Farey thrashes Oxfordians

[Paul Crowley]

Peter Farey has been asking Oxfordians two
questions about the dating of the canonical
plays. http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

> 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
> of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
> 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
> including in his list, published that year,
> only those with the lowest frequency of open
> lines and feminine endings?
>
> 2) As the use of open lines and feminine
> endings is no longer of any real significance
> in the way plays are dated by Shakespearean
> scholars, what explanation would you give for
> all 11 plays given a "post-1604" date by
> Elliott and Valenza appearing among the 13
> plays with the highest usage rates?

While I have pointed out the nonsensicality
of his 'mathematical' operations, at root he
has identified an important issue which he
expresses well -- so longs as he sticks to
plain English and avoids numerical
operations.

Peter has ignored my answers to his questions,
and continued to pose them on various sites.
Several Oxfordians have made token "responses"
on the Fellowship site: http://tinyurl.com/y9otlfp

They are so disgraceful and so dishonest that
I feel the need to apologise to Peter for their
nature. If I were an undecided spectator I'd
assume from these reactions that Oxfordians
had nothing of value to contribute to the debate.
They seek any kind of excuse to evade the
quite simple questions Peter raised. As he
says, there is one reaction: 'Head for the hills'.

Why are the reactions so bad? I think that it
is simply the result of Peter raising some new
(if _relatively_ minor) issues, which Oxfordians
have not confronted before. The weak-minded
find all thought (and any new ideas) distressingly
painful, and the initial reaction is to panic.
Oxfordians are as mentally fragile as any other
group (as is obvious from their openness to PT
nonsense). Oxfordianism should not be judged
by the current crop of (generally quite worthless)
Oxfordians.

"Corambis" uses the "excuse" that Marlites
just don't deserve a civil response:

> I find myself replying to myself. Peter Farey presents
> himself as the voice of sweet reason, yet he is a
> Marlovian. Should one ask Mr Farey just what Marlowe
> was doing in say, 1597, he would find it awfully
> difficult to come up with anything . . . I submit
> that ANY question posed by a Marlovian can be
> treated, ipso facto, as unworthy of response.

Joe Eldredge raises a question (which Peter
rightly says is a diversion) and then replies:

> Although Peter Farey replied that your question was a
> diversion, it most certainly was not, and his refusal was
> in itself an evasion . . . .

"Marie M" and the Nessus entity lose the plot
entirely, forgetting what we are talking about.
To them, it seems, almost anyone could have
written the canonical plays at almost any time,
and almost anyone could have revised them
later at almost any time. With this 'conclusion'
there is therefore little point in talking about the
dating or authorship of any play. They should
extend this 'thinking' to the whole of western
literature and the whole of western art, and so
abolish the relevance of all authorship (and
all dating) for all time.

"Bassanio" leaps on a quite uncontroversial
statement of Peter's, claiming that he 'has
not heard of it before', and then lapses into
a state of idiotic pomposity:

> Peter, what is your source for what "most Oxfordians
> claim [that the majority of Shakespeare�s plays had
> been written by 1598]" I have never heard that.
>
> Its this sort of cavalier disregard for accuracy that
> gets so many critics of Oxfordians in trouble. You
> need to do better than that if you're going to be
> taken seriously.

Mark Anderson (http://tinyurl.com/ygzmsof)
falls into the trap set by Peter (and by others
over 400 years ago), agreeing with him on
essentials (while missing the force of Peter's
point) and articulating the traditional (and
quite foolish) Stratfordian line:

> The maturation of Shakespeare's voice can, in
> part, be seen as going from a rigid adherence to
> iambic pentameter (early style) to an occasional
> loosening of iambic pentameter's bounds (late
> style).
>
> This is an unsurprising result. In even less
> technical terms, it's tantamount to saying the
> author became increasingly familiar and
> comfortable with his form as he matured.

This 'thinking' derives from the Stratfordian
assumption that the poet was some kind of
semi-conscious automaton with a magic pen,
who had no idea what he was writing about.
Farey, of course, says the same:

Farey:
> I would say that he wrote in a way that sounded
> right to him at the time, and that what sounded
> right changed over the years.

So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
had no conscious awareness of the difference
between feminine and masculine endings nor
that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.
It could never have occurred to him to use
them in a deliberate manner -- i.e. more or
less of either -- in any particular work, nor to
experiment in any matter of style.

Uggh!

The very fact that Peter thinks this is a
reasonable thing to imply about a great poet
should be enough to discount every other
conclusion he makes in the field -- and
likewise for those (supposed) anti-Strats
who agree with him.

It is like a claim that a composer was not
aware of his use of (say) brass or woodwind
in his works, or that a painter was not aware
of his use of particular colours.

NO ONE would dream of making such a
point about ANY other artist in ANY field.
No one vaguely competent ever has.

Let's vary Farey's subject:
>< I would say that Beethoven composed in a
>< way that sounded right to him at the time, and
>< that what sounded right changed over the years.

>< I would say that Titian painted in a way
>< that looked right to him at the time, and
>< that what looked right changed over the years.

>< I would say that Michelangelo sculpted in a
>< way that felt right to him at the time, and
>< that what felt right changed over the years.

For any great artist, such an 'observation'
falls somewhere between the nonsensical
and an empty banality. But Peter (et al.)
believe that they are saying something
meaningful in Shakespeare's case.

However, there is another group of Stratfordian
assumptions, made by almost every participant
in the debate:
(a) that the record in Meres is simple, unambiguous
and incontestable, and
(b) it reflects contemporary performances of
the canonical plays by "Shakespeare's company".

Mark Anderson (in his blog http://tinyurl.com/ygzmsof)
says:

> His [Meres's] mention of a dozen Shakespeare plays
> in 1598, of course, means those plays must have
> been performed or printed by then.

Of course, it means NO SUCH THING.

Peter implicitly agrees, but does at least
vaguely consider a (theoretical) alternative:

> The plays in Meres's list either were or were not
> known to be in Lord Hunsden's (later the Lord
> Chamberlain's) Men's repertoire at the time they
> were listed.
>
> If they were in the repertoire, they would
> according to your answer have been accompanied by
> such other plays as Merry Wives, 2 Henry IV,
> Julius Caesar, Much Ado, Henry V, As You Like It,
> Hamlet, Twelth Night, Troilus & Cressida, Measure
> for Measure, All's Well That Ends Well and maybe
> even Othello. In this case, therefore, how does
> one explain Meres selecting only those with the
> lowest rate of open and feminine endings, and
> ignoring the far better examples of both comedy
> and tragedy in their repertoire?
>
> If they were not in the repertoire, and bearing in
> mind the complete lack of any evidence of a
> William Shakespeare associated with the theatre
> before 1594 (and the examples of the "missing"
> Shrew and Henry VI plays), how would he have known
> or expected others to have known that they were
> written by "Shakespeare"?

In fact, the name "William Shakespeare" was
not associated with the theatre until 1598
when (a) Meres came out, and (b) three quartos
(R2, R3 and LLL) were published over the
name "W.Shakespeare".

The answer to Peter's question: "how would
[Meres] have known . ." is simply that he was
given a list. Stratfordians assume that Meres
carefully collected every edition (mostly now
lost) of the plays, and that he assiduously
attended the theatre for years, noting the
name of each play. But, of course, there was
no such 'repertoire' (of plays performed for
public audiences). Some readers of Palladis
Tamia may have come across the relevant text,
and been a little puzzled as to how they had
heard of only a few of these plays, and had
no idea that they had been written by this
country gentleman "William Shakespeare" --
but, so what? There was no Times newspaper
and no letters column to which they could
write.

Oxfordians (and Marlites in their different
way) each believe that a complex conspiracy
(or government cover-up) took place. Yet
few or none ever try to set out how it could
or might have taken place -- let alone who
was behind it, and their motivations. At the
same time they blithely accept almost every
detail of the Stratfordian record, vaguely
suggesting that the plot occurred at some
unknown points somewhere in the interstices.
It is the usual intellectual laziness.

On Meres, Oxfordians have very recently got
some of the answers -- or indications in the
right direction -- from the excellent article
by Detobel and Ligon in 'Brave Chronicles':
http://www.briefchronicles.com/ojs/index.php/bc/article/view/8/52

Oxfordians seem prepared to accept the
possibility that Meres set (or was provided
with) a highly involved numerological puzzle,
the answer to which was an identity of Oxford
as Shakespeare. So they should also be
able to see that the list of plays in Meres was
itself contrived. That it is so, should be very
obvious from its extraordinary nature. Out of
nowhere, a list or 12 plays appears (even if
the name of one is an obvious joke) and, for
the first time, they are tied to an author --
but one with a manifestly made-up name.
Nothing like this has occurred before (or
will ever again) in English literature. Yet
the perfessers take this list at face value,
without the slightest doubt as to its reliability.

How could Meres have possibly collected
it himself? He was of a strong Puritanical
temperament, and most unlikely to enjoy
the comedies he praises -- if he ever got
the chance to see one.

In his DNB article on Meres, Dave Kathman
mentions his connections to Middle Temple.
Thomas Greene (soon to be Stratford's Town
Clerk and the Stratman's chief minder) had
been studying there since 1595, and may
well have been Meres's contact with the
authorities.

A government cover-up had been in operation
from Day One (around 1560 -- when the genius
child-Earl was seen to be in need of special
protection). Meres's list in 1598 became a late
part of the cover-up as it grew to full excess.
It was then decided that the canonical plays
would be published over the name 'W.Shake-
speare'. The plays chosen for that list were
those which superficially appeared to be the
'less advanced' and most fitting for the naive
rural gentleman author -- i.e. those which had
the highest proportion of rhymed couplets,
masculine endings, and end-stopped lines.

That is the answer to Peter Farey's first
question:

> 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
> of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
> 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
> including in his list, published that year,
> only those with the lowest frequency of open
> lines and feminine endings?

His second question is essentially a repetition
of his first, with some curious assertions:

> 2) As the use of open lines and feminine
> endings is no longer of any real significance
> in the way plays are dated by Shakespearean
> scholars, what explanation would you give for
> all 11 plays given a "post-1604" date by
> Elliott and Valenza appearing among the 13
> plays with the highest usage rates?

Firstly, it does not matter what Shakespeare
'scholars' now claim; it is what they do that
is relevant, and they have never substantially
deviated from the chronology established by
Chambers, which was, of course, based firmly
on Meres.

Oxfordians prefer to date some of the 'late'
plays very much earlier -- on wide grounds
of style and subject matter. Stratfordians
(and Marlites) are obliged to date all such
plays late -- they simply don't have the time
(in the span of their candidate's supposed
career) to place them earlier.

Secondly and speaking personally, I have
not the slightest interest in the 'work' of Elliot
and Valenza. I presume that (in the ancient
Stratfordian tradition) they merely set out
to confirm their long-established prejudices.
Obviously ' . . all 11 plays given a "post-1604"
date' by them were necessarily excluded from
the Meres list, and left no other record in the
years 1598-1604. Working simply from that
'traditional record', it would be easy to guess
most of their list without going to the trouble
of reading their text.

Paul.

[ignoto]

I absolutely agree that the development of a looser iambic line was
deliberate - it was part of a movement away from artificial form (strict
iambic lines and senecan declamations) to more natural form (looser
iambic lines and less formal speech structures). Of course this movement
from artificial to natural wasn't confined to Shakespeare, it's a trend
in the early modern theatre (at least in the public theatre: closet
dramas such as those of Sir William Alexander remained steadfast in
their artificial representations).

I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
beetle).

Ign.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

> I absolutely agree that the development of a looser iambic line was
> deliberate - it was part of a movement away from artificial form (strict
> iambic lines and senecan declamations) to more natural form (looser
> iambic lines and less formal speech structures). Of course this movement
> from artificial to natural wasn't confined to Shakespeare, it's a trend
> in the early modern theatre (at least in the public theatre: closet
> dramas such as those of Sir William Alexander remained steadfast in
> their artificial representations).

The question is how deliberate. I think writers of the time
deliberately decided to loosen up, but I don't think they delibrately
decided to, say, use twenty percent more feminine line endings than
they had before. I think, as would be true in most such instances,
that the process was partly conscious, partly unconscious.
Same as with rhyme.

> I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
> dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
> and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
> beetle).

I prefer my bicycle to either. Just wanted to say it's a matter of to
each is own. And that there are wonderful things that can be done
with the purest blank verse that "natural" verse can't do. Read my
book on Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 if I ever manage to finish it to find
out what that is.

By the way, Ignoto, I'd really appreciate it if you'd skim my thread
against Price and let me know where I go wrong, or leave things out.
You've helped me substantially before this, especially against the
Mouse and Stritmatter's Tempest thesis, and I also know that I'm not
infallible, like Paul.

--Bob

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

Baloney. They don't answer the old questions any better.

> Oxfordians are as mentally fragile as any other
> group (as is obvious from their openness to PT
> nonsense). Oxfordianism should not be judged
> by the current crop of (generally quite worthless)
> Oxfordians.
>
> "Corambis" uses the "excuse" that Marlites
> just don't deserve a civil response:

This was standard among Sharkespear scholars
for many years and is an imbecility still practiced
by many Shakespeare scholars. It is more and more
standard among wacks at present, since it is the only
easy way out. Other, Paul, than your repeating that
no one has presented any arguments against your drivel.

> > I find myself replying to myself. Peter Farey presents
> > himself as the voice of sweet reason, yet he is a
> > Marlovian. Should one ask Mr Farey just what Marlowe
> > was doing in say, 1597, he would find it awfully
> > difficult to come up with anything . . . I submit
> > that ANY question posed by a Marlovian can be
> > treated, ipso facto, as unworthy of response.

Yes, imbecilic. That a person's argument against your
theseis can be used against one of his has nothing whatever
to do with whether it demolishes your thesis or.not.

Sure, Roger, most Oxfordians believe Oxford wrote 19
or more plays between 1598 and his death in 1604.

> Mark Anderson (http://tinyurl.com/ygzmsof)
> falls into the trap set by Peter (and by others
> over 400 years ago), agreeing with him on
> essentials (while missing the force of Peter's
> point) and articulating the traditional (and
> quite foolish) Stratfordian line:
>
> > The maturation of Shakespeare's voice can, in
> > part, be seen as going from a rigid adherence to
> > iambic pentameter (early style) to an occasional
> > loosening of iambic pentameter's bounds (late
> > style).
>
> > This is an unsurprising result. In even less
> > technical terms, it's tantamount to saying the
> > author became increasingly familiar and
> > comfortable with his form as he matured.
>
> This 'thinking' derives from the Stratfordian
> assumption that the poet was some kind of
> semi-conscious automaton with a magic pen,
> who had no idea what he was writing about.
> Farey, of course, says the same:

Wrong, of course. Hard to explain to womone witout
the slightest idea of the creative process, though. The
way it works with poets, Paul, is they start out imitating
models, trying to make their poems as
much like them as possible. At first not knowing very
well what they're doing--not known what meter is, for
example, but having an unconscious feel for it.

Either they have a teacher who tells them what meter is,
and tells them when they are metrically correct, when not, or
they make poems without really knowing. In the latter case,
they will inevitably run iton someone who knows what meter
is, probably someone who will tell them their poetry is bad
because it doesn't scan.

If they have the innate ability to write good verse, they will
eventually write it. It will then be unconscious, the way the
act of walking is mostly unconscious. They will become
automatons, for the most part, so far as writing in meter
is concerned. Sure, at times they will consciously choose
to write dactyl or whatever--but then do so pretty much
without thinking about it, thinking instead about their imagery
and their meanings.

Word-choice on the basis of sound is something else they
will do automatically, for the most part. Melodation, the
sound of a poet's language, is almost always unconsciously
attended to by an experienced, reasonably competent poet.
He is aware of it only when for some reason it doesn't go right,
He certainly doesn't think, "Hmmm, I've writen 22 iambs in
a row, I'd better throw in a trochee here." Or,"I have done an
open line or a feminine ending, better do one now." Most of
the time his syntax or need for an interesting wording or need
for a word that precisely expresses what he's after will force
him to use a feminine ending. I doubt he'll often realize he's
used one when he has.

He most certainly won't keep count of how frequently he's
using them. Sure, if someone points out that he's using them
more now than he did ten years ago, he'll agree (assuming he
indeed is), but he won't say, "Yeah, I was doing them at the rate
of 5.5 per 100 lines but thought 9.7 per hundred more effective
back in '02. Next year I may try a rate of 11."

All this is my impression of how poets writing traditional forms
operate, so opinion, but based on my own experience as a
poet, and as a friend of poets, and as a reader of essays by
poets about their work, and as a student of the way the mind
works, and as an expert in the psychology of creativity, and
how the creative process works.

> > I would say that he wrote in a way that sounded
> > right to him at the time, and that what sounded
> > right changed over the years.

That puts what I said more succinctly.

> So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
> had no conscious awareness of the difference
> between feminine and masculine endings nor
> that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.

That's not what Peter said.

> It could never have occurred to him to use
> them in a deliberate manner -- i.e. more or
> less of either -- in any particular work, nor to
> experiment in any matter of style.

Your either/or is insane, Paul. There are gradations of
consciousness of things. The beginning poet may be
100% conscious of what he's doing metrically, but
the advanced poet hardly conscious of it--MOST OF
THE TIME.

I find it hard to imagine an effective poet's deliberately writing
feminine endings in a play, though he might try, for fun,
to make a poem with nothing but such endings, or
a certain number of them. But the fact that he mostly
doesn't think metrically about what his writings

> Uggh!

I know, Paul. It's hard for a rigidnik to understand how a
flexible mind works. Or what creative flow is. You really
shouldn't try to.

> The very fact that Peter thinks this is a
> reasonable thing to imply about a great poet
> should be enough to discount every other
> conclusion he makes in the field -- and
> likewise for those (supposed) anti-Strats
> who agree with him.

Again, how can you, who have a significant knowledge
of the works of no poet but Shakespeare, and have not
written about any poet but him, and do not yourself
write poetry, and have not studied any critic (that I
know of), or shown any knowledge of epistemology,
aesthetics, or any other field having to do with what
poetry is and how it is made, expect your ignorant
opinion to count with anyone with half a brain?

> It is like a claim that a composer was not
> aware of his use of (say) brass or woodwind
> in his works, or that a painter was not aware
> of his use of particular colours.

Another incredibly stupid analogy. A more accurate one
would be the claim that a composer was not
aware that he was putting more and more quiet
passages into his works, or gradually using more and
more dissonances. Or that a painter was not aware that
his palette was getting brighter or dimmor over the years.

> NO ONE would dream of making such a
> point about ANY other artist in ANY field.
> No one vaguely competent ever has.

Interesting. No one would dream of making the point,
but some one not vaguely competent has. Aside
from that minor error of logic, Paul, you should know
that a claim that no one would ever believe or say or do
something is absurd. There is no opinion some human
being has not expressed.

I myself say that what Peter has said about Shakespeare
could be applied to any artist I'm familiar with.

> Let's vary Farey's subject:
>
> >< I would say that Beethoven composed in a
> >< way that sounded right to him at the time, and
> >< that what sounded right changed over the years.
> >< I would say that Titian painted in a way
> >< that looked right to him at the time, and
> >< that what looked right changed over the years.
> >< I would say that Michelangelo sculpted in a
> >< way that felt right to him at the time, and
> >< that what felt right changed over the years.
>
> For any great artist, such an 'observation'
> falls somewhere between the nonsensical
> and an empty banality. But Peter (et al.)
> believe that they are saying something
> meaningful in Shakespeare's case.

Your problem, Paul, is that you think they are expressing
their entire view of the matter. Thay aren't. They take it
for granted that everyone knows that most artists are
sometimes intensely aware, in detail, of what they
are doing, and are very deliberate and self-aware. But
for the most part most of what any artist does is unconscious.

> However, there is another group of Stratfordian
> assumptions, made by almost every participant
> in the debate:
> (a) that the record in Meres is simple, unambiguous
> and incontestable, and
> (b) it reflects contemporary performances of
> the canonical plays by "Shakespeare's company".

I don't see that (b) comes into it at all. Meres never
mentions who performed any of Shakespeare's plays,
or any other plays that I know of. He clearly states
his knowledge of Shakespeare's best twelve plays
at the time he is writing.

> Mark Anderson (in his bloghttp://tinyurl.com/ygzmsof)

> says:
>
> > His [Meres's] mention of a dozen Shakespeare plays
> > in 1598, of course, means those plays must have
> > been performed or printed by then.
>
> Of course, it means NO SUCH THING.
>

Of course, it does.

In fact, William Shakespeare received money for any acting
troupe and was a known member of an acting group before
then, and was called an actor/playwright in Greenes Groatsworth
in 1592 (admittedly only of rthose who can read).

> The answer to Peter's question: "how would
> [Meres] have known . ." is simply that he was
> given a list. Stratfordians assume that Meres
> carefully collected every edition (mostly now
> lost) of the plays, and that he assiduously
> attended the theatre for years, noting the
> name of each play.

You just about always badly misrepresent
Stratfordians, Paul. Here, you do it again. Stratfordians
are sane. That's what you keep forgetting. Being
sane, they tend to expect others, like Meres, to
be sane, too. If Meres was, he would have had
a good idea of many of WS's plays
from his personal experience of the
theatre (and visits to private performances which
he could have had as a student). When writing
his book, he could and probably would have
ASKED AROUND about the plays. In this
way, he's have found out about all the recent
ones and all the good ones. Remember, he
either know Shakespeare himself or knew
one of his private friends.

