PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: Bacon & Shakespeare Shut Oxford Out
Elizabeth Weir
basis of biography or literary allusions but solely
on the basis of physical evidence able to pass a
forensic examination by an expert documents examiner
or an authenticated document that could pass a court
test such as a letter or diary written by a
reliable witness with first hand knowledge.
Only Bacon and Shakespeare have physical evidence.
Oxford has no physical evidence of authorship.
---------manuscripts-----------
Bacon 2
Shakespeare 0
Oxford 0
---------printed title pages---
Bacon 0
Shakespeare 41
Oxford 0
-------------------------------
Since Oxford has neither manuscripts
nor title pages, Bacon and Shakespeare
effectively lock Oxford out of the
authorship dispute.
Bacon's manuscripts consitute direct
evidence and do not require corroboration
although the mansucripts tend to corroborate
the other.
Bacon has strong coorobrative evidence in
a third manuscript, the Northumberland Manuscript
and weak corroborative evidence
in numerous letters referring to Bacon as
a concealed poet or indirectly alluding
to Bacon as the author of Julius Caesar,
Measure For Measure, etc.
Shakespeare has corroborative evidence
in Jonson's De Shakespeare Nostrati.
Oxford has no physical evidence,
not even weak indirect evidence, that connects
Oxford to the Shakespeare works.
Tad Davis
> ---------printed title pages---
> Bacon 0
> Shakespeare 41
> Oxford 0
> -------------------------------
As telling as I think this evidence is, I can't help but wonder. Haven't the
antiShakespeareans been telling us the title pages aren't evidence of
anything?
--
Tad Davis
dav...@voicenet.com
Roundtable
news:B8DB1241.3891D%dav...@voicenet.com...
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > ---------printed title pages---
> > Bacon 0
> > Shakespeare 41
> > Oxford 0
> > -------------------------------
>
>
> As telling as I think this evidence is, I can't help but wonder. Haven't the
> antiShakespeareans been telling us the title pages aren't evidence of
> anything?
This (Ms. Weir's post) is, I think, called "lining up with one enemy
to cancel out another enemy".
It's fine with me, though. The way I see it, the Oxfordians never had
a leg to stand on anyway.
Roundtable
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Elizabeth Weir
>
> > ---------printed title pages---
> > Bacon 0
> > Shakespeare 41
> > Oxford 0
> > -------------------------------
>
> As telling as I think this evidence is, I can't help but wonder. Haven't the
> antiShakespeareans been telling us the title pages aren't evidence of
> anything?
The Oxfordians have not been saying anything
about evidence because they dare not move
the argument outside the realm of literature.
So far it's been "Oxford's biography is better
than Shakespeare's biography."
My point is that Strats had better sharpen
their analysis or they are going to lose.
Elizabeth Weir
> "Tad Davis" <dav...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
> news:B8DB1241.3891D%dav...@voicenet.com...
>
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > > ---------printed title pages---
> > > Bacon 0
> > > Shakespeare 41
> > > Oxford 0
> > > -------------------------------
> >
> >
> > As telling as I think this evidence is, I can't help but wonder. Haven't the
> > antiShakespeareans been telling us the title pages aren't evidence of
> > anything?
>
> This (Ms. Weir's post) is, I think, called "lining up with one enemy
> to cancel out another enemy".
Streitz et al have given us a preview of how the
plays will be read if Oxford is made Shakespeare.
If we can't have the philosopher who wrote the plays
I'd rather continue on with the actor who got lucky
than a criminal twit like Oxford.
Pat Dooley
>
> > ---------printed title pages---
> > Bacon 0
> > Shakespeare 41
> > Oxford 0
> > -------------------------------
>
> As telling as I think this evidence is, I can't help but wonder.
Haven't the
> antiShakespeareans been telling us the title pages aren't evidence
of
> anything?
Without corroboration they aren't much use. Otherwise, we'd all agree
that Shakespeare wrote "The London Prodigal" and "A Yorkshire
Tragedy",
Greene wrote "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit", and Henry Willobie wrote
"Willobie His Avisa".
--
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
Bob Grumman
> > > Bacon 0
> > > Shakespeare 41
> > > Oxford 0
> > > -------------------------------
> > As telling as I think this evidence is, I can't help but wonder.
> > Haven't the antiShakespeareans been telling us the title
> > pages aren't evidence of anything?
> Without corroboration they aren't much use. Otherwise, we'd all agree
> that Shakespeare wrote "The London Prodigal" and "A Yorkshire
> Tragedy",
No, we wouldn't. In the absence of evidence, much of it stylistic,
against Shakespeare's authorship of The London Prodigal and A
Yorkshire Tragedy, we would (in that case) agree that there was
A GOOD PROBABLILITY that he wrote them. As it is, we have strong
evidence against his authorship of them--plus, as you lyingly
imply, much corroborating evidence for Shakespeare's authorship
of the other plays bearing his name on their title-pages: to wit,
each other, the First Folio, the prefaces to the first folio,
several contemporary documents in which people attribute one or
more of these plays to Shakespeare, stylistic qualities and the
like shared by these plays, and all the evidence that there was a
poet named William Shakespeare about (who must have written
SOMEthing). Furthermore, even his name on plays he probably
did not write (and it is still slightly possible that he wrote,
fully or in part, The London Prodigal and A Yorkshire Tragedy),
is evidence that he was a playwright since no play of the
time was published with a name on its title-page that was not the
name of a known writer. Finally, it is debatable that on one of
the two suspect plays his name is actually on its title-page as the
play's author rather than as merely its final editor, which he
may well have been.
But keep on repeating your deceptive boilerplate, Pat. You haven't
hooked anyone with it yet, but it does make Toby and your other
gulls happy.
> Greene wrote "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit", and Henry Willobie wrote
> "Willobie His Avisa".
No one has yet presented conclusive evidence that this was not the
case, as you well know.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
"Stylistic qualities and the like shared by these plays,"
that" and the like" is really charming, BG.Presumably you mean all
thirty-six plays included in the First Folio.There is no conclusive
evidence-and very little other evidence, that all by definition
negative, that the so-called canon does form a stylistic unity. You
cannot cite five orthodox commentators(never mind creative artists,who
seem to be conspicuous by their rarity in the Stratfordian camp) who
held to the unity of the First Folio before Peter Alexander and later
dear old Sam.S. made it an article of faith,and a prerequisite for
getting a job in any English department under their influence.
In fact the first people ever to take the Folio as a unity and then
proceed to attribute further authorships on that pre-established a
priori stylistic basis were the Baconians.Into the l940 and early
fifties any Stratfordian worth his salt was still arguing,if not
trained by the Alexanderites,that an alternative Shakespeare
authorship was impossible because of his large collaborative efforts
with commercial writers,which further involved the potentially self
destructive admission by the entire Stratfordian camp that Heminge and
Condell were lying about those manuscripts perfect as he composed
them.Of course,they may have been telling the truth about who was the
center of all this collaborative activity but in this case they were
lying (being exceedingly economical with the truth?)about nearly
everything else they said.It also opened up the question,if
Shakespeare were a massively collaborative writer,why he should not
have been collaborating with non-commercial writers, all those
unidentified sources of information,BG is always bringing into his
somewhat stodgy scenarios.
Alexander and Schoenbaum ironically opened the way for Eric Sams
and a group of neo-Stratfordians (I particularly love Charles
Hamilton's thesis that Shakspere rewrote Bacon's essays.) who rival
the neo-Oxfordians and the run of the mill Baconians in their
excesses.
Pat has been very honest and forebearing with you BG.Perhaps
someday you will read enough history(or eveen develop an ear for
poetry)which will enable you to honestly debate with him
Elizabeth Weir
Whatever the case Strats are not going to be able to figure it
out because they can't bear to face up to the *politics* that
drove the project.
It would cost them Shakespeare.
Bob Grumman
Whew, just when I thought HLAS might be on its last legs,
Rojerk is back, and just as moronic as ever! He claims
no one until recently thought there was a stylistic unity to
the plays of the First Folio. I assert that it was taken
so much for granted that few or none bothered to comment on
it. Certainly, except for a few stray remarks about plays
certain critics didn't like and so thought not Shakespeare
at his best, or maybe contaminated by lesser pens, no one
ever said they did NOT have a stylistic unity.
But at least Rojerk is sort of arguing instead of ranting, so
I should thank him for that--although he skipped all my points
but one, and zapped me for summarizing arguments rather than
laying them out, footnoted. That, Rojerk, is because I haven't
time to work up a considered analysis of Shakespeare's style--at
least not one as brilliant as yours.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
Since I have never appeared on HLAS before and have contributed a
total of less than twenty lines on Internet regarding
Shakespeare,none of which can be factually challenged, it is touching
to receive BG's gracious welcome back.
Unfortunately his inability to either read , or hear, the English
language,has yet again led him badly astray.It was impossible to
answer his points on literary style because he raised none. Instead he
made a nonanalysis
of certain Shakespearean apocrypha on the basis of an alleged
stylistic unity of the First Folio.This is popular with other
non-literary critics ,such as his hero David Kathman whose speciality
is linguistics and stock market analysis ,not literature or history as
too often been painfully shown.It was succintly pointed out that there
are over two centuries(scores of thousands of pages) dealing with the
multiple authorship of the First Folio.Estimates beginning with the
earliest editors down to the fifties of this century varied from
approximately twelve (E. K. Chambers) and thirty-three (J.M.Robertson)
on the number of plays containing substantial amounts of alien
matter.The unity of the Shakespearean poet's style was rarely
confounded with the non-unity of the First Folio.
BG may assert what he wants. But questions of a basic historic fact
about Stratfordian and Baconian approaches to the question of
canonicity.BG's assertion is in the teeth of the knowledge of any
reader on this discussion group who has read further back than Samuel
Schoenbaum on the questioon of Shakespearean authorship. Behavior like
this does inhance BG's case when he occasionally scores a genuine
point within the limits of his critical competence.
Sorry,I did omit one of BG's points. It just seemed too cruel to
raise the issue."Oxford 0,Bacon O, Shakespeare 37". Disney 1000's
.Carl Barks 0. Argument closed.
Bob Grumman
> > "Roger Nyle Parisious" wrote a retort to BG.
> > Whew, just when I thought HLAS might be on its last legs,
> > Rojerk is back, and just as moronic as ever!
