a genius"
just as Strats have propagandized against Bacon [with the
cost to us of the Renaissance].
> (Other than printed title pages, what evidence
> proves that Bacon was a "recognized essayist?")
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen volumes of the distinguished classical scholar
James Spedding's editions of Francis Bacon's collected
manuscripts.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > There is
> > absolutely nothing that tied Marlowe to the plays
> > when he was alive. Not one Elizabethan noticed that
> > Marlowe was a playwright until his name appeared
> > posthumously on Faustus.
> >
> > The stats below only tend to prove that one author wrote
> > the Marlowe-Shakespeare plays.
>
> . . . a necessary if not sufficient condition in demonstrating that
> Marlowe was Shakespeare. (One might point out that this was all part of
> a test paid for by a Baconian in hopes of using the data to prove that
> Bacon was Shakespeare.)
I've read that.
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > There's nothing in this data
> > that indicates that Marlowe was that author.
>
> There's something in this data that suggests that Marlowe might be
> that author, especially when one considers that:
>
> "Great Shakespearians Hazlitt, Fleay, Chalmers, Dyce, Verity, Thorndike,
> Jane Lee, Algernon Swinburne and the supremely orthodox Sir Sidney Lee,
> identified Marlowe as solely, principally or partly responsible for
> _Titus Andronicus_, _Richard II_, _Richard III_ and the three parts of
> _Henry VI_." - p.227 _Who Wrote Shakespeare_
What Hazlitt et al are saying is that "the author of the Marlowe
works is also the author of Titus Andronicus," etc. I don't dispute
that Francis Bacon "overwrote manuscripts he had purchased" [Nashe].
Essex and the Pembrokes were in a hurry and Bacon's political plays
supported the Puritan party's agenda at Court. After Bacon had to
break with Essex over Ireland and Burghley was dead there was no
reason to write political plays--Bacon didn't finish Henry VIII until
1622. Bacon started writing for himself and for the War of the
Theatres. Hazlitt et al will find underlying scripts or drafts [not
collaborations] in the political plays but they will not find them
in Hamlet or Lear.
Elisabeth Riba
> correcting many of the mistakes that appeared in
> earlier versions.
> Some of these errors nevertheless survived my
> criticism: the 'parallelisms' that weren't; the
> 'changed' monument; the 'uniquely' book-free will;
> the 'special' wording of Frizer's pardon, etc.
How about the laughable argument: "why weren't Shakespeare's daughters
literate, because clearly a *writer* would've had his daughters read the
female roles!"
When I told my husband that one (because he left about 15 minutes into the
program) even he found it ludicrous, because even he knew that Shakespeare
lived in London when he wrote, while his daughters stayed in Stratford.
--
--------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <--------------
Looking for work in the Boston area. Dynamic professional with over
10 years experience with software interface design, library science,
documentation and end-user support. See http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis
Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3E1580AE...@comcast.net>...
> > >>>"BCD" <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > >>>
> > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > >>----------------------------------------------------
> > >> While Marlowe is my 2nd least favorite candidate
> > >> he does have the advantage of:
> > >>
> > >> 1) being a recognized dramatist
> >
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > > Other than printed title pages, what evidence proves
> > > that Marlowe was a "recognized dramatist?"
> >
> > I meant that he is *today* a "recognized dramatist?"
>
> In the Authorship Dispute, *today* doesn't mean anything.
> The only thing that counts is *reliable contemporaneous
> witnesses.*
No, Ms. Weir-ever-you-pulled-that-out-of:
You discount eyewitness Ben Jonson.
So keep your hokey witness theory out of here
because you can't respect it yourself.
If Jonson said what he says about Shakespeare
about Bacon instead, there would be no contest.
We'd be so Baconian on earth there would be
no reason to even mention it.
But he said it about Shakespeare.
SO you get real busy in your bullshit factory and
devote the rest of your life to invention. If you only
wore a polygraph as you typed, Ms. Weir, you could
power a town the size of Menlo Park, New Jersey,
for a year.
> Plug Marlowe + genius into a search engine and you will get
> a zillion hits but none of his contemporaries considered
> Marlowe to be a genius if he was considered at all.
Define how an eyewitness account is not the
testimony of a contemporary.
> Modern Marlovians have propagandized Marlowe into "a genius"
> just as Strats have propagandized against Bacon [with the
> cost to us of the Renaissance].