> But, of course, there was
> no such 'repertoire' (of plays performed for
> public audiences). Some readers of Palladis
> Tamia may have come across the relevant text,
> and been a little puzzled as to how they had
> heard of only a few of these plays, and had
> no idea that they had been written by this
> country gentleman "William Shakespeare" --
> but, so what? There was no Times newspaper
> and no letters column to which they could
> write.

You have no evidence for any of this baloney, Paul

> Oxfordians (and Marlites in their different
> way) each believe that a complex conspiracy
> (or government cover-up) took place. Yet
> few or none ever try to set out how it could
> or might have taken place -- let alone who
> was behind it, and their motivations. At the
> same time they blithely accept almost every
> detail of the Stratfordian record, vaguely
> suggesting that the plot occurred at some
> unknown points somewhere in the interstices.
> It is the usual intellectual laziness.
>
> On Meres, Oxfordians have very recently got
> some of the answers -- or indications in the
> right direction -- from the excellent article
> by Detobel and Ligon in 'Brave Chronicles':http://www.briefchronicles.com/ojs/index.php/bc/article/view/8/52

Detobel is an imbecile but if anyone not a wack
says I ought to read what he said here, I will. As for his
co-author, she was among the sanest Oxfordians, but
not always sane.

> Oxfordians seem prepared to accept the
> possibility that Meres set (or was provided
> with) a highly involved numerological puzzle,
> the answer to which was an identity of Oxford
> as Shakespeare. So they should also be
> able to see that the list of plays in Meres was
> itself contrived. That it is so, should be very
> obvious from its extraordinary nature. Out of
> nowhere, a list or 12 plays appears (even if
> the name of one is an obvious joke) and, for
> the first time,

THAT WE KNOW OF

> they are tied to an author --
> but one with a manifestly made-up name.

WHICH EVERYONE OF THE TIME, SO FAR AS
WE KNOW, TOOK FOR A REAL NAME

> Nothing like this has occurred before (or
> will ever again) in English literature. Yet
> the perfessers take this list at face value,
> without the slightest doubt as to its reliability.
>
> How could Meres have possibly collected
> it himself? He was of a strong Puritanical
> temperament, and most unlikely to enjoy
> the comedies he praises -- if he ever got
> the chance to see one.

He knew of some, as I wrote above, then found out about
others from friends, the way he found out about the
privately-circulated sonnets. You don't konow anything
about him. or about human nature, Paul, so your
opinion as to how hecould have behaved is worthless.
He may have been a weak puritan when he wrote his book,
then become a better one. Or he may have admired
Shakespeare's tragedies and misinterpretted his comedies
as stupidaly as you misinterpret a all his works. Or he may have
known and like just a few of his plays, and not known
how unpuritanical the ones he found out about were. He might
have found all his works sound religiously, the religious
having the ability to find The Proper Meaning in anything
they want to find it in. He may have been a hypocritical
Puritan. He may have been a complex human being, sort of
like a contemporary scientist dedicated to reason but
a believer in Christianity nonetheless. Humang beings are
complex and variable, Paul.

>
> In his DNB article on Meres, Dave Kathman
> mentions his connections to Middle Temple.
> Thomas Greene (soon to be Stratford's Town
> Clerk and the Stratman's chief minder) had
> been studying there since 1595, and may
> well have been Meres's contact with the
> authorities.
>
> A government cover-up had been in operation
> from Day One (around 1560 -- when the genius
> child-Earl was seen to be in need of special
> protection). Meres's list in 1598 became a late
> part of the cover-up as it grew to full excess.
> It was then decided that the canonical plays
> would be published over the name 'W.Shake-
> speare'. The plays chosen for that list were
> those which superficially appeared to be the
> 'less advanced' and most fitting for the naive
> rural gentleman author -- i.e. those which had
> the highest proportion of rhymed couplets,
> masculine endings, and end-stopped lines.
>
> That is the answer to Peter Farey's first
> question:

Alas, it's all speculative.

> > 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
> > of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
> > 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
> > including in his list, published that year,
> > only those with the lowest frequency of open
> > lines and feminine endings?

Wait, Paul. Are you saying those who gave Meres his
list purposely gave him "only those with the lowest
frequency of open line and feminine endings?" Weird.
What is an open line, by the way. I'm sure Peter said,
but I don't remember. I ask even though I'm sure morons
will conslude I can't know anything about poetry without
knowing what they are, but I don't care.

> His second question is essentially a repetition
> of his first, with some curious assertions:
>
> > 2) As the use of open lines and feminine
> > endings is no longer of any real significance
> > in the way plays are dated by Shakespearean
> > scholars, what explanation would you give for
> > all 11 plays given a "post-1604" date by
> > Elliott and Valenza appearing among the 13
> > plays with the highest usage rates?
>
> Firstly, it does not matter what Shakespeare
> 'scholars' now claim; it is what they do that
> is relevant, and they have never substantially
> deviated from the chronology established by
> Chambers, which was, of course, based firmly
> on Meres.
>
> Oxfordians prefer to date some of the 'late'
> plays very much earlier -- on wide grounds
> of style and subject matter. Stratfordians
> (and Marlites) are obliged to date all such
> plays late -- they simply don't have the time
> (in the span of their candidate's supposed
> career) to place them earlier.

Sophistry. They date such plays late because

(1) yes, the man KNOWN to have written them was
alive then BUT ALSO BECAUSE

(2) they enter the records late

(3) the evolution of plays with reasonably certain dates
by Shakespeare and others strong suggest they were
later plays--the way all assume blank verse plays came after
rhymed-verse plays.

(4) internal evidence in the plays, such as allusions to events
later than a certain date--1604, say.

> Secondly and speaking personally, I have
> not the slightest interest in the 'work' of Elliot
> and Valenza. I presume that (in the ancient
> Stratfordian tradition) they merely set out
> to confirm their long-established prejudices.
> Obviously ' . . all 11 plays given a "post-1604"
> date' by them were necessarily excluded from
> the Meres list, and left no other record in the
> years 1598-1604. Working simply from that
> 'traditional record', it would be easy to guess
> most of their list without going to the trouble
> of reading their text.

I don't have a high opinion of these two guys, either, Paul,
but I'm curious how you account for the fact that one of
them was a professed Oxfordian whose first stylometric
analyses he hoped would confirm that Oxford could have
written the plays. When they didn't, he accepted the
results and converted to Stratfordianism. I assume
you consider all that a lie.

--Bob

[lackpurity]

On Dec 23, 12:17 am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > Peter Farey has been asking Oxfordians two
> > questions about the dating of the canonical

> > plays.http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

> >> claim [that the majority of Shakespeare’s plays had

MM:
Shakespeare was probably the trend-setter. It was not his plan, but
just happened that way. He knew how much he had to produce and how
much time he had at his disposal. He sacrificed so that he could get
out more of his message.

> I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
> dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
> and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
> beetle).
>
> Ign.

MM:
Yes, "restrictive" could also refer to his time. He was a very busy
man towards the end. He didn't have as much time to polish his
works. He was working for quantity, perhaps, at the expense of
quality, due to the time running out.

Michael Martin

> > Mark Anderson (in his bloghttp://tinyurl.com/ygzmsof)

> > write.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[lackpurity]

On Dec 23, 8:34�am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

but.net> wrote:
> > I absolutely agree that the development of a looser iambic line was
> > deliberate - it was part of a movement away from artificial form (strict
> > iambic lines and senecan declamations) to more natural form (looser
> > iambic lines and less formal speech structures). Of course this movement
> > from artificial to natural wasn't confined to Shakespeare, it's a trend
> > in the early modern theatre (at least in the public theatre: closet
> > dramas such as those of Sir William Alexander remained steadfast in
> > their artificial representations).
>
> The question is how deliberate. �I think writers of the time
> deliberately decided to loosen up, but I don't think they delibrately
> decided to, say, use twenty percent more feminine line endings than
> they had before. �I think, as would be true in most such instances,
> that the process was partly conscious, partly unconscious.
> Same as with rhyme.

MM:
It was just a by-product. He was not intentionally thinking of
increasing the feminine line endings. If he knew that he was going to
live to 72 instead of 52, I think there would not have been such a
marked increase in feminine endings. He was in somewhat of a hurry.
Simple as that. His main occupation was neither writing, nor acting.
He was a spiritual leader. He was a Guru, and Gurus have little time,
if they are very popular, and he was definitely that. His
relationship with the Wilton Cult and the Royalty made him very
popular. Writing and feminine endings were simply by-products of the
prevailing situation.

Michael Martin

[Paul Crowley]

ignoto wrote:

> I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more
> flexible and more dramatically capable form of iambic
> line regressing to more restrictive and artificial form
> (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
> beetle).

Any half-way competent Elizabethan poet knew
what feminine endings and run-on lines were,
and could use them. Heck any one-hundredth-
way competent poet could. Even Lackpurity,
or that other god-awful 'poet' from Hong Kong,
(whose name I have forgotten since he resides
in my kill-file) could probably make an attempt.
It is, of course, generally harder to write
reasonable verse without masculine endings
and end-stopped lines, but that would have
been seen as a challenge by any young poet.
Perhaps, he might not have done so well --
but so what? The notion that he would have
abstained, or -- even worse -- steadily
incremented his use of such techniques, is the
epitome of foolishness.

Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>> Why are the reactions so bad? I think that it
>> is simply the result of Peter raising some new
>> (if _relatively_ minor) issues, which Oxfordians
>> have not confronted before. The weak-minded
>> find all thought (and any new ideas) distressingly
>> painful, and the initial reaction is to panic.
>
> Baloney. They don't answer the old questions any better.

My statement was about the weak-minded generally.
Set out a new idea to them, and they are quite
flummoxed. To them, such things are not possible
-- or, at least, should not happen in their universe.
Look at the NON-reaction to my Sonnet exegeses.
When do you think we might see the FIRST attempt
at a serious criticism of them? Dominic Hughes
promised one a while ago, but has disappeared.
You've often promised, but have never delivered.

Likewise -- there is not the faintest hope of a
sensible answer to Peter Farey's question from an
Oxfordian -- other than the one I have already given.
The quasi-Strat Oxfordians don't like that answer,
because (a) they have not considered it before;
(b) it sets out much too explicitly a particular
course of action taken by the authorities of the day;
(c) it is far too anti-Strat for their liking.

All Peter will get from them is evasion, insults,
and silence.
[..]

>>> The maturation of Shakespeare's voice can, in
>>> part, be seen as going from a rigid adherence to
>>> iambic pentameter (early style) to an occasional
>>> loosening of iambic pentameter's bounds (late
>>> style).
>>>
>>> This is an unsurprising result. In even less
>>> technical terms, it's tantamount to saying the
>>> author became increasingly familiar and
>>> comfortable with his form as he matured.
>>
>> This 'thinking' derives from the Stratfordian
>> assumption that the poet was some kind of
>> semi-conscious automaton with a magic pen,
>> who had no idea what he was writing about.
>> Farey, of course, says the same:

> Either they have a teacher who tells them what meter is,
> and tells them when they are metrically correct, when not,

Every Elizabethan poet (who we recognise
as such) got such instruction. Of course,
there were plenty others who wrote doggerel.

[..]

> they will inevitably run iton someone who knows what meter
> is, probably someone who will tell them their poetry is bad
> because it doesn't scan.

Why should this happen? In any case, there
is no point in trying to instruct the tone-
and metre-deaf.

> If they have the innate ability to write good verse, they will
> eventually write it.

Crapology.

> It will then be unconscious, the way the
> act of walking is mostly unconscious.

Pure crapology. Quote some 'unconscious
verse' of the day.

[..]

> He most certainly won't keep count of how frequently he's
> using them. Sure, if someone points out that he's using them
> more now than he did ten years ago, he'll agree (assuming he
> indeed is), but he won't say, "Yeah, I was doing them at the rate
> of 5.5 per 100 lines but thought 9.7 per hundred more effective
> back in '02. Next year I may try a rate of 11."

Yet this is Peter Farey's argument -- although
the poet was keeping a count of two separate
things (feminine-endings and run-on lines) and
adding the scores together, making sure that
the total went up a little each year.

>>> I would say that he wrote in a way that sounded
>>> right to him at the time, and that what sounded
>>> right changed over the years.
>
> That puts what I said more succinctly.
>
>> So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
>> had no conscious awareness of the difference
>> between feminine and masculine endings nor
>> that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.
>
> That's not what Peter said.

It is what he implied.

>> It could never have occurred to him to use
>> them in a deliberate manner -- i.e. more or
>> less of either -- in any particular work, nor to
>> experiment in any matter of style.
>
> Your either/or is insane, Paul. There are gradations of
> consciousness of things. The beginning poet may be
> 100% conscious of what he's doing metrically, but
> the advanced poet hardly conscious of it--MOST OF
> THE TIME.

This, IMHO, is utter nonsense. A skilled
craftsman is fully aware of the tools he
uses.

[..]

>> NO ONE would dream of making such a
>> point about ANY other artist in ANY field.
>> No one vaguely competent ever has.
>
> Interesting. No one would dream of making the point,
> but some one not vaguely competent has. Aside
> from that minor error of logic, Paul, you should know
> that a claim that no one would ever believe or say or do
> something is absurd. There is no opinion some human
> being has not expressed.

OK, then, make the point about SOME other
artist.

> I myself say that what Peter has said about Shakespeare
> could be applied to any artist I'm familiar with.

A strange absence of names.
[..]

>>> 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
>>> of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
>>> 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
>>> including in his list, published that year,
>>> only those with the lowest frequency of open
>>> lines and feminine endings?
>
> Wait, Paul. Are you saying those who gave Meres his
> list purposely gave him "only those with the lowest
> frequency of open line and feminine endings?" Weird.

It was not at all weird considering that they
were 'creating' a rural-gentleman author, who
would be expected to stick to the more simple
forms of rhyme and metre.

[..]

> I don't have a high opinion of these two guys, either, Paul,
> but I'm curious how you account for the fact that one of
> them was a professed Oxfordian whose first stylometric
> analyses he hoped would confirm that Oxford could have
> written the plays. When they didn't, he accepted the
> results and converted to Stratfordianism. I assume
> you consider all that a lie.

I know nothing of the guy, and don't want
to find out. Anyone with faith in the
'stylometric analyses' of texts which the
author put into the mouths of others is
necessarily a total fool. Imagine comparing
different chapters of Joyce's "Ulysses" --
written in utterly different styles, and
with different vocabularies.

Paul.

[John W Kennedy]

On 12/23/09 1:17 AM, ignoto wrote:

> I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
> dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
> and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
> beetle).

Now that's plain silly. Lots of poets use greater or lesser degrees of
metrical strictness for different poems, assuming that they live in a
poetic culture that allows them the latitude to begin with. Was it Frost
who said that, in his time, there were two available English meters:
strict iambic pentameter and loose iambic pentameter?

I personally find it much easier to write ballades, or even terza-rima
acrostics, than blank verse, and I find it easier to write what Bob G.
calls "pure blank verse" than even to open it up to the Augustan norm;
for truly loose pentameter I have to stand over myself with a whip, and
painstakingly craft every foot.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

[ignoto]

John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 12/23/09 1:17 AM, ignoto wrote:
>
>> I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
>> dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
>> and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
>> beetle).
>
> Now that's plain silly. Lots of poets use greater or lesser degrees of
> metrical strictness for different poems, assuming that they live in a
> poetic culture that allows them the latitude to begin with. Was it Frost
> who said that, in his time, there were two available English meters:
> strict iambic pentameter and loose iambic pentameter?

I was discussing the use of verse in playwriting, not the use of verse
in poetry. My point being that, as a dramatic vehicle, the loose iambic
is superior to the strict iambic and that we should not reasonably
expect a superior dramatist to revert to an inferior form - ie, we
shouldn't expect CE as a follow up to WT.

Ign.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Dec 23, 5:20 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> Why are the reactions so bad? I think that it
> >> is simply the result of Peter raising some new
> >> (if _relatively_ minor) issues, which Oxfordians
> >> have not confronted before. The weak-minded
> >> find all thought (and any new ideas) distressingly
> >> painful, and the initial reaction is to panic.
>
> > Baloney.  They don't answer the old questions any better.
>
> My statement was about the weak-minded generally.
> Set out a new idea to them, and they are quite
> flummoxed.

My retort is that the weak-minded are flummoxed by
ANY argument against their delusion. Some automatically panic,
others just punch out the boilerplate they've always punched out,
as you do (to wit: if my arguments is wrong, how is it that
no has tried to refute it?)

>  To them, such things are not possible
> -- or, at least, should not happen in their universe.
> Look at the NON-reaction to my Sonnet exegeses.
> When do you think we might see the FIRST attempt
> at a serious criticism of them?  Dominic Hughes
> promised one a while ago, but has disappeared.
> You've often promised, but have never delivered.

Paul, we've long pretended to believe you have
presented us with Sonnet exegeses. We felt that
the truth was push you over the brink. But now I
have to tell you that you have never presented a
single exegesis of a Shakespearean sonnet. How
can we deal with what isn't there?

Of course, you will claim that you have presented such
exegeses, and tell us where to go to find them, or even
quote them, but--if you read these "exegeses" carefully
you'll find that they are lollagoogies, which is my term
for absolute insanity. They are not exegeses, and only
you call them that.

> Likewise -- there is not the faintest hope of a
> sensible answer to Peter Farey's question from an
> Oxfordian -- other than the one I have already given.
> The quasi-Strat Oxfordians don't like that answer,
> because (a) they have not considered it before;
> (b) it sets out much too explicitly a particular
> course of action taken by the authorities of the day;
> (c) it is far too anti-Strat for their liking.
>
> All Peter will get from them is evasion, insults,
> and silence.
>

> >>> The maturation of Shakespeare's voice can, in
> >>> part, be seen as going from a rigid adherence to
> >>> iambic pentameter (early style) to an occasional
> >>> loosening of iambic pentameter's bounds (late
> >>> style).
>
> >>> This is an unsurprising result. In even less
> >>> technical terms, it's tantamount to saying the
> >>> author became increasingly familiar and
> >>> comfortable with his form as he matured.
>
> >> This 'thinking' derives from the Stratfordian
> >> assumption that the poet was some kind of
> >> semi-conscious automaton with a magic pen,
> >> who had no idea what he was writing about.
> >> Farey, of course, says the same:

> > Either they have a teacher who tells them what meter is,
> > and tells them when they are metrically correct, when not,
>
> Every Elizabethan poet (who we recognise
> as such) got such instruction.  Of course,
> there were plenty others who wrote doggerel.
>

Sorry, Paul, you can't know that. The lives of many poets of the
time is close to unknown.
>
> > they will inevitably run it on someone who knows what meter

> > is, probably someone who will tell them their poetry is bad
> > because it doesn't scan.
>
> Why should this happen?  

Because those trying to write poetry will consider themselves
to be communicating something and/or trying to win the
attention of others with art-objects. They will thus seek out
readers and/or listeners, and show them their poetry or read it
to them. They will also naturally seek out others who write or
are trying to write poetry. They will inevitably attract people who
like poetry, and learn from them, even if only whether their poetry
is effective with them or not. Etc.

> In any case, there
> is no point in trying to instruct the tone-
> and metre-deaf.

See, you agree with me that an innate predisposition is required.

> > If they have the innate ability to write good verse, they will
> > eventually write it.
>
> Crapology.

No rigidnki can accept this, because no rigidnik can do anything'
unless trained to do it by a Master. Rigidniks, incapable of
beign self-taught, can't believe the ability to learn on one's own
is possible.

> > It will then be unconscious, the way the
> > act of walking is mostly unconscious.
>
> Pure crapology. Quote some 'unconscious
> verse' of the day.

Quote some "conscious verse" of the day. I'm speaking, by the
way, of verse, or composing a text metrically which most poets
who do it, do it with out thinking "weak beat, strong, weak--uh,
strong, weak," etc., they just do it. Actually, you know this.
An athlete is the same way. A tennis player may conscious think
of going cross-court on a particular shot most of the time, but
most of the time (if he's any good), he will unconsciously realize
such a shot will be effective and make it, without thining to
himself that he's making a cross-court shot.

An artist, athlete, crraftsman, even scientist, will go in and out of
"consciousness" as he pursues whatever goal he's decided on.

>
> [..]
>
> > He most certainly won't keep count of how frequently he's
> > using them.  Sure, if someone points out that he's using them
> > more now than he did ten years ago, he'll agree (assuming he
> > indeed is), but he won't say, "Yeah, I was doing them at the rate
> > of 5.5 per 100 lines but thought 9.7 per hundred more effective
> > back in '02.  Next year I may try a rate of 11."
>
> Yet this is Peter Farey's argument -- although
> the poet was keeping a count of two separate
> things (feminine-endings and run-on lines) and
> adding the scores together, making sure that
> the total went up a little each year.

No, it is NOT. As I understand it. Peter and almost every
scholar believes that the dramatists of the time gradually
became metrically looser. Understanding how poets work,
they assumed they loosened up in many ways, but always
almost entirely because they felt they could say more if
looser than they could with strict meter, and that the extra
things they could do by being less strict made up for the
loss of polish, musicality, higher-ambience that strict meter
provides.

Same with the slow decline of rhyme in plays.

