Question for those who say others wrote Shakespeare's plays
Rick
others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so. Is it
because you simply believe that it's important to set the historical
record straight (from your point of view)? Is it because you believe
your candidate for the authorship of the plays deserves proper
recognition for their efforts? Or is it more of an intellectual
exercise, a puzzle to be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
These questions are not intended to slam anyone who believes
Shakespeare is not the true author of Shakespeare's plays, but are
prompted by genuine curiousity. After all, there are probably a lot of
people who would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?" What
reply would people, on either side of the argument, give to that
question?
Rick
Bob Grumman
Why do people ask questions about anything?
--Bob G.
Gary Kosinsky
Historical accuracy works for me. And if ever some
compelling piece of evidence was to turn up that invalidated
the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford, I would
be quite willing to accept it.
But so far I haven't seen any.
- Gary Kosinsky
Art Neuendorffer
> On 30 Jan 2004 10:27:28 -0800, UD...@yahoo.com (Rick) wrote:
>
> >From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> >others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> >promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so. Is it
> >because you simply believe that it's important to set the historical
> >record straight (from your point of view)? Is it because you believe
> >your candidate for the authorship of the plays deserves proper
> >recognition for their efforts? Or is it more of an intellectual
> >exercise, a puzzle to be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
> >
> >These questions are not intended to slam anyone who believes
> >Shakespeare is not the true author of Shakespeare's plays, but are
> >prompted by genuine curiousity. After all, there are probably a lot of
> >people who would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?" What
> >reply would people, on either side of the argument, give to that
> >question?
"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote
> Historical accuracy works for me. And if ever some
> compelling piece of evidence was to turn up that invalidated
> the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford, I would
> be quite willing to accept it.
>
> But so far I haven't seen any.
If ever some compelling piece of evidence was to turn up
that validated the authorship of William Shakespeare
of Stratford, I would be quite willing to accept it.
But so far I haven't seen any.
Art N.
Neil Brennen
"Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fd2355f.04013...@posting.google.com...
> From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so. Is it
> because you simply believe that it's important to set the historical
> record straight (from your point of view)? Is it because you believe
> your candidate for the authorship of the plays deserves proper
> recognition for their efforts?
These are the hard-core authorship cranks: Weird, Crowley, etc. They have
the missionary zeal. On the whole, these cranks are relatively easy to argue
against, do to their habit of shooting themselves in the foot whenever they
produce a smoking gun.
Or is it more of an intellectual
> exercise, a puzzle to be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
These are the lesser cranks, and the cranks in denial. These include LynnE,
Der Colin, Peter Farey, Phil Innes, Diana Price, Christian L., etc. They
like to adopt crankery as a way to show how "open minded" they are, and in
some cases don't even decide on an alternate author. Such cranks are harder
to argue against, as they attempt to seize some moral high ground by
claiming not to hate William Shakespeare while implying there is some doubt
regarding his authorship.
Peter Farey
Rick wrote:
>
> From time to time I read arguments from various sources
> that argue others wrote the plays attributed to William
> Shakespeare. To those who promote those arguments, I'd
> like to ask why you are doing so. Is it because you simply
> believe that it's important to set the historical record
> straight (from your point of view)?
Not really. I think that the chances of any of us getting
any change in the historical record is virtually nil. Nor
would I be all that interested in straightening it anyway.
I quite like things the way they are.
> Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> efforts?
No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
good enough for me.
> Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
This is certainly my main motivation. It is *great* fun,
with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
nobody seems to have noticed before! In fact I now find
it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
Stratfordian. For them, any exciting new possibility is
simply there to be either squashed or ignored. It's all
so incredibly boring!
And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately boring
it must be otherwise.
> These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
And very sensible questions they are too.
> After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
The vast majority, I suspect. Although a surprising number
of people who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
more Folio-thumping posts!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Toby Petzold
And the cranks hardest to argue against are those who are unaware of
their own a priori reasoning, like Brennen.
Try this, Rick: read ANY one of the mainstream biographies of
Shakespeare. The first couple of chapters will be all written in this
kind of vague, conjectural tone of voice. Don't worry. This is normal.
Just keep going. About a third of the way into whichever book you've
chosen, it will occur to you that you aren't reading about Shakespeare
anymore, but about London and the Queen and various theaters and the
people who worked in them. Keep going. Don't keep looking back at the
cover to make sure you didn't pick up the wrong book. You didn't. Just
keep telling yourself that the story HAS to get back to Shakespeare at
SOME point. And it does: right at the very end when he signs a few
papers and shuffles off that mortal coil. There. Don't you feel you
really KNOW the man now? Ha, ha, ha...
Toby Petzold
Lynne
That's just plain silly, Neil. It's nothing to do with being
open-minded. It's to do with believing from our own research/reading
that Shakespeare's life doesn't accord with the canon and someone else
is the author. Simple as that.
LynnE
lecolin
> From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so. Is it
> because you simply believe that it's important to set the historical
> record straight (from your point of view)?
Not just the record, but finding what is significant in its creation
-- and what has been significant, to us.
> Is it because you believe
> your candidate for the authorship of the plays deserves proper
> recognition for their efforts?
This seems to be more a Stratfordian concern -- as if the ghost of
Shakespeare would be offended or in some way hurt if he did not
receive his proper credit. Some people take this to religious
extremes, excoriating those whom they believe are attributing the
authorship incorrectly/falsely/immorally. It is not unlike a form of
ancestor worship, and, as religioius impulses do, it clouds any
rational discussion.
But there is some pleasure, I believe, in feeling one is able to make
a correct attribution: all is in its right place in the world, and
the world makes more sense. We believe we understand more then, and
our house is neat: the square pegs in their proper square holes, the
round pegs respectively in theirs. This is an issue for people on all
sides of the debate.
>Or is it more of an intellectual
> exercise, a puzzle to be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
>
For some (see Peter Farey's note.) Not so much for me.
> These questions are not intended to slam anyone who believes
> Shakespeare is not the true author of Shakespeare's plays, but are
> prompted by genuine curiousity. After all, there are probably a lot of
> people who would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?" What
> reply would people, on either side of the argument, give to that
> question?
>
> Rick
"Who cares?" indeed. And why? For me, looking at the reverberating
effects of the plays on people, on their thinking and feeling, leads
me to wonder at the reasons for writing them, those particular plays,
then. For instance, if the plays have a political propaganda value
that works on people, then the source of that is of interest -- was it
a middle-class author working out of his background, or was it a
"wolfish earl" or one's descendant, as Walt Whitman believed?
If you're interested in reaons for answering the questions and why the
debate has such energy, you might take a look at Mark Twain's book on
Shakespeare.
Art Neuendorffer
> > From time to time I read arguments from various sources
> > that argue others wrote the plays attributed to William
> > Shakespeare. To those who promote those arguments, I'd
> > like to ask why you are doing so. Is it because you simply
> > believe that it's important to set the historical record
> > straight (from your point of view)?
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Not really. I think that the chances of any of us getting
> any change in the historical record is virtually nil.
It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the sense that:
1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with an apology.
2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would be
incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous component of
intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine, Time & Newsweek,
Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Firing Line,
Seinfeld, etc.
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Nor
> would I be all that interested in straightening it anyway.
> I quite like things the way they are.
If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't partially balence off
having to keep the secret life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as
well.
> "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > efforts?
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> good enough for me.
Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper recognition" as
their main motivation.
> "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> This is certainly my main motivation.
READ IF THOV CANST,
WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> It is *great* fun,
> with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> nobody seems to have noticed before!
It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it is landing men
on Mars (and we don't have to bring him back!)
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> In fact I now find
> it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> Stratfordian.
You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the Folger.
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> For them, any exciting new possibility is
> simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> It's all so incredibly boring!
Boring!?
To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> boring it must be otherwise.
Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
> "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> And very sensible questions they are too.
> "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> The vast majority, I suspect.
You just SUSPECT?
(Now we know that Peter does indeed
keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> Although a surprising number of people
> who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> more Folio-thumping posts!
Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
------------------------------------------------------
Art N.
Paul Crowley
> From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so.
Firstly, Shakespeare is at the root of our
culture. That is actually quite easy to see
from simple history. When he was writing,
English was an insignificant language, of
about the same status in the world as, say,
Finnish or Dutch today. Foreigners did not
speak it. Foreign ambassadors in London
were not expected to learn it. Anyone
around 1600 placing bets on a future world
language would have put English at about
number 50 on his list.
Yet now it is (or soon will be) the world
language, and modern youth throughout
the world are being inducted into a single
world-wide western (and essentially
Anglo-Saxon) culture.
We all now live under a religious and
political system first established by
Elizabeth. We reject the idea that any
form of religious fundamentalism should
control the state; we require out rulers to
operate under a strict code of law; we
insist that they broadly follow the general
consensus; we respect the right of
individuals to disagree; we glory in the
freedoms we enjoy, especially those of
speech; and we reject anything that might
lead to tyranny.
As Shelley said: "Poets are the
unacknowledged legislators of the world".
Shakespeare was the greatest of them all.
He -- and his mistress (without whom he
could not have existed) -- established the
world in which we live; they made us the
kind of people we are. Without them, most
of us would not even have been born.
Unless you understand that -- and the
history that made it possible, and how
Shakespeare's work was its origin -- you
do not know who or what you are.
The Stratfordian conception of the man
and his society debars any possibility
of that understanding. It is a massive lie
about our history, our culture and our
identity.
Paul.
Peter Farey
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > I think that the chances of any of us getting any change
> > in the historical record is virtually nil.
>
> It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the
> sense that:
>
> 1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with
> an apology.
>
> 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would
> be incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian
> activities.
>
> 3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous
> component of intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine,
> Time & Newsweek, Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose,
> Frontline, Firing Line, Seinfeld, etc.
But have any of these things shown any sign whatsoever of
changing the orthodox view of who wrote the works attributed
to Shakespeare? Of course not. No more than Rubbo's film,
cynically awarded the Hoffman prize, did or ever was likely
to.
Dream on, Art. Unless some major new discovery comes up
(and I mean MAJOR), it just won't happen.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it
> > anyway. I quite like things the way they are.
>
> If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> partially balence off having to keep the secret life would
> be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
You wanna try that again, but this time in English? I might
even agree with you if I understood what on earth you were
trying to say.
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > > efforts?
>
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> > for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> > Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> > good enough for me.
>
> Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper
> recognition" as their main motivation.
Fine. Rick asked us to say what we, as individuals, thought.
I answered his question - and, incidentally, am wondering
why you in particular seem to be reluctant to do so.
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
>
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > This is certainly my main motivation.
>
> READ IF THOV CANST,
> WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
> WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
>
> Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Wow! Thanks Art, I really needed that.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > It is *great* fun,
> > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > nobody seems to have noticed before!
>
> It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it
> is landing men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him
> back!)
No, as always with us amateurs, we are the ones who have
to pick up the tab for our own research. Even the really
interesting bits of the web are restricted to those who
promise not to find anything really exciting there.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > In fact I now find
> > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > Stratfordian.
>
> You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the
> Folger.
Chance would be a fine thing.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > For them, any exciting new possibility is
> > simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> > It's all so incredibly boring!
>
> Boring!?
>
> To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
> mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
Precisely.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > boring it must be otherwise.
>
> Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
Sorry, mate. You lost me yet again.
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
>
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > And very sensible questions they are too.
>
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > The vast majority, I suspect.
>
> You just SUSPECT?
>
> (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
As you know perfectly well, Art, my "anti-Stratfordian ideas"
are there for all to see. I am rather more reluctant, however,
to pretend that I have a complete understanding of how others
might really think.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Although a surprising number of people
> > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > more Folio-thumping posts!
>
> Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
Absolutely! Look at those fanatical eyes, the complexion
suffused with hatred, the cruel mouth (and what else is the
Superbowl all about, for Pete's sake?). This guy would have
us *all* swinging for heresy if they'd let him.
Bob Grumman
>> others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
>> promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so. Is it
>> because you simply believe that it's important to set the historical
>> record straight (from your point of view)?
>
>Not just the record, but finding what is significant in its creation
>-- and what has been significant, to us.
>
>> Is it because you believe
>> your candidate for the authorship of the plays deserves proper
>> recognition for their efforts?
>
>This seems to be more a Stratfordian concern -- as if the ghost of
>Shakespeare would be offended or in some way hurt if he did not
>receive his proper credit.
Right, Colin--and Ogburn didn't cry on tv.
>Some people take this to religious
>extremes, excoriating those whom they believe are attributing the
>authorship incorrectly/falsely/immorally. It is not unlike a form of
>ancestor worship, and, as religious impulses do, it clouds any
>rational discussion.
Actually, it is a Very Sane Reaction. I want to believe that I have contributed
and will be seen by others to have contributed something of value to my culture.
Therefore, if even a Shakespeare can be traduced, it will be reasonable of me to
fear I may not get the credit I feel I deserve because of the kind of people
trying to destroy Shakespeare's reputation. This will contaminate one of the
few things that keeps me going: a vicarious enjoyment of the recognition
posterity will bestow on me. I think I am not alone in this. I think even
people who have been lucky enough to be applauded in their own time visit the
future in their thoughts at times to enjoy continuing applause. Or identify
with their dead cultural heroes enough to feel good in a personal way when the
latter are praised now.
Such a malignment of Shakespeare is also an attack against my group, the
self-educated, so it is not unreasonable of me to take up arms against it.
>But there is some pleasure, I believe, in feeling one is able to make
>a correct attribution: all is in its right place in the world, and
>the world makes more sense. We believe we understand more then, and
>our house is neat: the square pegs in their proper square holes, the
>round pegs respectively in theirs. This is an issue for people on all
>sides of the debate.
Absolutely. All healthy people want to understand more than what they need to,
to keep themselves fed and alive.
>>Or is it more of an intellectual
>> exercise, a puzzle to be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
>>
>For some (see Peter Farey's note.) Not so much for me.
It does enter into it for me. But as a sub-pleasure of the pleasure of
Understanding History.
>> These questions are not intended to slam anyone who believes
>> Shakespeare is not the true author of Shakespeare's plays, but are
>> prompted by genuine curiousity. After all, there are probably a lot of
>> people who would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?" What
>> reply would people, on either side of the argument, give to that
>> question?
>>
>> Rick
>
>"Who cares?" indeed. And why? For me, looking at the reverberating
>effects of the plays on people, on their thinking and feeling, leads
>me to wonder at the reasons for writing them, those particular plays,
>then. For instance, if the plays have a political propaganda value
>that works on people, then the source of that is of interest -- was it
>a middle-class author working out of his background, or was it a
>"wolfish earl" or one's descendant, as Walt Whitman believed?
>
>If you're interested in reaons for answering the questions and why the
>debate has such energy, you might take a look at Mark Twain's book on
>Shakespeare.
Interesting that you apparently can't think of a better introduction to your
side's view than Mark Twain's bag of lies and stupidity, Colin. Surely, some
Shakespeare-denier has come up with a better banner-essay for his side than
Twain's.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > From time to time I read arguments from various sources
> > > that argue others wrote the plays attributed to William
> > > Shakespeare. To those who promote those arguments, I'd
> > > like to ask why you are doing so. Is it because you simply
> > > believe that it's important to set the historical record
> > > straight (from your point of view)?
>
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Not really. I think that the chances of any of us getting
> > any change in the historical record is virtually nil.
> It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the sense that:
>
> 1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with an apology.
Better apology than pathology.
> 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would be
> incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
A full biography of Gödel would be incomplete without mention of the
fact that he went out of his mind in his later years, but it is scarcely
a fact upon which the biographer need dwell unduly, as Gödel's
contributions are quite secure regardless.
> 3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous component of
> intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine, Time & Newsweek,
> Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Firing Line,
> Seinfeld, etc.
_Time_?! _Newsweek_?! Seinfeld?! Your notion of the venues in
which "intellectual conVERsation" takes places are rather curious, Art.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Nor
> > would I be all that interested in straightening it anyway.
> > I quite like things the way they are.
> If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't partially
> balence [sic] off
> having to keep the secret life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as
> well.
"Most Strats"? Few people doubt the conventional attribution; does
that mean that the vast majority of your fellow citizens lead a "secret
life," Art?
But landing Art in a library is much harder than landing humans on
Mars and bringing them back safely.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > In fact I now find
> > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > Stratfordian.
> You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the Folger.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > For them, any exciting new possibility is
> > simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> > It's all so incredibly boring!
> Boring!?
>
> To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
> mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
Let me get this straight, Art -- you believe that Aeschylus was a
Warwickshire farmer?