You and Delia.
Greg Reynolds
Bob Grumman
> I don't think there is any "scientific method" that applies to every area
> of science. It depends on what kind of problem you are trying to solve.
> Someone who is trying to synthesize a particular molecule does one
> set of things, someone who is trying create computer models that
> replicate the behavior of some physical process like the weather
> or gas molecules diffracting from a surface do another set of things,
> someone who is trying to come up with a theory that combines
> electromagnetism with gravity does another set of things, etc.
>
> Agent Jim
That's my impression. I was thinking about a part of my psychology theory,
which attempts to be scientific. I posit a behavior I call "accommodance"
and a brain mechanism responsible for it that controls cerebral
energy--perhaps by controlling dopamine output. It seems to me that the
best scientific way to test my theory would be to examine brains to see if
positive evidence can be found--i.e., such a mechanism.
You could not find evidence against it, I don't think--at least until you
had identified every mechanism in the brain and shown that none did what my
mechanism is supposed to do. I think the most important scientific problems
are solved using every research and reasoning tool available.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>correcting many of the mistakes that appeared in
>>earlier versions.
>>Some of these errors nevertheless survived my
>>criticism: the 'parallelisms' that weren't; the
>>'changed' monument; the 'uniquely' book-free will;
>>the 'special' wording of Frizer's pardon, etc.
Elisabeth Riba wrote:
> How about the laughable argument: "why weren't Shakespeare's daughters
> literate, because clearly a *writer* would've had his daughters read the
> female roles!"
>
> When I told my husband that one (because he left about 15 minutes into the
> program) even he found it ludicrous, because even he knew that Shakespeare
> lived in London when he wrote, while his daughters stayed in Stratford.
O.K., then "why weren't Shakespeare's daughters literate?"
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> In article <efbc3534.03010...@posting.google.com>,
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
>
> > jbmi...@world.std.com (Janice Miller) wrote in message
> news:<jbmiller-020...@192.168.123.161>...
> > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > >
> > > > Flimsy?
> > > >
> > > > Marlovians should aspire to "flimsy."
> > > >
> > > > Marlovians cannot produce a single item of evidence to
> > > > prove that Marlowe wrote either the Shakespare works or
> > > > the six plays ascribed to him after his death, the last
> > > > in 1661.
> > > >
> > > > Marlowe has the worst authorial paper trail of any
> > > > presumptive author.
> > >
> > > The Globe review I quoted from earlier explains this by saying that
> > > Walsingham had all the manuscripts copied over when he received them. Are
> > > you supporting a version in which the copyist was a Bacon?
> >
> > No evidence for any of that. Qualified Marlowe scholars
> > conjecture that Walsingham was Marlowe's lover, not his
> > literary patron.
>
Dissertation committees, Janice.
> And if Marlowe had a more powerful lover,
> doesn't that mean he knew about that "male amity" you're always saying
> only Francis Bacon could have known?
The poetic convention of "male amity" was limited to the Court.
Marlowe was never invited to Court, neither was the Burgher.
Oxford was persona non grata at Court and too old in any event.
Only Bacon was at Court during the 1590s and
was, in fact, engaged in a platonic relationship
with Sir Tobie Mathew, "Man of Hews" in Sonnet 20.
Mathew was also at Court.
> What exactly does it mean when _qualified_ persons _conjecture_, anyway?
>
> > > > > and unsolved mysteries can be fun."
> > > >
> > > > It will remain an unsolved mystery because Marlovians can offer
> > > > nothing to prove Marlowe's authorship.
> > >
> > > It's kind of astonishing how you think "it will remain an unsolved
> > > mystery" somehow follows from the factual statement (or opinion as to
> > > fact) that the mystery in question is at present unsolved.
> >
> > Only the Burgher and the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon possess
> > evidence of Shakespeare authorship. The Burgher's evidence does
> > not contradict Bacon's at any point, i.e., the Burgher has printed
> > title pages, Bacon has manuscripts [the commonplace book written
> > in 1594-05 concurrently with Romeo and Juliet containing 112 references
> > found in the play, the Northumberland Manuscript and the Henry IV
> > fragment].
> >
> > The Marlovians, Oxfordians and Derbyites have an abundance of
> > speculation-presented-as-fact, but between them they possess not
> > a shred of the *empirical* evidence that their candidates wrote the
> > Shakespeare works.