It is simply not sane to believe a given playwright would decide
consciously to change his percentage of feminine endings from
8 to 9, say, and keep a count on them. But it is not at all
implausible that he would conscious decide that his dialgoue
sounded better with more feminine endings than he formerly
used, and not worked so hard to avoid them as he had, and
eventually perhaps even seek them out.

I wouldn't be surprised if actors palyed a role in this, some of them
slightly revising their lines, and adding feminine endings to them,
and the playwrights realizing they worked better that way, so
leaving them as the actors had them. And actors do collaborate
effectively at times with playwrights, Paul, even with demigods like
Oxford

> >>> I would say that he wrote in a way that sounded
> >>> right to him at the time, and that what sounded
> >>> right changed over the years.
>
> > That puts what I said more succinctly.
>
> >> So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
> >> had no conscious awareness of the difference
> >> between feminine and masculine endings nor
> >> that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.
>
> > That's not what Peter said.
>
> It is what he implied.

Only to you.

> >> It could never have occurred to him to use
> >> them in a deliberate manner -- i.e. more or
> >> less of either -- in any particular work, nor to
> >> experiment in any matter of style.
>
> > Your either/or is insane, Paul.  There are gradations of
> > consciousness of things.  The beginning poet may be
> > 100% conscious of what he's doing metrically, but

> > the advanced poet IS hardly conscious of it--MOST OF

> > THE TIME.
>
> This, IMHO, is utter nonsense.  A skilled
> craftsman is fully aware of the tools he
> uses.

So a carpenter sawing is thinking as he does so,
now I'm going forward, now I'm drawing my tool back, etc.
Well, I'm enough of a craftsman as a writer to have
been paid at times for texts I've written, and I am
almost never aware of my grammar--I just use words
grammatically withou thinking about it (for the most
part). You do, too, I'm sure. Every once in a while,
I do think of my grammar--when I come to a spot
where I'm not sure how to write what I want to say
grammatically. Same with spelling. Do you think
over how to spell every word you write or do you
just write them without even being aware that you
are "spelling?" Until you come to a word whose
spelling you're not sure of.

This is the way poets, formal poets, are with meter.

> [..]
>
> >> NO ONE would dream of making such a
> >> point about ANY other artist in ANY field.
> >> No one vaguely competent ever has.
>
> > Interesting.  No one would dream of making the point,

> > but someone not vaguely competent has.  Aside

> > from that minor error of logic, Paul, you should know
> > that a claim that no one would ever believe or say or do
> > something is absurd.  There is no opinion some human
> > being has not expressed.
>
> OK, then, make the point about SOME other
> artist.

What point? I think you deleted it. If that artists compose
without full consciousness, all the time, of what they're
doing, then I say it applies to all known artists. Many of
them, in fact, claim (foolishly) that ALL their art comes
from the mysterious workings of their unconsciousness.
I believe the majority would agree that much of their best
effects come from who knows where. It's a cliche that
an artist is only a vessel for his works. Some muse provides
them, not his conscious brain.

> > I myself say that what Peter has said about Shakespeare
> > could be applied to any artist I'm familiar with.
>
> A strange absence of names.

You can't guess the names of any artist I might be failiar with?
Okay: Beethoven, Mozart, Aristophanes, Klee, Shostakovich,
Keats, Byron, Dickens, Shaw,Yeats, Cummings, Chaucer . . .

I know this because I know how the human brain operates, Paul.

Now you name an artist whose works are 100% consciously
constructed. I wouldn't even know how one COULD
consciously take care of every detail in an artwork. I
certainly never have, and others do count me an artist. I
know of no artist, either personally, or from biographical material,
who ever claim his art was entirely conscious--except may Poe--
beut even his poems can be shown not pre-planned in every detail.

> [..]
>
> >>> 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
> >>> of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
> >>> 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
> >>> including in his list, published that year,
> >>> only those with the lowest frequency of open
> >>> lines and feminine endings?
>
> > Wait, Paul.  Are you saying those who gave Meres his
> > list purposely gave him "only those with the lowest
> > frequency of open line and feminine endings?"  Weird.
>
> It was not at all weird considering that they
> were 'creating' a rural-gentleman author, who
> would be expected to stick to the more simple
> forms of rhyme and metre.

Fascinating. These super-genius hoaxsters tell Meres to list
the plays of Shakespeare (never performed in public theatres?)
and purposely seek the twelve with the lowest frequency of
open line and feminine endings?! They think that those familiar
with the plays will be aware of this frequency and accept it
as likely for the bumpkin? But only nobles with be familiar with the
plays and they don't have to be fooled! They're in out . . . The
TRUTH.
The only ones needing to be fooled won't know a feminine ending
from a Homeric simile.

Again, Paul, you're out of your mind.

> [..]
>
> > I don't have a high opinion of these two guys, either, Paul,
> > but I'm curious how you account for the fact that one of
> > them was a professed Oxfordian whose first stylometric
> > analyses he hoped would confirm that Oxford could have
> > written the plays.  When they didn't, he accepted the
> > results and converted to Stratfordianism.  I assume
> > you consider all that a lie.
>
> I know nothing of the guy, and don't want
> to find out.  Anyone with faith in the
> 'stylometric analyses' of texts which the
> author put into the mouths of others is
> necessarily a total fool.  Imagine comparing
> different chapters of Joyce's "Ulysses" --
> written in utterly different styles, and
> with different vocabularies.

Every author doesn't have an over-all style? The style of
the speech of Shakespeare's lower-class comic figures
won't be clearly different from the style of the speech of
Congreve's or Sheridan's or Wilde's of Dickens's?

--Bob

[lackpurity]

MM:
Well, Paul and I are somewhat on the same page on this one. Will
Shakespeare was not intentionally increasing those types of endings.
It was just accidental or a by-product, IMO.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

On Dec 23, 11:07�pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 12/23/09 1:17 AM, ignoto wrote:
>
> > I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
> > dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
> > and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
> > beetle).
>
> Now that's plain silly. Lots of poets use greater or lesser degrees of
> metrical strictness for different poems, assuming that they live in a
> poetic culture that allows them the latitude to begin with. Was it Frost
> who said that, in his time, there were two available English meters:
> strict iambic pentameter and loose iambic pentameter?

MM:
When Masters appear on earth, they need to try to focus our attention
on them. Marlowe helped Will immensely, as did Fulke and the rest of
the Wilton Cult. Groatsworth of Wit indicates that Will had
established himself EARLY ON as a writer. Greene even called it
conceit.

My point is that Will had proved that he was a Great Poet, with all
the proper meters and endings, although he still went erratic on
occasion, as he thought necessary. Not having to prove his competence
as a writer was probably the reason for the slow invevitabel increase
in "loose" endings, as you refer to the. It was nothing intentional,
but just a by-product of his circumstances and his lack of time. He
was first and foremost a spiitual leader. He was widely known. That
he was able to continue producing plays is a miracle in itself, IMO,
as he had so many other duties to perform. It was really the grace of
God, that the production of plays continued, albeit with loose
endings.

> I personally find it much easier to write ballades, or even terza-rima
> acrostics, than blank verse, and I find it easier to write what Bob G.
> calls "pure blank verse" than even to open it up to the Augustan norm;
> for truly loose pentameter I have to stand over myself with a whip, and

> painstakingly craft every foot.'

MM:
Understood.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

On Dec 24, 12:26�am, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> John W Kennedy wrote:
> > On 12/23/09 1:17 AM, ignoto wrote:
>
> >> I can;t see a writer able to use a looser, more flexible and more
> >> dramatically capable form of iambic line regressing to more restrictive
> >> and artificial form (it would be much like moving from a ferrari to a VW
> >> beetle).
>
> > Now that's plain silly. �Lots of poets use greater or lesser degrees of
> > metrical strictness for different poems, assuming that they live in a
> > poetic culture that allows them the latitude to begin with. Was it Frost
> > who said that, in his time, there were two available English meters:
> > strict iambic pentameter and loose iambic pentameter?
>
> I was discussing the use of verse in playwriting, not the use of verse
> in poetry. My point being that, as a dramatic vehicle, the loose iambic
> is superior to the strict iambic and that we should not reasonably
> expect a superior dramatist to revert to an inferior form - ie, we
> shouldn't expect CE as a follow up to WT.
>
> Ign.

MM:
He was interested in getting his message out, whether we call it
"dramatic," or not. I agree, that in most cases it was dramatic.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

On Dec 23, 4:20�pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> Why are the reactions so bad? I think that it
> >> is simply the result of Peter raising some new
> >> (if _relatively_ minor) issues, which Oxfordians
> >> have not confronted before. The weak-minded
> >> find all thought (and any new ideas) distressingly
> >> painful, and the initial reaction is to panic.
>
> > Baloney. �They don't answer the old questions any better.
>
> My statement was about the weak-minded generally.
> Set out a new idea to them, and they are quite
> flummoxed. �To them, such things are not possible
> -- or, at least, should not happen in their universe.
> Look at the NON-reaction to my Sonnet exegeses.
> When do you think we might see the FIRST attempt
> at a serious criticism of them? �Dominic Hughes
> promised one a while ago, but has disappeared.
> You've often promised, but have never delivered.

MM:
I've challenged some of your sonnet exegeses.

> Likewise -- there is not the faintest hope of a
> sensible answer to Peter Farey's question from an
> Oxfordian -- other than the one I have already given.
> The quasi-Strat Oxfordians don't like that answer,
> because (a) they have not considered it before;
> (b) it sets out much too explicitly a particular
> course of action taken by the authorities of the day;
> (c) it is far too anti-Strat for their liking.

MM:
Your attempted rebuttal of Peter Farey's trendlines was a failure,
IMO.

> All Peter will get from them is evasion, insults,
> and silence.
> [..]

MM:
Well, Paul, what he got from you was not a rebuttal, IMO.

> >>> The maturation of Shakespeare's voice can, in
> >>> part, be seen as going from a rigid adherence to
> >>> iambic pentameter (early style) to an occasional
> >>> loosening of iambic pentameter's bounds (late
> >>> style).
>
> >>> This is an unsurprising result. In even less
> >>> technical terms, it's tantamount to saying the
> >>> author became increasingly familiar and
> >>> comfortable with his form as he matured.
>
> >> This 'thinking' derives from the Stratfordian
> >> assumption that the poet was some kind of
> >> semi-conscious automaton with a magic pen,
> >> who had no idea what he was writing about.
> >> Farey, of course, says the same:
> > Either they have a teacher who tells them what meter is,
> > and tells them when they are metrically correct, when not,
>
> Every Elizabethan poet (who we recognise
> as such) got such instruction. �Of course,
> there were plenty others who wrote doggerel.
>
> [..]

MM:
Shakespeare had nothing to prove. He was well-known as a writer, even
early-on, by Groatsworth of Wit. He succeeded a Great Dramatist,
Marlowe. Towards the end of his life, he had more demands on his
time. That is the main reason for the loose endings.

> > they will inevitably run iton someone who knows what meter
> > is, probably someone who will tell them their poetry is bad
> > because it doesn't scan.
>
> Why should this happen? �In any case, there
> is no point in trying to instruct the tone-
> and metre-deaf.

MM:
This has nothing to do with what the situation was. Will had proven
that he was a great writer. This is a classic case of an Anti-Strat
merely tiptoeing through the tulips.

> > If they have the innate ability to write good verse, they will
> > eventually write it.
>
> Crapology.
>
> > It will then be unconscious, the way the
> > act of walking is mostly unconscious.
>
> Pure crapology. Quote some 'unconscious
> verse' of the day.
>
> [..]

MM:
He was "conscious," or most concerned with getting out his message,
not the condtion of the endings.

> > He most certainly won't keep count of how frequently he's
> > using them. �Sure, if someone points out that he's using them
> > more now than he did ten years ago, he'll agree (assuming he
> > indeed is), but he won't say, "Yeah, I was doing them at the rate
> > of 5.5 per 100 lines but thought 9.7 per hundred more effective
> > back in '02. �Next year I may try a rate of 11."
>
> Yet this is Peter Farey's argument -- although
> the poet was keeping a count of two separate
> things (feminine-endings and run-on lines) and
> adding the scores together, making sure that
> the total went up a little each year.

MM:
I certainly don't agree with this conclusion. The loose endings were
just accidental by-products. He was in a hurry.

> >>> I would say that he wrote in a way that sounded
> >>> right to him at the time, and that what sounded
> >>> right changed over the years.
>
> > That puts what I said more succinctly.
>
> >> So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
> >> had no conscious awareness of the difference
> >> between feminine and masculine endings nor
> >> that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.
>
> > That's not what Peter said.
>
> It is what he implied.
>
> >> It could never have occurred to him to use
> >> them in a deliberate manner -- i.e. more or
> >> less of either -- in any particular work, nor to
> >> experiment in any matter of style.
>
> > Your either/or is insane, Paul. �There are gradations of
> > consciousness of things. �The beginning poet may be
> > 100% conscious of what he's doing metrically, but
> > the advanced poet hardly conscious of it--MOST OF
> > THE TIME.
>
> This, IMHO, is utter nonsense. �A skilled
> craftsman is fully aware of the tools he
> uses.
>
> [..]

MM:
Can Anti-Strats understand anything? He was in a hurry. It had
nothing to do with the tools. Tools have to be used by someone.

> >> NO ONE would dream of making such a
> >> point about ANY other artist in ANY field.
> >> No one vaguely competent ever has.
>
> > Interesting. �No one would dream of making the point,
> > but some one not vaguely competent has. �Aside
> > from that minor error of logic, Paul, you should know
> > that a claim that no one would ever believe or say or do
> > something is absurd. �There is no opinion some human
> > being has not expressed.
>
> OK, then, make the point about SOME other
> artist.
>
> > I myself say that what Peter has said about Shakespeare
> > could be applied to any artist I'm familiar with.
>
> A strange absence of names.
> [..]

MM:
Give me a break. LOL You want a list of names, who were in a hurry,
and used more loose endings? The trend was going even with other
authors, wasn't it? The trend to produce was evident. Shakespeare
was probably a main trend-setter on that, even if it was accidental.

> >>> 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
> >>> of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
> >>> 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
> >>> including in his list, published that year,
> >>> only those with the lowest frequency of open
> >>> lines and feminine endings?
>
> > Wait, Paul. �Are you saying those who gave Meres his
> > list purposely gave him "only those with the lowest
> > frequency of open line and feminine endings?" �Weird.
>
> It was not at all weird considering that they
> were 'creating' a rural-gentleman author, who
> would be expected to stick to the more simple
> forms of rhyme and metre.
>
> [..]

MM:
Well, sooner or later, Paul goes off into his fantasies. This is one
of them.

> > I don't have a high opinion of these two guys, either, Paul,
> > but I'm curious how you account for the fact that one of
> > them was a professed Oxfordian whose first stylometric
> > analyses he hoped would confirm that Oxford could have
> > written the plays. �When they didn't, he accepted the
> > results and converted to Stratfordianism. �I assume
> > you consider all that a lie.
>
> I know nothing of the guy, and don't want
> to find out. �Anyone with faith in the
> 'stylometric analyses' of texts which the
> author put into the mouths of others is
> necessarily a total fool. �Imagine comparing
> different chapters of Joyce's "Ulysses" --
> written in utterly different styles, and
> with different vocabularies.
>
> Paul.

MM:
Put into the mouths of others? Hmmmm. Now Crowley is going from
fantasies to spinning, skating, and dodging.

Michael Martin

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>> My statement was about the weak-minded generally.
>> Set out a new idea to them, and they are quite
>> flummoxed.
>
> My retort is that the weak-minded are flummoxed by ANY
> argument against their delusion.

Most weak-minded people are orthodox in all
respects. Any idea that is contrary to their
received beliefs is rejected. You'd expect
people who have abandoned one big orthodox
idea to be more open to others, but it doesn't
seem to work like that -- unless it's openness
to some very bad ideas.

> Some automatically
> panic, others just punch out the boilerplate they've
> always punched out, as you do (to wit: if my arguments is
> wrong, how is it that no has tried to refute it?)

Sure. No Oxfordian is trying to refute Peter
Farey's argument (ignoring myself for the
moment). On those grounds Peter would win.
How do you think it should work?

>>> Either they have a teacher who tells them what meter is,
>>> and tells them when they are metrically correct, when not,
>>
>> Every Elizabethan poet (who we recognise
>> as such) got such instruction. Of course,
>> there were plenty others who wrote doggerel.
>
> Sorry, Paul, you can't know that. The lives of many poets
> of the time is close to unknown.

All those whose early experience is known
got training. We can generalise to the rest.

[..]

>> In any case, there
>> is no point in trying to instruct the tone-
>> and metre-deaf.
>
> See, you agree with me that an innate predisposition is
> required.

Only marginally. In the case of Shake-speare
it was mainly the tens of thousands of hours
of hard work when young.

[..]

>>> It will then be unconscious, the way the
>>> act of walking is mostly unconscious.
>> Pure crapology. Quote some 'unconscious
>> verse' of the day.
>
> Quote some "conscious verse" of the day.

All of it. Sonnet 18, if you want a
specific example.

> I'm speaking, by the way, of verse, or composing a
> text metrically which most poets who do it, do it
> with out thinking "weak beat, strong, weak--uh,
> strong, weak," etc., they just do it.

Nope. In (say) Sonnet 18, the 'professional'
poet knew exactly what he was doing in each
line.

> Actually, you know this. An athlete is the same way.
> A tennis player may conscious think of going cross-
> court on a particular shot most of the time, but most
> of the time (if he's any good), he will unconsciously
> realize such a shot will be effective and make it,
> without thining to himself that he's making a cross-
> court shot.

That's an absurd analogy. A tennis-player
has a fraction of a second to decide how
to respond, and is fully aware that any
'thinking' about it will almost guarantee
failure. Whereas poets have much more
time. Of course, in a longish work, following
a regular pattern (as say 'Lucrece' or 'Hiawatha')
the poet won't need to think about metre much.
[..]

>>> "Yeah, I was doing them at the rate
>>> of 5.5 per 100 lines but thought 9.7 per hundred more effective
>>> back in '02. Next year I may try a rate of 11."
>>
>> Yet this is Peter Farey's argument -- although
>> the poet was keeping a count of two separate
>> things (feminine-endings and run-on lines) and
>> adding the scores together, making sure that
>> the total went up a little each year.
>
> No, it is NOT.

Say where I go wrong -- other than in
denying your Faith. That is, please
point out my errors of fact or logic --
as against those you see as doctrinal
sins.

> As I understand it. Peter and almost every scholar
> believes that the dramatists of the time gradually
> became metrically looser. Understanding how poets
> work, they assumed they loosened up in many ways, but
> always almost entirely because they felt they could
> say more if looser than they could with strict meter,
> and that the extra things they could do by being less
> strict made up for the loss of polish, musicality,
> higher-ambience that strict meter provides.

It was far from 'loosening up'. The fashions
changed in complicated ways. If you added
together every single line of poetry and every
line of dramatic verse written, you MIGHT
get a graph vaguely like that of Peter Farey's.
But it would be crazy to think that any one
poet followed that same pattern (even if you
added or subtracted a few years from the
'average trend'). Many poets experimented
way ahead of the 'trend'. Many oscillated
(in every conceivable way) with their use
of various techniques. Shake-speare would
have been well ahead of the mob in most
things (while rejecting others -- such as the
prevalent neo-Aristotelianism) but also he
would never have stuck to any kind of "pre-
determined" pattern of incremental use.
The idea is nuts.

> It is simply not sane to believe a given playwright
> would decide consciously to change his percentage of
> feminine endings from 8 to 9, say, and keep a count on
> them.

Agreed. But that is what Peter implies.
Of course, his even more insane alternative
is the standard Stratfordian line -- that
the Bard was some kind of poetic automaton
-- a machine with both an automatic progress
and a magic pen.

> But it is not at all implausible that he would
> conscious decide that his dialgoue sounded better with
> more feminine endings than he formerly used, and not
> worked so hard to avoid them as he had, and eventually
> perhaps even seek them out.

Nope -- and almost as insane. He'd have
used them (and other techniques) for certain
works, certain scenes, and certain characters,
and avoided them for others. Sometimes
he'd have tried them, found that they did not
work out in particular cases, and revised the
speech or the scene in another style.

>>> consciousness of things. The beginning poet may be
>>> 100% conscious of what he's doing metrically, but
>>> the advanced poet IS hardly conscious of it--MOST OF
>>> THE TIME.
>>
>> This, IMHO, is utter nonsense. A skilled
>> craftsman is fully aware of the tools he
>> uses.
>
> So a carpenter sawing is thinking as he does so,
> now I'm going forward, now I'm drawing my tool back, etc.

He would have a range of saws (maybe ~20)
and he would know when he was using one
and not another.

> Well, I'm enough of a craftsman as a writer to have
> been paid at times for texts I've written, and I am
> almost never aware of my grammar--I just use words
> grammatically withou thinking about it (for the most
> part). You do, too, I'm sure. Every once in a while,
> I do think of my grammar--when I come to a spot
> where I'm not sure how to write what I want to say
> grammatically. Same with spelling. Do you think
> over how to spell every word you write or do you
> just write them without even being aware that you
> are "spelling?" Until you come to a word whose
> spelling you're not sure of.

Spelling and grammar are very different things
from feminine endings (versus masculine) and
run-on lines versus end-stopped ones.

>> OK, then, make the point about SOME other
>> artist.
>
> What point? I think you deleted it.

The same point as we've been talking about.

>>> So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
>>> had no conscious awareness of the difference
>>> between feminine and masculine endings nor
>>> that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.