Okay, "Roger Nyle Perisious," if you're not Roger Stritmatter, I
admit I erred. You probably are not, since--unlike Rojerk--you
have not just asserted a few things and then fled, but returned. You
are in other ways every bit as stupid as Rojerk, however.
> > He claims
> > no one until recently thought there was a stylistic unity to
> > the plays of the First Folio. I assert that it was taken
> > so much for granted that few or none bothered to comment on
> > it. Certainly, except for a few stray remarks about plays
> > certain critics didn't like and so thought not Shakespeare
> > at his best, or maybe contaminated by lesser pens, no one
> > ever said they did NOT have a stylistic unity.
> > But at least Rojerk is sort of arguing instead of ranting, so
> > I should thank him for that--although he skipped all my points
> > but one, and zapped me for summarizing arguments rather than
> > laying them out, footnoted. That, Rojerk, is because I haven't
> > time to work up a considered analysis of Shakespeare's style--at
> > least not one as brilliant as you
--Bob G.
snip
I don't have time to demonstrate the obvious stylistic unity of
Shakespeare's accepted works. If you don't want to accept that
unity, fine.
> Sorry,I did omit one of BG's points. It just seemed too cruel to
> raise the issue."Oxford 0,Bacon O, Shakespeare 37". Disney 1000's
> Carl Barks 0. Argument closed.
Marge didn't write Little Lulu, either. Franklin W. Dixon didn't write
The Hardy Boys. In all these cases, the True Author was known to many
before the public was told who he was, which happened in the
lifetimes of the True Authors. No one was EVER identified as the
True Author of Shakespeare's works but Shakespeare. There are many
other differences between the case of Barks/Disney and Shakespeare/?
that I won't waste time on. Oh, you might do a little more research:
Carl Barks scores much more than zero: I have an Abbeville Press book
of Donald Duck stories, all of which are attributed to Barks. He even
wrote a preface for it stating that he was their author.
John W. Kennedy
> Marge didn't write Little Lulu, either.
That's "Little Lulu" the comic book. As far as I know, Marge wrote
(insofar as there was any writing to 'em) the original, mostly
single-panel, cartoons, now pretty much forgotten.
> Franklin W. Dixon didn't write
> The Hardy Boys.
Franklin W. Dixon also never existed.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Bob Grumman
> (insofar as there was any writing to 'em) the original, mostly
> single-panel, cartoons, now pretty much forgotten.
I think you're right. But Disney also wrote some scripts for
Donald Duck, didn't he? He certainly wrote some Mickey Mouse
episodes.
> > Franklin W. Dixon didn't write The Hardy Boys.
> Franklin W. Dixon also never existed.
I knowed that.
David L. Webb
Parisious <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> Since I have never appeared on HLAS before and have contributed a
> total of less than twenty lines on Internet regarding
> Shakespeare,none of which can be factually challenged, it is touching
> to receive BG's gracious welcome back.
> Unfortunately his inability to either read , or hear, the English
> language,has yet again led him badly astray.It was impossible to
> answer his points on literary style because he raised none. Instead he
> made a nonanalysis
> of certain Shakespearean apocrypha on the basis of an alleged
> stylistic unity of the First Folio.This is popular with other
> is [sic] linguistics and stock market analysis ,not literature or history
I seem to recall that Kathman is editing the Variorum Shakespeare
Poems, writing articles for the New Dictionary of National Biography,
and pursuing various other scholarly undertakings of some importance.
Do you *really* believe that reference works of this stature choose
their contributors and editors on the basis of their expertise in
linguistics or stock market analysis? If so, your lack of even
rudimentary understanding of the workings of the profession of
scholarship is almost as comic as it is remarkable.
> as
> too often been [sic] painfully shown.It was succintly pointed out that there
> are over two centuries(scores of thousands of pages) dealing with the
> multiple authorship of the First Folio.Estimates beginning with the
> earliest editors down to the fifties of this century
Of *this* century? You're a few years behind the times, unless
you're uncannily prescient.
> varied from
> approximately twelve (E. K. Chambers) and thirty-three (J.M.Robertson)
> on the number of plays containing substantial amounts of alien
> matter.The unity of the Shakespearean poet's style was rarely
> confounded with the non-unity of the First Folio.
> BG may assert what he wants. But questions of a basic historic fact
> about Stratfordian and Baconian approaches to the question of
> canonicity.
Is the above supposed to be an English sentence?
> BG's assertion is in the teeth of the knowledge of any
> reader on this discussion group who has read further back than Samuel
> Schoenbaum on the questioon of Shakespearean authorship. Behavior like
> this does inhance [sic] BG's case when he occasionally scores a genuine
David Kathman
rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) wrote:
>"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>news:<a2d06d7ef97de59ed3a...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
>> "Roger Nyle Parisious" wrote a retort to BG.
>>
>> Whew, just when I thought HLAS might be on its last legs,
>> Rojerk is back, and just as moronic as ever! He claims
>> no one until recently thought there was a stylistic unity to
>> the plays of the First Folio. I assert that it was taken
>> so much for granted that few or none bothered to comment on
>> it. Certainly, except for a few stray remarks about plays
>> certain critics didn't like and so thought not Shakespeare
>> at his best, or maybe contaminated by lesser pens, no one
>> ever said they did NOT have a stylistic unity.
>>
>> But at least Rojerk is sort of arguing instead of ranting, so
>> I should thank him for that--although he skipped all my points
>> but one, and zapped me for summarizing arguments rather than
>> laying them out, footnoted. That, Rojerk, is because I haven't
>> time to work up a considered analysis of Shakespeare's style--at
>> least not one as brilliant as you
>>
>> --Bob G.
Bob, it looks like you may be under the impression that
this is Roger Stritmatter you're responding to. I'm afraid
it's not -- Roger Nyle Parisious (aka Roger Paris) and
Roger Stritmatter are two entirely separate people, though
they're both odd birds to say the least.
> Since I have never appeared on HLAS before and have contributed a
>total of less than twenty lines on Internet regarding
>Shakespeare,none of which can be factually challenged, it is touching
>to receive BG's gracious welcome back.
> Unfortunately his inability to either read , or hear, the English
>language,has yet again led him badly astray.It was impossible to
>answer his points on literary style because he raised none. Instead he
>made a nonanalysis
>of certain Shakespearean apocrypha on the basis of an alleged
>stylistic unity of the First Folio.This is popular with other
>non-literary critics ,such as his hero David Kathman whose speciality
>is linguistics and stock market analysis ,not literature or history as
>too often been painfully shown.
Um, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas, Roger,
but you're badly mistaken. It's true that I do have
three degrees in linguistics, including a Ph.D., and that
I make my primary living as a stock analyst, a choice I
made consciously some years ago for entirely practical reasons.
But knowledge in one field does not preclude knowledge in
other fields, as you yourself should know. I would venture
to say that if any field could be called my "specialty",
it would be Shakespeare and Elizabethan theater history,
a field in which I have published quite a bit and earned
the respect of some of the most prominent scholars.
I've recounted my credentials numerous times elsewhere,
but briefly: I am the assistant editor of the New Variorum
edition of Shakespeare's Poems, being published by the
Modern Language Association; I am the author of 37 articles
in the forthcoming *Dictionary of National Biography*, being
published by Oxford University Press, as well as a chapter
in the forthcoming *Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide*, also
being published by OUP; my ongoing Biographical Dictionary
of Elizabethan Theater has been used in draft form by the
editors of the DNB and numerous prominent scholars; and
I am currently revising for publication several related
articles which came out of my biographical research.
Now, it's true that literary criticism per se is not my
main area of interest, but the work on the First Folio
which you appear to be alluding to is bibliography, an area
with which I am very familiar. I'm pretty familiar with
literature and history too, or at least the portions of
those fields relevant for the current discussion.
>It was succintly pointed out that there
>are over two centuries(scores of thousands of pages) dealing with the
>multiple authorship of the First Folio.Estimates beginning with the
>earliest editors down to the fifties of this century varied from
>approximately twelve (E. K. Chambers) and thirty-three (J.M.Robertson)
>on the number of plays containing substantial amounts of alien
>matter.The unity of the Shakespearean poet's style was rarely
>confounded with the non-unity of the First Folio.
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here, since
your mangled prose is hard to decipher, but I think I get
the general drift. I'm well aware that disintegrators such
as Robertson asserted that most of Shakespeare's plays were
collaborations, with other authors writing large chunks of
the canon, but such views peaked more than 80 years ago and
are of mainly historical interest. By the middle of the
20th century, there had been such a backlash that many
scholars were reluctant to say that any part of the First
Folio was *not* Shakespeare's, but now there is a healthy
balance. With few exceptions, textual scholars believe that
the great majority of the First Folio was written by
Shakespeare, but that he probably had collaborators on some
of the plays, such as *Henry VIII* and *Macbeth*. I'm
not sure why I'm giving you this elementary lesson in the
history of Shakespearean textual scholarship, except that
what you've written above gives me the impression that you're
rather confused on the topic.
> BG may assert what he wants. But questions of a basic historic fact
>about Stratfordian and Baconian approaches to the question of
>canonicity.
This is not an English sentence, and I have only the faintest
idea what you're trying to say.
>BG's assertion is in the teeth of the knowledge of any
>reader on this discussion group who has read further back than Samuel
>Schoenbaum on the questioon of Shakespearean authorship. Behavior like
>this does inhance BG's case when he occasionally scores a genuine
>point within the limits of his critical competence.
> Sorry,I did omit one of BG's points. It just seemed too cruel to
>raise the issue."Oxford 0,Bacon O, Shakespeare 37". Disney 1000's
>.Carl Barks 0. Argument closed.
I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say here.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Grumman
> > This is popular with other
> > non-literary critics ,such as his hero David Kathman whose speciality [sic]
> > is [sic] linguistics and stock market analysis ,not literature or history
I missed this. To defend myself I must point out that I am a member
of The National Book Critics' Circle. Books are literature. That
makes me a CERTIFIED literary critic. So, there!
Bob Grumman
> this is Roger Stritmatter you're responding to. I'm afraid
> it's not -- Roger Nyle Parisious (aka Roger Paris) and
> Roger Stritmatter are two entirely separate people, though
> they're both odd birds to say the least.
You MUST be wrong, Dave! Surely the odds against there being two
such similar Rogers approaches the infinite! I'm sure Art can back
me up on this. And surely "Parisious" is a pseudonym? Nonetheless,
I have decided to accept him at hiw word that he is Roger II.