> >
> > Can you not tell the difference between *observable* evidence
> > and unfounded fancies, Janice?
>
> I was merely trying to write at your own level, Elizabeth.
Yeh, right.
> Those who
> write something other than unfounded fancies tend to give references.
> Those who cannot manage to keep their minds on the same thought for long
> enough to get two sentences out that have a logical connection to one
> another, respond to the statement, "you've issued a non sequitur,
> Elizabeth," by saying, "I believe you act on only the evidence of your
> fancies, Janice."
I didn't state "I believe you act only on the evidence of your
fancies, Janice." Fancies by definition do not produce evidence.
I only queried:
> > Can you not tell the difference between *observable* evidence
> > and unfounded fancies, Janice?
> Your posts were interesting for a while, you know, . . . they fluctuated
> up and down, but at some point, poof!, suddenly they were Webbite,
> Bakerian crap like everybody else's. Apparently what made them
> interesting made you -- or at least your net persona -- incapable of
> self-criticism.
I reserve the right to write Webbite Bakerian crap whenever the
unfounded fancie hits me. It may never happen but if it ever
does . . .
> > > > And it isn't funny because our irrational anti-Renaissance
> > > > culture takes these delusional systems seriously.
> > >
> > > Don't you think you're being a little harsh, describing a theory about a
> > > genius as a "delusional system," and tarring a perfectly good modern
> > > culture (ours) as "irrational"?
> >
> > There's no evidence that Marlowe was "a genius." Unlike Bacon, who
> > has multiple attestations by contemporaries to his genius, no
> > contemporaries noticed that Marlowe, Oxford or Derby possessed
> > genius.
> >
> > Re: your "perfectly good modern culture," this modern era is
> > not heir to Bacon's English Renaissance science, politics and
> > law but rather a "renaissance" of the Medieval age of ideology.
>
> Them's a lot of big words. What would you say about someone who repeats
> the same multisyllable-filled sentence over and over again but never uses
> any of its component words in any other sentence?
I don't believe that I have ever referred to the modern age as a
"renaissance" of the Medieval until this post.
> > > John Baker and others, as shown by their
> > > participation here and their maintenance of elaborate web sites, have
> > > spent a lot of time on this question -- would you tell them, to their
> > > faces, that their research wasn't worthwhile?
> >
> > I've already done that. Repeatedly. And with civility.
>
> Oh, yes, you're always civil. David Webb says so, so it must be true.
I recall that Webb insinuated that I am under the influence of Aryan
supremacism because I reject Einstein's German idealist physics.
I don't remember Webb ever commending my civility.
> > > Then how can you, or
> > > anyone, think you have the right to disparage the hard work of such
> > > venerable gentlemen?
> >
> > I now see that you are jesting.
> >
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that the Frontline interviewers won't even
> > > > press the Marlovians for substantive evidence.
> > >
> > > It wouldn't be tough to guess, given that the film came out months ago and
> > > has been discussed here and in the press, already.
> >
> > I saw it for the first time last night.
> >
> > > If you don't pay
> > > attention to the discussion that's already appeared, and think that a film
> > > presented by the producers of Frontline is going to be broadcast, somehow,
> > > with the ability for the Americans involved somehow to interview the
> > > experts *who are on FILM*
> >
> > What experts?
> >
> > Rylance didn't get much air time but he had
> > the best line when he said that he discovered that Hamlet
> > was filled with "immense learning" and therefore Bacon must
> > have written Hamlet.
> >
>
> He certainly is pretty. He must be a real stunner as Cleopatra. And yes,
> he certainly was persuasive when he said that no way could an actor
> acquire the knowledge manifest in Shakespeare's plays.
>
> > As a matter of fact Hamlet is a Menippean satire and the
> > first qualification for a writer of Menippea is "immense
> > learning." Hamlet is layered with submerged knowledge and
> > that fact alone disqualifies Marlowe, Oxford or the illiterate
> > Tradesman of Stratford. Only the English Renaissance genius
> > Bacon could have written Hamlet.
>
> Where were you last week when some guy wanted the definition of a
> Menippean satire? Couldn't provide one?
Probably celebrating the holiday.
> > (do you imagine it something like "Mystery
> > > Science Theater 3000"?), nobody's ever going to take you seriously, and
> > > every argument you post will just go to waste.