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > boring it must be otherwise.
> Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > And very sensible questions they are too.
> > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > The vast majority, I suspect.
> You just SUSPECT?
>
> (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
No, Peter merely cultivates an impression of sanity in his posts.
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Although a surprising number of people
> > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > more Folio-thumping posts!
> Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
The link doesn't seem to work any more, Art. Pity -- I liked the
photo of the Clueless Cretin haplessly haranguing a bronze statue!
Mark Steese
news:75KdnbbT5ej...@comcast.com:
> 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would be
> incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
Hawthorne's "anti-Stratfordian activities" consisted of his offering
support to Delia Bacon *despite* his lack of belief in her fanciful
hypotheses:
Unquestionably, she was a monomaniac; these overmastering ideas
about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, and the deep
political philosophy concealed beneath the surface of them, had
completely thrown her off her balance; but at the same time they
had wonderfully developed her intellect, and made her what she
could not otherwise have become....To have based such a system on
fancy, and unconsciously elaborated it for herself, was almost as
wonderful as really to have found it in the plays. But, in a
certain sense, she did actually find it there. Shakespeare has
surface beneath surface, to an immeasurable depth, adapted to the
plummet-line of every reader.
That is as sound an assessment of the nature of anti-Shakespeareanism as
anyone is ever likely to produce; that it survives is a tribute not to
its truth but to Shakespeare's genius in creating works whose meanings
shall never be exhausted. Age cannot wither them, nor custom stale
their infinite variety.
--
Mark Steese
Unscramble and underscore to email
---
Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a
helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize
nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David
Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. -fametracker.com
Art Neuendorffer
> > > I think that the chances of any of us getting any change
> > > in the historical record is virtually nil.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the
> > sense that:
> >
> > 1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with
> > an apology.
> >
> > 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would
> > be incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
> >
> > 3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous
> > component of intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine,
> > Time & Newsweek, Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose,
> > Frontline, Firing Line, Seinfeld, etc.
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> But have any of these things shown any sign whatsoever of
> changing the orthodox view of who wrote the works attributed
> to Shakespeare? Of course not. No more than Rubbo's film,
> cynically awarded the Hoffman prize, did or ever was likely
> to.
>
> Dream on, Art. Unless some major new discovery comes up
> (and I mean MAJOR), it just won't happen.
The necessary change does NOT involve a new discovery; rather it involves
the growing acceptance of homosexuals within our society. It is primarily
the vocal homosexual community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it
> > > anyway. I quite like things the way they are.
> >
> > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > partially balence off having to keep the secret life would
> > be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
>
> You wanna try that again, but this time in English? I might
> even agree with you if I understood what on earth you were
> trying to say.
The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO; it would
be nearly intolerable for them to withhold the secret for 400 years without
any benefit from maintaining snobish superiority on the matter (including
playing occasional games to tease us, e.g., Constance POTTS).
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > > > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > > > efforts?
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> > > for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> > > Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> > > good enough for me.
> >
> > Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper
> > recognition" as their main motivation.
>
> Fine. Rick asked us to say what we, as individuals, thought.
> I answered his question - and, incidentally, am wondering
> why you in particular seem to be reluctant to do so.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either you or I
can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > > > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > This is certainly my main motivation.
> >
> > READ IF THOV CANST,
> > WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
> > WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
> >
> > Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
>
> Wow! Thanks Art, I really needed that.
I can Folio-thump with the best of them.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > It is *great* fun,
> > > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > > nobody seems to have noticed before!
> >
> > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it
> > is landing men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him
> > back!)
>
> No, as always with us amateurs, we are the ones
> who have to pick up the tab for our own research.
That's what makes it cheap.
> Even the really
> interesting bits of the web are restricted to those who
> promise not to find anything really exciting there.
Huh?
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > In fact I now find
> > > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > > Stratfordian.
> >
> > You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the
> > Folger.
>
> Chance would be a fine thing.
Gott würfelt nicht.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > For them, any exciting new possibility is
> > > simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> > > It's all so incredibly boring!
> >
> > Boring!?
> >
> > To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
> > mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
>
> Precisely.
At least he wasn't a Kent cobbler.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > > boring it must be otherwise.
> >
> > Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
>
> Sorry, mate. You lost me yet again.
------------------------------------------------------------
"BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
"OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
{anagram}
------------------------------------------------------------
_La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
[ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
<<Inscribed on Athena's shield is a Latin motto,
"OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS",
meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
the imagery on the shield-the central sun representing TRUTH
and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > And very sensible questions they are too.
> >
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> >
> > You just SUSPECT?
> >
> > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
>
> As you know perfectly well, Art, my "anti-Stratfordian ideas"
> are there for all to see. I am rather more reluctant, however,
> to pretend that I have a complete understanding of how others
> might really think.
Perhaps with good reason. (A cobbler's son indeed!)
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Although a surprising number of people
> > > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > > more Folio-thumping posts!
> >
> > Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> > http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
>
> Absolutely! Look at those fanatical eyes, the complexion
> suffused with hatred, the cruel mouth (and what else is the
> Superbowl all about, for Pete's sake?). This guy would have
> us *all* swinging for heresy if they'd let him.
Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A-----------L
G-----------E
A-----------N
B-----------K
O-----------C
N-----------N
[D]----------I
--------------- R
--------------- B
--------------- S
--------------- A
--------------- M
--------------- O
--------------- H
--------------- T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > From time to time I read arguments from various sources
> > > > that argue others wrote the plays attributed to William
> > > > Shakespeare. To those who promote those arguments, I'd
> > > > like to ask why you are doing so. Is it because you simply
> > > > believe that it's important to set the historical record
> > > > straight (from your point of view)?
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Not really. I think that the chances of any of us getting
> > > any change in the historical record is virtually nil.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the sense
that:
> >
> > 1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with an
apology.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Better apology than pathology.
The apologies are pathetic.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would be
> > incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> A full biography of Gödel would be incomplete without mention of the
> fact that he went out of his mind in his later years, but it is scarcely
> a fact upon which the biographer need dwell unduly, as Gödel's
> contributions are quite secure regardless.
<<Gödel became convinced that he was being poisoned and, refusing to eat to
avoid being poisoned, essentially starved himself to death He died "sitting
in a chair in his hospital room at Princeton, in the afternoon of 14 January
1978.">>
Well, after all, Alan Turing ate an apple painted with Cyanide in 1954
<<Georgi Ivanov Markov was a Bulgarian dissident who was assassinated in
London by agents of the KGB. On September 7, 1978 he walked across Waterloo
Bridge, which crosses the River Thames, and was waiting at a bus stop on the
other side, when he was jabbed in the leg by a man holding an umbrella. The
man apologised and walked away. Markov would later tell doctors that the man
had spoken in a foreign accent. Markov remembered feeling a stinging pain
from where he had been hit by the umbrella tip, and when he arrived at work
at the BBC World Service offices he noticed a small red pimple had formed
and the pain from being jabbed had not gone away. By the evening he fell
ill, and died three days later. After his death, doctors found a small
platinum pellet, some 1.5mm across, embedded in his calf. Further
examination found that it had two small holes drilled in it, which contained
traces of the poison ricin.>>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > 3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous
component of
> > intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine, Time & Newsweek,
> > Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Firing Line,
> > Seinfeld, etc.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> _Time_?! _Newsweek_?! Seinfeld?! Your notion of the venues in
> which "intellectual conVERsation" takes places are rather curious, Art.
"Intellectual conVERsation" certainly doesn't take place in Stratford.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it anyway.
> > > I quite like things the way they are.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > partially balance off having to keep the secret ...
> > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "Most Strats"? Few people doubt the conventional attribution; does
> that mean that the vast majority of your fellow citizens lead a "secret
> life," Art?
No.
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > > > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > > > efforts?
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> > > for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> > > Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> > > good enough for me.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper recognition"
as
> > their main motivation.
>
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > > > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > This is certainly my main motivation.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > READ IF THOV CANST,
> > WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
> > WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
> >
> > Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > It is *great* fun,
> > > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > > nobody seems to have noticed before!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it is landing
men
> > on Mars (and we don't have to bring him back!)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But landing Art in a library is much harder than landing humans
> on Mars and bringing them back safely.
One small step for Art.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > In fact I now find
> > > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > > Stratfordian.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the Folger.
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > For them, any exciting new possibility is
> > > simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> > > It's all so incredibly boring!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Boring!?
> >
> > To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
> > mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Let me get this straight, Art -- you believe that Aeschylus
> was a Warwickshire farmer?
Following Wood logic.
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > And very sensible questions they are too.
>
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You just SUSPECT?
> >
> > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No, Peter merely cultivates an impression of sanity in his posts.
You've got me there.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Although a surprising number of people
> > > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > > more Folio-thumping posts!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> > http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> The link doesn't seem to work any more, Art. Pity -- I liked the
> photo of the Clueless Cretin haplessly haranguing a bronze statue!
Try it again, Dave (it worked for Peter F.)
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > From time to time I read arguments from various sources
> > > > that argue others wrote the plays attributed to William
> > > > Shakespeare. To those who promote those arguments, I'd
> > > > like to ask why you are doing so. Is it because you simply
> > > > believe that it's important to set the historical record
> > > > straight (from your point of view)?
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Not really. I think that the chances of any of us getting
> > > any change in the historical record is virtually nil.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>> It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the sense
that:
>>1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with an apology.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Better apology than pathology.
All the apologies are pathetic.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would
> > be incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> A full biography of Gödel would be incomplete without mention of the
> fact that he went out of his mind in his later years, but it is scarcely
> a fact upon which the biographer need dwell unduly, as Gödel's
> contributions are quite secure regardless.
<<Gödel became convinced that he was being poisoned and, refusing
to eat to avoid being poisoned, essentially starved himself to death
He died "sitting in a chair in his hospital room at Princeton,
in the afternoon of 14 January 1978.">>
Well, after all, Alan Turing ate an apple painted with Cyanide in 1954
http://www.alicebot.org/manchester.html
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php
<<Georgi Ivanov Markov was a Bulgarian dissident who was assassinated in
London by agents of the KGB. On September 7, 1978 he walked across Waterloo
Bridge, which crosses the River Thames, and was waiting at a bus stop on the
other side, when he was jabbed in the leg by a man holding an umbrella. The
man apologised and walked away. Markov would later tell doctors that the man
had spoken in a foreign accent. Markov remembered feeling a stinging pain
from where he had been hit by the umbrella tip, and when he arrived at work
at the BBC World Service offices he noticed a small red pimple had formed
and the pain from being jabbed had not gone away. By the evening he fell
ill, and died three days later. After his death, doctors found a small
platinum pellet, some 1.5mm across, embedded in his calf. Further
examination found that it had two small holes drilled in it, which contained
traces of the poison ricin.>>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>>3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous component of
> > intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine, Time & Newsweek,
> > Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Firing Line,
> > Seinfeld, etc.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> _Time_?! _Newsweek_?! Seinfeld?! Your notion of the venues in
> which "intellectual conVERsation" takes places are rather curious, Art.
"Intellectual conVERsation" certainly doesn't take place in Stratford.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it anyway.
> > > I quite like things the way they are.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > partially balance off having to keep the secret ...
> > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "Most Strats"? Few people doubt the conventional attribution; does
> that mean that the vast majority of your fellow citizens lead a "secret
> life," Art?
No.
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > > > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > > > efforts?
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> > > for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> > > Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> > > good enough for me.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper recognition"
> > as their main motivation.
>
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > > > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > This is certainly my main motivation.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > READ IF THOV CANST,
> > WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
> > WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
> >
> > Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
> >
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > It is *great* fun,
> > > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > > nobody seems to have noticed before!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it is landing
> > men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him back!)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But landing Art in a library is much harder than landing humans
> on Mars and bringing them back safely.
One small step for Art.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > In fact I now find
> > > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > > Stratfordian.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the Folger.
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > For them, any exciting new possibility is
> > > simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> > > It's all so incredibly boring!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Boring!?
> >
> > To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
> > mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Let me get this straight, Art -- you believe that Aeschylus
> was a Warwickshire farmer?
Following Wood logic.
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > And very sensible questions they are too.
>
> > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You just SUSPECT?
> >
> > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No, Peter merely cultivates an impression of sanity in his posts.
You've got me there.
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > Although a surprising number of people
> > > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > > more Folio-thumping posts!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> > http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> The link doesn't seem to work any more, Art. Pity -- I liked the
> photo of the Clueless Cretin haplessly haranguing a bronze statue!
Try it again, Dave (it worked for Peter F.)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
Huh? What has growing tolerance of sexual orientation to do with
oVERturning the conventional attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
> It is primarily
> the vocal homosexual community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it
> > > > anyway. I quite like things the way they are.
> > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > partially balence [sic] off having to keep the secret life would
> > > be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> > You wanna try that again, but this time in English? I might
> > even agree with you if I understood what on earth you were
> > trying to say.
I was about to make the same request.
> The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO;
I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do you
reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
> it would
> be nearly intolerable for them to withhold the secret for 400 years without
> any benefit from maintaining snobish [sic] superiority on the matter
> (including
> playing occasional games to tease us, e.g., Constance POTTS).
Would we tease you, Art?
> > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > > > > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > > > > efforts?
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> > > > for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> > > > Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> > > > good enough for me.
> > > Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper
> > > recognition" as their main motivation.
> > Fine. Rick asked us to say what we, as individuals, thought.
> > I answered his question - and, incidentally, am wondering
> > why you in particular seem to be reluctant to do so.
> I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either you or I
> can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
Is there such a thing as a "typical anti-Strat"? Within the confines
of this newsgroup alone there are Baconians, Derbyites, Marlovians,
Oxfordians, and even Sidney partisans; there are also relativity cranks,
devotees of Hermetic hogwash, "aquatic ape" advocates, Apollo lunar
landing doubters, Gemstone conspiracy theorists, mathematical cranks
(e.g., would-be solvers of Fermat's Last Theorem), proponents of AIDS as
a hoax, etc. It is hard to imagine how such an amusing assemblage of
eccentrics could be "typical" of anything!
> > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > > > > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > This is certainly my main motivation.
> > > READ IF THOV CANST,
> > > WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
> > > WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
> > >
> > > Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
> > Wow! Thanks Art, I really needed that.
> I can Folio-thump with the best of them.
You're the prize Folio-chump, Art.
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > It is *great* fun,
> > > > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > > > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > > > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > > > nobody seems to have noticed before!
> > > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it
> > > is landing men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him
> > > back!)
> > No, as always with us amateurs, we are the ones
> > who have to pick up the tab for our own research.
> That's what makes it cheap.
> > Even the really
> > interesting bits of the web are restricted to those who
> > promise not to find anything really exciting there.
> Huh?
I would welcome some elaboration of that last remark as well.
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > In fact I now find
> > > > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > > > Stratfordian.
> > > You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the
> > > Folger.
Don't forget your diet, Art -- you don't want to emulate George Mason
in all respects.
> > Chance would be a fine thing.
> Gott würfelt nicht.
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > For them, any exciting new possibility is
> > > > simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> > > > It's all so incredibly boring!
> > > Boring!?
> > >
> > > To discover that the term "Breeze/Brize" for a gadfly may
> > > mean that AESCHYLUS was a Warwickshire farmer?
> > Precisely.
> At least he wasn't a Kent cobbler.
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > > > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > > > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > > > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > > > boring it must be otherwise.
> > > Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
> > Sorry, mate. You lost me yet again.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
> "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
> {anagram}
INPNC score 5/21.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
> [ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
>
> http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
>
> <<Inscribed on Athena's shield is a Latin motto,
>
> "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS",
>
> meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
> the imagery on the shield-the central sun representing TRUTH
> and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
Well, that explains eVERything!
> > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
[...]
> > > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> > > You just SUSPECT?
> > >
> > > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
> > As you know perfectly well, Art, my "anti-Stratfordian ideas"
> > are there for all to see. I am rather more reluctant, however,
> > to pretend that I have a complete understanding of how others
> > might really think.
> Perhaps with good reason.
Yes, it would be hubris indeed to pretend to know how
aneuendor...@comicass.nut "thinks"!
(1) There is no "D" in the text, Art.
(2) The INPNC score is below 50%.
(3) Even if there were a "D" in the text, this still would *not* be an
anagram, as both the "L" and the "V" are dragooned into double duty.
In fact, this is the sort of farcically incompetent ciphermongering that
would be scoffed at by any respectable Masonic conspirator.
Peter Farey
>
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > to those who promise not to find anything really exciting
> > > there.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> I would welcome some elaboration of that last remark as well.