> Um, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas, Roger,
> but you're badly mistaken. It's true that I do have
> three degrees in linguistics, including a Ph.D., and that
> I make my primary living as a stock analyst, a choice I
> made consciously some years ago for entirely practical reasons.
> But knowledge in one field does not preclude knowledge in
> other fields, as you yourself should know. I would venture
> to say that if any field could be called my "specialty",
> it would be Shakespeare and Elizabethan theater history,
> a field in which I have published quite a bit and earned
> the respect of some of the most prominent scholars.
And at least one unprominent non-scholar.
snip of more interesting data about Dave and some mangled
assertions of Roger II about which Dave says, "I have
absolutely no clue what you're trying to say here."
Thanks for verifying that Roger is sorta hard to figger out, Dave.
I couldn't, neither.
Neil Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message ...
And surely "Parisious" is a pseudonym?
Why? It's not hyphenated!
John W. Kennedy
>
> > That's "Little Lulu" the comic book. As far as I know, Marge wrote
> > (insofar as there was any writing to 'em) the original, mostly
> > single-panel, cartoons, now pretty much forgotten.
>
> I think you're right. But Disney also wrote some scripts for
> Donald Duck, didn't he? He certainly wrote some Mickey Mouse
> episodes.
It's hard to say how much "writing" was involved. Disney shorts always
relied on music and sight gags far more than dialog. That's why, to
most baby boomers, at least, the comic books are the "real" Mickey and
Donald, while the far more loquacious WB stable have the remembered
cartoons. During the silver age of animation (i.e., the 90's) Disney
looked to the comic books, rather than to their old cartoons, for
inspiration, while WBA was able to stay within their old traditions.
John W. Kennedy
> > Sorry,I did omit one of BG's points. It just seemed too cruel to
> >raise the issue."Oxford 0,Bacon O, Shakespeare 37". Disney 1000's
> >.Carl Barks 0. Argument closed.
>
> I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say here.
He is referring to the fact that Carl Barks, the great writer/artist of
Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge comic books (he actually created Uncle
Scrooge, who did not appear in animated form until much later) had all
his work originally published over Walt Disney's signature, until the
Gladstone reprints of the 80's. Note, however, that this was an open
secret in the trade, and in organized fandom. In that, he was no
different from Al Taliaferro, Paul Murry, Floyd Gottfredson, and many
others.
Comic books, of course, were rarely credited, unless to the original
creator, until well into the 60's, except for the ACG line, where,
curiously, by-lines were given for a good many writers, nearly all of
them pseudonyms of the editor, Richard E. Hughes.
Neuendorffer
> > > Sorry,I did omit one of BG's points. It just seemed too cruel to
> > >raise the issue."Oxford 0,Bacon O, Shakespeare 37". Disney 1000's
> > >.Carl Barks 0. Argument closed.
> David Kathman wrote:
> > I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say here.
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> He is referring to the fact that Carl Barks, the great writer/artist of
> Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge comic books (he actually created Uncle
> Scrooge, who did not appear in animated form until much later) had all
> his work originally published over Walt Disney's signature, until the
> Gladstone reprints of the 80's. Note, however, that this was an open
> secret in the trade, and in organized fandom. In that, he was no
> different from Al Taliaferro, Paul Murry, Floyd Gottfredson, and many
> others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-47991/CarlBarks/$crooge.htm
<<$crooge is a snappy dresser known for wearing a top hat (that he
bought for two dollars in 1910), spectacles, spats, a broadcloth coat
(that he bought at a rummage sale in Scotland in 1902). He is often seen
carrying a cane. He is a very big operator (head of the McDuck Empire)
and a dreamer who has conquered commerce on every front and built a
monument to himself: the Money Bin which contains over three cubic acres
of cash (or five multiplujillion, nine impossibidillion, seven
fantasticatrillion dollars and sixteen cents - and he knows exactly
where he got each coin)! The inside walls of the bin are marked similar
to a swimming pool so he can measure the depth of his "liquid assets"
which he, in fact, likes to "dive around in like a porpoise, burrow
through like a gopher and toss up and let them hit him on the head" (one
of his favorite pastimes). He will employ any means (miserly of course)
to increase or preserve his fortune, except dishonesty.
http://stp.ling.uu.se/~starback/dcml/chars/moneybin.html
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/palace/439/characters/moneybin.html
Money Bin
The building where Scrooge stores his personal money. It contains three
cubic acres of cash, and Scrooge's favorite pastime is to dive through
[the money] like a porpoise, and burrow through it like a gopher, and
toss it up and let it hit me on the head.
Origin
(Note: All stories mentioned in this article are by Carl Barks unless
stated otherwise.)
The Money Bin first appeared in The Pixilated Parrott, and its correct
name was first used in WDC 135. Before then it was called the safe or
the vault. One story (WDC 126), however, showed Scrooge storing his
money in a corn crib!
Is it Scrooge's home?
Generally, the Bin is the only place where Scrooge is shown to reside in
Barks' stories. A few early stories, such as Christmas of Bear Mountain
(Scrooge's first appearance), and some other pre-Money Bin stories which
are vague on this point, refer to the huge mansion of Scrooge McDuck,
but this idea was abandoned as Scrooge's character developed in a
different direction. In Egmont stories, Scrooge lives in a fancy mansion
and goes to the Money Bin only as a place of recreation, an idea also
used in the DuckTales TV show. According to Don Rosa's Life and Times of
Scrooge McDuck part 12, Scrooge did have a mansion at the time of Bear
Mountain, but sold it immediately after that story and returned to the
Money Bin.
Its age, size and appearance
In most comics stories, the Money Bin is shown as a cubic-shaped
building with a dollar sign on the side. (This provides for a gag in The
Second-Richest Duck, when Scrooge sees that Flintheart Glomgold's Money
Bin looks the same, except that its side has a pound sign.) In
DuckTales, the Bin's sides are concave and it has a red dome on the top.
The sources on the age and location of the Money Bin are constantly
contradictory. In WDC 135 it is referred to as Uncle Scrooge's new Money
Bin and is on top of Killmotor Hill, which is protected by a mine field
and other safeguards. In Migrating Millions Scrooge mentions that the
Bin has been on this hill for 70 years (i.e., since 1886!), ever since
Duckburg was only a fort on the Tulebug River. Then, in The Money Well,
it is revealed that the Bin is on the very site of Old Fort Duckburg, a
pioneer stronghold during the Indian wars. Other stories, however, show
it on flat land, and often in the middle of a big city street! An
obscure story written but not drawn by Barks offers a solution to this
mystery. In this story, Duckmade Disaster, Scrooge moves his Money Bin
off the alleged site of Duckburg founder Cornelius Coot's homestead,
having already moved it only last year off the site of Old Fort
Duckburg!
In Don Rosa's stories, Sir Francis Drake built Fort Drakeborough (later
Fort Duckburg) on Killmule Hill (later Killmotor Hill) in the 16th
century. In 1899, Scrooge bought the deed to Killmule from a Yukon
prospector, Casey Coot (Cornelius' grandson), and built the Money Bin
there in 1902 after the decrepit fort was razed. Stories on this subject
are Last Sled to Dawson, His Majesty McDuck, and Life of Scrooge, part
10.
http://www.geocities.com/~jimlowe/barks/barksdex.html
This 1974 painting is the most recent of the five in this group. It
contains all the elements that any Barks fan could wish for. Here we
have Scrooge diving in his money "like a porpoise," Donald reading a
comic book, good expressions on all the faces,
and even the depth gauge (80ft mark).
http://www.seriesam.com/barks/barks_treasury.htm
Scrooge sitting on the depth guage in his money bin, with the money
level past the 120ft mark, with his hat pressing against the ceiling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Caaba [Arab.,=cube]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://community.webshots.com/photo/1555558/1567132EPounFrRcd
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~brvs/kaaba.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/06791.html
Kaaba or Caaba Pronounced As: both: käb or käb
[Arab.,=cube], the central, cubic, stone structure,
covered by a black cloth, within the Great Mosque in
Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The sacred nature of the site
predates Islam: tradition says that the Kaaba was built
by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham and the descendants
of Noah. Also known as the House of God, it is the
center of the circumambulations performed during the
hajj, and it is toward the Kaaba that Muslims face in
their prayers (see liturgy, Islamic). Pre-Islamic
Meccans used it as a central shrine housing their
many idols, most notable of which were al-Lat,
al-Uzza, and Manat, collectively known as al-Gharaniq
or the Daughters of God, and Hubal, a martial deity.
The Black Stone, possibly of meteoric origin, is located
at one of its outside corners. Also dating from
pre-Islamic times as a heavenly relic, this stone is
venerated and ritually kissed. Worn hollow by the
centuries of veneration, the stone is held together by a
wide silver band. The actual structure of the Kaaba has
been demolished and rebuilt several times in the
course of its history. Around the Kaaba is a restricted
area, haram, extending in some directions as far as
12 mi, into which only Muslims may enter.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/SocialStudies/RE/Database/Glossaries/Islam/Kaba.html
The Ka’ba: A cube-shaped building in Makka which is the focal point of
Muslim prayer. According to Muslim tradition the Ka'ba was founded by
Adam, rebuilt by Ibrahim and Isma'el and restored by Muhammad. In the
south-east corner wall of the Ka'ba is set the Black Stone which
Muslims
believe was received by Isma'el from the angel Gabriel when the Ka'ba
was being rebuilt. The Ka'ba is referred to in the Qur'an as the Sacred
Mosque. During the Hajj it gets a new black covering of silk and wool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ka'ba, Bait-ul Allah House Of Allah On Earth
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Coast/9150/Kaaba.html
The Kaaba is the building towards which Muslims face five times a day,
everyday, in prayer. This has been the case since the time of Prophet
Muhammad over 1400 years ago. Literally, Kaaba in Arabic means a high
place with respect and prestige. The word Kaaba may also be derivative
of a word meaning a cube.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Size of the Kaaba:
<<The current height of the Kaaba is 39 feet, 6 inches and total size
comes to 627 square feet.
The inside room of the Kaaba is 42.6 x 29.5 feet. The Kaaba's walls are
one 3.28 feet wide. The floor inside is 7.22 feet higher than the place
where people perform Tawaf.
The ceiling and roof are two levels made out of wood. They were
reconstructed with teak which is capped with stainless steel. The walls
are all made of stone. The stones inside are unpolished, while the ones
outside are polished.