> >
> > You're such a scolder, Janice.
>
> You know what they say.
>
About what.
Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> j
> The poetic convention of "male amity" was limited to the Court.
> Marlowe was never invited to Court, neither was the Burgher.
You can't name the King's Men or the Chamberlain's Men
without naming Shakespeare from Stratford.
He was invited to court.
You are big liar.
But the real idiots are people who believe you.
> Oxford was persona non grata at Court and too old in any event.
They had forgotte the fart.
> Only Bacon was at Court during the 1590s and
> was, in fact, engaged in a platonic relationship
> with Sir Tobie Mathew, "Man of Hews" in Sonnet 20.
Fodder for Shakespeare.
Bob Grumman
> O.K., then "why weren't Shakespeare's daughters literate?"
They were abducted by friends of Oxford and prevented from learning to read.
As I've explained in other posts, Oxford was desperately envious of
Shakespeare, and did everything possible to make it seem that he, Oxford,
had written Shakespeare's works. He couldn't just say he did, though,
because no one would believe it--among other things, he was illiterate (like
all the nobles of the time, he paid commoners to write things for him); he
could only do things to discredit Shakespeare, and leave clues connecting
himself to the authorship, and hope posterity would do the rest, which they
have, except for the few of us paid by the Trust not to. Nothing, of
course, could more discredit Shakespeare than daughters who were illiterate,
except a dog who would not sit on command (unfortunately, they could never
catch Shakespeare's dog and unteach him that trick) so assuring the
illiteracy of the daughters was the first thing Oxford and his helpers saw
to.
Oxford was jealous of Marlowe, too, which was why he had mim murdered at
Deptford--a deed that seems to have backfired on him.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
The Rape of Lucrece
Stanza 15
But she, that never coped with stranger eyes,
Could pick no meaning from their parling looks,
Nor read the subtle-shining secrecies
Writ in the glassy margents of such BOOKS:
Stanza 116
The impious breach of holy wedlock vow:
Yea the illiterate, that know not how
To cipher what is writ in learned BOOKS,
Will quote my loathsome trespass in my looks.
Stanza 136
'To fill with worm-holes stately monuments,
To feed oblivion with decay of things,
To blot old BOOKS and alter their contents,
To pluck the quills from ancient ravens' wings,
To dry the old oak's sap and cherish springs,
To spoil antiquities of hammer'd steel,
And turn the giddy round of Fortune's wheel;
-----------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 23
O, let my BOOKS be then the eloquence
And dumb presagers of my speaking breast,
Who plead for love and look for recompense
More than that tongue that more hath more express'd.
O, learn to read what silent love hath writ:
To hear with eyes belongs to love's fine wit.
------------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 1, Scene 1
Messenger: I see, lady, the gentleman is not in your BOOKS.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 1, Scene 1
BIANCA
Sister, content you in my discontent.
Sir, to your pleasure humbly I subscribe:
My BOOKS and instruments shall be my company,
On them to took and practise by myself.
Act 2, Scene 1
TRANIO
And, toward the education of your daughters,
I here bestow a simple instrument,
And this small packet of Greek and Latin BOOKS:
If you accept them, then their worth is great.
BAPTISTA
A mighty man of Pisa; by report
I know him well: you are very welcome, sir,
Take you the lute, and you the set of BOOKS;
You shall go see your pupils presently.
Holla, within!
[Enter a Servant]
Sirrah, lead these gentlemen
To my daughters; and tell them both,
These are their tutors: bid them use them well.
PETRUCHIO A herald, Kate? O, put me in thy BOOKS!
Act 3, Scene 1
Servant
Mistress, your father prays you leave your BOOKS
And help to dress your sister's chamber up:
You know to-morrow is the wedding-day.
------------------------------------------------------------
Neuendorffer wrote:
>> O.K., then "why weren't Shakespeare's daughters literate?"
Bob Grumman wrote:
> They were abducted by friends of Oxford and prevented from learning to read.