Quote a passage of verse (from any poet of
the day) that uses a lot of feminine endings
or run-on lines, and claim (or show how) that
particular poet was probably not aware that
he was doing what he was doing.

OR quote ANY competent poet writing ANY
kind of verse, showing where the poet was
unlikely to have been unaware of that kind of
distinction.

[..]

>>> Wait, Paul. Are you saying those who gave Meres his
>>> list purposely gave him "only those with the lowest
>>> frequency of open line and feminine endings?" Weird.
>>
>> It was not at all weird considering that they
>> were 'creating' a rural-gentleman author, who
>> would be expected to stick to the more simple
>> forms of rhyme and metre.
>
> Fascinating. These super-genius hoaxsters tell Meres
> to list the plays of Shakespeare (never performed in
> public theatres?) and purposely seek the twelve with
> the lowest frequency of open line and feminine
> endings?!

The poet was alive, and can be counted to
know his own works -- or to let himself be
reminded, after a brief glance at each of
them. He would also have had several
admirers who knew the works well. He was
probably asked for a list of a dozen or so
plays that ought to be printed first -- given
that they were to be the first output of this
'rural-gentleman-poet'.

> They think that those familiar with the plays will be
> aware of this frequency and accept it as likely for
> the bumpkin?

The 'rural-gentleman-poet' was not going to
announced to the public as the bumpkin (that
the Stratford man was). He was the 'genius
child of nature' of just the sort that you
have in your own mind today.

> But only nobles with be familiar with the plays and
> they don't have to be fooled! They're in out . . .
> The TRUTH. The only ones needing to be fooled won't
> know a feminine ending from a Homeric simile.

Nonsense. There were a lot of non-nobles
outside court circles, many of a Puritan leaning
(such as Meres himself, Thomas Greene or Dr
John Hall) who knew about poetry, many of
whom of whom were competent poets. All
those (who were not in government pay) had
to be kept in the dark.

> Again, Paul, you're out of your mind.

A weak response. Surely you can do better?

>> Anyone with faith in the
>> 'stylometric analyses' of texts which the
>> author put into the mouths of others is
>> necessarily a total fool. Imagine comparing
>> different chapters of Joyce's "Ulysses" --
>> written in utterly different styles, and
>> with different vocabularies.
>
> Every author doesn't have an over-all style?

Most certainly not. Many good authors can
imitate others, write in their styles with
the appropriate vocabularies. Examples
are Joyce, Shake-speare and Craig Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Brown_%28satirist%29

> The style of the speech of Shakespeare's lower-class
> comic figures won't be clearly different from the
> style of the speech of Congreve's or Sheridan's or
> Wilde's of Dickens's?

I don't think so. Many good writers could
readily imitate a variety of Dickens's
Cockney characters, to the extent that
neither you nor I nor any computer could
tell the difference.

Maybe, MAYBE, if the computer analysts
focussed on a tight range of particular
characters, such as (say) Shake-speare's
lower-class females, they might find
something significant and distinctive --
that could not be (or has never been)
imitated by any other writer.

If they focussed on the Bard's very high-
status females, they'd find that there was
only one woman alive at the time (and for
200 years before and after) who came close
to matching the characteristics he gives
them. But we all know that the kind of
academics who mount such enquiries are
too dumb and too closed-minded to ever
begin to consider a question as sensible.

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

> >> My statement was about the weak-minded generally.
> >> Set out a new idea to them, and they are quite
> >> flummoxed.
>
> > My retort is that the weak-minded are flummoxed by ANY
> > argument against their delusion.
>
> Most weak-minded people are orthodox in all
> respects.  Any idea that is contrary to their
> received beliefs is rejected.  You'd expect
> people who have abandoned one big orthodox
> idea to be more open to others, but it doesn't
> seem to work like that -- unless it's openness
> to some very bad ideas.

Like the idea that Oxford didn't just write the plays
and poems of Shakespeare but the works of just
about every good English writer of his time?

> > Some automatically
> > panic, others just punch out the boilerplate they've

> > always punched out, as you do (to wit: if my argument is

> > wrong, how is it that no has tried to refute it?)
>
> Sure.  No Oxfordian is trying to refute Peter
> Farey's argument (ignoring myself for the
> moment).  

Just checked, and got sucked into spending two hours or so
replying to some of the crap Peter's had to face. Hyatt and
Stritmatter were the worst of his opponents. Hyatt is flat
out stupid. He can't understand Peter. Stritmatter may be able
to but prefers not to. His replies are more intelligently
idiotic than Hyatt's. But some have definitely tried to
refute Peter. Nessus has definitely presented arguments
against Peter's implied argument that the line endings
indicate Oxford did not write the plays. Others have
presented arguments, too, although not very good ones.

> On those grounds Peter would win.
> How do you think it should work?

You should know by now, Paul.

Once the debate reaches the level that most of
yours and mine have, to wit: you say you're right,
I say I'm right, you find an outsider to decide who
is more likely right. Or a group of outsiders--persons
most others would consider knowledgeable about the
subject under discussion. You make sure they are
exposed to all the evidence on either side, then let them
judge. You needn't accept their verdict as permanent,
but have to assume they are more likely right than
wrong since such groups are almost always right.

Because once in a while they are not right, you
may convene another such group a few years
later and keep convening such groups until the
almost everyone in the world agrees with one side,
as has been the case with the roundness of the
earth, etc.

What you don't do, is allow one of the two in the debate
to be the judge of who is more likely right.

> >>> Either they have a teacher who tells them what meter is,
> >>> and tells them when they are metrically correct, when not,
>
> >> Every Elizabethan poet (who we recognise
> >> as such) got such instruction.  Of course,
> >> there were plenty others who wrote doggerel.
>
> > Sorry, Paul, you can't know that.  The lives of many poets
> > of the time is close to unknown.
>
> All those whose early experience is known
> got training.  We can generalise to the rest.
>

Not if we're aware of the creative process. Not that I agree
with your assertion that "all those whose early experience
is known got training." Although that would almost have to
be the case since we would have evidence of early training,
but not of the absence of early training.

>
> >> In any case, there
> >> is no point in trying to instruct the tone-
> >> and metre-deaf.
>
> > See, you agree with me that an innate predisposition is
> > required.
>
> Only marginally.  In the case of Shake-speare
> it was mainly the tens of thousands of hours
> of hard work when young.

You can't know that.

> [..]
>
> >>> It will then be unconscious, the way the
> >>> act of walking is mostly unconscious.
> >> Pure crapology. Quote some 'unconscious
> >> verse' of the day.
>
> > Quote some "conscious verse" of the day.
>
> All of it.  Sonnet 18, if you want a
> specific example.

You can't know that. ESP only works on people separated
in time by less than 200 years, so you can't know what was
going on in Shakespeare's brain when he wrote Sonnet 18.

> > I'm speaking, by the way, of verse, or composing a
> > text metrically which most poets who do it, do it
> > with out thinking "weak beat, strong, weak--uh,
> > strong, weak," etc., they just do it.
>
> Nope. In (say) Sonnet 18, the 'professional'
> poet knew exactly what he was doing in each
> line.

So say the imbecile who has never seriously read any poet
but Shakespeare, and never written a serious poem of his own,
nor studied the creative process. You believe this because
you are unable to understand or believe in non-robotic
functioning.

> > Actually, you know this. An athlete is the same way.
> > A tennis player may conscious think of going cross-
> > court on a particular shot most of the time, but most
> > of the time (if he's any good), he will unconsciously
> > realize such a shot will be effective and make it,
> > without thining to himself that he's making a cross-
> > court shot.
>
> That's an absurd analogy.  A tennis-player
> has a fraction of a second to decide how
> to respond, and is fully aware that any
> 'thinking' about it will almost guarantee
> failure.  Whereas poets have much more
> time.  Of course, in a longish work, following
> a regular pattern (as say 'Lucrece' or 'Hiawatha')
> the poet won't need to think about metre much.
> [..]

Sorry, Paul, but you're too ignorant of the workings of
the brain, particularly when creating art for me to discuss
this with you. I'd have to explain too much--most of
\which you'd be incapable of understanding. To get you
started on your own, though, why don't you read up on
how one learns to walk and other very difficult but
eventually automatic activities. Very conscious imitation
at first, then the . . . amazing, I can't think of what it's
called . . . had to look it up--the cerebellum. Clearly,
i don't know what I'm talking about if I couldn't remember
THAT. The cerebellum constructs an automatic response
of the walk or whatever the person has learned. And it
becomes second nature, not "consciously" thought about
unless something goes wrong with it. Many mental
procedures become second nature the same way. If I
ask you what six times seven is, do you think to yourself,
"seven, fourteen, twenty-one, twnety-eight, thirty-five, forty-two"
because at the same time you've been counting to six on
you fingers or just automatically give the right answer?

>
> >>> "Yeah, I was doing them at the rate
> >>> of 5.5 per 100 lines but thought 9.7 per hundred more effective
> >>> back in '02.  Next year I may try a rate of 11."
>
> >> Yet this is Peter Farey's argument -- although
> >> the poet was keeping a count of two separate
> >> things (feminine-endings and run-on lines) and
> >> adding the scores together, making sure that
> >> the total went up a little each year.
>
> > No, it is NOT.
>
> Say where I go wrong -- other than in
> denying your Faith.  That is, please
> point out my errors of fact or logic --
> as against those you see as doctrinal
> sins.

He was saying poets, Shakespeare, loosened their
meter, using more run-on and feminine endings
as they matured. To do this does not require that
they keep a conscious count of their endings; what
happens is that they more and more decide meaning
is more important than strict adherence to a meter,
and gradually, mostly unconsciously use feminine
endings and run-on lines more and more.

It's sort of like a child afraid of the ocean who spends one summer
staying at least ten feet from the incoming tide at the beach
except when accomplanied by his mother, but gradually ventures
closer--because his playmates have and because of curiosity
and an innate need for adventure. Once he's gotten within nine feet
of the tide and not suffered, he'' advance another foot, then maybe
two feet, etc. All without using a yardstick or thinking much about
it, only listening to his feelings about whether he's safe or not.

Crudely put, but it's hard to explain these kinds of things to
someone as out of it as you, Paul

> > As I understand it.  Peter and almost every scholar
> > believes that the dramatists of the time gradually
> > became metrically looser.  Understanding how poets
> > work, they assumed they loosened up in many ways, but
> > always almost entirely because they felt they could
> > say more if looser than they could with strict meter,
> > and that the extra things they could do by being less
> > strict made up for the loss of polish, musicality,
> > higher-ambience that strict meter provides.
>
> It was far from 'loosening up'.  The fashions
> changed in complicated ways.  If you added
> together every single line of poetry and every
> line of dramatic verse written, you MIGHT
> get a graph vaguely like that of Peter Farey's.
> But it would be crazy to think that any one
> poet followed that same pattern (even if you
> added or subtracted a few years from the
> 'average trend').

No one says this.

> Many poets experimented
> way ahead of the 'trend'.  Many oscillated
> (in every conceivable way) with their use
> of various techniques.  Shake-speare would
> have been well ahead of the mob in most
> things (while rejecting others -- such as the
> prevalent neo-Aristotelianism) but also he
> would never have stuck to any kind of "pre-
> determined" pattern of incremental use.
> The idea is nuts.

Right. What he did was slowly STOP sticking
to a predetermined metric pattern. Without
much or any conscious thought.

> > It is simply not sane to believe a given playwright
> > would decide consciously to change his percentage of
> > feminine endings from 8 to 9, say, and keep a count on
> > them.
>
> Agreed.  But that is what Peter implies.

No, he doesn't.

> Of course, his even more insane alternative
> is the standard Stratfordian line -- that
> the Bard was some kind of poetic automaton
> -- a machine with both an automatic progress
> and a magic pen.

Sure, it's either/or. If I don't agree with you that
Shakespeare was consciously aware of what he
was doing every second of the time he wrote, I MUST
assume he was NEVER consciously aware of what
he was doing.

> > But it is not at all implausible that he would

> > consciousLY decide that his dialgoue sounded better with

> > more feminine endings than he formerly used, and not
> > worked so hard to avoid them as he had, and eventually
> > perhaps even seek them out.
>
> Nope -- and almost as insane.  He'd have
> used them (and other techniques) for certain
> works, certain scenes, and certain characters,
> and avoided them for others.  Sometimes
> he'd have tried them, found that they did not
> work out in particular cases, and revised the
> speech or the scene in another style.

Yes, mostly unconsciously. Again, I don't say he used
them more often for ONE REASON only, I merely point
to one major reason for the practice.

> >>> consciousness of things.  The beginning poet may be
> >>> 100% conscious of what he's doing metrically, but
> >>> the advanced poet IS hardly conscious of it--MOST OF
> >>> THE TIME.
>
> >> This, IMHO, is utter nonsense.  A skilled
> >> craftsman is fully aware of the tools he
> >> uses.
>
> > So a carpenter sawing is thinking as he does so,
> > now I'm going forward, now I'm drawing my tool back, etc.
>
> He would have a range of saws (maybe ~20)
> and he would know when he was using one
> and not another.

He would not be consciously aware most of the time which saw
he was using, right. Look, you just don't know how the mind
works or do, but refuse to let your knowledge influence you
because it will cause you to lose an argument, or something, but
it's too late for me to have any hope of educating you.

> > Well, I'm enough of a craftsman as a writer to have
> > been paid at times for texts I've written, and I am
> > almost never aware of my grammar--I just use words
> > grammatically withou thinking about it (for the most
> > part).  You do, too, I'm sure.  Every once in a while,
> > I do think of my grammar--when I come to a spot
> > where I'm not sure how to write what I want to say
> > grammatically.  Same with spelling.  Do you think
> > over how to spell every word you write or do you
> > just write them without even being aware that you
> > are "spelling?"  Until you come to a word whose
> > spelling you're not sure of.
>
> Spelling and grammar are very different things
> from feminine endings (versus masculine) and
> run-on lines versus end-stopped ones.

No, they aren't. In allthese cases it reduces to a matter
of word choice. Should I the poet use this word? No,
it's wrong metrically, or no it's wrong grammatically,
or no its wrong orthographically, or no its got the wrong
meaning, or yes, in similar fashion.

> >> OK, then, make the point about SOME other
> >> artist.
>
> > What point?  I think you deleted it.
>
> The same point as we've been talking about.

Which is? That artists do things unconsciously. All I can
do is assert that composers automatically sustain a certain
rhythm. Automatically feel a need to return to a theme without
thinking I will return to my initial theme after 14 bars. Painters
suddenly, without premeditation, switch from one color to another.

I've made up songs, Paul, and have made poems that are part visual
art and have had them in galleries, even selling a couple (for a
few hundred dollars apiece, which makes me a professional visual
artist). Much of what is in them was consciously determined, but
at least as much unconscious. Nothing I've ever read or heard about
the practice of other serious artists indicates they haven't operated
exactly
the same way. Artists are not engineers--not that engineers are
the robots you no doubt think they are.

> >>> So -- under this way of 'thinking' -- the poet
> >>> had no conscious awareness of the difference
> >>> between feminine and masculine endings nor
> >>> that between a run-on and end-stopped lines.
>
> Quote a passage of verse (from any poet of
> the day) that uses a lot of feminine endings
> or run-on lines, and claim (or show how) that
> particular poet was probably not aware that
> he was doing what he was doing.
>
> OR quote ANY competent poet writing ANY
> kind of verse, showing where the poet was
> unlikely to have been unaware of that kind of
> distinction.

Too much trouble. So, once again your ploy of challenging
an opponent to expend a good deal of effort looking up
something and figuring out how to explain why it supports
his argument has worked.

But it can go both ways. You can't show me a poem
with feminine endings and show how it must have been
certain that the poet in each case consciously chose
a feminine ending over a masculine.

> [..]
>
> >>> Wait, Paul.  Are you saying those who gave Meres his
> >>> list purposely gave him "only those with the lowest
> >>> frequency of open line and feminine endings?"  Weird.
>
> >> It was not at all weird considering that they
> >> were 'creating' a rural-gentleman author, who
> >> would be expected to stick to the more simple
> >> forms of rhyme and metre.
>
> > Fascinating.  These super-genius hoaxsters tell Meres
> > to list the plays of Shakespeare (never performed in
> > public theatres?) and purposely seek the twelve with
> > the lowest frequency of open line and feminine
> > endings?!
>
> The poet was alive, and can be counted to
> know his own works -- or to let himself be
> reminded, after a brief glance at each of
> them.  He would also have had several
> admirers who knew the works well. He was
> probably asked for a list of a dozen or so
> plays that ought to be printed first -- given
> that they were to be the first output of this
> 'rural-gentleman-poet'.

Have a formal verse poet support you here on this. I just don't
believe it. You're saying feminine endings and run-on lines
did not increase as the poet matured, and that the poet and
his admirers purposely picked out the ones with fewer such
endings for first printing. Why? I am truly getting confused.

Because the bumpkin would be likely not to use many such
endings? And other plays were printed using more and more
such endings--one? Because the bumpkin would be thought likely
to increase his use of them? On what basis would they think
that, Paul. And who among those to be deceived would be
capable of noticing the trend. It SO makes no sense.

> > They think that those familiar with the plays will be
> > aware of this frequency and accept it as likely for
> > the bumpkin?
>
> The 'rural-gentleman-poet' was not going to
> announced to the public as the bumpkin (that
> the Stratford man was).  He was the 'genius
> child of nature' of just the sort that you
> have in your own mind today.
>
> > But only nobles with be familiar with the plays and

> > they don't have to be fooled!  They're in ON . . .

> > The TRUTH. The only ones needing to be fooled won't
> > know a feminine ending from a Homeric simile.
>
> Nonsense.  There were a lot of non-nobles
> outside court circles, many of a Puritan leaning
> (such as Meres himself, Thomas Greene or Dr
> John Hall) who knew about poetry, many of
> whom of whom were competent poets.  All
> those (who were not in government pay) had
> to be kept in the dark.

Ah, most intrestink.

> > Again, Paul, you're out of your mind.
>
> A weak response.  Surely you can do better?

I already have. I was expressing a conclusion, not an argument.

> >> Anyone with faith in the
> >> 'stylometric analyses' of texts which the
> >> author put into the mouths of others is
> >> necessarily a total fool.  Imagine comparing
> >> different chapters of Joyce's "Ulysses" --
> >> written in utterly different styles, and
> >> with different vocabularies.
>
> > Every author doesn't have an over-all style?
>
> Most certainly not. Many good authors can
> imitate others, write in their styles with
> the appropriate vocabularies.  Examples
> are Joyce, Shake-speare and Craig Brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Brown_%28satirist%29

They imitate others WITHIN an overall style. When
Dickens caricatures someone, the reader is aware
of the character's style while also being aware that the
character is a Dickens character.

> > The style of the speech of Shakespeare's lower-class
> > comic figures won't be clearly different from the
> > style of the speech of Congreve's or Sheridan's or
> > Wilde's of Dickens's?
>
> I don't think so.  Many good writers could
> readily imitate a variety of Dickens's
> Cockney characters, to the extent that
> neither you nor I nor any computer could
> tell the difference.

Sorry, but no--his Cockney characters would all
speak cockney but the (damn, this is tiring) the way
Dickens would manipulate their cockney to gain
his effect would be DIckensian. Else what IS
Dickensian in his work? When Shakespeare makes
fun of the Lyly style in Loves Labours Lost, we're
aware of Shakespeare's unique manner of satirizing
Lyly.

> Maybe, MAYBE, if the computer analysts
> focussed on a tight range of particular
> characters, such as (say) Shake-speare's
> lower-class females, they might find
> something significant and distinctive --
> that could not be (or has never been)
> imitated by any other writer.
>
> If they focussed on the Bard's very high-
> status females, they'd find that there was
> only one woman alive at the time (and for
> 200 years before and after) who came close
> to matching the characteristics he gives
> them.

> But we all know that the kind of
> academics who mount such enquiries are
> too dumb and too closed-minded to ever
> begin to consider a question as sensible.
>
> Paul.

Yep. They believe in something called the creative process.
And know that there's no way of telling who a complex
character was modeled on because we aren't privy to
the author's mind and don't know intimately all the women
of the time. They also know that in most cases the greatest
characters are . . . MADE UP--with a touch of one real person
here, and another there, but not based in any serious way
on a living person. As you would know if you knew anything
about creative writers.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>>> Some automatically
>>> panic, others just punch out the boilerplate they've
>>> always punched out, as you do (to wit: if my argument is
>>> wrong, how is it that no has tried to refute it?)
>>
>> Sure. No Oxfordian is trying to refute Peter
>> Farey's argument (ignoring myself for the
>> moment).
>
> Just checked, and got sucked into spending two hours or so
> replying to some of the crap Peter's had to face. Hyatt and
> Stritmatter were the worst of his opponents.

Hardly. There are several who regard any
questioning of anything in their universe as
a personal insult -- and try to pick a fight
on the basis of some perceived slur against
their being. Take a look at 'Feste' for
example.

> Hyatt is flat out stupid. He can't understand Peter.

Nonsense. Peter's point could hardly be
more simple. Hyatt's problem (like all of
the rest on that ghastly site) is that they
don't have an answer -- or not one that
matches their quasi-Strat conception.

> Stritmatter may be able to but prefers not to.

He has no more idea than anyone else --
and probably less.

> But some have definitely tried to refute Peter. Nessus has
> definitely presented arguments against Peter's implied
> argument that the line endings indicate Oxford did not
> write the plays.