This small building has been constructed and reconstructed by Prophets
Adam, Ibrahim, Ismail and Muhammad. No other building has had this
honor.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
> And surely "Parisious" is a pseudonym?
> Why? It's not hyphenated!
I don't know about you, Brennen. Ever since you made the team,
you've been awfully smart-mouthed. Surely the anti-Stratfordians
would not NOW be so foolish as to give away their pseudonyms with
hyphens! Now, leave me alone. I have enough to do here at
HLAS without having to deal with you!
Bob Grumman
> > > (insofar as there was any writing to 'em) the original, mostly
> > > single-panel, cartoons, now pretty much forgotten.
> > I think you're right. But Disney also wrote some scripts for
> > Donald Duck, didn't he? He certainly wrote some Mickey Mouse
> > episodes.
> It's hard to say how much "writing" was involved.
Granted. Couldn't think of a better word, though. "Scripted?"
> Disney shorts always
> relied on music and sight gags far more than dialog. That's why, to
> most baby boomers, at least, the comic books are the "real" Mickey and
> Donald, while the far more loquacious WB stable have the remembered
> cartoons.
Well, also because the Disney comic books had the best stories (i.e.,
had Carl Barks). I got Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies, too, but
can't remember any of the stories, though I remember enjoying them.
> During the silver age of animation (i.e., the 90's) Disney
> looked to the comic books, rather than to their old cartoons, for
> inspiration, while WBA was able to stay within their old traditions.
WBA characters never had families, I just happened to think--or did
they? Donald's nephews and Uncle Scrooge really helped Disney Comics.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> Well, also because the Disney comic books had the best stories (i.e.,
> had Carl Barks).
Make that "e.g.," not "i.e." He did great work with the duck clan, but
let's not forget Gottfredson's and Murry's splendid development of
Mickey Mouse as a globe-spanning freelance adventurer.
> WBA characters never had families, I just happened to think--or did
> they?
The main characters didn't, apart from a nonce nephew or niece. (Except
that the comic-book incarnation of the Road Runner had three -- outright
kids of his own, I think they were. He and the kids also spoke in the
comicbook -- in rhymed verse.) The characters on "Tiny Toon Adventures"
were established as protégés, not relatives.
Buster: Hi! I'm Buster Bunny --
Babs: And I'm Babs Bunny --
Both: no relation!
Bob Grumman
> > Well, also because the Disney comic books had the best stories (i.e.,
> > had Carl Barks).
> Make that "e.g.," not "i.e." He did great work with the duck clan, but
> let's not forget Gottfredson's and Murry's splendid development of
> Mickey Mouse as a globe-spanning freelance adventurer.
Right, again, John--and thanks for the other data about the
WBA characters. Makes me want to go on a comicbook-buying splurge.
Can't afford to, though.
Greg Reynolds
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > Well, also because the Disney comic books had the best stories (i.e.,
> > > had Carl Barks).
>
> > Make that "e.g.," not "i.e." He did great work with the duck clan, but
> > let's not forget Gottfredson's and Murry's splendid development of
> > Mickey Mouse as a globe-spanning freelance adventurer.
>
> Right, again, John--and thanks for the other data about the
> WBA characters. Makes me want to go on a comicbook-buying splurge.
> Can't afford to, though.
>
> --Bob G.
Let's not forget....
DONALD DUCK SAVES THE DAY
Why Donald Duck may go down in history as the savior of Kuwait!
In 1994, when the freighter Al Kuwait capsized in the fresh-water harbor of
Kuwait with a cargo of six thousand sheep, local citizens feared that the
decaying animals would poison their supply of drinking water. The ship has
to be raised, but how? Then Danish engineer Karl Kroyer remembers a 1949
Walt Disney comic book he read as a boy where Donald Duck had a similar
problem with Uncle Scrooge's yacht. Donald solved the problem by filling the
yacht with ping pong balls, which floated the boat to the surface. So Kroyer
decides to copy the idea. He pumps millions of hollow pellets into the
ship's hull. And it works! But few knew the genius that came up with the
solution was a duck!
The actual event:
Karl Kroyer did not know about Uncle Scrooge's yacht and did not copy Donald
Duck. The ship, however, did sink in the harbour. It could not be raised by
pontoons and a floating crane able to do the job was no closer than Sidney.
The ship was insured by a Danish company, who asked Kroyer for assistance.
Kroyer presented the problem to his staff. It was a young employee, who got
the idea to use entrapped air and who demonstrated the invention in bench
scale the very same day. He used polystyrol (the type used for heat
insulation). Few weeks later an airlift from Berlin to Kuwait with
non-expanded polystyrol was in full swing. On the quay the polystyrol
pellets was expanded, hardened and pumped down into the hull of the ship.The
invention was later sold to a Dutch salvage company and has been used in
salvage operations in awkward places of the world.
Roger Nyle Parisious
You're doing fine,Art.I'll be back to cube stones in my
"W.B.Yeats created the so-called Waite-Rider Tarot pack " article
later this summer.Right now I must briefly reply to the Three Stooges
section of HLAS(BG,Kathman, and and Webb).
In my first extremely concise article I pointed out that BG was
utterly ignorant of the origins of the Shakespeare authorship
controversy and gave very specific examples of what he plainly did not
know.Pat had already neatly downed him on every other point.BG
attempted to counter by sweeping aside many thousands of pages of
Stratfordian commentary throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and
first fifty years of the twentieth century, and asserted"except for a
few stray remarks about plays certain critics didn't like...no one
ever said they did not have a stylistic unity." "I assert it was taken
so much for granted that few or none bothered to comment on it." He
thereby asserted a demonstratable untruth. One need go no further than
Sam Schoenbaum's petulant "Elizabethan Authorship" to learn how much
history bibliophile Schoenbaum was bucking.
The question is not who was right. It is merely a question of what
existed .BG has not apologized for attempting to deceive his public
,yet again;
instead he called in Big Daddy Kathman to cover for the naughty
little kid .Oh,yes,he also advised me to" do a little more research
"as he owned a comic book attributed to Barks". Dated,in the l980's,
it develops from the evidence of one of his own most fervent
supporters.
Then we have Daddy Kathman who gives a page long list of his
credits and less than three sentences of non-fact for the crusher.We
shall ignore his inability to spell my family name.He asserts it is a
matter of "mainlyof historical interest" therefore BG can apparently
tell untruths about it. with impunity. He then caps BG's whopper by
stating Robertson claimed most of the palys were collaborations.
Robertson claimed under six plays were collaborations. The rest he
regarded as revisions. Kathman seems to have read even less than BG
and is in no position to give the least of us an authorship lecture,
however elementary.
I shall be back tomorrow for tangled Webb.
Bob Grumman
> utterly ignorant
utterly ignorant.
> of the origins of the Shakespeare authorship
> controversy and gave very specific examples of what he plainly did not
> know.
I waste so much time arguing with you wacks that I frankly can
only vaguely remember this exchange.
> Pat had already neatly downed him on every other point.BG
> attempted to counter by sweeping aside many thousands of pages of
> Stratfordian commentary throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and
> first fifty years of the twentieth century, and asserted"except for a
> few stray remarks about plays certain critics didn't like...no one
> ever said they did not have a stylistic unity." "I assert it was taken
> so much for granted that few or none bothered to comment on it."
A few critics' saying that certain portions of plays they disliked
were not by Shakespeare is not the same as saying the plays had no
stylistic unity. I suppose I should add that by "stylistic unity"
I mean that they all hang together stylistically, not that they are
in every stylistic respect identical throughout, or whatever it is
that you mean by the term. How many critics stated the plays had
no stylistic unity?
> He thereby asserted a demonstratable untruth. One need go no further than
> Sam Schoenbaum's petulant "Elizabethan Authorship" to learn how much
> history bibliophile Schoenbaum was bucking.
> The question is not who was right. It is merely a question of what
> existed .BG has not apologized for attempting to deceive his public
> ,yet again; instead he called in Big Daddy Kathman to cover for the naughty
> little kid .
How did he find out THIS, Reedy!?? No one was supposed to know
of my conference with Big Daddy! You're in charge of security!
What goes?! And how'd he find out what we call the chief?
> Oh,yes,he also advised me to" do a little more research
> "as he owned a comic book attributed to Barks".
Not a comic book, an anthology of Donald Duck stories, which indicated
that Barks's score for authorship was not zero, as you falsely alleged.
> Dated,in the l980's,
> it develops from the evidence of one of his own most fervent
> supporters.
I don't know what you're talking about.
> Then we have Daddy Kathman who gives a page long list of his
> credits and less than three sentences of non-fact for the crusher.We
> shall ignore his inability to spell my family name.He asserts it is a
> matter of "mainly of historical interest" therefore BG can apparently
> tell untruths about it. with impunity. He then caps BG's whopper by
> stating Robertson claimed most of the palys were collaborations.
> Robertson claimed under six plays were collaborations. The rest he
> regarded as revisions. Kathman seems to have read even less than BG
> and is in no position to give the least of us an authorship lecture,
> however elementary.
Are you sure this guy isn't Rojerk I, Dave? There's the same hysteria
and belligerant confusion.
> I shall be back tomorrow for tangled Webb.
Dang, another good man about to be put out of action!
David L. Webb
Nyle Parisious <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:<3CFCEA38...@erols.com>...
> > > > (Roger Nyle Parisious) wrote:
> >
> > > > > Sorry,I did omit one of BG's points. It just seemed too cruel to
> > > > >raise the issue."Oxford 0,Bacon O, Shakespeare 37". Disney 1000's
> > > > >.Carl Barks 0. Argument closed.
> > > David Kathman wrote:
> >
> > > > I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say here.
> > "John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> > >
> > > He is referring to the fact that Carl Barks, the great writer/artist of
> > > Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge comic books (he actually created Uncle
> > > Scrooge, who did not appear in animated form until much later) had all
> > > his work originally published over Walt Disney's signature, until the
> > > Gladstone reprints of the 80's. Note, however, that this was an open
> > > secret in the trade, and in organized fandom. In that, he was no
> > > different from Al Taliaferro, Paul Murry, Floyd Gottfredson, and many
> > > others.
[Big snip of Art's irrelevant drollery -- or trollery]
> You're doing fine,Art.I'll be back to cube stones in my
> "W.B.Yeats created the so-called Waite-Rider Tarot pack " article
> later this summer.Right now I must briefly reply to the Three Stooges
> section of HLAS(BG,Kathman, and and [sic] Webb).