I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
> As I've explained in other posts, Oxford was desperately envious of
> Shakespeare, and did everything possible to make it seem that he, Oxford,
> had written Shakespeare's works. He couldn't just say he did, though,
> because no one would believe it--among other things, he was illiterate (like
> all the nobles of the time, he paid commoners to write things for him); he
> could only do things to discredit Shakespeare, and leave clues connecting
> himself to the authorship, and hope posterity would do the rest, which they
> have, except for the few of us paid by the Trust not to. Nothing, of
> course, could more discredit Shakespeare than daughters who were illiterate,
> except a dog who would not sit on command (unfortunately, they could never
> catch Shakespeare's dog and unteach him that trick)
Is that why the dog isn't in the will?
------------------------------------------------------------
<<If Shakespeare had owned a dog - but we need not go into that:
we know he would have mentioned it in his will. If a good dog,
Susanna would have got it; if an inferior one his wife would have
got a dower interest in it. I wish he had had a dog, just so
we could see how painstakingly he would have divided that dog
among the family, in his careful business way.>>
Is Shakespeare Dead - Mark Twain ** ( CHAPTER III )
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman wrote:
> so assuring the illiteracy of the daughters was
> the first thing Oxford and his helpers saw to.
---------------------------------------------------------
OXFORD
And, toward the illiteracy of your daughters,
I here toss into the fire
this small packet of Greek and Latin BOOKS:
SHAKSPER Bake you the lute, and you the set of BOOKS;
Sirrah, lead these gentlemen
To my daughters; and tell them both,
These are their 'boob'ers.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Oxford was jealous of Marlowe, too, which was why he had mim
> murdered at Deptford--a deed that seems to have backfired on him.
'To fill with worm-holes stately portraits,
To feed oblivion with decay of things,
To blot old BOOKS and alter their contents,
---------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 1, Scene 1
GLOUCESTER O peers of England, shameful is this league!
Fatal this marriage, cancelling your fame,
Blotting your names from books of memory,
Razing the characters of your renown,
Defacing monuments of conquer'd France,
Undoing all, as all had never been!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Brooke was admitted to Inner Temple December 18, 1561
sponsors: Grandmaster Thomas Sackville
& Thomas Norton, authors of *Gordobuc*(1560)
[Brooke wrote *Romeus and Juliet* in 1562 and drowned in 1563]
Katherine HAMLETT drowned in the Avon December 18, 1579
while fetching a pail of water.
(during Venus/Mercury/Sun/Moon conj.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feast Day of Epona: 18 December
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Epona, from Celtic Gaul, was especially
worshipped as a protectress of horses,
a bringer of fecundity to mares,
and a giver of well being to *fools*.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The name AMLETH derives frome the Old Norse for an idiot,
or for a tricky *Fool* who feigns idiocy.>>
- Harold Bloom's _Shakespeare, the Invention of the Human_ p.390
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward de Vere marries daughter of *Treasurer* Lord Burghley:
Anne Cecil [age *15*] on DECEMBER 19, 1571
(during Venus/Uranus/Sun conj.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Cecil = OPHELIA/OPALIA: DECEMBER 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Ops (Opis) The Roman goddess of the earth as a source of fertility,
and a goddess of *abundance & wealth* (her name means *"plenty"*).
As goddess of harvest she is closely associated with the god
Consus. She is the sister and wife of Saturn. One of her temples was
located near Saturn's temple, and on August 10 a festival took place
there. Another festival was the Opalia, which was observed on
December 19. On the Forum Romanum she shared a sanctuary with
the goddess Ceres as the protectors of the harvest.
The major temple was of Ops Capitolina, on the Capitoline Hill,
where Caesar had located the *Treasury*.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Bronte died away from doctors
with only immediate family and Keeper her
(3 headed?) bulldog attending the funeral: DECEMBER 19, 1848
Robinson Crusoe rescued: DECEMBER 19, 1686
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>
>> >> O.K., then "why weren't Shakespeare's daughters literate?"
>>Bob Grumman wrote:
>>>They were abducted by friends of Oxford and prevented from learning to read.
>> I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Elisabeth Riba's husband's opinion sounds pretty authoritative to me.
I just described Mr. Riba as "an authoritative responder!!!"
(Apparently, Webb is somewhat illiterate himself since
I was clearly questioning Grumman's authority.)
Tom Reedy
Elisabeth Riba
> <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>
> "My husband watched the start of the program with
me, but quickly
> lost interest. He paid attention as I pointed out
people from the
> newsgroup to him, and said that Baker looked and
sounded like a
> net-kook."
My wife had much the same reaction. After only a few
minutes of listening to Baker's high-pitched
true-believer voice, she looked at me and said, "He's
nuts!"