Exaggeration, not intended to be taken seriously, but to be read
in conjunction with my earlier remark:
"In fact I now find it hard to understand why anyone would
choose to be a Stratfordian. For them, any exciting new
possibility is simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
It's all so incredibly boring!"
I do find it irritating nevertheless that so many online
databases which would be extremely useful to me in pursuing
this interest of mine are inaccessible to me, whereas several
of my usual 'opponents' appear to have no trouble at all in
accessing them.
And it doesn't help that when Chadwyck-Healey got in touch
with me a while back to ask my permission to offer their
customers a link to my transcript of *Greene's Groatsworth
of Wit* (which, of course, I provide free to all comers)
they refused to even *consider* any sort of *quid pro quo*
arrangement! I mean, what would it have cost them?
Peter Farey
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/groats.htm ), I am
reminded that I meant to ask for some help from
anyone vaguely familiar with htm.
I notice that, whereas at one time the .gif file
with the title page downloaded quite happily, it
no longer does so, after a change of computer and
browser. The file itself, 'greene.gif' is still
there alright.
Would someone mind having a look at the code for
me and suggesting which bit of it might need to
be updated to get the image to appear again?
Thanks. (And I know it would have been better to
use .jpg, but this was done a long time ago!)
John Dean
All kinds of reasons. But no-one queries whether Charles Dickens wrote his
novels or Henry Fielding his. Or, as far as I know, Kit Marlowe his plays. I
don't think there's a French newsgroup belittling those who cling to the
idea that Racine and Corneille wrote the dramas attributed to them. I don't
know of anyone who thinks a jumped up customs official couldn't have written
'Canterbury Tales' or a jumped up Post Office clerk 'Barchester Towers'. So
why the fascination with the Bard?
And another question, just of my own. If someone else wrote Shakespeare, why
did they go to incredible lengths to conceal the fact, even ensuring no
incontrovertible proof came out after their death?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Bob Grumman
>> > >
>> > > Even the really interesting bits of the web are restricted
>> > > to those who promise not to find anything really exciting
>> > > there.
>> >
>> > Huh?
>>
>> I would welcome some elaboration of that last remark as well.
>
>Exaggeration, not intended to be taken seriously, but to be read
>in conjunction with my earlier remark:
>
> "In fact I now find it hard to understand why anyone would
> choose to be a Stratfordian. For them, any exciting new
> possibility is simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> It's all so incredibly boring!"
Another exaggeration, I trust. I doubt that anyone chooses to be a
"Stratfordian" rather than chooses to be rational, which forces him to then
believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Nor do most Shakespeare advocates
consider "any exciting new possibility" only "to be either squashed or ignored."
Some, such as the possibility that Oxford was the son of Elizabeth I, and the
father of her bastard, Southampton, are to be savored. Others are certainly to
be explored, such as the recent possible portrait of Southampton. But squashed,
once sufficiently explored, if appropriate. Which needn't be boring, or are all
the "exciting new possibilities" pointed out by Shakespeare-deniers too easy to
squash to be interesting? Alas, popping absurdities IS probably more generally
boring than irresponsibly accepting them
and spinning off wonderful fantasies based on them while imagining a grateful
world's someday rewarding one for one's efforts.
>I do find it irritating nevertheless that so many online
>databases which would be extremely useful to me in pursuing
>this interest of mine are inaccessible to me, whereas several
>of my usual 'opponents' appear to have no trouble at all in
>accessing them.
>
>And it doesn't help that when Chadwyck-Healey got in touch
>with me a while back to ask my permission to offer their
>customers a link to my transcript of *Greene's Groatsworth
>of Wit* (which, of course, I provide free to all comers)
>they refused to even *consider* any sort of *quid pro quo*
>arrangement! I mean, what would it have cost them?
>
>Peter F.
I extremely sympathize with Peter on this and related defenses with which the
Establishment protects itself from the non-mediocre--however often
unconsciously.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Even the really interesting bits of the web are restricted
> > > > to those who promise not to find anything really exciting
> > > > there.
> > > Huh?
> > I would welcome some elaboration of that last remark as well.
> Exaggeration, not intended to be taken seriously, but to be read
> in conjunction with my earlier remark:
>
> "In fact I now find it hard to understand why anyone would
> choose to be a Stratfordian. For them, any exciting new
> possibility is simply there to be either squashed or ignored.
> It's all so incredibly boring!"
>
> I do find it irritating nevertheless that so many online
> databases which would be extremely useful to me in pursuing
> this interest of mine are inaccessible to me, whereas several
> of my usual 'opponents' appear to have no trouble at all in
> accessing them.
That seems odd. What data bases do you mean, and on what basis are
you denied access? Do your "opponents" pay some subscription fee?
> And it doesn't help that when Chadwyck-Healey got in touch
> with me a while back to ask my permission to offer their
> customers a link to my transcript of *Greene's Groatsworth
> of Wit* (which, of course, I provide free to all comers)
> they refused to even *consider* any sort of *quid pro quo*
> arrangement! I mean, what would it have cost them?
Don't get me started on academic publishers!
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > > I think that the chances of any of us getting any change
> > > > > in the historical record is virtually nil.
>
> > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It has already changed the historical record, at least, in the
> > > > sense that:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Most Stratfordian Shakespeare bios either begin or end with
> > > > an apology.
> > > >
> > > > 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would
> > > > be incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian
activities.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Authorship has for a long time been a small but ubiquitous
> > > > component of intellectual conversation: The New Yorker Magazine,
> > > > Time & Newsweek, Washington Post & N.Y. Times, Charlie Rose,
> > > > Frontline, Firing Line, Seinfeld, etc.
>
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > > But have any of these things shown any sign whatsoever of
> > > changing the orthodox view of who wrote the works attributed
> > > to Shakespeare? Of course not. No more than Rubbo's film,
> > > cynically awarded the Hoffman prize, did or ever was likely
> > > to.
> > >
> > > Dream on, Art. Unless some major new discovery comes up
> > > (and I mean MAJOR), it just won't happen.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The necessary change does NOT involve a new discovery; rather
> > it involves the growing acceptance of homosexuals within our society.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Huh? What has growing tolerance of sexual orientation to do with
> oVERturning the conventional attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
The hallmark of the 'coming of age' of any minority has been a FULL
recognition of their contribution to society: Socrates, Virgil, Da Vinci,
Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon, Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Turing, etc.
. .
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it
> > > > > anyway. I quite like things the way they are.
>
> > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > partially balence [sic] off having to keep the secret life
> > > > would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
>
> > > You wanna try that again, but this time in English? I might
> > > even agree with you if I understood what on earth
> > > you were trying to say.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I was about to make the same request.
If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO;
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do you
> reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > it would
> > be nearly intolerable for them to withhold the secret for 400 years
without
> > any benefit from maintaining snobish [sic] superiority on the matter
> > (including
> > playing occasional games to tease us, e.g., Constance POTTS).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Would we tease you, Art?
Quite possibly.
> > > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it because you believe your candidate for the author-
> > > > > > ship of the plays deserves proper recognition for their
> > > > > > efforts?
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > No, that the works themselves are recognized and enjoyed
> > > > > for their excellence (both those attributed to Christopher
> > > > > Marlowe and those attributed to William Shakespeare) is
> > > > > good enough for me.
>
> > > > Most anti-Strats, at least, claim the need for "proper
> > > > recognition" as their main motivation.
>
> > > Fine. Rick asked us to say what we, as individuals, thought.
> > > I answered his question - and, incidentally, am wondering
> > > why you in particular seem to be reluctant to do so.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either you or
I
> > can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Is there such a thing as a "typical anti-Strat"?
I don't know for sure.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Within the confines
> of this newsgroup alone there are Baconians, Derbyites,
> Marlovians, Oxfordians, and even Sidney partisans;
This newsgroup has "confines?"
> > > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > Or is it more of an intellectual exercise, a puzzle to
> > > > > > be solved, and that it's fun to try to do so?
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > This is certainly my main motivation.
>
> > > > READ IF THOV CANST,
> > > > WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST,
> > > > WITHIN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
> > > >
> > > > Mathew 24:15 (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
>
> > > Wow! Thanks Art, I really needed that.
>
> > I can Folio-thump with the best of them.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You're the prize Folio-chump, Art.
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > It is *great* fun,
> > > > > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > > > > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > > > > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > > > > nobody seems to have noticed before!
>
> > > > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it
> > > > is landing men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him
> > > > back!)
>
> > > No, as always with us amateurs, we are the ones
> > > who have to pick up the tab for our own research.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > That's what makes it cheap.
>
> > > Even the really
> > > interesting bits of the web are restricted to those who
> > > promise not to find anything really exciting there.
>
> > Huh?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I would welcome some elaboration of that last remark as well.
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > In fact I now find
> > > > > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > > > > Stratfordian.
>
> > > > You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the
> > > > Folger.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Don't forget your diet, Art -- you don't want
> to emulate George Mason in all respects.
Don't worry, Dave; I'm ANT-T-FAT.
------------------------------------------------------
This Shadow is renowned Shakespear's? Soule of th' age
[T]he applause? Delight? The wonder of the Stage.
[N]ature her selfe, was proud of his designs
[A]nd joy'd to weare the dressing of his lines,
[T]he learned will confess his works as such
[A]s neither man, nor Muse can praise to much
[F]or ever live thy fame, the world to tell,
Thy like, no age, shall ever paralell
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-marshall%20engraving.htm
------------------------------------------------------
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > > > > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > > > > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > > > > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > > > > boring it must be otherwise.
>
> > > > Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
>
> > > Sorry, mate. You lost me yet again.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
> > "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
> > {anagram}
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> INPNC score 5/21.
INPNC score of at least 18/21.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > _La SAGEsse Mysterieuse des ANCIENS_,
> > [ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
> >
> > http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
> >
> > <<Inscribed on Athena's shield is a Latin motto,
> >
> > "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS",
> >
> > meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
> > the imagery on the shield-the central sun representing TRUTH
> > and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
>
> Well, that explains eVERything!
It explains a lot.
> > > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
> [...]
> > > > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > The vast majority, I suspect.
>
> > > > You just SUSPECT?
> > > >
> > > > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > > > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
>
> > > As you know perfectly well, Art, my "anti-Stratfordian ideas"
> > > are there for all to see. I am rather more reluctant, however,
> > > to pretend that I have a complete understanding of how others
> > > might really think.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Perhaps with good reason.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Yes, it would be hubris indeed to pretend to know how
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut "thinks"!
You can lead a phoney email address to water. . .
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Although a surprising number of people
> > > > > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > > > > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > > > > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > > > > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > > > > more Folio-thumping posts!
>
> > > > Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> > > > http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
>
> > > Absolutely! Look at those fanatical eyes, the complexion
> > > suffused with hatred, the cruel mouth (and what else is the
> > > Superbowl all about, for Pete's sake?). This guy would have
> > > us *all* swinging for heresy if they'd let him.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
> >
> > V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> > A-----------L
> > G-----------E
> > A-----------N
> > B-----------K
> > O-----------C
> > N-----------N
> > [D]----------I
> > --------------- R
> > --------------- B
> > --------------- S
> > --------------- A
> > --------------- M
> > --------------- O
> > --------------- H
> > --------------- T
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (1) There is no "D" in the text, Art.
A Masonic "G" was substituted.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (2) The INPNC score is below 50%
"VERO NIL VERIUS" is a defining proper name:
INPNC = 28 / 35
.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (3) Even if there were a "D" in the text, this still would *not* be an
> anagram, as both the "L" and the "V" are dragooned into double duty.
It forms a gallows, Dave.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> In fact, this is the sort of farcically incompetent ciphermongering that
> would be scoffed at by any respectable Masonic conspirator.
Respectable Masonic conspirator? (An OXYmoron?)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
You can set your mind at rest, Art; the Grand Master no longer
permits the use of such crude, ham-handed methods.
[...]
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it anyway.
> > > > I quite like things the way they are.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > partially balance off having to keep the secret ...
> > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > "Most Strats"? Few people doubt the conventional attribution; does
> > that mean that the vast majority of your fellow citizens lead a "secret
> > life," Art?
> No.
To whom were you referring then, Art? You wrote "most Strats"; since
the overwhelming majority of the population presumably consists of
"Strats," who precisely is leading this "secret life" to which you refer?
[...]
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > It is *great* fun,
> > > > with new paths to explore nearly every day and new things
> > > > to be learned. And, oh boy, the sheer pleasure there is
> > > > to be obtained in finding some piece of 'evidence' that
> > > > nobody seems to have noticed before!
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it is landing
> > > men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him back!)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > But landing Art in a library is much harder than landing humans
> > on Mars and bringing them back safely.
> One small step for Art.
But one giant leap for A.N.-kind?
[...]
> > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > You just SUSPECT?
> > >
> > > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > No, Peter merely cultivates an impression of sanity in his posts.
> You've got me there.
Gracefully conceded, Art.
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > Although a surprising number of people
> > > > who know little or nothing about Shakespeare get
> > > > quite annoyed at any suggestion that he might not have
> > > > actually written the stuff. Few, however, reach the level
> > > > of religious fervour evident in some of Greg Reynolds's
> > > > more Folio-thumping posts!
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> > > http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > The link doesn't seem to work any more, Art. Pity -- I liked the
> > photo of the Clueless Cretin haplessly haranguing a bronze statue!
> Try it again, Dave (it worked for Peter F.)
It *still* doesn't work for me -- none of Safari, Mozilla, or
Internet Explorer can even find the serVER. Must be a Masonic
conspiracy.
Bob Grumman
>>> of people who would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?" What
>>> reply would people, on either side of the argument, give to that
>>> question?
>>>
>>> Rick
>>
>> Why do people ask questions about anything?
>
>All kinds of reasons. But no-one queries whether Charles Dickens wrote his
>novels or Henry Fielding his.
Probably not, although who really knows? There are a lot of . . . interesting
people out there. Anyway, my response was more a response to a question I guess
you didn't exactly ask, which is, "Why should we care who wrote Shakespeare?"
What I said was a short-cut to, "We should care because we are programmed to
want to understand more than what we need to know to keep our guts full and
avoid things that may kill us."
>Or, as far as I know, Kit Marlowe his plays.
Ha, that question is asked a lot, mainly by Shakespeare-deniers who are shown
that we know less about Marlowe than we do about Shakespeare. Rather than
accept the idea that limited records about an important writer of 400 years ago
does not mean the important writer was a fake, the full-fledged
Shakespeare-denier will claim that Marlowe was a fake, too, and that their
candidate wrote his works as well as Shakespeare's. The Shakespeare-deniers
tend to attribute lots of people's works to their man. Even Cervantes. A
second reason for this is that they can't stand the idea of their hero's having
been INFLUENCED by anyone else. Those said to have influenced him have to have
been HIM. Also, Oxfordians and others have to eliminate those who seem to have
influenced him at the wrong time. They can't have Marlowe, 22 or so, showing
Oxford, 46 or so, how to write plays, for example. For one thing, it wouldn't
leave Oxford enough time to write all his plays. So they make Marlowe another
front for Oxford, revealed long after the plays given to him had been written.
Most Shakespeare-deniers also want their hero superior to all other mortals, a
final reason they give him credit for every important literary work of his time.
He was the inventor of English, you know--and also the inventor of human nature.
Etc., etc.
>I don't think there's a French newsgroup belittling those who cling to the
>idea that Racine and Corneille wrote the dramas attributed to them.
Check the HLAS archives. No newsgroup, but there are people uncertain about who
wrote what in France. Moliere is the biggest target of the revisionists,
though==after all, he was a self-made actor, like Shakespeare, so obviously
incapable of having written great works of literature.
>I don't
>know of anyone who thinks a jumped up customs official couldn't have written
>'Canterbury Tales' or a jumped up Post Office clerk 'Barchester Towers'. So
>why the fascination with the Bard?
The main resaon, I'm sure, is simply that he is Number One. Homer gets similar
treatment, but much much less now that his rep is fading. But, as I attempt to
show in a book I'm writing, there is the desperate need of people without the
ability to learn on their own, or to imagine events that haven't happened to
them personally, or to appreciate any literature for its aesthetic properties to
recast a self-taught man of imagination who wrote lyrical poetry in the form of
plays as a hyper-tutored journalist who wrote Important Works of Political
Philosophy.
>And another question, just of my own. If someone else wrote Shakespeare, why
>did they go to incredible lengths to conceal the fact, even ensuring no
>incontrovertible proof came out after their death?