While I am flattered to be named in such erudite company, I cannot
imagine what remark of mine has reduced my interlocutor to incoherent
sputtering.
Indeed, I haven't participated in this discussion *at all*, except
to object to Parisious's scurvy attack on the professional expertise of
Dave Kathman, another non-participant in the discussion.
> In my first extremely concise article I pointed out that BG was
> utterly ignorant of the origins of the Shakespeare authorship
> controversy and gave very specific examples of what he plainly did not
> know.Pat had already neatly downed him on every other point.BG
> attempted to counter by sweeping aside many thousands of pages of
> Stratfordian commentary throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth, and
> first fifty years of the twentieth century,
Not "this century" any more?
> and asserted"except for a
> few stray remarks about plays certain critics didn't like...no one
> ever said they did not have a stylistic unity." "I assert it was taken
> so much for granted that few or none bothered to comment on it." He
> thereby asserted a demonstratable [sic] untruth. One need go no further than
> Sam Schoenbaum's petulant "Elizabethan Authorship" to learn how much
> history bibliophile Schoenbaum was bucking.
> The question is not who was right. It is merely a question of what
> existed .BG has not apologized for attempting to deceive his public
> ,yet again;
I doubt that there was any intentional deception involved, but I am
of course painfully aware of the quasi-paranoid tendency of some
anti-Stratfordians to ascribe *everything* to intentional deception
rather than to mere error (if error there was).
> instead he called in Big Daddy Kathman
He did?! Who says that Grumman "called in" anybody? It seems far
more probable that Dave Kathman reluctantly joined the thread in
response to Parisious's extremely silly, apparently unprovoked, and
certainly untenable attack on Kathman's professional expertise.
> to cover for the naughty
> little kid .Oh,yes,he also advised me to" do a little more research
> "as he owned a comic book attributed to Barks".
It's really unclear what is supposed to be a quotation here.
> Dated,in the l980's,
> it develops from the evidence of one of his own most fervent
> supporters.
> Then we have Daddy Kathman who gives a page long list of his
> credits
Well, Parisious *did* impugn the professional expertise of Dave
Kathman in a specialty (or, if Parisious prefers, "speciality") in
which the latter has achieved sufficient distinction to be selected to
edit some publications that enjoy considerable prestige in the
international scholarly community, with no apparent provocation from
Kathman. Kathman's bland response seems quite measured and factual in
view of Parisious's absurd and incoherent ("whose speciality [sic] is
linguistics and stock market analysis ,not literature or history as too
often been [sic] painfully shown") dismissal of his demonstrable (or,
if Parisious prefers, "demonstratable") expertise.
> and less than three sentences of non-fact for the crusher.We
> shall ignore his inability to spell my family name.
Let's not ignore it -- it's mildly interesting. Line (1) below is a
direct cut-and-paste of Parisious's name as it appears in his own post;
line (2) is a direct cut-and-paste of his name as it appears in the
second sentence of Dave Kathman's post:
(1) Roger Nyle Parisious <rpari...@yahoo.com>
(2) Roger Nyle Parisious (aka Roger Paris)
Perhaps Parisious can enlighten us concerning the precise nature of his
objection to Kathman's orthography -- is he objecting because he
prefers some other name, like "Paris"? If he can clarify what his
objection to the spelling "Parisious" might be, I for one will
cheerfully adopt whatever variant he prefers.
> He asserts it is a
> matter of "mainlyof historical interest"
Dave Kathman certainly didn't write "mainlyof," _pace_ Parisious's
hapless attempts at quotation.
> therefore BG can apparently
> tell untruths about it. with impunity. He then caps BG's whopper by
> stating Robertson claimed most of the palys [sic] were collaborations.
Actually, he didn't exactly say that either; he said that
"disintegrators such as Robertson" held that view.
> Robertson claimed under six plays were collaborations. The rest he
> regarded as revisions. Kathman seems to have read even less than BG
> and is in no position to give the least of us an authorship lecture,
> however elementary.
> I shall be back tomorrow for tangled Webb.
I'm quaking in fear of Parisious's formidable erudition and peerless
eloquence.
David Webb
Tom Reedy
TR
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:060620021539572402%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
Neil Brennen
Tom Reedy wrote in message ...
>I think Roger Nyle Parisious is probably Baker.
Are you sure? Parisious is one of the speakers listed below, from a 1998
post. The line-up is positively stomach-turning:
****************************************************************************
******************
A special Shakespearean Research Symposium will be held in Los Angeles next
fall (October 11th and 12th), sponsored by the
Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable. Some of the presenters and topics
include:
Dr. Patrick Buckridge - "Sir Christopher Hatton's Relationship to
Shakespeare through Sir Edward Dyer's Correspondance"
Gerald E. Downs - "Was the 1608 Quarto of King Lear a
ReportedText?"
Roger Nyle Parisious - "Early Allusions to the Shakespeare
Authorship Dispute pre-1598"
Diana Price - "New Perspectives on Jonson's
ShakespeareanTestimony"
Prof. David Richardson - How to Use the Authorship Question to
Develop Critical Thinking, Sound Research and Valid Arguments"
Richard P. Roe - "Shakespeare in Italy"
Tom Reedy
under the "professor."
TR
"Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:adomel$lsu$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
Neil Brennen
Tom Reedy wrote in message
>Well, he sure thinks, writes and spells like Baker. Perhaps RNP studied
>under the "professor."
Don't you mean Dr.? After all, he took a doctorate.... :-)
Bob Grumman
> > Authorship Dispute pre-1598"
Ah, so this is why he got so upset with me for saying no one disputed
Shakespeare's authorship before Delia, or whatever it was I said.
Roundtable
> > > Franklin W. Dixon didn't write The Hardy Boys.
>
> > Franklin W. Dixon also never existed.
>
> I knowed that.
I didn't, up to about 3 months ago.
And I didn't know that Carolyn Keene never existed, likewise
until about 3 months ago. I loved the Nancy Drew mysteries.
Recently I found a copy of "The Hidden Staircase" published 1959,
in a second-hand shop here in Luzern Switzerland, with all those
nice drawings of Nancy Drew in those long Grace Kelly skirts,
taking about 6 showers a day as usual (her skin must have fallen
off!) and I just turned into a kid again, reading it.
The modern "Nancy Drew Files" are not half as good, though at least
she gets to kiss her boyfriend from time to time.
So what?! I bought new copies of "What Katy Did", "The Secret
Garden", "Railway Children", "Wind in the Willows"
and "Winnie the Pooh" as well. Just because I'm all grown up now
doesn't mean I have to sneer at what I loved as a kid.
Roundtable
Neil Brennen
Roundtable wrote in message
<19aabe045356c79d88d...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
>Recently I found a copy of "The Hidden Staircase" published 1959,
>in a second-hand shop here in Luzern Switzerland, with all those
>nice drawings of Nancy Drew in those long Grace Kelly skirts,
>taking about 6 showers a day as usual (her skin must have fallen
>off!) and I just turned into a kid again, reading it.
>The modern "Nancy Drew Files" are not half as good, though at least
>she gets to kiss her boyfriend from time to time.
Roundtable, sometimes I wonder just what sort of man you are.
Roundtable
> Roundtable, sometimes I wonder just what sort of man you are.
The kind that doesn't have to shave.
The Shakespearean kind.
Roundtable
(I wanted to tell you about an anecdote I found about some British
politician getting out of a taxi in London and, standing behind a
bunch of American tourists, he saw some member of Parliament called
Neil Somethingorother, so he stretched out his right arm, and
joyously called out "Neil! Neil!" whereupon the tourists stared
at him in awe, and, as one man, all sank down to their knees and
knelt down right there on the sidewalk in devout obedience.
I can't find the book with the anecdote, so here it is from memory.)
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>"Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
>> Roundtable, sometimes I wonder just what sort of man you are.
>
>The kind that doesn't have to shave.
>
>The Shakespearean kind.
You have a neat pointed beard and wear a single pearl earring?
--
Jo
Peter Groves
Jo Lonergan <jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5m7agugoi6plh00jt...@4ax.com...
Think of Cesario.
Peter G.
Neil Brennen
> (I wanted to tell you about an anecdote I found about some British
> politician getting out of a taxi in London and, standing behind a
> bunch of American tourists, he saw some member of Parliament called
> Neil Somethingorother, so he stretched out his right arm, and
> joyously called out "Neil! Neil!" whereupon the tourists stared
> at him in awe, and, as one man, all sank down to their knees and
> knelt down right there on the sidewalk in devout obedience.
> I can't find the book with the anecdote, so here it is from memory.)
It's an old joke, Roundtable. Very few men are cursed with a name
whose pronounciation is also a verb.
I had a girlfriend who called me SitStand Neil a few times. I suppose
she thought it clever.
Paul Crowley
It seems that you don't find plays or puns on
your Christian name amusing. Why is that?
Is it that you lack a sense of humour? Or
do you think that it is a common trait generally
shared by everyone? (i.e. Do people get tired
of jokes on their own name by the time they're
about five years old?)
My real question here is: Would you put 'Neil /
Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
again and again?
Paul.
--
See Southampton/Lady Norton Overlay
http://www.crosswinds.net/~crowleyp/
Neil Brennen
> "Neil Brennen" <ches...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:60f961ff.02061...@posting.google.com...
> > lancelo...@hotmail.com (Roundtable) wrote in message news:<fd6ab3a4.02061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > (I wanted to tell you about an anecdote I found about some British
> > > politician getting out of a taxi in London and, standing behind a
> > > bunch of American tourists, he saw some member of Parliament called
> > > Neil Somethingorother, so he stretched out his right arm, and
> > > joyously called out "Neil! Neil!" whereupon the tourists stared
> > > at him in awe, and, as one man, all sank down to their knees and
> > > knelt down right there on the sidewalk in devout obedience.
> > > I can't find the book with the anecdote, so here it is from memory.)
> >
> > It's an old joke, Roundtable. Very few men are cursed with a name
> > whose pronounciation is also a verb.
> > I had a girlfriend who called me SitStand Neil a few times. I suppose
> > she thought it clever.
>
> It seems that you don't find plays or puns on
> your Christian name amusing.
Actually, I do. At the Main Line Chess Club I've been known to joke
with Neil Oberholtzer about it. Sample conversation:
Brennen: "Hello Neil."
Oberholtzer: "Hello Neil"
Brennen: (Pause)"I don't have too many conversations that start like
that..."