TR
Art Neuendorffer
> My wife had much the same reaction. After only a few
> minutes of listening to Baker's high-pitched
> true-believer voice, she looked at me and said,
> "He's nuts!"
What does Brenda think about a grown man
playing "the Phantom"?
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
>
> >>>They were abducted by friends of Oxford and prevented from learning to
read.
>
> >> I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
>
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Elisabeth Riba's husband's opinion sounds pretty authoritative to me.
>
> I just described Mr. Riba as "an authoritative responder!!!"
>
> (Apparently, Webb is somewhat illiterate himself since
> I was clearly questioning Grumman's authority.)
And, Art, being an American, could not have been using irony, questioning
Grumman's authority (but not, needless to say, attempting to refute his
argument) by comparing him negatively to someone who obviously, to Art, has
no scholarly standing.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>
>>>>>They were abducted by friends of Oxford
>>>>> and prevented from learning to read.
>
>>>> I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
>>>
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>> > Elisabeth Riba's husband's opinion sounds pretty authoritative to me.
>>
>> I just described Mr. Riba as "an authoritative responder!!!"
>>
>> (Apparently, Webb is somewhat illiterate himself since
>> I was clearly questioning Grumman's authority.)
Bob Grumman wrote:
> And, Art, being an American, could not have been using irony, questioning
> Grumman's authority (but not, needless to say, attempting to refute his
> argument) by comparing him negatively to someone who obviously, to Art,
> has no scholarly standing.
One doesn't need to be an American to use irony.
It's obvious to Art that SHAKSPEARE was no man
but merely a *MONVMENT*:
--------------------------------------------------------------
STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,
READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH
HATH PLAST WITH IN THIS *MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE* :
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
*And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment*,
Here we alive shall view thee still." - Digges
--------------------------------------------------------------
READ IF THOU CANST,
WHOM IS HETH-PLAST WITHIN
THIS (common man)
_MONUMENT SHAKSPEARE_
--------------------------------------------------------------
*DI*ssol*VERE*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissolve, v.t. [L. dissolvere, dissolutum; dis- + solvere to loose,
free.] 1. To separate into competent parts; to disorganize;
to break up; hence, to bring to an end by separating the parts,
sundering a relation, etc.; to terminate; to destroy;
to deprive of force.
--------------------------------------------------------------
di*SSOL*vere
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loss, n. [AS. los loss, losing, fr. le['o]san to lose.]
1. The act of losing; failure; destruction; privation;
as, the loss of property; loss of health or reputation.
Assured loss before the match be played. --Shak.
2. The state of losing or having lost; the privation, defect,
misfortune, harm, etc., which ensues from losing.
Though thou repent, yet I have still the loss. --Shak
3. That which is lost or from which one has parted; waste.
4. The state of being lost or destroyed; especially,
the *wreck* or foundering of a ship or other vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm
The Solemn Temples,
The Great Globe itself
Yea all which it Inherit,
*Shall Dissolue* ;
And like the baseless *FnBRICK* of a Vision
Leave not a WRECK behind."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissolve, v. t. [L. dissolvere, dissolutum; dis- + solvere to loose,
free.] 1. To separate into competent parts; to disorganize;
to break up; hence, to bring to an end by separating the parts,
sundering a relation, etc.; to terminate; to destroy;
to deprive of force.
Lest his ungoverned rage dissolve the life. --Shak.
2. To break the continuity of; to disconnect; to disunite;
to sunder; to loosen; to undo; to separate.
Nothing can dissolve us. --Shak.
Down fell the duke, his joints dissolved asunder. --Fairfax.
For one people to dissolve the political bands which have
connected them with another. --The Declaration of Independence.
3. To convert into a liquid by means of heat, moisture, etc.,;
to melt; to liquefy; to soften.
As if the world were all dissolved to tears. --Shak.
4. To solve; to clear up; to resolve.
``Dissolved the mystery.'' --Tennyson.
Make interpretations and dissolve doubts. --Dan. v. 16.
5. To relax by pleasure; to make powerless.
Angels dissolved in hallelujahs lie. --Dryden.
6. (Law) To annul; to rescind; to discharge or release.