Only on the basis of a ridiculous re-writing
of both the Oxfordian case, and the whole
of Early Modern literature. Since (according
to him) the plays could have been re-written
by anyone at any time before publication, we
can have no idea how the original author
wrote the 'original' version. (Presumably he
thinks Oxford was, in some sense, the original
author of the canon -- though frankly I'm
guessing.) So Oxford may have written (say)
Henry 8, Pericles, and Cymbeline, 20 years
earlier, following the standard pattern, with
lots of rhyming couplets, few run-on lines
and few feminine endings. But then someone
came along around 1610 and re-wrote the
plays, getting rid of the rhymes, and inserting
numerous run-on lines and feminine endings
to 'fix' them, and make them fitting for 1610
tastes.

At least I THINK that's what he was saying.
Of course, he will never tell us. His main
objectives (with this theory) are those of
the other quasi-Strat PT-Oxfordians -- to
maintain ALL Stratfordian notions (or at
least the worst), but especially those of a
rigid adherence by the Great Bard to changes
in the prevailing styles, and to keep up the
Stratfordian image of the Bard -- of an
unthinking automaton with a magic pen.

> Others have presented arguments, too, although
> not very good ones.

Please quote one. I can't recall any.

>> On those grounds Peter would win.
>> How do you think it should work?
>
> You should know by now, Paul.
>
> Once the debate reaches the level that most of
> yours and mine have, to wit: you say you're right,
> I say I'm right, you find an outsider to decide who
> is more likely right. Or a group of outsiders--persons
> most others would consider knowledgeable about the
> subject under discussion.

So, Galileo should have called in some
'independent experts' of his day. Would
you care to name any, or even say where
they might have been found?

And Darwin and all the Evolutionists since
should likewise have found 'independent
experts' not committed to any particular
point of view (i.e. they had not made up
their minds between the stories of Noah
and his Ark, and modern science).

What a twerp you are!

> You make sure they are
> exposed to all the evidence on either side, then let them
> judge. You needn't accept their verdict as permanent,
> but have to assume they are more likely right than
> wrong since such groups are almost always right.

Who would have been in this group of
'judges' on the 'Continental Drift' issue?

>> All those whose early experience is known
>> got training. We can generalise to the rest.
>
> Not if we're aware of the creative process. Not that I
> agree with your assertion that "all those whose early
> experience is known got training." Although that would
> almost have to be the case since we would have evidence of
> early training, but not of the absence of early training.

They could have told us. Poets like
John Clare or Robert Burns leave pretty
good accounts of their early lives.

>>>>> It will then be unconscious, the way the
>>>>> act of walking is mostly unconscious.
>>>>
>>>> Pure crapology. Quote some 'unconscious
>>>> verse' of the day.
>>>
>>> Quote some "conscious verse" of the day.
>>
>> All of it. Sonnet 18, if you want a
>> specific example.
>
> You can't know that. ESP only works on people separated
> in time by less than 200 years, so you can't know what was
> going on in Shakespeare's brain when he wrote Sonnet 18.

Of course you can -- as much as you know
the mental processes of someone alive today.
We don't need ESP to see how a modern poet
works. Why do we need one dead 400 years
or 2,000 years?
[..]

> \which you'd be incapable of understanding. To get you
> started on your own, though, why don't you read up on
> how one learns to walk and other very difficult but
> eventually automatic activities. Very conscious imitation
> at first

Humans are mammals. No other mammal
needs to be taught how to walk -- or to learn
it, let alone learn it by imitation. Birds don't
have to be taught to fly. Fish don't have to
be taught to swim. MAYBE humans are the
one exception to the rest of 'creation' in this
regard, but I doubt it.

> , then the . . . amazing, I can't think of what it's
> called . . . had to look it up--the cerebellum. Clearly,
> i don't know what I'm talking about if I couldn't remember
> THAT. The cerebellum constructs an automatic response
> of the walk or whatever the person has learned. And it
> becomes second nature, not "consciously" thought about
> unless something goes wrong with it. Many mental
> procedures become second nature the same way.

When you have your basic facts wrong,
the rest of your 'reasoning' becomes
suspect.
[..]

> He was saying poets, Shakespeare, loosened their
> meter, using more run-on and feminine endings
> as they matured.

An absurd notion. Is it supposed to be
a rule of human nature -- evident across
all time and all cultures?
[..]

> Right. What he did was slowly STOP sticking
> to a predetermined metric pattern. Without
> much or any conscious thought.

The classic Stratfordian notion of the
'unthinking Bard'. Don't you ever listen
to the words of a play?

>>>> This, IMHO, is utter nonsense. A skilled
>>>> craftsman is fully aware of the tools he
>>>> uses.
>>>
>>> So a carpenter sawing is thinking as he does so,
>>> now I'm going forward, now I'm drawing my tool back, etc.
>>
>> He would have a range of saws (maybe ~20)
>> and he would know when he was using one
>> and not another.
>
> He would not be consciously aware most of the time which
> saw he was using, right.

Thinking about it, I have around a dozen
different saws -- for the very occasional
bits of work I do around the house. When
I use ANY of them, I am constantly thinking
about the operation, and whether or not a
different saw might do the job more easily.
I often know where I bought that saw, when
its blade was last replaced, and so on and
on. There is very little that I do that is not
conscious. That's partly because I am not
practised, but also because every bit of
work is different.

>> Quote a passage of verse (from any poet of
>> the day) that uses a lot of feminine endings
>> or run-on lines, and claim (or show how) that
>> particular poet was probably not aware that
>> he was doing what he was doing.
>>
>> OR quote ANY competent poet writing ANY
>> kind of verse, showing where the poet was
>> unlikely to have been unaware of that kind of
>> distinction.
>
> Too much trouble. So, once again your ploy of challenging
> an opponent to expend a good deal of effort looking up
> something and figuring out how to explain why it supports
> his argument has worked.

IF you had an argument, you would readily
be able to think of some verse. You must
know hundreds (or thousands) of examples
of bits of verse -- yet you can't think of one
that fits.

The reason is that none do.

> But it can go both ways. You can't show me a poem
> with feminine endings and show how it must have been
> certain that the poet in each case consciously chose
> a feminine ending over a masculine.

List any of the feminine endings in the
Sonnets -- and it will be very obvious
that they were exactly what they poet
intended -- and carefully chose -- at the
time.

>> The poet was alive, and can be counted to
>> know his own works -- or to let himself be
>> reminded, after a brief glance at each of
>> them. He would also have had several
>> admirers who knew the works well. He was
>> probably asked for a list of a dozen or so
>> plays that ought to be printed first -- given
>> that they were to be the first output of this
>> 'rural-gentleman-poet'.
>
> Have a formal verse poet support you here on this. I just don't
> believe it. You're saying feminine endings and run-on lines
> did not increase as the poet matured, and that the poet and
> his admirers purposely picked out the ones with fewer such
> endings for first printing. Why? I am truly getting confused.

The FASHIONS had changed, and an
unknown rural 'gentle-man' poet would
not be expected to be fully up to date
on the latest. His work would expected
to be OLD-FASHIONED -- and seen
as 'primitive' by the literati of the city.

> Because the bumpkin would be likely not to use many such
> endings? And other plays were printed using more and more
> such endings--one? Because the bumpkin would be thought likely
> to increase his use of them? On what basis would they think
> that, Paul. And who among those to be deceived would be
> capable of noticing the trend. It SO makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. They had to start
with SOME plays. They chose those which
appeared the 'most primitive'. They were
being careful. If the quartos they published
(and ascribed to the 'rural poet') raised doubts,
and some (or many) said: "No such rural poet
could have written this" -- they'd have had to
change tack, and find another way of getting
the 'more sophisticated' plays out in print.

In fact, after publication, they discovered
that no one thought anything in the least
strange. The half-educated of the day
bought the story in full. So the government
felt able to bring out 'Hamlet' and the other
major works, as from the same 'rural poet',
with little concern as to any possible suspicion.

People are such dopes that they will believe
almost anything they are told. (Take a look
at yourself.)

>> Most certainly not. Many good authors can
>> imitate others, write in their styles with
>> the appropriate vocabularies. Examples
>> are Joyce, Shake-speare and Craig Brown:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Brown_%28satirist%29
>
> They imitate others WITHIN an overall style. When
> Dickens caricatures someone, the reader is aware
> of the character's style while also being aware that the
> character is a Dickens character.

Dickens was one of the first to portray
working class people, and his characters
are largely caricatures -- often speaking
in an unnatural and 'Dickensian' manner.
I would not use him as an example of
someone who did this well -- or who even
tried to do it well.
[..]

Paul.

[Peter Farey]

Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Just checked, and got sucked into spending two hours or so
> replying to some of the crap Peter's had to face. Hyatt and
> Stritmatter were the worst of his opponents. Hyatt is flat
> out stupid. He can't understand Peter. Stritmatter may be

> able to but prefers not to. His replies are more intellig-
> ently idiotic than Hyatt's. But some have definitely tried

> to refute Peter. Nessus has definitely presented arguments
> against Peter's implied argument that the line endings
> indicate Oxford did not write the plays. Others have
> presented arguments, too, although not very good ones.

As anyone who has been following my unsuccessful attempts to get
a sensible debate going on this subject there will know, Marty
Hyatt posted some less than friendly comments in which he made
it very clear that I should "go somewhere else" since he hated what
he called "ignorant strutting". I nevertheless replied with what I
thought was both a reasonable and friendly response. For reasons
which one can only guess, however, he moved this to the members'
area, thus ensuring that no non-member would be able to read it.

Here is what I said:

<quote>

Marty Hyatt wrote:
>
> Chill, please. It's clear all you're about is reiterating your
> one out of context Meres question we must supposedly answer.

No, that is not what I am about. In fact I wish that I didn't have
to keep repeating myself like this, but as long as almost everyone
here is so obviously intent on avoiding any attempt to answer my
two questions I find myself compelled to carry on asking them.

> Sheesh! I was responding to your "Let me get this straight..."
> when I saw this latest "response" to Cassel's. Having spent
> yesterday recovering my computer from a problem, I simply don't
> have the patience to take you seriously when you do this.

It was a completely relevant and in my view necessary response to
Cassel's post. Even if he were right in saying that the orthodox
chronology is adrift by 19 years at the least, this begs the
question of why Meres singled out only those plays with the lowest
frequency of open and feminine endings for his list. The same
question is of course begged by your previous post too.

> You will obviously just do the same thing to my answer, so you'll
> have to forgo hearing more of my thoughts. You are not interested
> in discussing the details of your assumptions anyway.

I have shown myself perfectly ready to discuss what are said to be
my assumptions (for example those listed by Nessus) but refuse to
be dragged into what (rightly or wrongly) seem to me simply to be
attempts to avoid facing up to the problem for the Oxfordian theory
which is clearly raised by my two questions.

> So, go "declare" your "victory" somewhere else, please. This is
> why I often have better discussions email or on more private forums.
> I can't stand ignorant strutting.

Although unjustified, your anger is I suppose understandable.
However, I am not the slightest bit interested in winning (in that
sense) Marty. As I said exactly a month ago in response to Corambis's
having pointed out my recent post on the subject "somewhere else":
"I really would like some Oxfordian to explain to me how the phen-
omena I describe can have come about other than in the ways that
seem most obvious to the rest of us." So far, only Nessus has made
any attempt to do so here, but his explanation certainly doesn't
work for the scenarios suggested by you and Cassell among others.
That the rest of you seem so reluctant to give any sort of answer
inevitably gives the impression that you are unable to do so, and
my only idea of a "victory" would be to get you to acknowledge that
fact (if only to yourselves) and to ask yourselves exactly *why*
it is that you can't.

<unquote>

As I said, this post was moved to the members' area, so I reposted
it to the public forum with the following comment:

<quote>

I have no problem at all with the decision to discuss this behind
closed doors. In fact I sincerely hope that by doing so you may
be prepared to take my questions rather more seriously than almost
anyone has done so far. However, I do think that it is rather
unfair to deny your public readers the chance to see what my
"response" actually was. I therefore trust that you won't mind my
posting it again.

<unquote>

He clearly did mind, however, so it was again deleted and I got my
knuckles rapped, together with receiving by e-mail what is apparently
called a "warning". Whilst my work has on more occasions than I care
to mention been censored by Stratfordians, I can record no similar
occasion in which threats have been deployed as well.

Peter F.
<<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>>
<<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>>

[TomFoster]

On Dec 29, 4:24 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:

> For reasons
> which one can only guess, however, he moved this to the members'
> area, thus ensuring that no non-member would be able to read it.
>

I've been following your attempts with great interest, Peter.
Excellent question, and well done for sticking at it.

Ironic, isn't it, that after spending so much time accusing
Stratfordians of having closed minds, they refuse to even address a
question which really should have them rethinking their own most
cherished beliefs.

Tom

[art]

> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
>> Just checked, and got sucked into spending two hours or so
>> replying to some of the crap Peter's had to face. Hyatt and
>> Stritmatter were the worst of his opponents. Hyatt is flat
>> out stupid. He can't understand Peter. Stritmatter may be
>> able to but prefers not to. His replies are more intellig-
>> ently idiotic than Hyatt's. But some have definitely tried
>> to refute Peter. Nessus has definitely presented arguments
>> against Peter's implied argument that the line endings
>> indicate Oxford did not write the plays. Others have
>> presented arguments, too, although not very good ones.

"Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> As anyone who has been following my unsuccessful attempts to get
> a sensible debate going on this subject there will know, Marty
> Hyatt posted some less than friendly comments in which he made
> it very clear that I should "go somewhere else" since he hated what
> he called "ignorant strutting". I nevertheless replied with what I
> thought was both a reasonable and friendly response. For reasons
> which one can only guess, however, he moved this to the members'
> area, thus ensuring that no non-member would be able to read it.
>
> Here is what I said:> <quote>
>
> Marty Hyatt wrote:
>>
>> Chill, please. It's clear all you're about is reiterating your
>> one out of context Meres question we must supposedly answer.

"Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> No, that is not what I am about. In fact I wish that I didn't have
> to keep repeating myself like this, but as long as almost everyone
> here is so obviously intent on avoiding any attempt to answer my
> two questions I find myself compelled to carry on asking them.

There are not just 'two' inadequately answered questions about
Meres there are virtually thousand of "MEERed questions."
-----------------------------------------------------------
. Antony & Cleopatra: III, xiii
.
DOMITIUS eno-BAR-bus: When half to half the world opposed,
. he being The *MEERed question* :
........................................................
. *MERE* , v. t. To divide, limit, or bound. [Obs.]
........................................................
*BAILIFF* , n. (Mining) An officer who directs and
. lays out the *MERES* or boundaries for the workmen
. - called also BURGH-master , burgomaster, & BAR-master.
----------------------------------------------------------

> Marty Hyatt wrote:
>>
>> Sheesh! I was responding to your "Let me get this straight..."
>> when I saw this latest "response" to Cassel's. Having spent
>> yesterday recovering my computer from a problem, I simply don't
>> have the patience to take you seriously when you do this.

"Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It was a completely relevant and in my view necessary response to
> Cassel's post. Even if he were right in saying that the orthodox
> chronology is adrift by 19 years at the least, this begs the
> question of why Meres singled out only those plays with the lowest
> frequency of open and feminine endings for his list. The same
> question is of course begged by your previous post too.

Francis Meres states that Marlowe was "stabbed to death
by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in his lewd love"
as punishment for his "epicurism and atheism" ...but
Peter Farey refused to accept that "fact."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*MERE* , n. [Written also *MAR* ] [OE. MERE, AS. MERE, sea;
akin to D. MEER lake, OS. meri sea, OHG. *MERI* , G. *MEER* ,
Icel. *MARR* , Goth. marei, Russ. more, W. mor, Ir. & Gael. muir,
L. mare, a& perh. to L. mori to die, and meaning originally,
*that which is DEAD, a WASTE* . Cf. {Mortal}, {MERMAID},
{MOOR}.] A pool or lake. --Drayton.
........................................................
Francis *MERES* (like 'Francis' Frizer & Kit *MAR-lo*) is
all part & parcel of the Masonic/Rosicrucian smoke & mirrors:

___ *MEER/MERE* , n. A boundary. --Bacon.

Francis *MERES* -- d. Jan. 29, 1647, *WING , Rutland*
. [Jan. 29, 1845, Poe's *THE RAVEN* {anagram} *THAN VERE* ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<[Shakespeare] gorged on farming terms & would refer to
_____ *MEERS,* or banks & *HEDGES* .>> - p. 35, Honan
----------------------------------------------------------
. Meres's Palladis Tamia; Wits Treasury,
. Being the Second Part of Wits Commonwealth (1598)
.
. [http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/rep.html]
.
... the best for Comedy amongst vs bee,
. Edward Earle of Oxforde,
--------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[Paul Crowley]

Peter Farey wrote:

> As anyone who has been following my unsuccessful attempts to
> get a sensible debate going on this subject there will know,
> Marty Hyatt posted some less than friendly comments in which
> he made it very clear that I should "go somewhere else" since
> he hated what he called "ignorant strutting".

Well done, Peter. You might have seen from
Marty Hyatt's latest posting that you are 'a troll'.

What a laugh! As everyone would agree, you
are among the least likely of all regular posters
around here to merit that description. But
coming from such a source, it's a honour.

> For reasons which one can only guess, however, he
> moved this to the members' area, thus ensuring that no non-
> member would be able to read it.

No need to guess. And how shameless can a
PT-Oxfordian get? It's like something out of the
Stalin era. It is a long time since I have been so
shocked and disgusted -- by degrees of hypocrisy
and dishonesty in those who pretend to openness
and honest debate.

> It was a completely relevant and in my view necessary
> response to Cassel's post. Even if he were right in
> saying that the orthodox chronology is adrift by 19 years
> at the least, this begs the question of why Meres singled
> out only those plays with the lowest frequency of open
> and feminine endings for his list.

The irony of it is that I have given an answer
and one that -- as far as I can see -- breaches
no Oxfordian principle, PT or otherwise.
In fact, Cassel (Robert Detobel) seemed to
come as close to endorsing it -- as far as was
permissible within the confines permitted by
the PT-Oxfordian Politbureau.

And, in any case and as I said before, Detobel's
paper in 'Brief Chronicles' puts forward a set
of ideas which virtually anticipate my proposal.

It's a mystery. Do they object to my proposal
merely because it comes from me? Surely, I
cannot be that significant?

[..]

> He clearly did mind, however, so it was again deleted and
> I got my knuckles rapped, together with receiving by e-
> mail what is apparently called a "warning". Whilst my
> work has on more occasions than I care to mention been
> censored by Stratfordians, I can record no similar
> occasion in which threats have been deployed as well.

How to lose win a skirmish and lose a war!

The behaviour of these (so-called) Oxfordians
is utterly deplorable.

I don't want EVER to hear that my case about
the Sonnets falls because these ghastly so-
called Oxfordians have not approved. Who
would want their approval?

Paul.

[elizabeth]

On 29 Dec, 07:48, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> Some automatically
> >>> panic, others just punch out the boilerplate they've
> >>> always punched out, as you do (to wit: if my argument is
> >>> wrong, how is it that no has tried to refute it?)
>
> >> Sure.  No Oxfordian is trying to refute Peter
> >> Farey's argument (ignoring myself for the
> >> moment).
>
> > Just checked, and got sucked into spending two hours or so
> > replying to some of the crap Peter's had to face.  Hyatt and
> > Stritmatter were the worst of his opponents.

Where's the link? I want to see this.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

Makes me wonder about Hyatt. He's done similar things with threads
I've begun or entered with evidence. I've most always thought he
thought the thread involved had
simply gone on long enough, wasn't getting anywhere, and I thought he
had a point. This time he seems entirely wrong. What I wonder is if
he really is so stupid as to think Peter's questions have been
definitively answered, or does he
recognize the difficulty they're presenting wackdom, and thus not
anxious for the BigWorld to find out about that (however unlikely it
would have had the thread remained public).

A third possibility; Oxfordian fear that some other form of wackery
may become number one. . . .

Okay, now back to the Fellowship to see how my impolite--nay, swinish--
incursions are being refuted.

--Bob

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:45:26 +0000, Paul Crowley
<dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

>Peter Farey has been asking Oxfordians two
>questions about the dating of the canonical
>plays. http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/
>
>> 1) As most Oxfordians claim that the majority
>> of Shakespeare's plays had been written by
>> 1598, what explanation would you give for Meres
>> including in his list, published that year,
>> only those with the lowest frequency of open
>> lines and feminine endings?
>>
>> 2) As the use of open lines and feminine
>> endings is no longer of any real significance
>> in the way plays are dated by Shakespeare

>> claim [that the majority of Shakespeare�s plays had

Seems like you deny PF postulating Shakespeare's later style
development of open lines and feminine endings could be a function of
maturity, assuming that a loosening of style traits isn't
characteristic of great artists, or something. But what if
Shakespeare did intend something great by doing so?

Perhaps both you and PF are on the same page if you allow that a
Renaissance Man like S was demonstrating successfully that vernacular
English speech had literary value? Later Rennaissance development in
vernacular literature, such as in Italy by Petrarch and Baccaccio, are
known to be S influences; and experimenting with language and poetics
was very contemporary. At the time Boumont and Fletcher wrote popular
domestic dramas, S would have been in "mature style". Plus, there was
interest in England to develop a national literature and language, I
believe.