>--
>John Dean
You sure duzn't know much, John. According to cutting-edge (non-Marlovian)
anti-Stratfordian thinking, no one concealed anything. It just HAPPENED that
some aristocrat's use of a pen-name was never remarked on at the time, so far as
we know, and some other man, whose name was similar to the pen-name, got credit
for the aristocrat's works, even though the man getting credit was an
illiterate, grain-hoarding, conscienceless usurer nobody could stand. The
Aristocrat used the pen-name because, you know, writing for the . . . public
stage was just too outre for him to put his real name into print--though, of
course, he had no qualms about its being orally broadcast. Everyone understood
this, and was too polite to record the True Author's name in print, even those
who were mortal enemies of the True Author.
Those who believe Marlowe was the True Author are different. Most of them
believe that Marlowe's life was in danger, so he had to pretend to be dead.
Even after he WAS dead, I guess. . . .
--Bob G.
Brad Filippone
Tom Reedy
news:bvje3t$jmc$2...@News.Dal.Ca...
Well, let's see exactly what they say.
Greene:
. . . there is an up-start Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his
*Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde*, supposes he is as well able to
bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute
*Iohannes fac totum*, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a
countrey.
I would say that Greene's comment reads like insider gossip -- kind of
cryptic -- and would require specialized knowledge to know who he is talking
about.
Meres:
As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras : so the sweet
wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous & honytongued Shakespeare, witnes
his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private
frinds, &c.
As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among
the Latines : so Shakespeare among y' English is the most excellent in both
kinds for the stage; for Comedy, witnes his Ge'tleme' of Verona, his Errors,
his Love labors lost, his Love labours wonne, his Midsummer night dreame, &
his Merchant of Venice : for Tragedy his Richard the 2. Richard the 3. Henry
the 4. King John, Titus Andronicus and his Romeo and Juliet.
As Epius Stolo said, that the Muses would speake with Plautus tongue, if
they would speak Latin : so I say that the Muses would speak with
Shakespeares fine filed phrase, if they would speake English.
I would say that Meres is specific and unequivocal in naming Shakespeare as
a poet and playwright of high reputation.
Heminges and Condell:
We have but collected them, and done an office to the dead, to procure his
Orphanes, Guardians; without ambition either of selfe-profit, or fame: onely
to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our S H A
K E S P E A R E , by humble offer of his playes, to your most noble
patronage.
It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to have bene wished, that the
Author himselfe had liv'd to have set forth, and overseen his owne writings
; But since it hath bin ordain'd otherwise, and he by death departed from
that right, we pray you do not envie his Friends, the office of their care,
and paine, to have collected & publish'd them . . . . Who, as he was a
happie imitator of Nature, was a most gentle expresser of it. His mind and
hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered with that easinesse,
that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not
our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him.
It is yours that reade him. And there we hope, to your divers capacities,
you will finde enough, both to draw, and hold you : for his wit can no more
lie hid, then it could be lost. Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe
: And if then you doe not like him, surely you are in some manifest danger,
not to understand him. And so we leave you to other of his Friends, whom if
you need, can bee your guides : if you neede them not, you can leade your
selves, and others. And such Readers we wish him.
I would say that Heminges and Condell are specific and unequivocal in naming
Shakespeare as not only a friend and fellow actor, but also a poet and
playwright of high reputation.
Not only that, but their Epistle To The Great Variety of Readers segues into
the comments of other friends of Shakespeare that make it clear he wrote the
plays included in the First Folio.
So exactly how do Greene, Meres, Heminges and Condell provide any
"compelling piece of evidence . . . that invalidated the authorship of
William Shakespeare of Stratford?"
TR
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > 2) A full bio of Hawthorne, Twain, Georg Cantor or Freud would
> > > > be incomplete without mentioning their anti-Stratfordian activities.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > A full biography of Gödel would be incomplete without mention of the
> > > fact that he went out of his mind in his later years, but it is
scarcely
> > > a fact upon which the biographer need dwell unduly, as Gödel's
> > > contributions are quite secure regardless.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You can set your mind at rest, Art; the Grand Master no
> longer permits the use of such crude, ham-handed methods.
Not like the old HIRAM Hollidays.
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Stage/2950/SitCom/HiramHolliday.htm
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > partially balance off having to keep the secret ...
> > > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > "Most Strats"? Few people doubt the conventional attribution; does
> > > that mean that the vast majority of your fellow citizens lead a
"secret
> > > life," Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > No.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> To whom were you referring then, Art? You wrote "most Strats"; since
> the overwhelming majority of the population presumably consists of
> "Strats," who precisely is leading this "secret life" to which you refer?
There is no "secret life" :
"If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
partially balance off having to keep the secret ...
life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well."
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > It's a lot cheaper landing Peter in the library than it is landing
> > > > men on Mars (and we don't have to bring him back!)
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > But landing Art in a library is much harder than landing humans
> > > on Mars and bringing them back safely.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > One small step for Art.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But one giant leap for A.N.-kind?
Yes, I am rather kind.
> > > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>
> > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > The vast majority, I suspect.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > You just SUSPECT?
> > > >
> > > > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > > > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > No, Peter merely cultivates an impression of sanity in his posts.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You've got me there.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Gracefully conceded, Art.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Does this man look like a Folio-thumper to you?
> > > > http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/greynolds.php
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > The link doesn't seem to work any more, Art. Pity -- I liked the
> > > photo of the Clueless Cretin haplessly haranguing a bronze statue!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Try it again, Dave (it worked for Peter F.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> It *still* doesn't work for me -- none of Safari, Mozilla,
> or Internet Explorer can even find the serVER.
> Must be a Masonic conspiracy.
Possibly.
Art N.
Paul Crowley
news:bvithl$2v8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> . . no-one queries whether Charles Dickens wrote his
> novels or Henry Fielding his. Or, as far as I know, Kit Marlowe his plays. I
> don't think there's a French newsgroup belittling those who cling to the
> idea that Racine and Corneille wrote the dramas attributed to them. I don't
> know of anyone who thinks a jumped up customs official couldn't have written
> 'Canterbury Tales' or a jumped up Post Office clerk 'Barchester Towers'. So
> why the fascination with the Bard?
Because the standard story does not work.
Has anyone ever heard of a great (or even
good) writer who had illiterate parents?
Has anyone ever heard of a great (or even
good) writer who had illiterate children?
The man married at 18 and had three kids
by the time he was 21 . . having stayed in
his native village (or small town: population
was ~1400) all his life, then went to London
in his mid- or late-20s and suddenly became
a great playwright. He was famous for
about the next 20 years, but no one met him
or passed a comment on the remarkable
nature of his life and achievements.
He supposedly retired at the age of 48, but
no one in his home town (including his
family) seemed to know anything about his
great works.
Nothing makes the least sense.
> And another question, just of my own. If someone else wrote Shakespeare, why
> did they go to incredible lengths to conceal the fact, even ensuring no
> incontrovertible proof came out after their death?
The greatness of his genius was seen
when he was very young -- inevitably.
But his social status was such that he
could be allowed to publish poetry or
other 'frivolous' material over his own
name (as would have probably been the
case for any young aristocrat.) However
that suited him, since he could write as
he pleased (under a variety of names)
pushing boundaries in all kinds of ways.
Of course, that activity required that the
links between his work and his name be
even better hidden.
You have to understand that there was
an intrinsic association between his
genius and his pseudonymity.
Of course, with your spavined Stratfordian
conception of the poet and his work, you
will not see that -- nor, indeed, any need
for it. To you he is a shallow entertainer of
the illiterate masses, whose existence, work
and career need no explanation. Of course,
at the same time, somewhere deep in the
recesses of your mind, you know that is
false.
One possible way into it is to focus on
his extraordinary bawdy -- wholly at odds
with the Puritanism of the middle-classes
of his day. It was as much in accord with
the spirit of his times as Joyce's Ulysses
or the work of Henry Miller were with theirs.
Of course, Strats don't even see it. Four
hundred years of a Puritan blindness allows
you to read passages crammed with bawdy,
without the slightest awareness of its
presence. But it is _one_ aspect of his
work (if a relatively minor one) that ruled
out the possibility of any identification with
him, his court and his mistress.
Paul.
lecolin
> >> From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> >> others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> >> promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so. Is it
> >> because you simply believe that it's important to set the historical
> >> record straight (from your point of view)?
> >
> >Not just the record, but finding what is significant in its creation
> >-- and what has been significant, to us.
> >
> >> Is it because you believe
> >> your candidate for the authorship of the plays deserves proper
> >> recognition for their efforts?
> >
> >This seems to be more a Stratfordian concern -- as if the ghost of
> >Shakespeare would be offended or in some way hurt if he did not
> >receive his proper credit.
>
> Right, Colin--and Ogburn didn't cry on tv.
>
> >Some people take this to religious
> >extremes, excoriating those whom they believe are attributing the
> >authorship incorrectly/falsely/immorally. It is not unlike a form of
> >ancestor worship, and, as religious impulses do, it clouds any
> >rational discussion.
>
> Actually, it is a Very Sane Reaction.
I'm a fan of VSRs.
> I want to believe that I have contributed
> and will be seen by others to have contributed something of value to my culture.
> Therefore, if even a Shakespeare can be traduced, it will be reasonable of me to
> fear I may not get the credit I feel I deserve because of the kind of people
> trying to destroy Shakespeare's reputation.
They are trying to correct what they see as, in effect, an historical
hijacking.
> This will contaminate one of the
> few things that keeps me going: a vicarious enjoyment of the recognition
> posterity will bestow on me. I think I am not alone in this. I think even
> people who have been lucky enough to be applauded in their own time visit the
> future in their thoughts at times to enjoy continuing applause. Or identify
> with their dead cultural heroes enough to feel good in a personal way when the
> latter are praised now.
>
Let's separate out these issues. 1/ You want to make a contribution.
Fair enough. I'm in that crowd, too. 2/ You'd like to be
recognized for it, preferably sooner than later, but better later than
never. Okay. But I note that, once you're dead, it won't matter to
you, unless you turn out to be a rather primitive shade, eyes focused
on your ever-living past. I also note that, as time progresses,
there's less and less a likelihood of you getting any recognition at
all (except through *, of course.) And indeed, any connection with
significant history of just your name without biography will be pretty
meaningless. How much can it matter? 3/ While your concern is
self-serving (but understandable and not unreasonable within that
context), I observe that there are people -- here in this newsgroup,
even -- who do not care about the attribution because of concern of
their own posterity, but for some emotional imagined question of
justice -- a religiously powerful emotion that is as offended by the
notion that the Stratford man may not be the author of the Shakespeare
canon as some others are at the proposal that God did not create the
universe. I particularly meant them, but if you wish to be included,
I'm fine with that.
* Someday Halbulgarrulous, the computer to resolve all literary
disputes, will be created and will "read" all surviving literature and
will be so astute that he(she/it) will be able to award credit for
Significant Work created during the human epoch (in the age when there
is simply too much work for any scholar, no matter how narrowly
focused, to sort through.) Undoubtedly then the name "Bob Grumman"
will be spit out in a post-holographic image of an IBM card... (I
wrote a scifi story about that once. I suppose I should send it to a
publisher someday.)
> Such a malignment of Shakespeare is also an attack against my group, the
> self-educated, so it is not unreasonable of me to take up arms against it.
>
I am all for the self-educated. ALL brilliant people -- all pioneeers
-- have to be, whatever their institutional background,
"self-educated" -- to make the leaps they need to make. I have no
problem believing that a self-educated man (without the institutions
at all) could be the greatest dramatist of all time. However, I
simply do not buy it in THIS CASE. Not because I don't believe in the
capacity for potential genius of the self-educated, but because of the
work this writer turned out.
I like Twain's book. I don't find it a "bag of lies and stupidity" at
all. He did indugle in exaggeration and hyperbole. But the essential
truth of the question is there IMO.
A final note: it occurs to me that, whatever side of the debate one
takes, one is faced with an author who is somewhat the con man. There
is no way around that (except obliviousness.) If you don't buy the
Stratford myth, you have to accept a con job. If you do buy the
Stratford myth, you have to accept a man mimicking knowledge,
background, attitudes that he could only ape (at best.) We would not
be here and having these discussions if he were not a con man, whoever
he was.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > > But have any of these things shown any sign whatsoever of
> > > > changing the orthodox view of who wrote the works attributed
> > > > to Shakespeare? Of course not. No more than Rubbo's film,
> > > > cynically awarded the Hoffman prize, did or ever was likely
> > > > to.
> > > >
> > > > Dream on, Art. Unless some major new discovery comes up
> > > > (and I mean MAJOR), it just won't happen.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > The necessary change does NOT involve a new discovery; rather
> > > it involves the growing acceptance of homosexuals within our society.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Huh? What has growing tolerance of sexual orientation to do with
> > oVERturning the conventional attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
> The hallmark of the 'coming of age' of any minority has been a FULL
> recognition of their contribution to society: Socrates, Virgil, Da Vinci,
> Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon, Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Turing, etc.
This does not answer my question, Art: What has growing tolerance of
sexual orientation to do with oVERturning the conventional attribution
of the Shakespeare canon?! In any case, it certainly seems to me that
Newton, da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare have *already* been
accorded full recognition for their contributions for centuries, Art.
(The others on your list were not members of the Priory of Sion, so
recognition of their achievements may take a little longer.)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
Huh?! There are plenty of members of the "vocal homosexual
community," but VERy few members of that community seem disposed to deny
that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. Nor do I see any
indication that homosexuality is any more prevalent among
anti-Stratfordians than among the population at large. I cannot imagine
what on earth your point, if any, might be, Art.
> > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it
> > > > > > anyway. I quite like things the way they are.
> > > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > > partially balence [sic] off having to keep the secret life
> > > > > would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> > > > You wanna try that again, but this time in English? I might
> > > > even agree with you if I understood what on earth
> > > > you were trying to say.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I was about to make the same request.
> If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think that
Virgil predated Herodotus, that Anne Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother,
and that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
oVERrated, Art. Can you imagine taking any pleasure in, say, being more
articulate than George W. Bush?
Keeping the secret really isn't all that hard, and requires no such
pleasure to offset the temptation to spill the beans; besides, the Grand
Master has persuasive means of enforcing the ban on disclosure to cowans.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO;
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do you
> > reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
What about it, Art? Why *do* you reject the conventional attribution
when "Strats" know better?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > it would
> > > be nearly intolerable for them to withhold the secret for 400 years
> without
> > > any benefit from maintaining snobish [sic] superiority on the matter
> > > (including
> > > playing occasional games to tease us, e.g., Constance POTTS).
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Would we tease you, Art?
> Quite possibly.
Surely not!
[...]
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either you or
> I
> > > can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Is there such a thing as a "typical anti-Strat"?
> I don't know for sure.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Within the confines
> > of this newsgroup alone there are Baconians, Derbyites,
> > Marlovians, Oxfordians, and even Sidney partisans;
> This newsgroup has "confines?"
Well, fine cons then. Indeed, aneuendor...@comicass.nut is
one of the finest.
[...]
> > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > In fact I now find
> > > > > > it hard to understand why anyone would choose to be a
> > > > > > Stratfordian.
> > > > > You obviously have never tasted the free cake at the
> > > > > Folger.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Don't forget your diet, Art -- you don't want
> > to emulate George Mason in all respects.
> Don't worry, Dave; I'm ANT-T-FAT.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> This Shadow is renowned Shakespear's? Soule of th' age
>
> [T]he applause? Delight? The wonder of the Stage.
> [N]ature her selfe, was proud of his designs
> [A]nd joy'd to weare the dressing of his lines,
>
> [T]he learned will confess his works as such
> [A]s neither man, nor Muse can praise to much
> [F]or ever live thy fame, the world to tell,
Excellent, Art!
> Thy like, no age, shall ever paralell
>
> http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-marshall%20engraving.h
> tm
> > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > > > > > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > > > > > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > > > > > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > > > > > boring it must be otherwise.
> > > > > Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
> > > > Sorry, mate. You lost me yet again.
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
> > > "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
> > > {anagram}
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > INPNC score 5/21.
> INPNC score of at least 18/21.
No, the only proper noun is "Bacon." If you think that "Bacon" has
eighteen letters, Art, then your understanding of the number eighteen is
even less well developed than your understanding of the number nineteen.
[...]
> > > > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
> > [...]
> > > > > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
> > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> >
> > > > > You just SUSPECT?