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 4, Scene 4
CORDELIA All blest secrets,
All you unpublish'd virtues of the earth,
Spring with my tears! be aidant and remediate
In the good man's distress! Seek, seek for him;
Lest his ungovern'd rage *dissolve the life*
That wants the means to lead it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elisabeth Riba
>>> I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
> I just described Mr. Riba as "an authoritative responder!!!"
First of all, my name is spelled "Lis" not "Liz"
Secondly, my husband did not take my name when we got married.
Please, try to get it right.
Bob Grumman
questioning
> > Grumman's authority (but not, needless to say, attempting to refute his
> > argument) by comparing him negatively to someone who obviously, to Art,
> > has no scholarly standing.
>
> One doesn't need to be an American to use irony.
I said your being an American kept you from using irony. Don't tell me you
are keeping up your Crowley studies, Art! Crowley AKA Leonardo Amadeus
daBacon has more than once shown (by stating it) that Americans are
incapable of irony.
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > The poetic convention of "male amity" was limited to the Court.
> > Marlowe was never invited to Court, neither was the Burgher.
>
> You can't name the King's Men or the Chamberlain's Men
> without naming Shakespeare from Stratford.
>
> He was invited to court.
The Burgher of Stratford was never
a courtier and there is no way that a tradesman
would be permitted to write sonnets to a member of the
Court or even address Southampton in the rhetoric of the
Dedications to the V & A and Lucrece. Southampton's platonic
friend Essex would have beaten the Burgher black and blue.
> You are big liar.
All Strats are liars.
> But the real idiots are people who believe you.
The real idiots will claim that the Tradesman of Stratford
was invited to Court.
> > Oxford was persona non grata at Court and too old in any event.
>
> They had forgotte the fart.
They had not forgotte the flyte from the Armada.
> > Only Bacon was at Court during the 1590s and
> > was, in fact, engaged in a platonic relationship
> > with Sir Tobie Mathew, "Man of Hews" in Sonnet 20.
>
> Fodder for Shakespeare.
Fodder for Shakespeare but the Burgher was not Shakespeare.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>>> I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
>> I just described Mr. Riba as "an authoritative responder!!!"
Elisabeth Riba wrote:
> First of all, my name is spelled "Lis" not "Liz"
> Secondly, my husband did not take my name when we got married.
>
> Please, try to get it right.
Please don't tell your husband about all this!
(He might say something cruel.)
Art N.
Roundtable
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> I was hoping for an authoritative responder like Liz Riba's hubby.
> and
> > I just described Mr. Riba as "an authoritative responder!!!"
>
> First of all, my name is spelled "Lis" not "Liz"
Fleur-de-Lis?
> Secondly, my husband did not take my name when we got married.
>
> Please, try to get it right.
Ha! At least I'm not the only one on HLAS who "tells her husband"
this or that about HLAS.
Welcome (back) to HLAS and don't let their kidding around get your
back up.
Roundtable
PS: I always wondered whether Will, being perhaps rather a conservative
guy, felt that a woman's place was in the home and not bothering herself
with things like book-reading.
Roundtable
> "Roundtable" <lancelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fd6ab3a4.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<fKUQ9.9229$9N5.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:av0p5f$ff3$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > David Kathman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, Baker and the other Marlovians get much
> more space
> > > > > in this list than Jonathan Bate, Stanley Wells, and
> Charles Nicholl,
> > > > > each of whom only get a brief paragraph. Typical.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, we were all invited to write our
> own
> > > > potted biography for Mike Rubbo's page, and given no
> > > > guidance as to how long or short it should be.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > So in other words, Baker wrote his own bio, in which he
> > > now claims to be a "Reverend Doctor." I was wondering
> > > who called him "a published authority on English
> > > handwriting."
> > >
> > > So now we know it's all just typical Baker bullshit.
> > >
> > > TR
> >
> > I searched Google for "American Fellowship Church" and found:
> >
> >
> > http://www.amfellow.org/
> >
> > "Become ordained with the American Fellowship Church..."
> >
> >
> > Roundtable
> >
> > http://roundtable.iwarp.com
>
> Thanks for this, Sir Lancelot -- it clears up a few little questions about
> Faker's credentials:
>
> "It is not necessary to study to become ordained with our Church. ... We
> offer various materials and certificates to help you - you can even become a
> Doctor of Divinity ... You may becomey [sic] ordained right now by ordering
> a License and ID Card. To become ordained legally, click here."