A commentary in Bartleby compares S's use of feminine ending style to
Fletcher as follows.

(quote)
No other writer has anything like this number of feminine endings: in
a play of 2500 lines, while Massinger, who approaches Fletcher most
nearly in this respect, might, possibly, have as many as 1200 double
or triple endings, and Shakespeare, in his latest period, as many as
850, Fletcher would normally have at least 1700, and might not
impossibly have as many as 2000; and his marked preference for this
form of verse is emphasized by the fact that very often the feminine
ending is produced by the addition of some quite unnecessary word,
such as �sir,� �lady,� �too,� �now,� introduced, apparently, for this
sole purpose.
(unquote)

Perhaps the inclination toward use of feminine endings accompanies the
shift toward popular plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, preferred by
playgoers to Shakespeare?

To partially settle the question of "maturity" of S's works
illustrating "late style" traits, an attending question might be if
using a style of more open sentences and feminine endings was
effective? In terms of development of plot and theme, memorable
lines, popularity, etc., are they 1) as good as the others; 2) some
better some worse; or 3) mostly better? bookburn

[art]

"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> Makes me wonder about Hyatt. He's done similar things with threads
> I've begun or entered with evidence. I've most always thought he
> thought the thread involved had simply gone on long enough,
> wasn't getting anywhere, and I thought he had a point.

That may be the most astute conclusion you've ever come to, Bob.

"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> This time he seems entirely wrong.

Peter's thread had gone on long enough & wasn't getting anywhere.

"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> What I wonder is if he really is so stupid as to think
> Peter's questions have been definitively answered,

Peter's questions had been answered.

We are all happy to acknowledge that Peter has brought
up a puzzlement that may never be definitively answered.

However, it's simply one more piece of evidence no different
than Meres's claim that Marlowe was "stabbed to death

by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in his lewd love"
as punishment for his "epicurism and atheism."

Art Neuendorffer

[TomFoster]

On Dec 29, 10:10 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

And how much power does Hyatt have over there? Are we to take it that
the other bigwigs at the Fellowship, Stritmatter, for instance,
approve of his actions? Do they realise how bad this makes them look?
It's clear Peter's question has not been answered and their response
has been to heavy-handedly censor him and insult him.

I'm genuinely surprised because, naively it seems, I tend to assume
that most people who enter authorship discussions really are,
ultimately, looking for the truth. Oh well.

In The End Of The Authorship Question, Scott McCrea has a chapter
called The Logjam which addresses issues connected to Peter's point,
illustrating why you can't just shift all the plays back 10 or 20
years in time. He sums up:

"Let's say that the plays were written earlier than the dates assigned
to them. This means the Author could not have learned from many of the
writers who are generally believed to have influenced him. Lyly,
Marlowe, Spenser, Chapman, Daniel, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, must
all have read his work, but he could not have read theirs. Influences
flow in only one direction and he becomes the originator of almost
every trend in contemporary drama - Senecan tragedies, history plays,
Elizabethan satires, Jacobean comedy, antimasques, and more. Cymbeline
and The Winter's Tale must be models for the plays of Beaumont and
Fletcher, not conscious imitations of the duo's manner, because the
pair did not begin writing until Oxford was dead. The whimsical and
elaborate Stuart court masques must have been inspired by the similar
masque scene in The Tempest, because the first such masque was in
1605.

"In this way, the Oxfordian author is even more of a superman than the
Stratfordian's."

Tom

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

So far only Hyatt has replied to anything I've written, but the way
he's replied to
Peter. For instance, when I made an offhand comment about the dating
of the Tempest as post-1604 NOT being a main element of the
Stratfordian argument, the monument, First Folio and name in thirty or
forty title-pages being vastly more important, he responded something
alon gthe lines of "Yeah, as you keep telling us, nothing counts as
evidence but names on title pages."

There must be a name in illogic for this sort of evasion, but--if so--
I haven't come across it.

>
> And how much power does Hyatt have over there?

For a while he was the site-master/moderator. Then, I think, Nessus
took over. Now, apparently, he's moderator again. I don't visit
often any more, so am unsure.

> Are we to take it that
> the other bigwigs at the Fellowship, Stritmatter, for instance,
> approve of his actions? Do they realise how bad this makes them look?
> It's clear Peter's question has not been answered and their response
> has been to heavy-handedly censor him and insult him.

I fear Stritmatter may be losing what grip he ever had. I don't think
he
recognizes Peter's questions as anything but frivolous.

>
> I'm genuinely surprised because, naively it seems, I tend to assume
> that most people who enter authorship discussions really are,
> ultimately, looking for the truth. Oh well.

I think Hyatt is ultimately sort of doing that; he just knows what the
truth
will have to turn out to be. In ihis defense, I have to say that a
lot of
debates get where mine and Paul's always do: nothing but repetition.
So
a good moderator should end them or take them off the Public Forum
to free it from the clutter we get from no moderator's taking off
Art's crap.

There are also "sensitive subjects" that people even most Oxfordians
think are off the beam keep bringing up and going on inordinantly
about, likek various strands of PT theory, which I've never kept up
with. I believe the Fellowship keeps such threads out of the public
forum for pr reasons--they're zealously intent on prevently the
general public from knowing how bizarre the things some of their
members believe in are. Plus, the people in such threads get really
really inflamed, and the Fellowship is as much about politeness as for
any search for truth.

> In The End Of The Authorship Question, Scott McCrea has a chapter
> called The Logjam which addresses issues connected to Peter's point,
> illustrating why you can't just shift all the plays back 10 or 20
> years in time. He sums up:
>
> "Let's say that the plays were written earlier than the dates assigned
> to them. This means the Author could not have learned from many of the
> writers who are generally believed to have influenced him. Lyly,
> Marlowe, Spenser, Chapman, Daniel, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, must
> all have read his work, but he could not have read theirs. Influences
> flow in only one direction and he becomes the originator of almost
> every trend in contemporary drama - Senecan tragedies, history plays,
> Elizabethan satires, Jacobean comedy, antimasques, and more. Cymbeline
> and The Winter's Tale must be models for the plays of Beaumont and
> Fletcher, not conscious imitations of the duo's manner, because the
> pair did not begin writing until Oxford was dead. The whimsical and
> elaborate Stuart court masques must have been inspired by the similar
> masque scene in The Tempest, because the first such masque was in
> 1605.
>
> "In this way, the Oxfordian author is even more of a superman than the
> Stratfordian's."

Right. A point McCrea got, like most of his book, from discussions at
HLAS,
though you'd never know it from his book.

--Bob G.

[TomFoster]

On 30 Dec, 11:53, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

Fair enough — though I wasn't around on HLAS back then.

Tom

[sasheargold]

Why are you saying that Cassel is Robert Detobel? I understood that
Cassel is a woman, although I don't know her actual identity. I
suppose she could be his wife - it is at least quite clear that they
are alumni of the same institution.

SB.

[art]

TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In The End Of The Authorship Question, Scott McCrea has a chapter
> called The Logjam which addresses issues connected to Peter's point,
> illustrating why you can't just shift all the plays back 10 or 20
> years in time.

Shift all the plays back 10 or 20 years in time?

At most the final purely Oxford versions of the plays only get shifted
back about 8 years.

TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Scott McCrea] sums up:

>
> "Let's say that the plays were written earlier than the dates assigned
> to them. This means the Author could not have learned from many of the
> writers who are generally believed to have influenced him. Lyly,
> Marlowe, Spenser, Chapman, Daniel, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, must
> all have read his work, but he could not have read theirs. Influences
> flow in only one direction and he becomes the originator of almost
> every trend in contemporary drama - Senecan tragedies, history plays,
> Elizabethan satires, Jacobean comedy, antimasques, and more. Cymbeline
> and The Winter's Tale must be models for the plays of Beaumont and
> Fletcher, not conscious imitations of the duo's manner, because the
> pair did not begin writing until Oxford was dead. The whimsical and
> elaborate Stuart court masques must have been inspired by the similar
> masque scene in The Tempest, because the first such masque was in
> 1605.
>
> "In this way, the Oxfordian author is even
> more of a superman than the Stratfordian's."

Oxford strongly influenced his secretary Lyly and may have written Mar-
lo.

The Oxfordian author is certainly more of a superman than the
Stratfordian's.

However, the highly tutored & experienced Oxfordian author
is less of a miracle than the Stratfordian's.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

> On Dec 30, 2:42 am, TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Are we to take it that the other bigwigs at the Fellowship,
>> Stritmatter, for instance, approve of his actions? Do they
>> realise how bad this makes them look?

They must have a pretty good idea. But given
that none of them could come up with an
answer to Peter that they felt was even passably
acceptable, what was their alternative?

>> It's clear Peter's question has not been answered and their
>> response has been to heavy-handedly censor him and insult him.
>
> I fear Stritmatter may be losing what grip he ever had. I don't
> think he recognizes Peter's questions as anything but frivolous.

This is nonsensical. There would have been a
large number of intense phone calls over the
past few days on this issue, in which Stritmatter
would have taken part. All options would have
been discussed. I'm sure that anyone who
knows the characters could draft some of the
likely exchanges.

>> I'm genuinely surprised because, naively it seems, I tend to
>> assume that most people who enter authorship discussions really
>> are, ultimately, looking for the truth. Oh well.

But what are you to do when (a) you know the
truth, but (b) you face a question of historical
fact that you can't answer?

Obviously, you fall back on Alexander Bogdanov:
"Truth is an organising form of human experience"

> I think Hyatt is ultimately sort of doing that; he just knows
> what the truth will have to turn out to be. In ihis defense, I
> have to say that a lot of debates get where mine and Paul's
> always do: nothing but repetition.

There is no comparison. Peter posed a very
simple question about historical fact -- or
the implication of apparently agreed facts.
But he could get no answer -- of any kind.
He got a lot of attempts at distraction,
which he politely batted off. But still no
answer -- and it was painfully obvious.

> So a good moderator should end them or take them off the Public
> Forum to free it from the clutter we get from no moderator's
> taking off Art's crap.

There was no clutter. There was only PT-
Oxfordian embarrassment.
[..]

>> In The End Of The Authorship Question, Scott McCrea has a chapter
>> called The Logjam which addresses issues connected to Peter's point,
>> illustrating why you can't just shift all the plays back 10 or 20
>> years in time. He sums up:
>>
>> "Let's say that the plays were written earlier than the dates assigned
>> to them. This means the Author could not have learned from many of the
>> writers who are generally believed to have influenced him. Lyly,
>> Marlowe, Spenser, Chapman, Daniel, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, must
>> all have read his work, but he could not have read theirs. Influences
>> flow in only one direction and he becomes the originator of almost
>> every trend in contemporary drama - Senecan tragedies, history plays,
>> Elizabethan satires, Jacobean comedy, antimasques, and more. Cymbeline
>> and The Winter's Tale must be models for the plays of Beaumont and
>> Fletcher, not conscious imitations of the duo's manner, because the
>> pair did not begin writing until Oxford was dead. The whimsical and
>> elaborate Stuart court masques must have been inspired by the similar
>> masque scene in The Tempest, because the first such masque was in
>> 1605.
>>
>> "In this way, the Oxfordian author is even more of a superman than the
>> Stratfordian's."

Sure -- great artists are never leaders.
They always get all their ideas from the
second-rate, and slavishly copy existing
styles and conventions -- to which they
mindlessly adhere.

Everyone knows that.

Paul.

[lackpurity]

> <<pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>>
> <<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>>

MM:
Seems to me that Peter F.'s questions deserve answers. If Oxfordians
can't answer, or shift to only members platforms, then Stratfordians
and others might draw some rather obvious conclusions.

Michael Martin

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Dec 30, 1:40 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2:42 am, TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Are we to take it that the other bigwigs at the Fellowship,
> >> Stritmatter, for instance, approve of his actions? Do they
> >> realise how bad this makes them look?
>
> They must have a pretty good idea.  But given
> that none of them could come up with an
> answer to Peter that they felt was even passably
> acceptable, what was their alternative?

Who says they didn't think their answers were good ones?

> >> It's clear Peter's question has not been answered and their
> >> response has been to heavy-handedly censor him and insult him.
>
> > I fear Stritmatter may be losing what grip he ever had.  I don't
> > think he recognizes Peter's questions as anything but frivolous.
>
> This is nonsensical. There would have been a
> large number of intense phone calls over the
> past few days on this issue, in which Stritmatter
> would have taken part.  All options would have
> been discussed.  I'm sure that anyone who
> knows the characters could draft some of the
> likely exchanges.

I love the picture. Can we expect the assassination of
Farey soon, Paul? Will that put us all in danger since we've
all now read your unarguably accurate picture of the situation
and will know why Farey was killed?

> >> I'm genuinely surprised because, naively it seems, I tend to
> >> assume that most people who enter authorship discussions really
> >> are, ultimately, looking for the truth. Oh well.
>
> But what are you to do when (a) you know the
> truth, but (b) you face a question of historical
> fact that you can't answer?
>
> Obviously, you fall back on Alexander Bogdanov:
> "Truth is an organising form of human experience"

Sure, there's only one thing you could do. Ooops, unless you're
not a rigidnik.

> > I think Hyatt is ultimately sort of doing that; he just knows
> > what the truth will have to turn out to be.  In ihis defense, I
> > have to say that a lot of debates get where mine and Paul's
> > always do: nothing but repetition.
>
> There is no comparison.  Peter posed a very
> simple question about historical fact -- or
> the implication of apparently agreed facts.
> But he could get no answer -- of any kind.
> He got a lot of attempts at distraction,
> which he politely batted off. But still no
> answer -- and it was painfully obvious.

For once you may be right. He got responses, some of
them pertinent in my view. But no answers that I can
remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to like
the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.

>
> > So a good moderator should end them or take them off the Public
> > Forum to free it from the clutter we get from no moderator's
> > taking off Art's crap.
>
> There was no clutter.  There was only PT-
> Oxfordian embarrassment.
> [..]

I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. But this thread
definitely got cluttered.

>
>
>
>
> >> In The End Of The Authorship Question, Scott McCrea has a chapter
> >> called The Logjam which addresses issues connected to Peter's point,
> >> illustrating why you can't just shift all the plays back 10 or 20
> >> years in time. He sums up:
>
> >> "Let's say that the plays were written earlier than the dates assigned
> >> to them. This means the Author could not have learned from many of the
> >> writers who are generally believed to have influenced him. Lyly,
> >> Marlowe, Spenser, Chapman, Daniel, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, must
> >> all have read his work, but he could not have read theirs. Influences
> >> flow in only one direction and he becomes the originator of almost
> >> every trend in contemporary drama - Senecan tragedies, history plays,
> >> Elizabethan satires, Jacobean comedy, antimasques, and more. Cymbeline
> >> and The Winter's Tale must be models for the plays of Beaumont and
> >> Fletcher, not conscious imitations of the duo's manner, because the
> >> pair did not begin writing until Oxford was dead. The whimsical and
> >> elaborate Stuart court masques must have been inspired by the similar
> >> masque scene in The Tempest, because the first such masque was in
> >> 1605.
>
> >> "In this way, the Oxfordian author is even more of a superman than the
> >> Stratfordian's."
>
> Sure -- great artists are never leaders.

Stratfordian: "Shakespeare was influenced by Marlowe."
Crowley, sarcastically: "Right: great artists are NEVER leaders."

That is, an artist who even once is influenced by an inferior
proves himself capale of EVER being a leader. There's no such
thing as an artist who both influences others and is influenced
by them.

Stratfordian: Shakespeare wrote run-on lines at times without
being aware that he was doing so.
Crowley, sarcastically: "Right. Shakespeare was an automaton
with a magic pen who never had any consicous idea what he was
doing, and didn't know what a run-on line was."

> They always get all their ideas from the
> second-rate, and slavishly copy existing
> styles and conventions -- to which they
> mindlessly adhere.
>
> Everyone knows that.
>

> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
Can anybody quote anyone who has ever more idiotically
represented his opponents' viewpoint?

Paul, can you name any artist who ever was half the superman
you claim your twerp was?

Hey, off-topic but something that has been discussed before
to which I just read something that realates: some have claimed
it's unlikely two such great writers as Shakespeare and Marlowe
could have been born in the same year. What I read was that
Handel and Bach were born in the same year. And in the same
geographical region. Interestingly, Handel's father didn't want him
to become a musician so forbid him to have any musical instrument
or get involved in any way with music. Handel, just a child,
disobeyed
him, learning behind his back to play the clavichord. At seven a
prince
or other noble heard him play and immediately basically commissioned
him to continue his studies in music. Evidence for my belief that a
genius will go where his innate skills force him to; for your belief
in the
need for mentors or the like, the fact that a prince stepped in to
help
him on the way. I would claim that latter was useful but
unnecessary--
and also a result of the genius's doing what had to be done to allow
him to express his genius--i.e., finding and securing patronage.

--Bob G.

[lackpurity]

MM:
It's more than ironic, but I'll leave it at that, for now.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

On Dec 29, 4:47�pm, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> > Makes me wonder about Hyatt. �He's done similar things with threads
> > I've begun or entered with evidence. �I've most always thought he
> > thought the thread involved had simply gone on long enough,
> > wasn't getting anywhere, and I thought he had a point.
>
> That may be the most astute conclusion you've ever come to, Bob.
>
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> > �This time he seems entirely wrong.
>
> Peter's thread had gone on long enough & wasn't getting anywhere.

MM:
It was an incomplete debate, IMO. Mr. Farey has not been properly
answered, IMO. The move to members-only doesn't do much for the
credibility of some Oxfordians, IMO. I'm not addressing anyone in
particular. Readers can decide how they feel about Marty or Farey. I
think all the info ought to be available for consideration, however.

> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> > What I wonder is if he really is so stupid as to think
> > Peter's questions have been definitively answered,
>
> Peter's questions had been answered.

MM:
Care to be more specific? Farey and others seem to disagree with you.

> We are all happy to acknowledge that Peter has brought
> up a puzzlement that may never be definitively answered.

MM:
If it can't be answered, then, as I mentioned, readers can decide what
to think of the ongoing Oxfordian/Stratfordian debate. Seems to me,
the onus is on Oxfordians to make a reply or rebuttal to Mr. Farey's
questions.

> However, it's simply one more piece of evidence no different
> than Meres's claim that Marlowe was "stabbed to death
> by a bawdy serving-man, a rival of his in his lewd love"
> as punishment for his "epicurism and atheism."
>
> Art Neuendorffer

MM:
I wouldn't disparage it to that extent. His (Farey's) evidence is
outstanding, and not just run of the mill. The onus is on
Oxfordians. I wouldn't equate the two instances. Farey's numbers and
trendlines are more accurate probably than Mere's claim. We are not
talking of one incident only, but of several plays and their dates.
When we have so many possible variables saying the same thing, then we
have to give them more importance.

Marlowe was murdered, but the intimate details of it might differ from
one claim to another.

What makes this a sensitive issue, is the dating of the plays.
Farey's theory makes any redating or shifting of the dates from 10 to
20 years, unreasonable. I know you mentioned 8 years shift, at the
most. The very foundation of Oxfordianism is being challenged, IMO,
by Mr. Farey's questions. It's time for Oxfordians to stand up and be
counted.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

MM:
Sometimes, ego gets preference over the truth, as hard as that might
be to understand.

> In The End Of The Authorship Question, Scott McCrea has a chapter
> called The Logjam which addresses issues connected to Peter's point,
> illustrating why you can't just shift all the plays back 10 or 20
> years in time. He sums up:
>
> "Let's say that the plays were written earlier than the dates assigned
> to them. This means the Author could not have learned from many of the
> writers who are generally believed to have influenced him.

MM:
Actually, William Shakespeare of Stratford did learn from Marlowe,
Greville, and members of the Wilton Cult. I'll scroll down.

> Lyly,

MM:
Lyly was around, but Shakespeare was busy learning mainly from Wilton
Cult members.

> Marlowe,

MM:
Marlowe was definitely Shakespeare's Master. He learned a lot from
him, even without shifting the dates backwards. He and Marlowe were
both young.

> Spenser,

MM:
Spenser was a True Master. Shakespeare learned from him, even without
shifting the dates. You see, Shakespeare was full-fledged in 1593,
the time of Marlowe's death.

> Chapman, Daniel,

MM:
It's about the same for these two.

> Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, must
> all have read his work, but he could not have read theirs.

MM:
There were likely disciples of William Shakespeare.

Influences
> flow in only one direction and he becomes the originator of almost
> every trend in contemporary drama - Senecan tragedies, history plays,
> Elizabethan satires, Jacobean comedy, antimasques, and more. Cymbeline
> and The Winter's Tale must be models for the plays of Beaumont and
> Fletcher, not conscious imitations of the duo's manner, because the
> pair did not begin writing until Oxford was dead.

MM:
Yes, this theory doesn't help Oxfordianism, not at all.

The whimsical and
> elaborate Stuart court masques must have been inspired by the similar
> masque scene in The Tempest, because the first such masque was in
> 1605.

MM:
Good theory.

> "In this way, the Oxfordian author is even more of a superman than the
> Stratfordian's."
>
> Tom

MM:
Oxford was a great man, but not to the level of Shakespeare, Marlowe,
nor Spenser. We'll give him credit where credit is due, with regard
to the Heliconian Imps, but let's don't give him Shakespeare's canon,
nor Marlowe's.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

On Dec 30, 12:40�pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

MM:
Crowley's sarcasm is noted. Great artists can be leaders, but they
can be followers, also, especially in the beginning of their adult
lives. Shakespeare was an example of that.