> > > > >
> > > > > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > > > > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
> > > > As you know perfectly well, Art, my "anti-Stratfordian ideas"
> > > > are there for all to see. I am rather more reluctant, however,
> > > > to pretend that I have a complete understanding of how others
> > > > might really think.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Perhaps with good reason.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > Yes, it would be hubris indeed to pretend to know how
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut "thinks"!
> You can lead a phoney email address to water. . .
You can lead a horse -- or the hindquarters thereof -- to water, but
you can't make him think.
[...]
> > > Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
> > >
> > > V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> > > A-----------L
> > > G-----------E
> > > A-----------N
> > > B-----------K
> > > O-----------C
> > > N-----------N
> > > [D]----------I
> > > --------------- R
> > > --------------- B
> > > --------------- S
> > > --------------- A
> > > --------------- M
> > > --------------- O
> > > --------------- H
> > > --------------- T
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > (1) There is no "D" in the text, Art.
> A Masonic "G" was substituted.
In other words, being an utterly inept anagrammatist, you cheated.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > (2) The INPNC score is below 50%
>
> "VERO NIL VERIUS" is a defining proper name:
Look up "proper name" in a decent dictionary, Art.
> INPNC = 28 / 35
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > (3) Even if there were a "D" in the text, this still would *not* be an
> > anagram, as both the "L" and the "V" are dragooned into double duty.
> It forms a gallows, Dave.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > In fact, this is the sort of farcically incompetent ciphermongering that
> > would be scoffed at by any respectable Masonic conspirator.
> Respectable Masonic conspirator? (An OXYmoron?)
No, you have a virtual lock on the title of OXyMORON, Art, although
Mr. Streitz has offered you some spirited competition.
John W. Kennedy
> I notice that, whereas at one time the .gif file
> with the title page downloaded quite happily, it
> no longer does so, after a change of computer and
> browser. The file itself, 'greene.gif' is still
> there alright.
No problem for me. Some browsers might be upset by the fact that you
provide only a "height=".
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Bob Grumman
>> >Shakespeare would be offended or in some way hurt if he did not
>> >receive his proper credit.
>>
>> Right, Colin--and Ogburn didn't cry on tv.
>>
>
>Did he?
Yes.
>> >Some people take this to religious
>> >extremes, excoriating those whom they believe are attributing the
>> >authorship incorrectly/falsely/immorally. It is not unlike a form of
>> >ancestor worship, and, as religious impulses do, it clouds any
>> >rational discussion.
>>
>> Actually, it is a Very Sane Reaction.
>
>I'm a fan of VSRs.
>
>> I want to believe that I have contributed
>>and will be seen by others to have contributed something of value to my culture.
>>Therefore, if even a Shakespeare can be traduced, it will be reasonable of me to
>> fear I may not get the credit I feel I deserve because of the kind of people
>> trying to destroy Shakespeare's reputation.
>
>They are trying to correct what they see as, in effect, an historical
>hijacking.
Yes, because if History can slight Shakespeare, how can they believe it won't
also slight them?
>> This will contaminate one of the
>> few things that keeps me going: a vicarious enjoyment of the recognition
>> posterity will bestow on me. I think I am not alone in this. I think even
>> people who have been lucky enough to be applauded in their own time visit the
>> future in their thoughts at times to enjoy continuing applause. Or identify
>>with their dead cultural heroes enough to feel good in a personal way when the
>> latter are praised now.
>>
>
>Let's separate out these issues. 1/ You want to make a contribution.
> Fair enough. I'm in that crowd, too. 2/ You'd like to be
>recognized for it, preferably sooner than later, but better later than
>never. Okay. But I note that, once you're dead, it won't matter to
>you, unless you turn out to be a rather primitive shade, eyes focused
>on your ever-living past.
Right, once I'm dead, it won't matter, and I won't get peeved with your crowd.
But right now it does matter, for the non-religious reasons I've given.
> I also note that, as time progresses,
>there's less and less a likelihood of you getting any recognition at
>all (except through *, of course.)
I'm not sure that's relevant. It certainly isn't necessarily true. Mendel's
reputation seems to have become progressively smaller until it suddenly became
big, and stayed that way.
>And indeed, any connection with
>significant history of just your name without biography will be pretty
>meaningless.
I assume more than my name will be remembered if my name is, just as a lot more
than Shakespeare's name is remembered.
> How much can it matter?
I've told you.
>3/ While your concern is
>self-serving (but understandable and not unreasonable within that
>context),
I believe no concern is not self-serving.
>I observe that there are people -- here in this newsgroup,
>even -- who do not care about the attribution because of concern of
>their own posterity, but for some emotional imagined question of
>justice --
I contend that for most of them this question of justice is based on the same
concerns as mine: that everyone get proper credit so that they will, too.
>a religiously powerful emotion that is as offended by the
>notion that the Stratford man may not be the author of the Shakespeare
>canon as some others are at the proposal that God did not create the
>universe. I particularly meant them, but if you wish to be included,
>I'm fine with that.
There may be some like that. Those who can't stand the notion that a God made
mortal like Oxford aka Marlowe aka Shakespeare or Bacon aka "only" Shakespeare
did not create the works of Shakespeare exist, too.
>* Someday Halbulgarrulous, the computer to resolve all literary
>disputes, will be created and will "read" all surviving literature and
>will be so astute that he(she/it) will be able to award credit for
>Significant Work created during the human epoch (in the age when there
>is simply too much work for any scholar, no matter how narrowly
>focused, to sort through.) Undoubtedly then the name "Bob Grumman"
>will be spit out in a post-holographic image of an IBM card... (I
>wrote a scifi story about that once. I suppose I should send it to a
>publisher someday.)
Do it. Sounds fun. Have it spit out not an IBM card but a replica of Bob
Grumman wearing a laurel wreath. Or, even more horrible, a CLONE of Bob Grumman
wearing a laurel wreath. In the latter case, it should spit out a clone of Paul
Crowley, too, so the clone of Bob Grumman could tell him I told you so. And go
off with a clone of Shakespeare to talk poetry.
>> Such a malignment of Shakespeare is also an attack against my group, the
>> self-educated, so it is not unreasonable of me to take up arms against it.
>
>I am all for the self-educated. ALL brilliant people -- all pioneeers
>-- have to be, whatever their institutional background,
>"self-educated" -- to make the leaps they need to make. I have no
>problem believing that a self-educated man (without the institutions
>at all) could be the greatest dramatist of all time. However, I
>simply do not buy it in THIS CASE. Not because I don't believe in the
>capacity for potential genius of the self-educated, but because of the
>work this writer turned out.
I understand that. Copying stuff out of Holinshed is certainly two or three
orders of magnitude greater an accomplishment than anything the self-educated da
Vinci did, for example--or the self-educated Faraday, Franklin, Herbert Spencer,
Edison, Keats, Jonson, Hardy, Yeats, Twain, Shaw, Blake, etc. But I was merely
giving a reason for caring about who wrote Shakespeare.
His essay is full of error, ignorant and propagandistic.
>A final note: it occurs to me that, whatever side of the debate one
>takes, one is faced with an author who is somewhat the con man. There
>is no way around that (except obliviousness.) If you don't buy the
>Stratford myth, you have to accept a con job. If you do buy the
>Stratford myth, you have to accept a man mimicking knowledge,
>background, attitudes that he could only ape (at best.) We would not
>be here and having these discussions if he were not a con man, whoever
>he was.
In the sense you seem to be taking "con man," all imaginative writers are con
men.
--Bob G.
Arindam Banerjee
> From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so.
Pure snobbery, I think. These people cannot digest the fact that a
person from a rather undistinguished background could have so much
talent.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > But have any of these things shown any sign whatsoever of
> > > > > changing the orthodox view of who wrote the works attributed
> > > > > to Shakespeare? Of course not. No more than Rubbo's film,
> > > > > cynically awarded the Hoffman prize, did or ever was likely
> > > > > to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dream on, Art. Unless some major new discovery comes
> > > > > up (and I mean MAJOR), it just won't happen.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > The necessary change does NOT involve a new discovery; rather
> > > > it involves the growing acceptance of homosexuals within our
society.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Huh? What has growing tolerance of sexual orientation to do with
> > > oVERturning the conventional attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The hallmark of the 'coming of age' of any minority has been a FULL
> > recognition of their contribution to society: Socrates, Virgil, Da
Vinci,
> > Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon, Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Turing,
etc.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> This does not answer my question, Art: What has growing tolerance of
> sexual orientation to do with oVERturning the conventional attribution
> of the Shakespeare canon?!
Socrates, Virgil, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon,
Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky & Turing are destined for the homosexual hall of
fame. (That fact pretty much leaves the Stratman out in the cold.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> In any case, it certainly seems to me that
> Newton, da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare have *already* been
> accorded full recognition for their contributions for centuries, Art.
> (The others on your list were not members of the Priory of Sion, so
> recognition of their achievements may take a little longer.)
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > > > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > > > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Huh?! There are plenty of members of the "vocal homosexual
> community," but VERy few members of that community seem
> disposed to deny that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
Thus far, perhaps. Just wait.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Nor do I see any
> indication that homosexuality is any more prevalent among
> anti-Stratfordians than among the population at large.
The most prominant Oxfordian is Derek Jacobi;
it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
> > > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nor would I be all that interested in straightening it
> > > > > > > anyway. I quite like things the way they are.
>
> > > > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > > > partially balence [sic] off having to keep the secret life
> > > > > > would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
>
> > > > > You wanna try that again, but this time in English? I might
> > > > > even agree with you if I understood what on earth
> > > > > you were trying to say.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I was about to make the same request.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think
> that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
> consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
> oVERrated, Art.
You feel superior to Martin Gardner?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Keeping the secret really isn't all that hard, and requires no such
> pleasure to offset the temptation to spill the beans; besides, the Grand
> Master has persuasive means of enforcing the ban on disclosure to cowans.
Does he really!?
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO;
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do you
> > > reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What about it, Art? Why *do* you reject
> the conventional attribution when "Strats" know better?
Cause the Grand Master won't let them tell the truth.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > it would
> > > > be nearly intolerable for them to withhold the secret for 400 years
> > without
> > > > any benefit from maintaining snobish [sic] superiority on the matter
> > > > (including
> > > > playing occasional games to tease us, e.g., Constance POTTS).
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Would we tease you, Art?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Quite possibly.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Surely not!
Don't call me Surely!
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either
> > > > you or I can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Is there such a thing as a "typical anti-Strat"?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I don't know for sure.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Within the confines
> > > of this newsgroup alone there are Baconians, Derbyites,
> > > Marlovians, Oxfordians, and even Sidney partisans;
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > This newsgroup has "confines?"
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Well, fine cons then.
-------------------------------------------
Con, v. t. [AS. cunnan to know, be able, and (derived from this) cunnian to
try, test.] 1. To know; to understand; to acknowledge. [Obs.]
Of muses, Hobbinol, I con no skill. --Spenser.
They say they con to heaven the highway. --Spenser.
2. To study in order to know; to peruse; to learn; to commit to memory; to
regard studiously.
Fixedly did look Upon the muddy waters which he conned As if he had been
reading in a book. --Wordsworth.
I did not come into Parliament to con my lesson. --Burke.
-------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Thy like, no age, shall ever paralell
> >
> >
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-marshall%20engraving.htm
>
> > > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And whilst we all have a good chuckle at some of the
> > > > > > > more blatant howlers or bizarre ideas the first time
> > > > > > > round, the constant rehearsal of such things "because
> > > > > > > they are so funny" shows just *how* desperately
> > > > > > > boring it must be otherwise.
>
> > > > > > Boaring can be fun (if you are a Baconian or Oxfordian).
>
> > > > > Sorry, mate. You lost me yet again.
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
> > > > "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
> > > > {anagram}
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > INPNC score 5/21.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > INPNC score of at least 18/21.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No, the only proper noun is "Bacon."
Don't you know who "NIL VERO VERIUS" refers to, Dave?
> > > > > > > "Rick" <UD...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These questions are not intended to slam anyone who
> > > > > > > > believes Shakespeare is not the true author of Shake-
> > > > > > > > speare's plays, but are prompted by genuine curiousity.
> > > [...]
> > > > > > > > After all, there are probably a lot of people who would
> > > > > > > > respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>
> > > > > > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The vast majority, I suspect.
> > >
> > > > > > You just SUSPECT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Now we know that Peter does indeed
> > > > > > keep his anti-Stratfordian ideas to himself.)
>
> > > > > As you know perfectly well, Art, my "anti-Stratfordian ideas"
> > > > > are there for all to see. I am rather more reluctant, however,
> > > > > to pretend that I have a complete understanding of how others
> > > > > might really think.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Perhaps with good reason.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > Yes, it would be hubris indeed to pretend to know how
> > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut "thinks"!
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You can lead a phoney email address to water. . .
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You can lead a horse -- or the hindquarters thereof ,
>-- to water but you can't make him think.
Are you calling me a hindquarter?
> > > > Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
> > >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
> > > >
> > > > V E R O N I L V E R I U S
> > > > A-----------L
> > > > G-----------E
> > > > A-----------N
> > > > B-----------K
> > > > O-----------C
> > > > N-----------N
> > > > [D]----------I
> > > > --------------- R
> > > > --------------- B
> > > > --------------- S
> > > > --------------- A
> > > > --------------- M
> > > > --------------- O
> > > > --------------- H
> > > > --------------- T
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > (1) There is no "D" in the text, Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > A Masonic "G" was substituted.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> In other words, being an utterly inept anagrammatist, you cheated.
I've made my case; let the unbiased decide.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > (2) The INPNC score is below 50%
> >
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > "VERO NIL VERIUS" is a defining proper name:
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Look up "proper name" in a decent dictionary, Art.
I defined the INPNC, Dave.
INPNC = 28 / 35
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
There are more complex nuances. For example, like many of the
puritanically inclined, they do not see the creation of fiction as quite
respectable. (As C. S. Lewis remarks, it took centuries to get Europe
as a whole over this stile.) Yet, since Shakespeare _must_ be "great",
they must have a reason to ascribe "greatness" to him. With the help of
the fact that most of them have serious difficulties in understanding
Early Modern English anyway, they therefore project other meanings upon
his works. (The process is rather like that which saw nascent
"Socialist Realism" in certain non-Marxist writers whose reputations,
for whatever reason, were chosen to be preserved under Bolshevism.)
More often than not, these "meanings" they then cannot associate with
the bourgeois Shakespeare (though often that is yet another naďveté in
them, for they rarely have any understanding of political issues more
than about two centuries old).
Brad Filippone
: "Brad Filippone" <al...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
: Greene:
: Meres:
: Heminges and Condell:
Now I feel embarrassed. I responded to the wrong post!
Brad
BCD
> [...]
> A final note: it occurs to me that, whatever side of the debate one
> takes, one is faced with an author who is somewhat the con man. There
> is no way around that (except obliviousness.) If you don't buy the
> Stratford myth, you have to accept a con job. If you do buy the
> Stratford myth, you have to accept a man mimicking knowledge,
> background, attitudes that he could only ape (at best.) We would not
> be here and having these discussions if he were not a con man, whoever
> he was.
*** ? Well, this is certainly the least charitable description of
creative people I have run across! Who in the creative Arts does
*not* mimic knowledge, background, attitudes "that he could only ape
(at best)"? Do you suppose that every work of art is a work of
literal history in which the writer was a participant in the events
related? Did the author of the Gilgamesh epic know what it was to be
King of Uruk, or did he have to mimic knowledge, background,
attitudes...? Did Homer know what it was to be a warrior both under
and behind the walls of Ilium, or to be a king meeting dead friends in
Hades, or did he have to mimic knowledge, background, attitudes that
he could only ape? Did Ovid experience metamorphoses, Lucian flights
to the moon, Mandeville a bee-hive, Richardson a rape, Sterne the
Siege of Namur, Carlyle a Baphometic Fire-baptism, and so on and so on
backwards and forwards not only through literature but also the visual
representative arts (e.g., did Michelangelo know how God felt in
giving the spark of life to Adam, or did he have to mimic knowledge,
background, attitudes...?), dance (did Petipa know how a girl
suffering under the enchantment of being turned into a swan felt, or
did he have to mimic knowledge, background, attitudes he could only
ape?), acting (did Mrs. Siddons "only ape" Isabella?), music (ah, that
con Mozart--mimicking the knowledge, background, and attitude of Don
Juan!)... Yes, Colin, Art is all a big con, and all of these people,
and Shakespeare too, were "somewhat the con man" (when they were not
"somewhat the con woman," that is!). And if we were to suppose the
man from Stratford were *not* the writer of the Shakespearean works,
pray tell the waiting world who could have written of Denmark,
Scotland, France, Rome, Greece, Troy, Bohemia, enchanted isles, etc.
etc. etc. in varying ages and *not* been "somewhat the con man"!