Also, on Rec.music.classical.recordings, I have signed posts "The
Other Neil" so as not to be mixed up with another regular poster.
I've also used the name "Norristown Neil" to distinguish me from
another Neil on the TCCMB team in the TCCMB vs Knudsen match:
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/games/knudsen.htm
Why is that?
> Is it that you lack a sense of humour?
Not at all, although I find most anti-Strats take themselves far too
seriously. Toby Petzold is a delightful exception. Stephanie Caruna
showed some sense of fun as well.
Or
> do you think that it is a common trait generally
> shared by everyone? (i.e. Do people get tired
> of jokes on their own name by the time they're
> about five years old?)
I think you are mountain-building, Paul. And you're mountain building
on something that isn't there.
> My real question here is:
After you've asked four already, but go ahead....
Would you put 'Neil /
> Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> again and again?
> Paul.
I've never tried. Perhaps I would. It would depend on my taste, if
any, as with all writing.
I don't consider myself a poet, although I did compose a sonnet once,
simply as an intellectual effort.
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<diuN8.573$vB....@news.indigo.ie>...
> > > It's an old joke, Roundtable. Very few men are cursed with a name
> > > whose pronounciation is also a verb.
> > > I had a girlfriend who called me SitStand Neil a few times. I suppose
> > > she thought it clever.
> >
> > It seems that you don't find plays or puns on
> > your Christian name amusing.
[..]
> Would you put 'Neil /
> > Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> > about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> > again and again?
> I've never tried. Perhaps I would. It would depend on my taste, if
> any, as with all writing.
>
> I don't consider myself a poet, although I did compose a sonnet once,
> simply as an intellectual effort.
I was, very clumsily, getting at an old Stratfordian
argument around here (not seen recently) that one
proof of the Stratman's authorship is his punning
on his name 'Will' in sonnets 135 and 136.
People with the name 'Will' are also "cursed
with a name whose pronounciation is also a
verb". I suggest that anyone christened 'Will'
would be as amused by puns on it as you are
by puns on your name.
So, in fact, the punning in sonnets 135 and
136 is evidence that it is _not_ the name with
which the poet was christened -- but an
adopted or feigned name, on which he felt
free to play.
Bob Grumman
> Would you put 'Neil /
> > Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> > about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> > again and again?
Another inept analogy by Paul. (1) Neil is not writing at a
time of near-insane delight in punning; (2) Will lends itself
to a variety of puns; "Neil" (like "Bob") to only one rather
specialized one; (3) Shakespeare seems to have been writing to
someone else named "Will"; (4) some poets like to pun, some
don't--so what?
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
> "Neil Brennen" <ches...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:60f961ff.02061...@posting.google.com...
> > "Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<diuN8.573$vB....@news.indigo.ie>...
> > > > It's an old joke, Roundtable. Very few men are cursed with a name
> > > > whose pronounciation is also a verb.
> > > > I had a girlfriend who called me SitStand Neil a few times. I suppose
> > > > she thought it clever.
> > >
> > > It seems that you don't find plays or puns on
> > > your Christian name amusing.
>
> [..]
(Deneil, err, denial of Crowley's statement, and examples of wordplay
on the name "Neil" snipped by Crowley. This is an important point.)
> > Would you put 'Neil /
> > > Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> > > about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> > > again and again?
>
> > I've never tried. Perhaps I would. It would depend on my taste, if
> > any, as with all writing.
> > I don't consider myself a poet, although I did compose a sonnet once,
> > simply as an intellectual effort.
>
> I was, very clumsily, getting at an old Stratfordian
> argument around here (not seen recently) that one
> proof of the Stratman's authorship is his punning
> on his name 'Will' in sonnets 135 and 136.
> People with the name 'Will' are also "cursed
> with a name whose pronounciation is also a
> verb". I suggest that anyone christened 'Will'
> would be as amused by puns on it as you are
> by puns on your name.
So I am suddenly taken as a typical example? Why is it that you would
assume a writer as fond of puns as Shakespeare would find puns on
"Will" distasteful?
> So, in fact, the punning in sonnets 135 and
> 136 is evidence that it is _not_ the name with
> which the poet was christened -- but an
> adopted or feigned name, on which he felt
> free to play.
Please note above, that in order to support his point, Crowley has to
snip examples I gave of my use of wordplay on my Christian name. How
intellectually dishonest can you get, Crowley?
Roundtable
>Jo Lonergan <jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> | >
> | >> Roundtable, sometimes I wonder just what sort of man you are.
> | >
> | >The kind that doesn't have to shave.
> | >
> | >The Shakespearean kind.
> |
> | You have a neat pointed beard and wear a single pearl earring?
> |
> | --
> | Jo
>
> Think of Cesario.
>
> Peter G.
She knows that.
I told her many moons ago that
I am all the daughters of my father's house,
And all the brothers too.
(Actually, not all the brothers, I have a (younger) brother who has just
published his second book. Cool, huh?)
Roundtable
Paul Crowley
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message news:<%6EN8.642$vB....@news.indigo.ie>...
> > > > > It's an old joke, Roundtable. Very few men are cursed with a name
> > > > > whose pronounciation is also a verb.
> > > > > I had a girlfriend who called me SitStand Neil a few times. I suppose
> > > > > she thought it clever.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that you don't find plays or puns on
> > > > your Christian name amusing.
> >
> > [..]
> > I was, very clumsily, getting at an old Stratfordian
> > argument around here (not seen recently) that one
> > proof of the Stratman's authorship is his punning
> > on his name 'Will' in sonnets 135 and 136.
> > People with the name 'Will' are also "cursed
> > with a name whose pronounciation is also a
> > verb". I suggest that anyone christened 'Will'
> > would be as amused by puns on it as you are
> > by puns on your name.
>
> So I am suddenly taken as a typical example?
Suddenly? As you say, not many people have
Xian names that work as verbs.
> Why is it that you would
> assume a writer as fond of puns as Shakespeare would find puns on
> "Will" distasteful?
My point was that many of us are often teased
as children (usually by other children) about
our names, in some way or other. We cease to
find it amusing within a short time (if we ever
did). Therefore, when later we come to pun on
words and names for fun, the idea of punning
on our own is rarely amusing.
You could readily disprove this theory by
finding historical examples of authors who
have punned on their own names. If it was
likely to happen at all, you should be able to
find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
are scarcely any.
> > So, in fact, the punning in sonnets 135 and
> > 136 is evidence that it is _not_ the name with
> > which the poet was christened -- but an
> > adopted or feigned name, on which he felt
> > free to play.
>
> Please note above, that in order to support his point, Crowley has to
> snip examples I gave of my use of wordplay on my Christian name. How
> intellectually dishonest can you get, Crowley?
Either I am missing something obvious OR
you do not know what puns are, nor what
'wordplay' is.
I snipped the following:
<start of snipped material>
> > It seems that you don't find plays or puns on
> > your Christian name amusing.
>
> Actually, I do. At the Main Line Chess Club I've been known to joke
> with Neil Oberholtzer about it. Sample conversation:
>
> Brennen: "Hello Neil."
>
> Oberholtzer: "Hello Neil"
>
> Brennen: (Pause)"I don't have too many conversations that start like
> that..."
>
> Also, on Rec.music.classical.recordings, I have signed posts "The
> Other Neil" so as not to be mixed up with another regular poster.
>
> I've also used the name "Norristown Neil" to distinguish me from
> another Neil on the TCCMB team in the TCCMB vs Knudsen match:
<end of snipped material>
Can you point out the puns in the above?
What difference would it make if your name
were 'Fred'? (Assuming that those other
Neils were also called 'Fred'.)
Maybe you should stick to chess.
Greg Reynolds
(i.e. Do people get tired
> of jokes on their own name by the time they're
> about five years old?)
>
> My real question here is: Would you put 'Neil /
> Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> again and again?
>
>
>
> Paul.
Paul, of course you KNOW de Vere wrote
just such a poem and used the name/word
VERE several times. So, there's your own
hero DOING what you say people/poets
don't do. (Or wasn't he 5 years old yet?)
Greg Reynolds
Tom Reedy
The sheer goddamn tediousness of this man is his sole outstanding
characteristic. IN all other ways, he's below average.
TR
Terry Ross
[snip]
>
>
> You could readily disprove this theory by finding historical examples of
> authors who have punned on their own names. If it was likely to happen
> at all, you should be able to find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
> are scarcely any.
Does John Donne count?
A HYMN TO GOD THE FATHER
Wilt thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt thou forgive that sin through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When thou hast done, thou hast not done;
For I have more.
Wilt thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When thou hast done, thou hast not done;
For I have more.
I have a sin of fear, that when I've spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by thyself that at my death thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now and heretofore;
And having done that, thou hast done;
I fear no more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Groves
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0206121654040.24239-100000@mail...
Not to mention his <bon mot> on his marriage: "John Donne, Ann Donne,
undone".
Peter G.
Paul Crowley
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> (i.e. Do people get tired
> > of jokes on their own name by the time they're
> > about five years old?)
> >
> > My real question here is: Would you put 'Neil /
> > Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> > about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> > again and again?
> Paul, of course you KNOW de Vere wrote
> just such a poem and used the name/word
> VERE several times. So, there's your own
> hero DOING what you say people/poets
> don't do. (Or wasn't he 5 years old yet?)
How often were you addressed as 'Reynolds'
up to the time you were five?
Small children don't usually base their
teasing of their friends' or siblings' on
their surnames -- but on their christian
names. It's wordplay on 'Greg' that you
would even less amusing than usual.
Interestingly, there are hardly any non-
historical 'Edwards' in the canonical plays,
even though it was a very common name
at the time. There are a few 'Williams' --
always minor characters, often contemptible,
and very much the butt of jokes.
I wonder why that should be?
David L. Webb
<tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > You could readily disprove this theory by finding historical examples of
> > authors who have punned on their own names. If it was likely to happen
> > at all, you should be able to find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
> > are scarcely any.
> Does John Donne count?
Of *course* not, Terry! Mr. Crowley has in his infinite wisdom
decreed that poets rarely pun upon their own names because they have
been teased as children about those names, and when Mr. Crowley issues
a pronouncement, any *actual evidence* becomes utterly irrelevant --
indeed, I have never encountered anyone, with the possible exception of
Elizabeth Weir, who is so completely impervious to empirical evidence
and hence perforce so prone to wholesale invention. Mr. Crowley just
KNOWS that that's how matters MUST stand, so who are we to argue?