I don't agree that Shakespeare had to learn from Beaumont and
Fletcher, for example, because they were disciples of the Strat Man.
Still, the redating of the plays does present a number of problems.
Any attempt to mess with history is going to make it an even bigger
mess. There was a connection between the Shakespeare genration and
the Fletcher generation. Actually, this was not as important as the
Herbert generation, but still, we shouldn't be attempting to divide
the historical and highly spiritual relationships between Shakespeare,
Fletcher, Beaumont, and others.

> They always get all their ideas from the
> second-rate,

MM:
Well, Marlowe, Spenser, Greville, etc., were all First Rate. The
entire Wilton Cult was first rate. Your hero, Oxford, was even
associated with it, since he was a disciple of Spenser.

Shakespeare got his ideas from his MUSES, as did Marlowe, Sidney, and
Greville. Oxford was also developing this talent. His writing
indicate that he was not of the same level of spiritual development,
however.

and slavishly copy existing
> styles and conventions -- to which they
> mindlessly adhere.

MM:
I agree that Great Writers eventually use their own mind, and that is
what William Shakespeare did. I don't think this justifies the
Oxfordian tactic of redating plays which would tamper with those
highly spiritual relationships. Beaumont and Fletcher learned a lot
from the Strat Man, whether Oxfordians want to admit it, or not.

> Everyone knows that.
>
> Paul.

Michael Martin

[lackpurity]

MM:
Lyly might have been a disciple of Spenser. He might have gotten more
influence from him.

> The Oxfordian author is certainly more of a superman than the
> Stratfordian's.

MM:
This is incongruent with Spenser's Heliconian Imps. If Oxford were as
great as Shakespeare, he would have written something similar to
Jonson's enconium.

> However, the highly tutored & experienced Oxfordian author
> is less of a miracle than the Stratfordian's.

MM:
Many people hav been highly tutored and experienced. Not taking
anything away from Eddie de Vere, he had a very great teacher, Edmund
Spenser. He just had not reached his Master's level. That's all.
Spenser indicates that, and Oxford's writings indicate that.

The Strat Man was the SON of the Wilton Cult. He had a great
position, and he became the successor of Marlowe. He was sent for
this purpose, so it was God's will. You could still call it a
miracle.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer

Michael Martin

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>> They must have a pretty good idea. But given
>> that none of them could come up with an
>> answer to Peter that they felt was even passably
>> acceptable, what was their alternative?
>
> Who says they didn't think their answers were good ones?

They didn't make any. That's the point.
They didn't CLAIM to make any answers
-- even if they frequently claimed that
Peter had not dealt with the X (so-called)
problem and the Y (so-called) problem.

>> This is nonsensical. There would have been a
>> large number of intense phone calls over the
>> past few days on this issue, in which Stritmatter
>> would have taken part. All options would have
>> been discussed. I'm sure that anyone who
>> knows the characters could draft some of the
>> likely exchanges.
>
> I love the picture. Can we expect the assassination of
> Farey soon, Paul?

The possibility might well have crossed
their minds. But the logistics would
have defeated them.

>> There is no comparison. Peter posed a very
>> simple question about historical fact -- or
>> the implication of apparently agreed facts.
>> But he could get no answer -- of any kind.
>> He got a lot of attempts at distraction,
>> which he politely batted off. But still no
>> answer -- and it was painfully obvious.
>
> For once you may be right. He got responses, some of
> them pertinent in my view. But no answers that I can
> remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
> picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to like
> the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.

As Farey said, the odds against that are
around 50 million to one. Still, you've
never before regarded such adverse odds
as an impediment to believing in whatever
you wanted to believe. Why should you
now?
[..]

> Paul, can you name any artist who ever was half the
> superman you claim your twerp was?

I can't think of another artist of the
same stature -- but that is probably
my own ignorance (or prejudice).
Most people have their favourite great
artists, and many would argue a case
that they were more influential in their
field than was Shakespeare in his. IMHO
Aristotle and Newton, in their different
fields, were roughly comparable.

> Hey, off-topic but something that has been discussed before
> to which I just read something that realates: some have claimed
> it's unlikely two such great writers as Shakespeare and Marlowe
> could have been born in the same year. What I read was that
> Handel and Bach were born in the same year. And in the same
> geographical region. Interestingly, Handel's father didn't want him
> to become a musician so forbid him to have any musical instrument
> or get involved in any way with music.

This injunction came only AFTER Handel
showed substantial talent. (It would
have been pointless for a typical child.)

> Evidence for my belief that a genius will go where his
> innate skills force him to;

How would such a genius prosper when
living in a house with no musical
instruments?

There are probably about a thousand
times as many literate people alive today
as in Shakespeare's time. So how come
we don't have thousands of literary
geniuses of Shake-speare's stature?

Paul.

[lackpurity]

On Dec 31, 3:54�am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> They must have a pretty good idea. �But given
> >> that none of them could come up with an
> >> answer to Peter that they felt was even passably
> >> acceptable, what was their alternative?
>
> > Who says they didn't think their answers were good ones?
>
> They didn't make any. �That's the point.
> They didn't CLAIM to make any answers
> -- even if they frequently claimed that
> Peter had not dealt with the X (so-called)
> problem and the Y (so-called) problem.

MM:
Let's face it, the redating of the plays was an Anti-Strat maneuver to
give the canon to Eddie de Vere. Peter Farey's theory raises
questions about that. What would they do, EVADE again, another
EVASION? Anti-Strats must be regrouping and on the defensive, as well
they should be.

MM:
Coming from one who has proposed rather preposterous theories, your
criticism of Bob is hypocritical. For example, your massive cover-up
theory is huge, but it is meant for some, but not for others. Your
theory has to be fine-tuned, and what would be the odds of that?
KQKnave has brought so many Stratfordian facts to light, and each one
raises the ones against Oxfordianism.

> > Paul, can you name any artist who ever was half the
> > superman you claim your twerp was?
>
> I can't think of another artist of the
> same stature -- but that is probably
> my own ignorance (or prejudice).
> Most people have their favourite great
> artists, and many would argue a case
> that they were more influential in their
> field than was Shakespeare in his. �IMHO
> Aristotle and Newton, in their different
> fields, were roughly comparable.

MM:
The generally accepted fact that Shakespeare (Stratford Variety) is
second to the Bible, makes all other arguments highly questionable.
Aristotle was a Master, but he was long before Shakespeare. Bacon
might have been the reincarnation of Aristotle. Shakespeare has been
more recent, and his impact is widely recorded. Newton was more of a
scientist, and less of a mystic. Aristotle was the Master of
Alexander the Great (Shakespeare), and if he (Aristotle) returned as
Bacon, then the favor was returned, as Shakespeare was Bacon's Master.

> > Hey, off-topic but something that has been discussed before
> > to which I just read something that realates: some have claimed
> > it's unlikely two such great writers as Shakespeare and Marlowe
> > could have been born in the same year. �What I read was that
> > Handel and Bach were born in the same year. �And in the same
> > geographical region. �Interestingly, Handel's father didn't want him
> > to become a musician so forbid him to have any musical instrument
> > or get involved in any way with music.
>
> This injunction came only AFTER Handel
> showed substantial talent. (It would
> have been pointless for a typical child.)
>
> > Evidence for my belief that a genius will go where his
> > innate skills force him to;

MM:
The Guruavatars are guided by God. He is the Director of this Play,
after all. Most ordinary humans are following certain karmic channels
already chalked out. Handel could have been one of them. It's up to
God, whether he wants to intervene, or not.

> How would such a genius prosper when
> living in a house with no musical
> instruments?

MM:
That would be difficult. In the cases of Shakespeare and Eddie de
Vere, God guided them to Masters. The former was guided to Marlowe
and Greville. The latter was guided to Spenser.

Eddie de Vere must have had a lot of respect and admiration for
William Shakespeare of Stratford. Why? He would have offended
Spenser, if he had not. Spenser knew the authority of William
Shakespeare. The entire Wilton Cult did, and even the Stratford
Bard's enemies knew it, witness Groatsworth of Wit.

It is only in this group that Oxfordians call Shakespeare an
illiterate boob. Eddie de Vere and those of that time period knew the
truth. The facts belie the fantasies of Anti-Strats, time and time
again.

> There are probably about a thousand
> times as many literate people alive today
> as in Shakespeare's time. �So how come
> we don't have thousands of literary
> geniuses of Shake-speare's stature?
>
> Paul.

MM:
There are a few Masters alive today, but this is Kal Yuga (Iron Age)
and the age of sin and materialism. This is a different situation,
now. Percentagewise, the popularity of spirituality is falling.
Still, the Almighty sends us Saviours, for those who want to reach the
truth.

Communications are better. Masters can become known all over the
world, now, due to the internet, etc.. So, certain factors balance
out. God knows how many Saviours to send, where to send them, etc...

Michael Martin

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Dec 31, 4:54 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> They must have a pretty good idea.  But given
> >> that none of them could come up with an
> >> answer to Peter that they felt was even passably
> >> acceptable, what was their alternative?
>
> > Who says they didn't think their answers were good ones?
>
> They didn't make any.  That's the point.
> They didn't CLAIM to make any answers
> -- even if they frequently claimed that
> Peter had not dealt with the X (so-called)
> problem and the Y (so-called) problem.

Okay. I would calim that two of them made responsible responses,
but--as I said somewhere--no one so far, that I know of (but I) has
answered Peter's questions.

> >> This is nonsensical. There would have been a
> >> large number of intense phone calls over the
> >> past few days on this issue, in which Stritmatter
> >> would have taken part.  All options would have
> >> been discussed.  I'm sure that anyone who
> >> knows the characters could draft some of the
> >> likely exchanges.
>
> > I love the picture.  Can we expect the assassination of
> > Farey soon, Paul?
>
> The possibility might well have crossed
> their minds.  But the logistics would
> have defeated them.

Well, I doubt that Strit&Co are particularly worried about
Peter's question. It's no different than questions I and others
have asked them about the Meres list--why Hamlet is not
on it, for instance. Why, in particular, it only contains
plays most people consider his earliest plays, and none
from Shakespeare in his prime (except Midsummer Nights Dream,
and R&J which seem the first of his true masterpieces).
Oxfordians like Stritmatter are so sure their man was
The True Author that nothing really bothers them, and they
think they've refuted every argument against the that's come
up including this one. Some probably think this is such a one,
but they can't quickly remember how it was handled--just as
I sometimes get into a repeat of a long ago argument against
my Shakespeare and know it not worth dealing with, having been
dos[atched long ago, but I can't remember, right away, how it
was dispatched.

Plus, I just can't picture these people as worriedly monitoring
the world of authorship discussion and frantically contacting
about developments. The Mouse is cefinitely not like that.

> >> There is no comparison.  Peter posed a very
> >> simple question about historical fact -- or
> >> the implication of apparently agreed facts.
> >> But he could get no answer -- of any kind.
> >> He got a lot of attempts at distraction,
> >> which he politely batted off. But still no
> >> answer -- and it was painfully obvious.

I don't know that the responses were attempts at
distraction; I think most or all of them were annoyed
dismissals or short opinions that Peter was wrong,
but not intentionaly attempts to distract, just pitiful
responses that did no more than that. I do think there
are a few authorship partisans who purposely just try
to make things difficult for their opponents (Art, for
instance) but most think they're after truth.

>
> > For once you may be right.  He got responses, some of
> > them pertinent in my view.  But no answers that I can
> > remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
> > picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to like
> > the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.
>
> As Farey said, the odds against that are
> around 50 million to one.  Still, you've
> never before regarded such adverse odds
> as an impediment to believing in whatever
> you wanted to believe.  Why should you
> now?

You're confused. I accept Peter's implied argument. I
accept his stats, too, though I usually don't accept either
his or yours. Even if I accepted yours that, say, it's
a zillion to one that a man with illiterate parents, wife
and children could be a writer, they're based on
premises that are, in my view, not valid, and in no
sane person's necessarily valid. On top of that, it
doesn't matter what statistics say if all the hard
evidence opposes them. If you can show the odds
against a lethal strangulation of six healthy twenty-year-old
males by a 100-year-old man who can barely walk
because of a heart condition are a million to one
but I can produce ten witnesses who testify that
he did, one of them with a video tape of the murders,
your stats are meaningless.

> [..]
>
> > Paul, can you name any artist who ever was half the
> > superman you claim your twerp was?
>
> I can't think of another artist of the
> same stature -- but that is probably
> my own ignorance (or prejudice).
> Most people have their favourite great
> artists, and many would argue a case
> that they were more influential in their
> field than was Shakespeare in his.  IMHO
> Aristotle and Newton, in their different
> fields, were roughly comparable.

As far as I'm concerned, Shakespeare was not
particularly influential--because I don't think he
was responsible for many innovations, or any
important ones. Look at his sonnets--standard
in every way (unless they perfectly express
double-stories, as you propose, but if so, they
never influenced anyone else to do the same).
He merely did what everybody else in his field was
doing, but did it better. So, yes, I'm one who thinks
many other great artists were more influential than
Shakespeare (though not for that reason superior
to him). But although I have a relatively wide
of the arts--and the history of science--I don't
know of anyone anywhere near as epoch-defining
as you think Shakespeare was, nor any great artist
who was not influenced significantly at times by
others in his field considered inferior to him. Leigh
Hunt, for instance, had a great influence on Keats.
Picasso was strongly influenced by African art. Joyce
got his stream-of-consciousness technique from a
third-rate novelist whose name I forget. Etc.

>
> > Hey, off-topic but something that has been discussed before
> > to which I just read something that realates: some have claimed
> > it's unlikely two such great writers as Shakespeare and Marlowe
> > could have been born in the same year.  What I read was that
> > Handel and Bach were born in the same year.  And in the same
> > geographical region.  Interestingly, Handel's father didn't want him
> > to become a musician so forbid him to have any musical instrument
> > or get involved in any way with music.
>
> This injunction came only AFTER Handel
> showed substantial talent. (It would
> have been pointless for a typical child.)

I think that probably untrue. It was after he showed extreme
interest in music. And, of course, it would not have
been pointless for a trypical child. A parent who banned
music-making would simply have been (rigidnikally)
wanting his child, typical or not, to concentrate on
important things, like what was going on in . . .
the Court.

> > Evidence for my belief that a genius will go where his
> > innate skills force him to;
>
> How would such a genius prosper when
> living in a house with no musical
> instruments?

Such a genius could not be born into a household
with no musical instruments. You don't understand
genetics, Paul. A musical genius has genes from
his parents that make him a musical genius. Ergo,
his parents have musical genes (just not--probably--
quite in the combination required for genius). Those
genes would see that musical instruments were in
the child's household.

Aside from that, a gifted child would find ways to make
music without proper musical instruments. Percussion
instruments are part of any household. He would also
have a singing voice, and friends with singing voices.
A gifted child would also find musical instruments
outside the house, perhaps sneak into a church to
play the organ. Or befriend some disreputable musician
who would help him. Genius finds way to express itself--
always, short of being murdered, and even that a true
genius will find a way to avoid.

> There are probably about a thousand
> times as many literate people alive today
> as in Shakespeare's time.  So how come
> we don't have thousands of literary
> geniuses of Shake-speare's stature?
>
> Paul.

Seems to me I've heard that before. It's actually an
interesting question although based on another of
you faulty premises, i.e., that it is a fact that
we con't have thousands of literary geniuses
of Shakespeare's stature.

A few quick answers: geniiuses fill niches and we have many
more than the Elizabethans have, so a modern Shakespeare
might become a genius linguist or genius inventor of computer\
games instead of a poet/playwright.

2. It's much harder to be a Shakespeare level genius today
because one's predecessors have accomplished the main
works of genius. No Darwin, for instance, is likely to be able
to arise in biology because Darwin answered all the significant
questions. Actually, there are probably many Darwins in
biology but their work is not recognized as comparable to his
because he answered the main questions. Their equally
brilliant answers of smaller important questions can't get
them reputations equal to his.

Many other partial explanations exist.

Counter questions: since it's readily apparent to you and many
other social determinists that genius is simply the result of
a proper upbringing and formal education, why has no one--why
in particular have no terribly brilliant aristocrats--set up schools
that teach parents how to raise a child to become a genius, and
teachers who form the proper schools to produce geniuses. Why
in other words have no enlightened groups of people started
using the right procedure to make a child into a genius and
succeeded in producing hundreds of Shakespeares?

I know. The rest of the world has conspired against them.

I still want to know, too, where you came from. You are, by
your standards if no one else's, a super-genius. How did that
come about?

--Bob

[lackpurity]

On Dec 31, 2:16�pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

MM:
Anagrams for:

Anagrams for P. Crowley Genius

55231 found. Displaying first 1000:

MM:
I'll discuss these:

Sprucely Wigeon

MM:
LOL Wigeon is a duck from Eurasia and North Africa.

Glycerines Ow Up

MM:
Hmmmm. Here is the definition:

Quick definitions (glycerine)

noun: a sweet syrupy trihydroxy alcohol obtained by saponification of
fats and oils

MM:
Alcohol interferes with good judgment.

Glycerine Sow Up
Glycerine Ow Ups
Glycerine Ow Pus
Glycerine Ow Sup

MM:
Sweet but not desirable, IMO.

Clergies Won Yup

MM:
Quick definitions (clergy)

noun: clergymen collectively (as distinguished from the laity)

MM:
Are you for the clergies, Crowley? Can you win the mystics? That is
the question.

Clergies Own Yup

MM:
Are you a preacher, Crowley?

Clergies Now Yup

MM:
Hmmmmm. More of the same.

Clergies Pun Yow

MM:
Well, we know Crowley loves to discuss punning. Are you a pun of
clergy, Crowley?

Michael Martin

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

> Well, I doubt that Strit&Co are particularly worried
> about Peter's question. It's no different than questions
> I and others have asked them about the Meres list

It's very different. Peter has pointed out
a specific aspect of Meres's list which is
explicable only as:
(a) the list is historically accurate
and comprehensive, and the poet's use of
these techniques (run-on lines and feminine
endings) was dramatically different before
and after the list came out (in 1598);
OR
(b) the list was deliberately contrived
(from the total of the plays, or a wide
selection of them) to present the
appearance of such a 'development';
OR
(c) it arose by chance.

You (uniquely, I think) accept the latter
even if the odds against it are astronomical.

> --why Hamlet is not on it, for instance.

Why should Hamlet be on it? I know of
no one who has suggested any reason why
it should.

> Why, in particular, it only contains plays most people
> consider his earliest plays,

This is silly. Most people (including ALL
the academics) know which of the canonical
plays are early -- because nearly all of
them are on Meres's list.

> Oxfordians like Stritmatter are so sure their man was The
> True Author that nothing really bothers them, and they
> think they've refuted every argument against the that's
> come up including this one.

Nonsense. They are not THAT stupid.
They KNOW that they have not dealt
with this point -- which is why they
get so angry with Peter Farey, and
subject him to such ridiculous insults,
and such censorship.

> Some probably think this is such a one, but they can't
> quickly remember how it was handled--just as I sometimes
> get into a repeat of a long ago argument against my
> Shakespeare and know it not worth dealing with, having
> been dos[atched long ago, but I can't remember, right
> away, how it was dispatched.

Most people are not as vague as you, Bob.
They can remember what arguments they've
had and how they went. NO ONE claims
to have defeated Peter (or anyone) on this
matter now, or at any time in the past.
(Except, of course, me. Peter has quoted
my argument, but never responded to it.)

> Plus, I just can't picture these people as worriedly
> monitoring the world of authorship discussion and
> frantically contacting about developments. The Mouse is
> cefinitely not like that.

She's even more vague than you. But the
rest of us do know what is going on.
This is one heck of a reverse for the
PT-Oxfordians, and it will be a long
time before they live down the 'Farey
Affair' -- if they ever do.

>>>> There is no comparison. Peter posed a very
>>>> simple question about historical fact -- or
>>>> the implication of apparently agreed facts.
>>>> But he could get no answer -- of any kind.
>>>> He got a lot of attempts at distraction,
>>>> which he politely batted off. But still no
>>>> answer -- and it was painfully obvious.
>
> I don't know that the responses were attempts at
> distraction; I think most or all of them were annoyed
> dismissals or short opinions that Peter was wrong,
> but not intentionaly attempts to distract, just pitiful
> responses that did no more than that.

The initial responses could have been that.
But it soon became obvious that no one
was going to make a serious attempt to
deal with his questions -- or make any
attempt at all. Soon after that it got
nasty, and they had to revert to plain
simple censorship.

> I do think there are a few authorship partisans who
> purposely just try to make things difficult for their
> opponents (Art, for instance) but most think they're
> after truth.

That's why it's such a big deal. Up to now,
the PT-Oxfordians have been able to maintain
such a front (at least to themselves). Of course,
I knew it was a lie, since not one of them has
ever attempted to deal with my Sonnet
exegeses. But now, it's obvious to everyone.

>> As Farey said, the odds against that are
>> around 50 million to one. Still, you've
>> never before regarded such adverse odds
>> as an impediment to believing in whatever
>> you wanted to believe. Why should you
>> now?
>
> You're confused. I accept Peter's implied argument. I
> accept his stats, too, though I usually don't accept either
> his or yours. Even if I accepted yours that, say, it's
> a zillion to one that a man with illiterate parents, wife
> and children could be a writer, they're based on
> premises that are, in my view, not valid, and in no
> sane person's necessarily valid. On top of that, it
> doesn't matter what statistics say if all the hard
> evidence opposes them. If you can show the odds
> against a lethal strangulation of six healthy twenty-year-old
> males by a 100-year-old man who can barely walk
> because of a heart condition are a million to one
> but I can produce ten witnesses who testify that
> he did, one of them with a video tape of the murders,
> your stats are meaningless.