>
> And to think of all those saps actually studying for their theological
> degrees and doctorates in Divinity. Faker must have taken the de luxe plan,
> because I notice from Rubbo's site that he's apparently a bishop.
>
> As P. T Barnum said . . .
>
Actually, I wasn't joining in the regular HLAS "Let's Boo At Baker"
events, I was just pointing out that Baker presumably has the right
to call himself a Bishop or whatever of the American Fellowship
Church, whether he had to pay a fee or not.
After all, isn't it true that Marlowe, in spite of his many absences
from the university was still awarded a degree because friends in
high places spoke up for him and said he had done much for the
government?
Are there really any bona fide religions where you are called
His Divineness?
Roundtable
John W. Kennedy
> Are there really any bona fide religions where you are called
> His Divineness?
Well, who knows what the Temple of Mystic Syncretism of East Armpit,
Iowa does?
But to anyone at all sensitive to language, "His Divineness" would
properly attach only to a living god. (Or a drag queen -- but let's not
go there.)
Of course, to anyone _really_ sensitive to the English language, it
would be "His Divinity", anyway.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Roundtable
> lancelo...@hotmail.com (Roundtable) wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I wasn't joining in the regular HLAS "Let's Boo At Baker"
> > events, I was just pointing out that Baker presumably has the right
> > to call himself a Bishop or whatever of the American Fellowship
> > Church, whether he had to pay a fee or not.
>
Well, perhaps. I was always a bit fond of him, without any special
reason, actually, and perhaps mistakenly. This fondness of course
led a number of people to suppose I was Baker - a habitual presumption
on HLAS, - and indeed I once composed in my mind a little post telling
HLAS that I WAS Baker, and he WAS me - that we had devised a unique
method of body-switching, enabling him to scramble up and down the
Swiss mountains near where I live, and me to enjoy his nice garden
and walk his dogs - not being allowed dogs in my appartment - and how
we were hoping no one else would discover our body-switching technique,
especially not the Army, because then we would no doubt be forced to
pop in and out of Bin Laden and Hussein's bodies, and neither of us
could quite face mutton stew with sheeps-eyes swimming around in it -
but by that time all speculation about me being Baker ceased, so
HLAS was up till now spared such Roundtable rubbish.
>
> And when it's not, Baker so clearly brings it on himself, offering himself
> as whipping boy for whatever people feel like attacking someone for.
> (With material, I might add, that was at least as "interesting" as
> anything Elizabeth Weir ever posted, and usually a lot more. No less
> "interesting" were the topics certain participants here chose to attack
> him on.)
>
> I wasn't actually set so much against him, actually, until I'd
> corresponded with him on his ideas about Shakespeare's daughters "reading
> lines," and about the lawfulness or otherwise of Shakespeare's having
> written a play that would encourage women to leave an abusive spouse.
> Possibly you joined hlas later, and you didn't see those.
I've been popping in and out of HLAS since October 2001, and confess
to not reading each and every post, so I'd have probably missed them
anyway.
> > After all, isn't it true that Marlowe, in spite of his many absences
> > from the university was still awarded a degree because friends in
> > high places spoke up for him and said he had done much for the
> > government?
>
> Ah, I suspect you have, in fact, discussed these matters with Baker in the
> past.
No, I borrowed a book on Marlowe from the library that contained a
number of essays by 10 different authors, no less than three of them
dealing with Marlowe's apparent homosexuality (sex sells) - and was
just getting round to reading them in depth when the library called
the book back because someone else wanted it.
Roundtable
> This is another of his favorite topics. He just loves to talk
> about all of Marlowe's crimes, in detail: Marlowe was in violation of this
> law, and this one, and this one -- so _obviously_, Marlowe must have had
> friends in high places, because we all know Marlowe got away scot-free,
> and Marlowe was never going to be charged with anything, because Marlowe
> was intimate with Arabella Stuart and so Marlowe was above reproach -- all
> you had to do was be friends with Francis Walsingham, as Marlowe knew, and
> you could get away with anything. Marlowe was going to Scotland; Baker
> has evidence and can assert this at length. Marlowe was apprehended
> carrying the letters of the Queen; Baker has evidence and can assert this
> at length. Ad bloody infinitum.
>
> ----
> Janice Miller
> Framingham, Massachusetts
> <http://world.std.com/~jbmiller/>