Similarly, I can recall Mr. Crowley declaring that "decent literature"
was categorically impossible in the Soviet Union. Examples and
evidence make no difference to him at all.
Paul Crowley
> Not to mention his <bon mot> on his marriage: "John Donne, Ann Donne,
> undone".
Those words are either known, or not thought, to
be his own -- according to his biographers. I've
mislaid the reference that the moment, but I will
track it down again sometime.
And when are you going to try to back up
your statement:
> Crowley's "explications" of the
> Sonnets, for example, are so exquisitely silly that I'm beginning to
> suspect him of a sense of humour
I've given you a vast amount of material.
Showing how just ONE of my interpretations
is at odds with the words, or the grammar,
or the historical facts . . . and showing how
the (or a) traditional Stratfordian exegesis of
that sonnet is superior in each respect
. . . . . should be child's play to someone of
your knowledge and expertise.
Now I know, and you know, and everyone
else around here following the threads
knows . . . that we will NEVER see such
a criticism.
But why is that?
Can you find a remotely plausible form of
words that allows you a weaseling out?
Paul Crowley
>
> [snip]
>
> > You could readily disprove this theory by finding historical examples of
> > authors who have punned on their own names. If it was likely to happen
> > at all, you should be able to find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
> > are scarcely any.
>
> Does John Donne count?
He might if we were talking about surnames.
But since we are talking about Christian
names, we need an example of some
word-play from him on 'John' (or 'Jack'
might be applicable.)
Of course, any other author Christened 'John'
(or called 'Jack' as a child) will do as well. Do
you know of any? Such an author would have
plenty of scope for wordplay on his own name.
How many objects or actions -- preferably
bawdy or scatological -- called 'john' or 'jack'
(or with 'john' or 'jack' as part of its name) can
you think of?
Of course much the same applies to all the
authorial Willies, Joes, Neils, Berts, Phils,
Marys, Sheilas, . . . . . etc., etc. . . of world.
So you should be able to quote examples
by the tens of thousand.
Bob Grumman
> decreed that poets rarely pun upon their own names because they have
> been teased as children about those names, and when Mr. Crowley issues
> a pronouncement, any *actual evidence* becomes utterly irrelevant --
> indeed, I have never encountered anyone, with the possible exception of
> Elizabeth Weir, who is so completely impervious to empirical evidence
> and hence perforce so prone to wholesale invention. Mr. Crowley just
> KNOWS that that's how matters MUST stand, so who are we to argue?
> Similarly, I can recall Mr. Crowley declaring that "decent literature"
> was categorically impossible in the Soviet Union. Examples and
Yes, Paul is a wonder. He's right that most of us were teased about
our names as children. I was Bob the Slob and Grumpy and (aaaargghhh)
Bob CrumBum!!! and who knows what else. My sister tells me that
in nursery school I got very angry at the other children for
being called Bobby Slaughter (or whatever his name was),
Bobby Slaughter being in the nursery school with me. But,
wow, I got over it! I haven't written any poems about my
name but I've used all kinds of joke versions of it with others,
and been addressed all kind of comic ways. My theory is that
rigidniks take everything about themselves Very Seriously, and
don't like being made fun of in any way. And what's true for
them HAS to be true for everyone else. --Bob Grumman
KQKnave
many of baker's psuedonyms as I can), but I keep Crowley
around because he's so entertaining! It's so much fun to
connect the electrodes to the bolts on his neck and see
what effect 5 volts, 10 volts, 15 volts has....
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3d07eeb6$0$1434$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
>
>
>>Paul Crowley wrote:
>>
>> (i.e. Do people get tired
>>
>>>of jokes on their own name by the time they're
>>>about five years old?)
>>>
>>>My real question here is: Would you put 'Neil /
>>>Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
>>>about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
>>>again and again?
>>>
>
>>Paul, of course you KNOW de Vere wrote
>>just such a poem and used the name/word
>>VERE several times. So, there's your own
>>hero DOING what you say people/poets
>>don't do. (Or wasn't he 5 years old yet?)
>>
>
> How often were you addressed as 'Reynolds'
> up to the time you were five?
Twenty seven times.
Paul, Vere was no five year old writing the
Vere poem, yet he punned on his own name.
My point then, is that you are making up rules
that people and poets don't follow.
> Small children don't usually base their
> teasing of their friends' or siblings' on
> their surnames -- but on their christian
> names.
Forget the children (that was your out if you needed one).
Oxford punned on his own name several times in a poem.
So you are inaccurate. Let's start there. You = wrong.
It's wordplay on 'Greg' that you
> would even less amusing than usual.
Bring it on. No one ever had any Greg jokes or puns.
The chant? The calendar? Make me laugh.
> Interestingly, there are hardly any non-
> historical 'Edwards' in the canonical plays,
> even though it was a very common name
> at the time.
There are 191 mentions of 'Edward' in the canon,
There are a few 'Williams' --
> always minor characters, often contemptible,
> and very much the butt of jokes.
There are 41 mentions of 'William.'
SO, you blew it on poets punning on their own names.
(I give a diddly-donk whether you ever admit your error.)
AND, now you've blown it on comparing mentions of Edward
to William in the canon.
Edward is mentioned far more (better than 4.5 : 1).
> I wonder why that should be?
>
> Paul.
Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
Greg Reynolds, Paul-Bearer
Neil Brennen
Greg Reynolds wrote in message
<3d093d59$0$1412$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>...
>Greg Reynolds, Paul-Bearer
That was simply an a-Paul-ing pun, Reynolds-wrap.
Greg Reynolds
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
One more flaw in your system, Paul:
His Christian name is Gulielmus.
Pun that.
BCD
>
> That was simply an a-Paul-ing pun, Reynolds-wrap.
***Crowley casts a Paul over the group's Greg-ariousness.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> >>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Paul Crowley wrote:
> >>>You could readily disprove this theory by finding historical examples of
> >>>authors who have punned on their own names. If it was likely to happen
> >>>at all, you should be able to find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
> >>>are scarcely any.
> >>>
> >>Does John Donne count?
> >>
> >
> > He might if we were talking about surnames.
> > But since we are talking about Christian
> > names, we need an example of some
> > word-play from him on 'John' (or 'Jack'
> > might be applicable.)
> >
> > Of course, any other author Christened 'John'
> > (or called 'Jack' as a child) will do as well. Do
> > you know of any? Such an author would have
> > plenty of scope for wordplay on his own name.
> > How many objects or actions -- preferably
> > bawdy or scatological -- called 'john' or 'jack'
> > (or with 'john' or 'jack' as part of its name) can
> > you think of?
Someone may have mentioned in this thread Sir John Harington's A Jakes"/"A
Jacks" pun in the title of his book _A nevv discovrse of a stale subiect,
called the metamorphosis of Aiax_, but I'll bet that no one has mentioned
Harington's _An anatomie of the metamorpho-sed Aiax. Wherein by tripertite
method is plainly, openly, and demonstratiuely, declared, explaned, and
eliquidated, by pen, plot, and precept, how vnsauerie places may be made
sweet, noysome places made wholesome, filthie places made cleanly.
Published for the common benefite of builders, housekeepers, and
house-owners._ (Now that's a title!)
FWIW, if we wanted to play the two degrees of William Shakespeare game,
Sir John manages to qualify along two apparently independent paths.
Richard Field was the printer of both _The Metamorphosis of Ajax_ and _An
Anatomy of the Metamorphosed Ajax_ and Sir John was a good friend of the
Thomas Russell who was one of the two overseers of Shakespeare's will.
<snip>
Rob
Paul Crowley
> >>>My real question here is: Would you put 'Neil /
> >>>Kneel' many times into a short poem (say
> >>>about 7 times over 14 lines) punning on it,
> >>>again and again?
> >
> >>Paul, of course you KNOW de Vere wrote
> >>just such a poem and used the name/word
> >>VERE several times. So, there's your own
> >>hero DOING what you say people/poets
> >>don't do. (Or wasn't he 5 years old yet?)
> >
> > How often were you addressed as 'Reynolds'
> > up to the time you were five?
>
> Twenty seven times.
>
> Paul, Vere was no five year old writing the
> Vere poem, yet he punned on his own name.
>
> My point then, is that you are making up rules
> that people and poets don't follow.
This issue came up when Roundtable teased
Neil about a 'Kneel' joke, and Neil expressed
the standard 'bored' response.
The question is relevant to authorship since
the poet puns extensively on 'Will' in the sonnets.
Strats regard that as evidence for the Stratman;
whereas, in fact, it is the opposite, since it is a
readily observable fact that authors rarely (i.e.
almost never) pun on their Christian names.
Why that should be so is essentially irrelevant,
but my guess is that we get tired of plays on
our own Christian names at an early age.
However, people do sometimes pun on their
surnames although, I think, only under
'controlled' circumstances where derogatory
tones are excluded. For example, many
heraldic emblems are based on puns on the
family name. One of the Veres is a bottle,
based on 'ver' = glass = bottle. There is more
word-play in their motto 'Verio nihil Verius'.
> Forget the children (that was your out if you needed one).
> Oxford punned on his own name several times in a poem.
> So you are inaccurate. Let's start there. You = wrong.
Oxford puns on his surname numerous
times in the sonnets -- as I have often pointed
out, especially on 'Ver' = 'Truth'. It is probably
relevant that the 'Vere' name was an ancient
one in English history; so it was far from
being a merely 'personal' name attached to
one individual. Surnames are generally
much less 'personal' than Christian names,
and so more appropriate for punning.
> > Interestingly, there are hardly any non-
> > historical 'Edwards' in the canonical plays,
> > even though it was a very common name
> > at the time.
>
> There are 191 mentions of 'Edward' in the canon,
You seem to have missed the words:
"non-historical".
Paul Crowley
> Someone may have mentioned in this thread Sir John Harington's A Jakes"/"A
> Jacks" pun in the title of his book _A nevv discovrse of a stale subiect,
> called the metamorphosis of Aiax_, but I'll bet that no one has mentioned
> Harington's _An anatomie of the metamorpho-sed Aiax. Wherein by tripertite
> method is plainly, openly, and demonstratiuely, declared, explaned, and
> eliquidated, by pen, plot, and precept, how vnsauerie places may be made
> sweet, noysome places made wholesome, filthie places made cleanly.
> Published for the common benefite of builders, housekeepers, and
> house-owners._ (Now that's a title!)