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles (another con):
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > I notice that, whereas at one time the .gif file
> > with the title page downloaded quite happily, it
> > no longer does so, after a change of computer and
> > browser. The file itself, 'greene.gif' is still
> > there alright.
>
> No problem for me. Some browsers might be upset by
> the fact that you provide only a "height=".
Thanks for the suggestion, John, but I think I found
the main problem while implementing a suggestion of
Rob Z's. This browser seems to be case-sensitive
where the filename is concerned. The html code had
'GREENE.GIF', whereas the filename was 'greene.gif'.
I was having the same problem with a 'gallery' of
roles I've played over the years, so I've been able
to sort that one out as well, thanks. That one's at
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/roles.htm if anyone's
at all interested (but I recommend going and making
yourself a coffee or two while it downloads!)
John W. Kennedy
> Thanks for the suggestion, John, but I think I found
> the main problem while implementing a suggestion of
> Rob Z's. This browser seems to be case-sensitive
> where the filename is concerned. The html code had
> 'GREENE.GIF', whereas the filename was 'greene.gif'.
No _browser_ of which I am aware is so sensitive, but _servers_ are. In
Unix, "GREENE.GIF" and "greene.gif" (and "Greene.gif" and
"GrEeNe.GiF"...) are all the names of different files. In Windows, they
are all the same file.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > The necessary change does NOT involve a new discovery; rather
> > > > > it involves the growing acceptance of homosexuals within our
> society.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Huh? What has growing tolerance of sexual orientation to do with
> > > > oVERturning the conventional attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > The hallmark of the 'coming of age' of any minority has been a FULL
> > > recognition of their contribution to society: Socrates, Virgil, Da
> Vinci,
> > > Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon, Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Turing,
> etc.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > This does not answer my question, Art: What has growing tolerance of
> > sexual orientation to do with oVERturning the conventional attribution
> > of the Shakespeare canon?!
> Socrates, Virgil, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon,
> Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky & Turing are destined for the homosexual hall of
> fame.
All of them *already* occupy places of honor in *any* intellectual
"hall of fame" without regard to sexual orientation.
> (That fact pretty much leaves the Stratman out in the cold.)
Huh? Does anyone understand what Art is gibbering about here? Why
should a growing tolerance of sexual orientation have any link whatever
with a revision of the attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > In any case, it certainly seems to me that
> > Newton, da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare have *already* been
> > accorded full recognition for their contributions for centuries, Art.
> > (The others on your list were not members of the Priory of Sion, so
> > recognition of their achievements may take a little longer.)
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > > > > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > > > > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Huh?! There are plenty of members of the "vocal homosexual
> > community," but VERy few members of that community seem
> > disposed to deny that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
> Thus far, perhaps. Just wait.
I just love it when anti-Stratfordians make such confident
prognostications! It reminds one of the Baconians of yesteryear,
assuredly prophesying victory (any day now!), or of Mr. Crowley's
pontification that the "Ray Mignot" sonnet would be decisive.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Nor do I see any
> > indication that homosexuality is any more prevalent among
> > anti-Stratfordians than among the population at large.
> The most prominant [sic] Oxfordian is Derek Jacobi;
Huh? Most "prominant" in what sense? Certainly his expertise in
Elizabethan literary history is not the most widely respected; indeed,
even Dr. Stritmatter and Dr. Wright are surely more prominent than
Jacobi in that regard. You certainly cannot mean most prominent in the
public eye, without regard to expertise, either; indeed, certainly many
more people will have heard of Freud than of Jacobi. If you mean the
living Oxfordian with the most widespread name recognition, then even
that claim is debatable, as there are other theater celebrities (Kenneth
Branagh, Mark Rylance, Michael York, etc.) who are claimed as
coreligionists by Oxfordians and who are arguably as well known as
Jacobi. In any case, I have no idea what your point would be, even if
your assertion were true, Art.
> it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
*What* is an "anti-Stratfordian trend"?
[...]
> > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think
> > that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
> > consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
> > oVERrated, Art.
> You feel superior to Martin Gardner?
As is your custom, Art, you cut out a good deal of what I wrote
without indicating the omission. What I actually wrote was
"The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think that
Virgil predated Herodotus, that Anne Hathaway was Shakespeare's
mother, and that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the
sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares
are vastly oVERrated, Art. Can you imagine taking any pleasure in,
say, being more articulate than George W. Bush?"
Of course, any two of those three qualifiers would serve to identify the
antecedent uniquely as aneuendor...@comicass.nut. And, as I have
pointed out to you repeatedly, Gardner used to parody whimsically the
nutcase numerology of such persons.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Keeping the secret really isn't all that hard, and requires no such
> > pleasure to offset the temptation to spill the beans; besides, the Grand
> > Master has persuasive means of enforcing the ban on disclosure to cowans.
> Does he really!?
Haven't you heard about what happens to Masons who violate their oath
of secrecy, Art?
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO;
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do you
> > > > reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > What about it, Art? Why *do* you reject
> > the conventional attribution when "Strats" know better?
> Cause the Grand Master won't let them tell the truth.
I see that you've reVERted to your "petulant paranoid" persona, Art.
[...]
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either
> > > > > you or I can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Is there such a thing as a "typical anti-Strat"?
[...]
> > > > Within the confines
> > > > of this newsgroup alone there are Baconians, Derbyites,
> > > > Marlovians, Oxfordians, and even Sidney partisans;
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > This newsgroup has "confines?"
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > Well, fine cons then.
> -------------------------------------------
> Con, v. t. [AS. cunnan to know, be able, and (derived from this) cunnian to
> try, test.] 1. To know; to understand; to acknowledge. [Obs.]
>
> Of muses, Hobbinol, I con no skill. --Spenser.
>
> They say they con to heaven the highway. --Spenser.
>
> 2. To study in order to know; to peruse; to learn; to commit to memory; to
> regard studiously.
>
> Fixedly did look Upon the muddy waters which he conned As if he had been
> reading in a book. --Wordsworth.
>
> I did not come into Parliament to con my lesson. --Burke.
Take a look at the abbREViation "v. t." above, Art; do you know what
it means? No, I thought not. It means that when used in that sense,
the word is a transitive VERb. I plainly used the word as a noun. But
such triumphant displays of ludicrous lexicographic incompetence are
among the hilarious hallmarks of many an amusing
aneuendor...@comicass.nut post.
[...]
> > > > > "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
> > > > > "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
> > > > > {anagram}
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > INPNC score 5/21.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > INPNC score of at least 18/21.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > No, the only proper noun is "Bacon."
> Don't you know who "NIL VERO VERIUS" refers to, Dave?
I know perfectly well to whom "the illiterate capital-area boob" and
"aneuendor...@comicass.nut" refer, yet neither locution contains
even a single proper name.
Nor does "Nil vero verius" identify any individual uniquely; it is a
motto of the Vere family, and as such refers, among others, to all the
Earls of that name.
[...]
No, it isn't, Art; neither is "the illiterate capital-area boob."
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Look up "proper name" in a decent dictionary, Art.
> I defined the INPNC, Dave.
Certainly nobody else will claim it!
[...]
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Peter Farey wrote:
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > I notice that, whereas at one time the .gif file
> > > with the title page downloaded quite happily, it
> > > no longer does so, after a change of computer and
> > > browser. The file itself, 'greene.gif' is still
> > > there alright.
> >
> > No problem for me. Some browsers might be upset by
> > the fact that you provide only a "height=".
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, John, but I think I found
> the main problem while implementing a suggestion of
> Rob Z's. This browser seems to be case-sensitive
> where the filename is concerned. The html code had
> 'GREENE.GIF', whereas the filename was 'greene.gif'.
Usually, browsers don't know or care about case.
Is your PC also your web server or has your
web server changed operating systems? (Say
from NT to linux.)
Rob
Peter Farey
>
> No _browser_ of which I am aware is so sensitive, but
> _servers_ are. In Unix, "GREENE.GIF" and "greene.gif"
> (and "Greene.gif" and "GrEeNe.GiF"...) are all the
> names of different files. In Windows, they are all
> the same file.
Fair enough. My original server (Prestel) was taken
over by Demon at about the same time. I have been able
to retain my original e-mail and website addresses, but
this may well have been how it happened. All of my
incoming stuff is now via Demon. Thanks.
Arindam Banerjee
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > UD...@yahoo.com (Rick) wrote in message news:<9fd2355f.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> >>From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> >>others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> >>promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so.
>
> > Pure snobbery, I think. These people cannot digest the fact that a
> > person from a rather undistinguished background could have so much
> > talent.
>
> There are more complex nuances. For example, like many of the
> puritanically inclined, they do not see the creation of fiction as quite
> respectable.
This is a different issue. There are people who confuse mythology
with fiction. Probably, with a view to demean mythology, trivialising
it. Also, the rise of fiction has everything to do with business
needs, and lack of principle. A bad writer can write fiction (a bunch
of lies, that is, relating to imaginary crimes in far off countries
populated by heathens), and make lots of money and terrific
popularity.
Arindam Banerjee
> > UD...@yahoo.com (Rick) wrote in message news:<9fd2355f.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> >>From time to time I read arguments from various sources that argue
> >>others wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. To those who
> >>promote those arguments, I'd like to ask why you are doing so.
>
> > Pure snobbery, I think. These people cannot digest the fact that a
> > person from a rather undistinguished background could have so much
> > talent.
>
> There are more complex nuances. For example, like many of the
> puritanically inclined, they do not see the creation of fiction as quite
> respectable. (As C. S. Lewis remarks, it took centuries to get Europe
> as a whole over this stile.) Yet, since Shakespeare _must_ be "great",
> they must have a reason to ascribe "greatness" to him.
This implies that Shakespeare wrote fiction. But, he did not. He was
a dramatist, not a liar. He used whatever facts he could get, to
weave a story and build up characters. Shakespeare was great because
he was the greatest dramatist of all time. His background (as a
talented middle class person, trying hard to make it, etc.) was ideal
for his attainments.
> With the help of
> the fact that most of them have serious difficulties in understanding
> Early Modern English anyway, they therefore project other meanings upon
> his works.
I think Shakepeare's meanings are very clear. Yes, his language was a
hindrance. Shakespeare in Bengali would bring out Shakespeare much
better, I hold.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
>>>>>> The necessary change does NOT involve a new discovery; rather
>>>>>> it involves the growing acceptance of homosexuals within our society.
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
>>> > > Huh? What has growing tolerance of sexual orientation to do with
>>> > > oVERturning the conventional attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
>>> > The hallmark of the 'coming of age' of any minority has been a FULL
>>> > recognition of their contribution to society: Socrates, Virgil, Da
Vinci,
>>>> Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon, Shakespeare,
>>>> Tchaikovsky, Turing, etc.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > This does not answer my question, Art: What has growing tolerance
of
> > > sexual orientation to do with oVERturning the conventional attribution
> > > of the Shakespeare canon?!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Socrates, Virgil, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Newton, Marlowe, Bacon,
> > Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky & Turing are destined for the homosexual hall
of
> > fame.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> All of them *already* occupy places of honor in *any* intellectual
> "hall of fame" without regard to sexual orientation.
Shakespeare doesn't (at least not the REAL Shakespeare).
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > (That fact pretty much leaves the Stratman out in the cold.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Huh? Does anyone understand what Art is gibbering about here? Why
> should a growing tolerance of sexual orientation have any link whatever
> with a revision of the attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
Making Shakespeare acceptable the masses has always
involved hiding the fact that he was a bisexual noble:
---------------------------------------------------------------
"...here I would let slippe
(If I had any in mee) schollershippe,
And from all Learning keepe these lines as cleere
as Shakespeare's best are, which our heires shall heare
Preachers apte to their auditors to showe
how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe
by the dimme light of Nature...;" - F. B. (1608)
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > In any case, it certainly seems to me that
> > > Newton, da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare have *already* been
> > > accorded full recognition for their contributions for centuries, Art.
> > > (The others on your list were not members of the Priory of Sion, so
> > > recognition of their achievements may take a little longer.)
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > > > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > > > > > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > > > > > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Huh?! There are plenty of members of the "vocal homosexual
> > > community," but VERy few members of that community seem
> > > disposed to deny that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Thus far, perhaps. Just wait.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I just love it when anti-Stratfordians make such confident
> prognostications! It reminds one of the Baconians of yesteryear,
> assuredly prophesying victory (any day now!), or of Mr. Crowley's
> pontification that the "Ray Mignot" sonnet would be decisive.
I'm simply pointing out WHY one should now expect
a whole new ball game vis-a-vis authorship.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Nor do I see any
> > > indication that homosexuality is any more prevalent among
> > > anti-Stratfordians than among the population at large.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The most prominant [sic] Oxfordian is Derek Jacobi;
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Huh? Most "prominant" in what sense?
The most well known if you will.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Certainly his expertise in Elizabethan literary history
> is not the most widely respected; indeed, even
> Dr. Stritmatter and Dr. Wright are surely more prominent
> than Jacobi in that regard.
True.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You certainly cannot mean most prominent in the public eye,
> without regard to expertise, either; indeed, certainly many
> more people will have heard of Freud than of Jacobi.
Freud "was", Jacobi "is."
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> If you mean the living Oxfordian
> with the most widespread name recognition, then even that
> claim is debatable, as there are other theater celebrities (Kenneth
> Branagh, Mark Rylance, Michael York, etc.) who are claimed
> as coreligionists by Oxfordians and who are arguably
> as well known as Jacobi.
Kenneth Branagh is probably better known
but Branagh is a 'closet Oxfordian' at best.
Few Americans remember York or have even heard of Rylance
(who are both anti-Strats but not necessarily Oxfordians).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> In any case, I have no idea what your point would be,
> even if your assertion were true, Art.
Anti-Strats constitute a small fragmented group of intellectuals
which lack the resources & clout of the Strats. Finally there is
a large & respectable group with which the Anti-Strats can ally.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> *What* is an "anti-Stratfordian trend"?
The trend that Anti-Stratfordianism will continue to be
embraced by the growing homosexual rights movement.
> > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> > > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think
> > > that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
> > > consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
> > > oVERrated, Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > You feel superior to Martin Gardner?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> as I have pointed out to you repeatedly,
> Gardner used to parody whimsically the
> nutcase numerology of such persons.
And I was merely quoting Gardner.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Keeping the secret really isn't all that hard, and requires no such
> > > pleasure to offset the temptation to spill the beans; besides, the
Grand
> > > Master has persuasive means of enforcing the ban on disclosure to
cowans.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Does he really!?
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Haven't you heard about what happens to Masons
> who violate their oath of secrecy, Art?
The guts over the shoulder thing? (Is that for real?)
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > > > The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works
IMO;
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do
you
> > > > > reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > What about it, Art? Why *do* you reject
> > > the conventional attribution when "Strats" know better?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Cause the Grand Master won't let them tell the truth.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I see that you've reVERted to your "petulant paranoid" persona, Art.
I'm just taking your word for it, Dave.
(You wouldn't lie to or tease me would you?)
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > > > I'm not disagreeing with you; I just don't think that either
> > > > > > you or I can speak for the typical anti-Strat.
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Is there such a thing as a "typical anti-Strat"?
> [...]
> > > > > Within the confines
> > > > > of this newsgroup alone there are Baconians, Derbyites,
> > > > > Marlovians, Oxfordians, and even Sidney partisans;
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > This newsgroup has "confines?"
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > Well, fine cons then.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Con, v. t. [AS. cunnan to know, be able, and (derived from this)
cunnian to
> > try, test.] 1. To know; to understand; to acknowledge. [Obs.]
> >
> > Of muses, Hobbinol, I con no skill. --Spenser.
> >
> > They say they con to heaven the highway. --Spenser.
> >
> > 2. To study in order to know; to peruse; to learn; to commit to memory;
to
> > regard studiously.
> >
> > Fixedly did look Upon the muddy waters which he conned As if he had been
> > reading in a book. --Wordsworth.
> >
> > I did not come into Parliament to con my lesson. --Burke.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Take a look at the abbREViation "v. t." above, Art; do you know what
> it means? No, I thought not. It means that when used in that sense,
> the word is a transitive VERb. I plainly used the word as a noun. But
> such triumphant displays of ludicrous lexicographic incompetence are
> among the hilarious hallmarks of many an amusing
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut post.
You might have been refering to Larry Fine.