Sir John was the godson of the Queen; and she
addressed him in his youth (in 1576) as "Boy Jack" --
so the "Metamorphoses of Ajax" may well be partly
a pun on his own name. Given the circumstances,
I don't think this is much of a breach of the rule
that 'authors rarely pun on their own Christian
names'.
> FWIW, if we wanted to play the two degrees of William Shakespeare game,
> Sir John manages to qualify along two apparently independent paths.
> Richard Field was the printer of both _The Metamorphosis of Ajax_ and _An
> Anatomy of the Metamorphosed Ajax_
Field was a printer of many other books and
pamphlets. It does not follow that he personally
knew each author, or was friendly with each or
any of them.
> and Sir John was a good friend of the
> Thomas Russell who was one of the two
> overseers of Shakespeare's will.
Thomas Russell may well have been a key
figure in the whole 'conspiracy'. He was very
much a minor aristocrat, and what he was
doing bothering with such a lowly task for
the likes of the Stratman is hard to explain
otherwise.
Russell was the tenant of the manor at
Alderminster -- a major Elizabethan building
comparable to Charlecote, near Stratford.
The owner was Arthur Throckmorton, son
of Nicholas Throckmorton, an important
minister (and friend of Burghley) who received
it as an award from the Queen around 1562.
Thomas Russell's mother married Sir Henry
Berkeley, the son of Sir Maurice Berkeley,
who was a first cousin of Charles Tyrrell,
Oxford's stepfather -- related through some
Blounts (i.e. relatives of Lord Mountjoy).
None of this may mean much, except that
England was a small place then, and the
aristocracy were a small, fairly tight group,
who ran everything and who married each
other.
Another connection is Leonard Digges, who
lived in a village near Stratford. His step-
father was Thomas Russell. Yet Digges's
connections to Oxford (through Pembroke
and Montgomery, to whom Digges dedicated
a work in 1622, published by Edward Blount)
are at least as strong as those to the Stratman.
The broad message to be taken is that we
are a long way from the Dark Ages. We know
a great deal about what was going on, and
who was who, and what they said to each
other. IF everything had been above board,
we should have masses of personal letters
and memoirs from quite a few of these
highly literate, well-educated, well-connected
people about the great author. Yet we have
Zero . . . zilch. All we get are references on
tombstones to: 'My father, the gent'.
lyra
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > "Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote
> >>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Paul Crowley wrote:
> >>>You could readily disprove this theory by finding historical examples of
> >>>authors who have punned on their own names. If it was likely to happen
> >>>at all, you should be able to find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
> >>>are scarcely any.
> One more flaw in your system, Paul:
> His Christian name is Gulielmus.
> Pun that.
Well, at least I can anagram it...
Gulielmus
anagrams "Me??? I gull U.S.!"
or "Ill use mug??"
"Mug??? I'll SUE!"
lyra
Greg Reynolds
lyra wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote in message
>>One more flaw in your system, Paul:
>>His Christian name is Gulielmus.
>>Pun that.
>>
>
> Well, at least I can anagram it...
>
> Gulielmus
>
> anagrams "Me??? I gull U.S.!"
>
> or "Ill use mug??"
>
> "Mug??? I'll SUE!"
>
> lyra
...talk about painfully formed...
zheeesh!
lyra
> Greg Reynolds wrote
> > >>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > >>>You could readily disprove this theory by finding historical examples of
> > >>>authors who have punned on their own names. If it was likely to happen
> > >>>at all, you should be able to find hundreds of examples. In fact, there
> > >>>are scarcely any.
>
> > <snips>
>
> > One more flaw in your system, Paul:
> > His Christian name is Gulielmus.
> > Pun that.
>
> Well, at least I can anagram it...
>
> Gulielmus
>
> anagrams "Me??? I gull U.S.!"
>
> or "Ill use mug??"
>
> "Mug??? I'll SUE!"
......................."Muse? I gull?"..........................
.....................lyra.......................................
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>"Peter Groves" <Monti...@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<v0aN8.9816$>
>
>> Think of Cesario.
>>
>> Peter G.
>
>She knows that.
>
>I told her many moons ago that
>I am all the daughters of my father's house,
>And all the brothers too.
>
So you've plucked your doublet and hose over your own head at last?
>(Actually, not all the brothers, I have a (younger) brother who has just
>published his second book. Cool, huh?)
>
Not a twin?
--
Jo
Roundtable
> Roundtable wrote:
>She knows that.
> >
> >I told her many moons ago that
> >I am all the daughters of my father's house,
> >And all the brothers too.
> >
> So you've plucked your doublet and hose over your own head at last?
Yes, I've come out of the closet. Using the men's room wasn't as much
fun as I thought it would be.
> Not a twin?
My brother? No way. He's ten years younger, and younger brothers are
real spoiled.
Is it as hot in Basel as it is in Luzern? They're complaining of "caldo
bestiale" in Italy too, with the high humidity making their 33 degrees
seem like 40. My feet are swollen, I feel like part of me is becoming
the Elephant Woman. But I tried to swim in the Lake of Luzern today, and
I only got in to my knees, the water is freezing. But hey, I won't
complain, the weather here is usually so wet, or cold, or wet, or cloudy,
or wet, or foggy, or wet...
Roundtable
Neil Brennen
Roundtable wrote in message ...
>
>Yes, I've come out of the closet. Using the men's room wasn't as much
>fun as I thought it would be.
And this after I'd apologized for slighting your manhood! Bah!
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>Jo Lonergan <jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >
>
>> Not a twin?
>
>My brother? No way. He's ten years younger, and younger brothers are
>real spoiled.
Actually, I could much more easily imagine a younger brother being
confused with his sister (I see Viola as 20ish), though I suppose that
might make him a bit young to be getting married.
Maybe if she looked like Cate Blanchett, or Tilda Swanton when
younger, one could imagine a convincing disguise and a satisfactory
twin confusion.
>
>Is it as hot in Basel as it is in Luzern? My feet are swollen, I feel like part of me is becoming
>the Elephant Woman.
"A sister! You are she!" ;-)
>But I tried to swim in the Lake of Luzern today, and I only got in to my knees, the water is freezing.
Well, it _has_ just been melted off a glacier :-)
Here the Rhine is very high, and lots of people are swimming in it.
Children have been sent home from school for the afternoon
(temperature at 14.00: 32 degrees). We are promised relief in the form
of storms... on Thursday.
>But hey, I won't complain, the weather here is usually so wet, or cold, or wet, or cloudy,
>or wet, or foggy, or wet...
>
Famous for being wet, or is that just Kantönligeist?
--
Jo
Jo Lonergan
You're lucky you didn't end up fighting a duel with her, Sir Neil...
--
Jo
Neil Brennen
Jo Lonergan wrote in message <3qtrgu48q12497cq4...@4ax.com>...
****************************************************************************
MRS. POPOV: [To SMIRNOV.] Leave! Get out!
SMIRNOV: Kindly be a little more polite!
MRS. POPOV: [Striking her fists and stamping her feet.] You are vulgar!
You're a boor! A monster!
SMIRNOV: What did you say?
MRS. POPOV: I said you were a boor, a monster!
SMIRNOV: [Steps toward her quickly.] Permit me to ask what right you have to
insult me?
MRS. POPOV: What of it? Do you think I am afraid of you?
SMIRNOV: And you think that because you are a romantic creature you can
insult me without being punished? I challenge you!
SMIRNOV: We'll have a duel!
MRS. POPOV: Do you think because you have big fists and a steer's neck I am
afraid of you?
SMIRNOV: I allow no one to insult me, and I make no exception because you
are a woman, one of the "weaker sex!"
MRS. POPOV: [Trying to cry him down.] Boor, boor, boor!
SMIRNOV: It is high time to do away with the old superstition that it is
only the man who is forced to give satisfaction. If there is equity at all
let their be equity in all things. There's a limit!
MRS. POPOV: You wish to fight a duel? Very well.
SMIRNOV: Immediately.
MRS. POPOV: Immediately. My husband had pistols. I'll bring them. [She
hurries away, then turns.] Oh, what a pleasure it will be to put a bullet in
your impudent head. The devil take you!
[She goes out.]
SMIRNOV: I'll shoot her down! I'm no fledgling, no sentimental young puppy.
For me there is no weaker sex!
.... A duel. That's equity, emancipation. That way the sexes are made equal.
I'll shoot her down as a matter of principle. What can a person say to such
a woman? [Imitating her.] "The devil take you. I'll put a bullet in your
impudent head." What can one say to that? She was angry, her eyes blazed,
she accepted the challenge. On my honor, it's the first time in my life that
I ever saw such a woman..... That is a woman. I can understand her. A real
woman. No shilly-shallying, but fire, powder, and noise! It would be a pity
to shoot a woman like that.
-Anton Chekhov, "The Boor"
Roundtable
> Roundtable wrote
> >Yes, I've come out of the closet. Using the men's room wasn't as much
> >fun as I thought it would be.
> And this after I'd apologized for slighting your manhood! Bah!
I know. First making you promise not to reveal The Awful Truth,
challenging you to a duel, and forcing you to lie, and then
"de-closetting" myself.
Men are fickle, women are worse.
Roundtable
Roundtable
> SMIRNOV: I'll shoot her down! I'm no fledgling, no sentimental young puppy.
> For me there is no weaker sex!
> .... A duel. That's equity, emancipation. That way the sexes are made equal.
> I'll shoot her down as a matter of principle. What can a person say to such
> a woman? [Imitating her.] "The devil take you. I'll put a bullet in your
> impudent head." What can one say to that? She was angry, her eyes blazed,
> she accepted the challenge. On my honor, it's the first time in my life that
> I ever saw such a woman..... That is a woman. I can understand her. A real
> woman. No shilly-shallying, but fire, powder, and noise! It would be a pity
> to shoot a woman like that.
>
> -Anton Chekhov, "The Boor"
Actually, I learned how to defend myself physically when hanging
out in the local discos (I love dancing!) where there were some
cheeky Italian guys from Lecce, whom I rather liked, actually,
the way one likes younger brothers.
They however, mostly plasterers and bricklayers, teased and mobbed
me to such an extent for months and months that I was forced to
become like those Napolitan "donne combattitive" and had to slap
one of them (the leader of the pack) on two occasions.
Thereupon he slapped me back, so I sprang at him and the slapping
fight continued till he beat it. I won. Both times.
Thereafter, they not only liked me, they also respected me.
They are all very polite AND friendly to me now. Ah, well - we all
need a bit of playground kid stuff from time to time.