> > > > > > "BACON" SVS "NIL VERO VERIUS"
> > > > > > "OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS"
> > > > > > {anagram}
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > INPNC score 5/21.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > INPNC score of at least 18/21.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > No, the only proper noun is "Bacon."
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Don't you know who "NIL VERO VERIUS" refers to, Dave?
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I know perfectly well to whom "the illiterate capital-area boob" and
> "aneuendor...@comicass.nut" refer, yet neither locution contains
> even a single proper name.
>
> Nor does "Nil vero verius" identify any individual uniquely; it is a
> motto of the Vere family, and as such refers, among others,
> to all the Earls of that name.
But you accepted "Bacon."
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I've made my case; let the unbiased decide.
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > (2) The INPNC score is below 50%
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > "VERO NIL VERIUS" is a defining proper name:
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No, it isn't, Art; neither is "the illiterate capital-area boob."
That's no way to talk about your President!
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Look up "proper name" in a decent dictionary, Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I defined the INPNC, Dave.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Certainly nobody else will claim it!
Fine by me.
Art Neuendorffer
Whittbrantley
>people who would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?" What
>reply would people, on either side of the argument, give to that
>question?
>
>
>
There is nothing new under the sun, except for the history you don't know.
lecolin
> lec...@yahoo.com (lecolin) wrote in message news:<3ace705f.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > [...]
> > A final note: it occurs to me that, whatever side of the debate one
> > takes, one is faced with an author who is somewhat the con man. There
> > is no way around that (except obliviousness.) If you don't buy the
> > Stratford myth, you have to accept a con job. If you do buy the
> > Stratford myth, you have to accept a man mimicking knowledge,
> > background, attitudes that he could only ape (at best.) We would not
> > be here and having these discussions if he were not a con man, whoever
> > he was.
>
> *** ? Well, this is certainly the least charitable description of
> creative people I have run across! Who in the creative Arts does
> *not* mimic knowledge, background, attitudes "that he could only ape
> (at best)"?
Knowledge gives authenticity. Consider, for instance, the spy
novelists -- does not a background in intelligence make them stronger?
I grant that later writers can mimic the forms set down by the
knowledgeable writers, but do you not find more power in authenticity?
In, say, Maugham or Greene or LeCarre or even Fleming? Here's a
quote from Graham Greene:
"The main characters in a novel must necessarily have some kinship to
the author, they come out of his body as a child comes from the womb,
then the umbilical cord is cut, and they grow into independence. The
more the author knows of his own character the more he can distance
himself from his invented characters and the more room they have to
grow in." (Graham Greene in Ways of Escape, 1980)
Not much in favor of aping or posturing in what one doesn't know
there! It has been remarked that, as a writer, Shakespeare is
comparatively invisible: it's hard to see who the person behind the
curtain/works is. But if Greene is right (allowing plays to have the
same characteristic as novels), the author must "necessarily" be in
the works -- and in the main characters. But -- who is the author?
Who is this slippery eel? (My pardon to the idolators who find such a
phrase offensive.)
> Do you suppose that every work of art is a work of
> literal history in which the writer was a participant in the events
> related?
The answer is no -- of course. So why debate this view, since no one
holds it?
> Did the author of the Gilgamesh epic know what it was to be
> King of Uruk, or did he have to mimic knowledge, background,
> attitudes...? Did Homer know what it was to be a warrior both under
> and behind the walls of Ilium, or to be a king meeting dead friends in
> Hades, or did he have to mimic knowledge, background, attitudes that
> he could only ape? Did Ovid experience metamorphoses, Lucian flights
> to the moon, Mandeville a bee-hive, Richardson a rape, Sterne the
> Siege of Namur, Carlyle a Baphometic Fire-baptism, and so on and so on
> backwards and forwards not only through literature but also the visual
> representative arts (e.g., did Michelangelo know how God felt in
> giving the spark of life to Adam, or did he have to mimic knowledge,
> background, attitudes...?), dance (did Petipa know how a girl
> suffering under the enchantment of being turned into a swan felt, or
> did he have to mimic knowledge, background, attitudes he could only
> ape?), acting (did Mrs. Siddons "only ape" Isabella?), music (ah, that
> con Mozart--mimicking the knowledge, background, and attitude of Don
> Juan!)... Yes, Colin, Art is all a big con, and all of these people,
> and Shakespeare too, were "somewhat the con man" (when they were not
> "somewhat the con woman," that is!). And if we were to suppose the
> man from Stratford were *not* the writer of the Shakespearean works,
> pray tell the waiting world who could have written of Denmark,
> Scotland, France, Rome, Greece, Troy, Bohemia, enchanted isles, etc.
> etc. etc. in varying ages and *not* been "somewhat the con man"!
>
Shakespeare delights in the con -- in assumed disguises, etc. He had
no problem with that (though he observes that -disguise, you are a
wickedness) in practice, his writings celebrate it. You seem to find
the notion distasteful.
> Best Wishes,
>
> --BCD
Bob Grumman
subtlely yours, Bob G.
BCD
> odin...@csulb.edu (BCD) wrote in message news:<be4a0014.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > lec...@yahoo.com (lecolin) wrote in message news:<3ace705f.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > [...]
> > > A final note: it occurs to me that, whatever side of the debate one
> > > takes, one is faced with an author who is somewhat the con man. There
> > > is no way around that (except obliviousness.) If you don't buy the
> > > Stratford myth, you have to accept a con job. If you do buy the
> > > Stratford myth, you have to accept a man mimicking knowledge,
> > > background, attitudes that he could only ape (at best.) We would not
> > > be here and having these discussions if he were not a con man, whoever
> > > he was.
> >
> > *** ? Well, this is certainly the least charitable description of
> > creative people I have run across! Who in the creative Arts does
> > *not* mimic knowledge, background, attitudes "that he could only ape
> > (at best)"?
>
> Knowledge gives authenticity. Consider, for instance, the spy
> novelists -- does not a background in intelligence make them stronger?
***Stronger as writers of spy novels, I should say. And, as the
reason one turns to spy novels is that one is curious about/amused
by/titillated by things related to spying, certainly in that range of
focused writing, a background in the world of covert intelligence is
as useful to a spy novel writer as would be a background in gardening
to a writer of horticultural thrillers. But do we turn to Shakespeare
hoping for moments of amusement about realistic details of the
merchant's trade, or commanding a Volscian army, or being attacked by
a bear, as we turn to spy novelists for such details about the field
of endeavor with which they are concerned? We turn to the one for
amusement about cloak-and-dagger adventures; we turn to the other for
insights into the human condition. Now, some may be moved to testify
about wonderful characterizations and human insights in spy and crime
novels; but anyone who asserts a devotion to spy and crime novels
primarily due to the human insights they supply is "somewhat the con
man"--which I state knowing that you do not find it distasteful.
> I grant that later writers can mimic the forms set down by the
> knowledgeable writers, but do you not find more power in authenticity?
***How do I, or you, know what is authentic in the spying life? If a
spy supplies to you a moment by moment journal of his or her life, and
not just the exciting moments, are you overcome by the power of its
authenticity? If you go to a performance of *Timon of Athens* which
is execrably acted but in which the costumes and sets and props are
perfectly authentic, at the final curtain are you overcome by the
power of authenticity?
> In, say, Maugham or Greene or LeCarre or even Fleming? Here's a
> quote from Graham Greene:
>
> "The main characters in a novel must necessarily have some kinship to
> the author, they come out of his body as a child comes from the womb,
> then the umbilical cord is cut, and they grow into independence. The
> more the author knows of his own character the more he can distance
> himself from his invented characters and the more room they have to
> grow in." (Graham Greene in Ways of Escape, 1980)
>
> Not much in favor of aping or posturing in what one doesn't know
> there!
***Note that he's not discussing your sort of craft-related
authenticity but rather matters pertaining to human character.
> It has been remarked that, as a writer, Shakespeare is
> comparatively invisible: it's hard to see who the person behind the
> curtain/works is. But if Greene is right (allowing plays to have the
> same characteristic as novels),
***I wouldn't allow that without greater specificity. Some novels may
share some characterics with some plays, some many, some few.
> the author must "necessarily" be in
> the works -- and in the main characters.
***An author discerns the correlation between his own feelings and
those of his characters, and works from that. Sometimes the author
himself is an amusing character and we like to feel his presence
(*Tristram Shandy*, for instance); sometimes the author's style is
simply to command the marionettes unseen. But in either case, by
choice and by focus, the author asserts him-/herself. And so, indeed,
the author must "necessarily" be in the works.
> But -- who is the author?
> Who is this slippery eel? (My pardon to the idolators who find such a
> phrase offensive.)
***You could be asking that about Homer or Ovid or Mandeville or any
of thousands of others who have made their mark in the arts as easily
as about Shakespeare. Who is the architect of the Duomo? Who is this
slippery eel?
> > Do you suppose that every work of art is a work of
> > literal history in which the writer was a participant in the events
> > related?
>
> The answer is no -- of course. So why debate this view, since no one
> holds it?
***Asking is not debating. But are you telling me that the power of
authenticity bestowed by the knowledge of such a participant would not
carry you away in lofty flights of admiration? Where does the power
of authenticity cease to have a hold on you?
***Not at all, since you have flattened out its meaning practically to
the point at which anyone by merely wearing clothes is practicing a
con on others because it's a put-on.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
Huh?! Are you suggesting that Oxford has hitherto been rejected as
author of the Shakespeare canon because he was homosexual?! First,
Oxford was *not* homosexual, as his affair with Anne Vavasour makes
abundantly clear; he was at best bisexual. Second, people have been
suggesting for decades (on the basis of the Sonnets) that Shakespeare
was bisexual as well, so the actor from Stratford would not enjoy any
advantage oVER Oxford if mere homophobia were to blame for Oxford's
failure to win recognition as author of the Shakespeare canon. Plainly,
you have not thought this matter through, Art. (Oxford did, in his day,
achieve a measure of reCOGNOition, but that is a different matter.)
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > (That fact pretty much leaves the Stratman out in the cold.)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Huh? Does anyone understand what Art is gibbering about here? Why
> > should a growing tolerance of sexual orientation have any link whatever
> > with a revision of the attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
> Making Shakespeare acceptable the masses has always
> involved hiding the fact that he was a bisexual noble:
As I noted, people have hypothesized for decades that Shakespeare was
bisexual; why would anyone want to conceal his putative nobility?!
Plainly, you have not thought this matter through, Art -- not that
thinking things through appears to avail you much in any case.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> "...here I would let slippe
> (If I had any in mee) schollershippe,
> And from all Learning keepe these lines as cleere
> as Shakespeare's best are, which our heires shall heare
> Preachers apte to their auditors to showe
> how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe
> by the dimme light of Nature...;" - F. B. (1608)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
> > > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > > > > > > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > > > > > > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Huh?! There are plenty of members of the "vocal homosexual
> > > > community," but VERy few members of that community seem
> > > > disposed to deny that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Thus far, perhaps. Just wait.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I just love it when anti-Stratfordians make such confident
> > prognostications! It reminds one of the Baconians of yesteryear,
> > assuredly prophesying victory (any day now!), or of Mr. Crowley's
> > pontification that the "Ray Mignot" sonnet would be decisive.
> I'm simply pointing out WHY one should now expect
> a whole new ball game vis-a-vis authorship.
No pun intended, of course.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Nor do I see any
> > > > indication that homosexuality is any more prevalent among
> > > > anti-Stratfordians than among the population at large.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > The most prominant [sic] Oxfordian is Derek Jacobi;
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Huh? Most "prominant" in what sense?
> The most well known if you will.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Certainly his expertise in Elizabethan literary history
> > is not the most widely respected; indeed, even
> > Dr. Stritmatter and Dr. Wright are surely more prominent
> > than Jacobi in that regard.
> True.
Graciously conceded, Art -- not that it's saying much.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > You certainly cannot mean most prominent in the public eye,
> > without regard to expertise, either; indeed, certainly many
> > more people will have heard of Freud than of Jacobi.
> Freud "was", Jacobi "is."
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > If you mean the living Oxfordian
> > with the most widespread name recognition, then even that
> > claim is debatable, as there are other theater celebrities (Kenneth
> > Branagh, Mark Rylance, Michael York, etc.) who are claimed
> > as coreligionists by Oxfordians and who are arguably
> > as well known as Jacobi.
> Kenneth Branagh is probably better known
> but Branagh is a 'closet Oxfordian' at best.
>
> Few Americans remember York
Are you kidding?! York starred in the film VERsion of "Cabaret,"
among other things.
> or have even heard of Rylance
> (who are both anti-Strats but not necessarily Oxfordians).
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > In any case, I have no idea what your point would be,
> > even if your assertion were true, Art.
> Anti-Strats constitute a small fragmented group of intellectuals
Intellectuals?! You mean, like "Dr." Faker, Paul Streitz, Elizabeth
Weird, Paul Crowley, etc.?!
> which lack the resources & clout of the Strats. Finally there is
> a large & respectable group with which the Anti-Strats can ally.
And you imagine that the gay community is going to adopt Oxfordianism
as a central pillar of its political agenda?!
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > *What* is an "anti-Stratfordian trend"?
> The trend that Anti-Stratfordianism will continue to be
> embraced by the growing homosexual rights movement.
"*Continue* to be embraced by the growing homosexual rights
movement"?! Where is the evidence that such an embrace has even
started?!
> > > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > > partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> > > > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think
> > > > that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
> > > > consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
> > > > oVERrated, Art.
You snipped the part about people who think that Anne Hathaway was
Shakespeare's mother, Art; Martin Gardner neVER opined anything of the
sort.
[...]
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > Keeping the secret really isn't all that hard, and requires no such
> > > > pleasure to offset the temptation to spill the beans; besides, the
> Grand
> > > > Master has persuasive means of enforcing the ban on disclosure to
> cowans.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Does he really!?
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > Haven't you heard about what happens to Masons
> > who violate their oath of secrecy, Art?
> The guts over the shoulder thing? (Is that for real?)
Would I kid you, Art?
> > > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works
> IMO;
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do
> you
> > > > > > reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > What about it, Art? Why *do* you reject
> > > > the conventional attribution when "Strats" know better?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Cause the Grand Master won't let them tell the truth.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I see that you've reVERted to your "petulant paranoid" persona, Art.
> I'm just taking your word for it, Dave.
> (You wouldn't lie to or tease me would you?)
Would I kid you, Art?!
[...]
Our President does not come from the capital area, Art; he hails from
Texas, whence I hope that he will soon be returning.
[...]
John W. Kennedy
> Now, some may be moved to testify
> about wonderful characterizations and human insights in spy and crime
> novels; but anyone who asserts a devotion to spy and crime novels
> primarily due to the human insights they supply is "somewhat the con
> man"--which I state knowing that you do not find it distasteful.
Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. Dorothy L. Sayers, e.g., was
turning out some quite admirable novels toward the end, and she is not
completely alone in that.
Art Neuendorffer
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Shakespeare doesn't (at least not the REAL Shakespeare).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Huh?! Are you suggesting that Oxford has hitherto been rejected as
> author of the Shakespeare canon because he was homosexual?!
Partially. . . or, at least, because he was bisexual.
(And he will be reinstated because he's bisexual!)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> First, Oxford was *not* homosexual,
> as his affair with Anne Vavasour
> makes abundantly clear; he was at best bisexual.
That's basically my determination as well.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Second, people have been
> suggesting for decades (on the basis of the Sonnets) that Shakespeare
> was bisexual as well, so the actor from Stratford would not enjoy any
> advantage oVER Oxford if mere homophobia were to blame for Oxford's
> failure to win recognition as author of the Shakespeare canon.
Many have rejected Shakespeare's homosexual side (even to the point of
suggesting that Sonnet 20 was a heterosexual poem address to the author's
own penis!)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> (Oxford did, in his day, achieve a measure
> of reCOGNOition, but that is a different matter.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
'knowledgeable': COGNO [Latin]
'knowledgeable': METION [Greek]
According to Diodorus, DaEDALUS' father was METION
'belonged to the royal Athenian clan called the METIONidae'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > (That fact pretty much leaves the Stratman out in the cold.)
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Huh? Does anyone understand what Art is gibbering about here? Why
> > > should a growing tolerance of sexual orientation have any link
whatever
> > > with a revision of the attribution of the Shakespeare canon?!
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Making Shakespeare acceptable the masses has always
> > involved hiding the fact that he was a bisexual noble:
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> As I noted, people have hypothesized for decades that Shakespeare
> was bisexual; why would anyone want to conceal his putative nobility?!
To protect the personal secrets of the Elizabethan court and
to make the plays more palatable to the general public:
Charlie Chaplin: "In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings
will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of
them in Shakespeare... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic
attitude."
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/skeptic.htm
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > "...here I would let slippe
> > (If I had any in mee) schollershippe,
> > And from all Learning keepe these lines as cleere
> > as Shakespeare's best are, which our heires shall heare
> > Preachers apte to their auditors to showe
> > how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe
> > by the dimme light of Nature...;" - F. B. (1608)
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is primarily the vocal homosexual
> > > > > > > > community (e.g., Derek Jacobi) who will form the
> > > > > > > > critical mass that does away with the Stratman.
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Huh?! There are plenty of members of the "vocal homosexual
> > > > > community," but VERy few members of that community seem
> > > > > disposed to deny that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to
him.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Thus far, perhaps. Just wait.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I just love it when anti-Stratfordians make such confident
> > > prognostications! It reminds one of the Baconians of yesteryear,
> > > assuredly prophesying victory (any day now!), or of Mr. Crowley's
> > > pontification that the "Ray Mignot" sonnet would be decisive.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm simply pointing out WHY one should now expect
> > a whole new ball game vis-a-vis authorship.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> No pun intended, of course.
Of course.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Nor do I see any
> > > > > indication that homosexuality is any more prevalent among
> > > > > anti-Stratfordians than among the population at large.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > The most prominant [sic] Oxfordian is Derek Jacobi;
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Huh? Most "prominant" in what sense?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The most well known if you will.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Certainly his expertise in Elizabethan literary history
> > > is not the most widely respected; indeed, even
> > > Dr. Stritmatter and Dr. Wright are surely more prominent
> > > than Jacobi in that regard.
>
> > True.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Graciously conceded, Art -- not that it's saying much.
You nEVER say much, Dave.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > If you mean the living Oxfordian
> > > with the most widespread name recognition, then even that
> > > claim is debatable, as there are other theater celebrities (Kenneth
> > > Branagh, Mark Rylance, Michael York, etc.) who are claimed
> > > as coreligionists by Oxfordians and who are arguably
> > > as well known as Jacobi.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Kenneth Branagh is probably better known
> > but Branagh is a 'closet Oxfordian' at best.
> >
> > Few Americans remember York
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Are you kidding?!
> York starred in the film VERsion of "Cabaret," among other things.
1972! That's 32 years, Dave.
Jacobi STARTED big with I Claudius (1976)
> > or have even heard of Rylance
> > (who are both anti-Strats but not necessarily Oxfordians).
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > In any case, I have no idea what your point would be,
> > > even if your assertion were true, Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Anti-Strats constitute a small fragmented group of intellectuals
>
> Intellectuals?! You mean, like "Dr." Faker, Paul Streitz,
> Elizabeth Weird, Paul Crowley, etc.?!
Well, they are certainly fragmented.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > which lack the resources & clout of the Strats. Finally there is
> > a large & respectable group with which the Anti-Strats can ally.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> And you imagine that the gay community is going to adopt
> Oxfordianism as a central pillar of its political agenda?!
Yep. (Or, at least, an important pillar.)
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > *What* is an "anti-Stratfordian trend"?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The trend that Anti-Stratfordianism will continue to be
> > embraced by the growing homosexual rights movement.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "*Continue* to be embraced by the growing homosexual rights
> movement"?! Where is the evidence that such an embrace
> has even started?!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sir John Gielgud. "..extremely sympathetic to the Oxfordian cause." (as
reported in the London Daily Mail). The world famous actor is currently the
President of the World Shakespeare Congress and has signed the petition
sponsored by the Shakespeare Oxford Society asking to have the Shakespeare
authorship and the claims for Edward de Vere given a full and fair hearing
by the Shakespeare establishment.
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/skeptic.htm
Sir Derek Jacobi. "I agreed to put my name to a school of thought that
maintains that the earl [17th Earl of Oxford], Edward de Vere, was the
author of the plays," Jacobi stated in an interview with The Washington
Times in April 1997. "Where did this Shakespeare come from? Where did all
that knowledge and eloquence and truth come from? ,,, I am highly suspicious
of that gentleman from Stratford on Avon," he continued. "I'm pretty
convinced our playwright wasn't that fellow. This opinion is very unpopular
with the good burghers of Stratford, I realize, but they also make their
living on the legend of Shakespeare's local origins. I don't think it was
him." (Quoted in The Washington Times, April 25, 1997.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > > > partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> > > > > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
>>> > > The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think
>>> > > that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
>>> > > consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
>>> > > oVERrated, Art.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> You snipped the part about people who think that Anne Hathaway was
> Shakespeare's mother, Art; Martin Gardner neVER opined anything of the
> sort.
That's why I snipped it.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Keeping the secret really isn't all that hard, and requires no
such
>>>>> pleasure to offset the temptation to spill the beans; besides, the
Grand
>>>>> Master has persuasive means of enforcing the ban on disclosure to
cowans.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Does he really!?
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Haven't you heard about what happens to Masons
> > > who violate their oath of secrecy, Art?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The guts over the shoulder thing? (Is that for real?)
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Would I kid you, Art?
Well, you did assure me that the Grand Master no long used . . .
> > > > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > > > >
>>>>>>>> The Strats know better than any of us who wrote the works IMO;
>
> > > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > > >
>>>>>>> I agree with you completely here, Art -- but why on earth do you
>>>> > > > reject the conventional attribution if the "Strats" know better?!
>
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > What about it, Art? Why *do* you reject
> > > > > the conventional attribution when "Strats" know better?
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Cause the Grand Master won't let them tell the truth.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I see that you've reVERted to your "petulant paranoid" persona,
Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I'm just taking your word for it, Dave.
> > (You wouldn't lie to or tease me would you?)
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Would I kid you, Art?!
Well, you did assure me that the Grand Master no long used . . .
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > That's no way to talk about your President!
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Our President does not come from the capital area, Art; he
> hails from Texas, whence I hope that he will soon be returning.
Well, we can agree on two things then.
Art Neuendorffer
BCD
> BCD wrote:
> > Now, some may be moved to testify
> > about wonderful characterizations and human insights in spy and crime
> > novels; but anyone who asserts a devotion to spy and crime novels
> > primarily due to the human insights they supply is "somewhat the con
> > man"--which I state knowing that you do not find it distasteful.
>
> Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. Dorothy L. Sayers, e.g., was
> turning out some quite admirable novels toward the end, and she is not
> completely alone in that.
***If you indeed assert devotion to them *primarily* due to the human
insights they supply, then I stand corrected.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
But that suggestion was made by a complete moron, Art! Surely you
didn't take *that* seriously?!
[...]
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > In any case, I have no idea what your point would be,
> > > > even if your assertion were true, Art.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Anti-Strats constitute a small fragmented group of intellectuals
> >
> > Intellectuals?! You mean, like "Dr." Faker, Paul Streitz,
> > Elizabeth Weird, Paul Crowley, etc.?!
> Well, they are certainly fragmented.
Agreed! And how about PWDBard, Okay Fine, Peter Zenner, Roger
"Paraleresis" Parisious, Richard Kennedy, etc.? That's quite a group!
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > which lack the resources & clout of the Strats. Finally there is
> > > a large & respectable group with which the Anti-Strats can ally.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > And you imagine that the gay community is going to adopt
> > Oxfordianism as a central pillar of its political agenda?!
> Yep. (Or, at least, an important pillar.)
Want to bet, Art?
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
> >
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > *What* is an "anti-Stratfordian trend"?
> >
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > The trend that Anti-Stratfordianism will continue to be
> > > embraced by the growing homosexual rights movement.
Want to bet, Art?
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > "*Continue* to be embraced by the growing homosexual rights
> > movement"?! Where is the evidence that such an embrace
> > has even started?!
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Sir John Gielgud. "..extremely sympathetic to the Oxfordian cause." (as
> reported in the London Daily Mail). The world famous actor is currently the
> President of the World Shakespeare Congress and has signed the petition
> sponsored by the Shakespeare Oxford Society asking to have the Shakespeare
> authorship and the claims for Edward de Vere given a full and fair hearing
> by the Shakespeare establishment.
>
> http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/skeptic.htm
>
> Sir Derek Jacobi. "I agreed to put my name to a school of thought that
> maintains that the earl [17th Earl of Oxford], Edward de Vere, was the
> author of the plays," Jacobi stated in an interview with The Washington
> Times in April 1997. "Where did this Shakespeare come from? Where did all
> that knowledge and eloquence and truth come from? ,,, I am highly suspicious
> of that gentleman from Stratford on Avon," he continued. "I'm pretty
> convinced our playwright wasn't that fellow. This opinion is very unpopular
> with the good burghers of Stratford, I realize, but they also make their
> living on the legend of Shakespeare's local origins. I don't think it was
> him." (Quoted in The Washington Times, April 25, 1997.)
That two individuals happen to be both Oxfordian and gay is scarcely
VERy persuasive, Art. The gay men I know think that anti-Stratfordian
delusions are just that: delusions.
> > > > > > > If the pleasures of intellectual superiority didn't
> > > > > > > partially balance off having to 'keep the secret'
> > > > > > > life would be truly unbearable for most Strats as well.
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > >
> >>> > > The pleasures of intellectual superiority oVER those who think
> >>> > > that the number nineteen is remarkable in being both the sum of two
> >>> > > consecutive integers and the difference of their squares are vastly
> >>> > > oVERrated, Art.
[...]
What's the other one, Art?
Art Neuendorffer
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Partially. . . or, at least, because he was bisexual.
> > (And he will be reinstated because he's bisexual!)
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > First, Oxford was *not* homosexual,
> > > as his affair with Anne Vavasour
> > > makes abundantly clear; he was at best bisexual.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > That's basically my determination as well.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Second, people have been
> > > suggesting for decades (on the basis of the Sonnets) that Shakespeare
> > > was bisexual as well, so the actor from Stratford would not enjoy any
> > > advantage oVER Oxford if mere homophobia were to blame for Oxford's
> > > failure to win recognition as author of the Shakespeare canon.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > Many have rejected Shakespeare's homosexual side (even to the point
of
> > suggesting that Sonnet 20 was a heterosexual poem address to the
author's
> > own penis!)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> But that suggestion was made by a complete moron, Art!
Well, an Oxymoron perhaps
(; I've nEVER been reduced to a complete moron).
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Surely you didn't take *that* seriously?!
I did at the time (and don't call me Surely).
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > In any case, I have no idea what your point would be,
> > > > > even if your assertion were true, Art.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Anti-Strats constitute a small fragmented group of intellectuals
> > >
> > > Intellectuals?! You mean, like "Dr." Faker, Paul Streitz,
> > > Elizabeth Weird, Paul Crowley, etc.?!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Well, they are certainly fragmented.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Agreed! And how about PWDBard, Okay Fine, Peter Zenner, Roger
> "Paraleresis" Parisious, Richard Kennedy, etc.? That's quite a group!
It can't compare with the Semi-Simple LIE group that makes up the Goon
Squad.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > which lack the resources & clout of the Strats. Finally there is
> > > > a large & respectable group with which the Anti-Strats can ally.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > And you imagine that the gay community is going to adopt
> > > Oxfordianism as a central pillar of its political agenda?!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Yep. (Or, at least, an important pillar.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Want to bet, Art?
You seem to have a gambling problem, Dave.
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > > > it is an anti-Stratfordian trend I suspect will continue.
> > >
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > *What* is an "anti-Stratfordian trend"?
> > >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > The trend that Anti-Stratfordianism will continue to be
> > > > embraced by the growing homosexual rights movement.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Want to bet, Art?
I already am betting on it (essentially)
by continuing to trudge on with my authorship hobby.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > "*Continue* to be embraced by the growing homosexual rights
> > > movement"?! Where is the evidence that such an embrace
> > > has even started?!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
Walt Whitman (1819-1892) "Conceiv'd out of the fullest heat and pulse of
European feudalism, personifying in unparallel'd ways the medieval
aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste, its own
peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) one of the wolfish earls so
plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendent and knower, might
seem to be the true author of those amazing works... I am firm against
Shaksper. I mean the Avon man, the actor."
> > Sir John Gielgud. "..extremely sympathetic to the Oxfordian cause." (as
> > reported in the London Daily Mail). The world famous actor is currently
the
> > President of the World Shakespeare Congress and has signed the petition
> > sponsored by the Shakespeare Oxford Society asking to have the
Shakespeare
> > authorship and the claims for Edward de Vere given a full and fair
hearing
> > by the Shakespeare establishment.
> >
> > http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/skeptic.htm
> >
> > Sir Derek Jacobi. "I agreed to put my name to a school of thought that
> > maintains that the earl [17th Earl of Oxford], Edward de Vere, was the
> > author of the plays," Jacobi stated in an interview with The Washington
> > Times in April 1997. "Where did this Shakespeare come from? Where did
all
> > that knowledge and eloquence and truth come from? ,,, I am highly
suspicious
> > of that gentleman from Stratford on Avon," he continued. "I'm pretty
> > convinced our playwright wasn't that fellow. This opinion is very
unpopular
> > with the good burghers of Stratford, I realize, but they also make their
> > living on the legend of Shakespeare's local origins. I don't think it
was
> > him." (Quoted in The Washington Times, April 25, 1997.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> That two individuals happen to be both Oxfordian and gay is scarcely
> VERy persuasive, Art. The gay men I know think that anti-Stratfordian
> delusions are just that: delusions.
How many gay men 'do you know,' Dave? (Do they all tend cats?)
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Well, we can agree on two things then.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What's the other one, Art?
That Oxford was bisexual.
Art Neuendorffer
John Dean
> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:bvithl$2v8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> . . no-one queries whether Charles Dickens wrote his
>> novels or Henry Fielding his. Or, as far as I know, Kit Marlowe his
>> plays. I don't think there's a French newsgroup belittling those who
>> cling to the idea that Racine and Corneille wrote the dramas
>> attributed to them. I don't know of anyone who thinks a jumped up
>> customs official couldn't have written 'Canterbury Tales' or a
>> jumped up Post Office clerk 'Barchester Towers'. So why the
>> fascination with the Bard?
>
> Because the standard story does not work.
> Has anyone ever heard of a great (or even
> good) writer who had illiterate parents?
Carl Sandburg. (They were not only illiterate, they were Swedish - good
upbringing for an author of outstanding English poetry and Pulitzer
Prize-winning History)
How about world class musicians born to illiterate parents - like Verdi?
Have *you* ever looked very hard for such examples?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Neil Brennen
John,
It doesn't matter the example you present, the anti-Shakespeare crowd will
either claim it's not applicable to the case of the Unique Universal Genius
Shakespeare, or they will cast doubt on your examples.
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:bvithl$2v8$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >> . . no-one queries whether Charles Dickens wrote his
> >> novels or Henry Fielding his. Or, as far as I know, Kit Marlowe his
> >> plays. I don't think there's a French newsgroup belittling those who
> >> cling to the idea that Racine and Corneille wrote the dramas
> >> attributed to them. I don't know of anyone who thinks a jumped up
> >> customs official couldn't have written 'Canterbury Tales' or a
> >> jumped up Post Office clerk 'Barchester Towers'. So why the
> >> fascination with the Bard?
> >
> > Because the standard story does not work.
> > Has anyone ever heard of a great (or even
> > good) writer who had illiterate parents?
>
> Carl Sandburg. (They were not only illiterate, they were Swedish - good
> upbringing for an author of outstanding English poetry and Pulitzer
> Prize-winning History)
OK, we're making progress. That's one in
ten thousand. As recent immigrants to the
US in the late 1800s, their children were all
going to become literate. I never heard of
the man, but that's may be just my ignorance.
I suspect that part of his success may be due
to a certain amount of 'political correctness'
in that working-class poets are highly prized,
whenever they are found.
You snipped my next question though:
> >> Has anyone ever heard of a great (or even
>>> good) writer who had illiterate children?
I bet Sandburg did not have illiterate daughters.
> How about world class musicians born to illiterate parents - like Verdi?
Err . . . we are not discussing who composed
certain musical works. The (il)literacy of
your parents (or your children) should not be
of overwhelming relevance to such a capacity.
Paul.
BCD
> [...]
> Has anyone ever heard of a great (or even
> good) writer who had illiterate children?
***Paul, please list pre-Restoration English writers whom you consider
great or even good, along with each of his or her children, indicating
sex, and whether or not each child was demonstrably and certainly
literate or illiterate, with references which will allow us to confirm
the facts presented. You need not list children who died in infancy.