The trouble about your illiterate yeoman
writing the plays is that you have no
witnesses, nor any videotape. If you
had any such thing, we'd not be having
this discussion. (Of course, you can
choose to believe that all the remarks
about "Will Shake-speare", the poet,
applied directly to the Stratman -- but
that is the decision of a fool.)

PT-Oxfordians question Peter's odds of
50 million against in the same tone.
In both cases, it is a simple dodge.

> As far as I'm concerned, Shakespeare was not
> particularly influential--because I don't think he
> was responsible for many innovations, or any
> important ones.

Sure -- he borrowed wholesale (ideas, plots
conventions, etc., etc.) from the most minor
of contemporary poets. That's what great
ones always do.
[..]

>> This injunction came only AFTER Handel
>> showed substantial talent. (It would
>> have been pointless for a typical child.)
>
> I think that probably untrue. It was after he showed
> extreme interest in music.

Same thing -- in effect. Talentless
children usually don't have much interest
in music.

>>> Evidence for my belief that a genius will go where his
>>> innate skills force him to;
>> How would such a genius prosper when
>> living in a house with no musical
>> instruments?
>
> Such a genius could not be born into a household
> with no musical instruments. You don't understand
> genetics, Paul. A musical genius has genes from
> his parents that make him a musical genius. Ergo,
> his parents have musical genes (just not--probably--
> quite in the combination required for genius). Those
> genes would see that musical instruments were in
> the child's household.

That must be why the Stratman's parents
were such great writers (or would have
been if, unfortunately, they had not
been illiterate). It must be why there
was such an intense search among the
Stratman's relatives for similar genius.

>> There are probably about a thousand
>> times as many literate people alive today
>> as in Shakespeare's time. So how come
>> we don't have thousands of literary
>> geniuses of Shake-speare's stature?
>

> Seems to me I've heard that before. It's actually an
> interesting question although based on another of
> you faulty premises, i.e., that it is a fact that
> we con't have thousands of literary geniuses
> of Shakespeare's stature.

Sure -- they write the TV soaps, and for
Hollywood. I guess that they are so good
their writing is too far above my head.
[..]

> Counter questions: since it's readily apparent to you and
> many other social determinists that genius is simply the
> result of a proper upbringing and formal education

Nonsense. And I have explained this to you
before. Literary genius (of the sort we see
in Shake-speare) requires MUCH more than
"a proper upbringing and formal education".
Firstly, you'd need to re-create the
Renaissance; then have it known, appreciated
and discussed by a tiny number of people in
inter-related families for a few generations.
That small group must run the society and
know pretty much all that is available to know
on history, the classics, and the sciences. It
(or an even smaller fraction of it, containing
this great literary figure) must be in the
process of rejecting many or most of the
long-held ancient beliefs, regarding them
largely as superstitions. Yet the society as
a whole must share that common belief system.
The great literary genius, must be at the heart
of the political system, probably at times
expected to take a major role in its running
-- but he is also likely to be detached from
any day-to-day management. He must have
a near-complete freedom to express himself.
And so on and on . . .

> why has no one--why in particular have no terribly
> brilliant aristocrats--set up schools that teach parents
> how to raise a child to become a genius, and teachers
> who form the proper schools to produce geniuses.

[..]

Why are you incapable of remembering
anything?

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Jan 2, 6:51 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > Well, I doubt that Strit&Co are particularly worried
> > about Peter's question.  It's no different than questions
> > I and others have asked them about the Meres list
>
> It's very different.  Peter has pointed out
> a specific aspect of Meres's list which is
> explicable only as:
> (a) the list is historically accurate
> and comprehensive, and the poet's use of
> these techniques (run-on lines and feminine
> endings) was dramatically different before
> and after the list came out (in 1598);

Who says "dramatically different?" You always push the ideas
of your opponetns to extremes.

>   OR
> (b) the list was deliberately contrived
> (from the total of the plays, or a wide
> selection of them) to present the
> appearance of such a 'development';
>   OR
> (c) it arose by chance.
>
> You (uniquely, I think) accept the latter
> even if the odds against it are astronomical.

Of course I don't think that. I've always been with (a). Your
(b). is totally insane, for you're hypothesizing your hoaxsters'
going through all of Oxford's plays and separating them on
the basis of which ones are high, which low, in run-on lines
and feminine endings, then making sure to give Meres just
the ones low on these things, as if anyone reading Meres
would know that was the case. No one mentioned it till when?
this century?

My Oxfordian answer to Peter is much better than yours: it's
that Shakespeare's early plays were low in feminine endings
and run-on lines and

(a) Meres chose his favorite plays for the list and liked the early
ones

OR

(b) the hoaxsters were releasing Oxford's plays in order of their
composition, and had only released the ones up to R&J by 1598.

Note: the above shows how much brighter than the Oxfordians I am,
and how easy it is to squirm out of any trouble your theory runs into,
however wacked-out it is.

>
> > --why Hamlet is not on it, for instance.
>
> Why should Hamlet be on it? I know of
> no one who has suggested any reason why
> it should.

Go read up on Oxfordian theory. Many, perhaps most, Oxfordians
believe Hamlet was written by Oxford when Shakespeare was only
12 or so. There have been many discussions of this.

> > Why, in particular, it only contains plays most people
> > consider his earliest plays,
>
> This is silly.  Most people (including ALL
> the academics) know which of the canonical
> plays are early -- because nearly all of
> them are on Meres's list.

Not so. It contains plays most people consider
his earliest plays FOR OTHER REASONS than
their appearance of Meres's list. Or do you believe
anyone sane would think Two Gentlemen of Verona
written after Twelfth Night, or King John after the
Henry IV plays or Titus Andronicus after Hamlet?

What play in Meres would you claim was written by WS
at the very height of his power?

> > Oxfordians like Stritmatter are so sure their man was The
> > True Author that nothing really bothers them, and they
> > think they've refuted every argument against the that's
> > come up including this one.
>
> Nonsense.  They are not THAT stupid.
> They KNOW that they have not dealt
> with this point -- which is why they
> get so angry with Peter Farey, and
> subject him to such ridiculous insults,
> and such censorship.

But, Paul, you think you've dealt with every point
brought up against your nonsense although you haven't
come close to having done so effectively. If you
can be stupid enough to think you have all the answers,
why can't Stritmatter and Company. Then there's me:
I think I've dealt with all the consequential arguments
against Stratfordianism, yet you are sure I haven't.
That makes me as stupid as you say Stritmatter is not.
If even one person (me) can be that stupid, others can
be, as well.

> > Some probably think this is such a one, but they can't
> > quickly remember how it was handled--just as I sometimes
> > get into a repeat of a long ago argument against my
> > Shakespeare and know it not worth dealing with, having

> > been dispatched long ago, but I can't remember, right

> > away, how it was dispatched.
>
> Most people are not as vague as you, Bob.

Not quite. But no one remembers everything, although
rigidniks are always convinced they do.

Mouse did.

I do have eye-witness testimony but wacks don't accept it.
Heminges and Condell, for instance.

> PT-Oxfordians question Peter's odds of
> 50 million against in the same tone.
> In both cases, it is a simple dodge.

Nah. They are not mathematical. They think
he's making up his figures the way so many in
these arguments do. (Sometimes me, definitely
you at times.)

> > As far as I'm concerned, Shakespeare was not
> > particularly influential--because I don't think he
> > was responsible for many innovations, or any
> > important ones.
>
> Sure -- he borrowed wholesale (ideas, plots
> conventions, etc., etc.) from the most minor
> of contemporary poets.  That's what great
> ones always do.
> [..]

You can't paraphrase my thought accurately, can you.
I do believe he borrowed quite a bit from minor writers,
as most great writers do, but not necessarily "the most
minor of contemporary poets" or "wholesale."

You obviously don't know anything about genetics, Paul.
Or literary ability, or artistic creativity.

> >> There are probably about a thousand
> >> times as many literate people alive today
> >> as in Shakespeare's time.  So how come
> >> we don't have thousands of literary
> >> geniuses of Shake-speare's stature?
>
> > Seems to me I've heard that before.  It's actually an
> > interesting question although based on another of
> > you faulty premises, i.e., that it is a fact that

> > we can't have thousands of literary geniuses

One major problem with your thesis is that there have been
many many literary geniuses, and they seem to the casual
eye to have come from random places at random times. Your
particular scenario would explain only one of them, which is
absurd.

It also conflicts with all sane theories of epistemology and of the
creative process.

> > why has no one--why in particular have no terribly
> > brilliant aristocrats--set up schools that teach parents
> > how to raise a child to become a genius, and teachers
> > who form the proper schools to produce geniuses.

Why has this situation never come about again? Why wasn't there
another Shakeapeare in the generation after his, the aristocrats
having succeeded
in finding out how to produce them? How did the Renaissance come
about?
Were Michelangelo and Leonardo the result of a FLorentine like
Elizabeth's London? If so, what renaissance was the equivalent of the
one that was required for Oxford's genius's being realized? What
renaissance allowed for this other renaissance. That is, you have an
infinite regress here.

> [..]
>
> Why are you incapable of remembering
> anything?

I'll try to remember this machine you concoct to explain Shakespeare
but it's hard for rational people to remember absolute crap rather
than just free their minds of it.

--Bob G.

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>>> Well, I doubt that Strit&Co are particularly worried
>>> about Peter's question. It's no different than questions
>>> I and others have asked them about the Meres list
>>
>> It's very different. Peter has pointed out
>> a specific aspect of Meres's list which is
>> explicable only as:
>> (a) the list is historically accurate
>> and comprehensive, and the poet's use of
>> these techniques (run-on lines and feminine
>> endings) was dramatically different before
>> and after the list came out (in 1598);
>
> Who says "dramatically different?" You always push
> the ideas of your opponetns to extremes.

OK, 'dramatically' was too strong. But, on
this I support Peter. My point stands that
he is making a stronger case than you ever
did.

>> OR
>> (b) the list was deliberately contrived
>> (from the total of the plays, or a wide
>> selection of them) to present the
>> appearance of such a 'development';
>> OR
>> (c) it arose by chance.
>>
>> You (uniquely, I think) accept the latter
>> even if the odds against it are astronomical.
>
> Of course I don't think that.

I can only go by what you wrote:

>>> He got responses, some of
>>> them pertinent in my view. But no answers that I can
>>> remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
>>> picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to
>>> like the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.

Your phrase " . . just happened . ." suggests chance.

> I've always been with (a).

So what is the distinct answer that you've
been claiming to make?

> Your (b). is totally insane, for you're hypothesizing
> your hoaxsters' going through all of Oxford's plays
> and separating them on the basis of which ones are
> high, which low, in run-on lines and feminine endings,
> then making sure to give Meres just the ones low on
> these things, as if anyone reading Meres would know
> that was the case. No one mentioned it till when?
> this century?

God help us. Poets and playwrights around
1600 were fully aware of these differences.
(Next you'll be telling us that they did not
know when lines rhymed.) They knew exactly
how fashions were changing. It was not hard
to pick out plays that were (superficially)
closer to older fashions. Even you could do it.

> My Oxfordian answer to Peter is much better than
> yours: it's that Shakespeare's early plays were low in
> feminine endings and run-on lines

Then you commit yourself to Farey's daft
'incremental use' -- the automaton which
'writes as he feels' without any conscious
awareness, slowly 'improving' his overall
figures (if not his separate ones) year by
year. You will also trip over Farey's
argument that one ('automatic') writer is
unlikely to be way ahead of current fashion.

> (a) Meres chose his favorite plays for the list and
> liked the early ones

Makes no sense whatever.

> OR
>
> (b) the hoaxsters were releasing Oxford's plays in
> order of their composition, and had only released the
> ones up to R&J by 1598.

Why should they do that? It makes no
sense.

> Note: the above shows how much brighter than the
> Oxfordians I am, and how easy it is to squirm out of
> any trouble your theory runs into, however wacked-out
> it is.

Your 'squirming' is painfully obvious,
and creates far more problems than it
solves.

>>> Why, in particular, it only contains plays most people
>>> consider his earliest plays,
>>
>> This is silly. Most people (including ALL
>> the academics) know which of the canonical
>> plays are early -- because nearly all of
>> them are on Meres's list.
>
> Not so. It contains plays most people consider
> his earliest plays FOR OTHER REASONS than
> their appearance of Meres's list.

There are NO other reasons.

> Or do you believe
> anyone sane would think Two Gentlemen of Verona
> written after Twelfth Night, or King John after the
> Henry IV plays or Titus Andronicus after Hamlet?

When you put a late date to Henry 8,
Pericles, Cymbeline, Coriolanus, and
Timon of Athens, you have no clue as
to what is going on.

> What play in Meres would you claim was written by WS
> at the very height of his power?

Richard 2, Richard 3, MSND, and LLL;
(the last is peculiar -- written for
a particular purpose and occasion).

>>> Oxfordians like Stritmatter are so sure their man was The
>>> True Author that nothing really bothers them, and they
>>> think they've refuted every argument against the that's
>>> come up including this one.
>>
>> Nonsense. They are not THAT stupid.
>> They KNOW that they have not dealt
>> with this point -- which is why they
>> get so angry with Peter Farey, and
>> subject him to such ridiculous insults,
>> and such censorship.
>
> But, Paul, you think you've dealt with every point
> brought up against your nonsense although you haven't
> come close to having done so effectively. If you
> can be stupid enough to think you have all the answers,
> why can't Stritmatter and Company. Then there's me:
> I think I've dealt with all the consequential arguments
> against Stratfordianism, yet you are sure I haven't.
> That makes me as stupid as you say Stritmatter is not.
> If even one person (me) can be that stupid, others can
> be, as well.

Stupidity of that sort needs cultivation.
It is very obvious when someone asks you
a simple question that you can't answer.
But IN TIME, you can retrospectively
justify your incompetence, find excuses,
and pretend (at least to yourself) that you
really DID answer it. You can see this
process already in operation. The clown
who uses the moniker "RdVM" claims
(in the one reply to your repeat of Peter's
question on the Fellowship site) that
Peter HAS been answered.
[..]

>> That must be why the Stratman's parents
>> were such great writers (or would have
>> been if, unfortunately, they had not
>> been illiterate). It must be why there
>> was such an intense search among the
>> Stratman's relatives for similar genius.
>
> You obviously don't know anything about genetics, Paul.
> Or literary ability, or artistic creativity.

I'm talking about the _contemporary_
understanding of genetics. People around
1600 were fully aware of the extent to
which abilities and characteristics could
be inherited. (Apart from humans, most
of them bred animals.) There had been a
serious effort to search for relations of
Leonardo da Vinci, in the hope of locating
similar genius.

>> The great literary genius, must be at the heart
>> of the political system, probably at times
>> expected to take a major role in its running
>> -- but he is also likely to be detached from
>> any day-to-day management. He must have
>> a near-complete freedom to express himself.
>> And so on and on . . .
>
> One major problem with your thesis is that there have
> been many many literary geniuses,

None approach Shake-speare.

> and they seem to the
> casual eye to have come from random places at random
> times.

That's only to a very casual eye.

> Your particular scenario would explain only
> one of them, which is absurd.

They are each only 'explicable' in their
context. Each requires his or her own
'scenario'. Some level of 'freedom of
speech' is also needed, which is one
reason why so little has ever emerged
from large parts of history and of the
geographical world, such as (say) Latin
America.

> It also conflicts with all sane theories of
> epistemology and of the creative process.

You should not use words and phrases
that you do not understand.

>>> why has no one--why in particular have no terribly
>>> brilliant aristocrats--set up schools that teach parents
>>> how to raise a child to become a genius, and teachers
>>> who form the proper schools to produce geniuses.
>
> Why has this situation never come about again? Why
> wasn't there another Shakeapeare in the generation
> after his, the aristocrats having succeeded in finding
> out how to produce them?

Firstly 'the aristocrats' had scarcely any
awareness of the fact. Those few who
knew the truth in this case soon died out.
Secondly, they had their own rather
pressing problems at the time.

> How did the Renaissance come
> about? Were Michelangelo and Leonardo the result of a
> FLorentine like Elizabeth's London? If so, what
> renaissance was the equivalent of the one that was
> required for Oxford's genius's being realized? What
> renaissance allowed for this other renaissance. That
> is, you have an infinite regress here.

Nonsense. You can't deny that the
Renaissance occurred, and that its fruits
were enjoyed only by those with money.
The Stratman probably never heard of it.

Paul.

[elizabeth]

That's a powerful argument. The evidence
for Farey's position piles up.

[elizabeth]

On 30 Dec 2009, 11:19, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

but.net> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 1:40 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>
> > bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > > On Dec 30, 2:42 am, TomFoster <hedley_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Are we to take it that the other bigwigs at the Fellowship,
> > >> Stritmatter, for instance, approve of his actions? Do they
> > >> realise how bad this makes them look?
>
> > They must have a pretty good idea.  But given
> > that none of them could come up with an
> > answer to Peter that they felt was even passably
> > acceptable, what was their alternative?
>
> Who says they didn't think their answers were good ones?
>
> > >> It's clear Peter's question has not been answered and their
> > >> response has been to heavy-handedly censor him and insult him.
>
> > > I fear Stritmatter may be losing what grip he ever had.  I don't
> > > think he recognizes Peter's questions as anything but frivolous.

I formally studied ideological movements including
romantic ideological movements like Oxfordianism.

These movements don't get their "truths" from
actual evidence, the "truth" is what they affirm
to each other.

When these "truths" are challenged, most of
these movements go into panic mode. I'm
not saying that the Oxfordians are in danger
but some time ago I suggested that the Oxfordians
form a network of local societies, a much more
stable and secure form of organization.

I don't think this is going to happen but non-empirical
movements, movements based on some romantic
idealization, have a much greater tendency to lose
their leadership to acts of violence. It's rare but it
does happen due to burnout, "apostacy," any kind
of internal or external dissension. I do believe that
Farey's article is going to put a lot of stress on
the Oxfordian leadership.

This kind of thing doesn't happen in societies. No
Baconian ever shot any other Baconian but
the Baconians tended to be professionals, lawyers,
jurists, physicians, politicians, stable members of the
community.

In the kind of mass movement the Oxfordians intend
to create. there's no way to screen out the Unhinged,
the kind of types most attracted to ideological
movements, people who lack the skills to analyse
a proposition.

> > This is nonsensical. There would have been a
> > large number of intense phone calls over the
> > past few days on this issue, in which Stritmatter
> > would have taken part.  All options would have
> > been discussed.  I'm sure that anyone who
> > knows the characters could draft some of the
> > likely exchanges.
>
> I love the picture.  Can we expect the assassination of
> Farey soon, Paul?  

I don't like to see that kind of statement. Generalizations,
yes, but don't put Farey in that position.

> Will that put us all in danger since we've
> all now read your unarguably accurate picture of the situation
> and will know why Farey was killed?

Grumman!

Ok, I laughed.

>
> > > So a good moderator should end them or take them off the Public
> > > Forum to free it from the clutter we get from no moderator's
> > > taking off Art's crap.
>
> > There was no clutter.  There was only PT-
> > Oxfordian embarrassment.
> > [..]

> [...]

The science is in. There is no such thing as
"innate genius." There may be a capacity for
genius, i.e., there are few if any female geniuses
since the female brain is smaller than the male
brain, but it's really about programming the brain
during the three-year critical period before that
door starts to close.

Since there was a clavichord in young Handel's
house, he obviously heard someone play it. Had
Handel not been born to a house with a clavichord,
he would have become an accountant.

Furthermore, the whole idea of "innate genius" is
racist. The Nazis held to that theory, it created
the death camps.

> I would claim that latter was useful but
> unnecessary--
> and also a result of the genius's doing what had to be done to allow
> him to express his genius--i.e., finding and securing patronage.

Patronage may foster genius but it can't
create genius. That is essentially the role
of a bright and talkative mother (according
to published studies in infant learning). Only
Bacon was exposed to a genius-making
early environment. His genius was recognized
by age two, the Queen even brought the two-
year old to Court to show him off to
visiting ambassadors. Elizabeth called
Bacon "Baby Solomon" and her "Little Lord
Keeper" because of his amazing precocity.

It's significant that feudalism could not create
genius, we had to wait for the early modern
"illustrious Cooke sisters" to do that.

>
> --Bob G.

[elizabeth]

On 31 Dec 2009, 01:54, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

[...]

>
> > Evidence for my belief that a genius will go where his
> > innate skills force him to;
>
> How would such a genius prosper when
> living in a house with no musical
> instruments?
>
> There are probably about a thousand
> times as many literate people alive today
> as in Shakespeare's time.  So how come
> we don't have thousands of literary
> geniuses of Shake-speare's stature?

A thousand times? According to modern
studies of archived Elizabethan documents,
at least 98% of the male population of England
was illiterate in that era. The researchers
distinguish between reading illiteracy and
"signature literacy." Shaksper apparently
could not read but he could scratch out his
name making him "signature literate."

Women (except for Bacon's illustrious female
relatives) were so illiterate that the reseachers
could not come up with a figure. It has to be
something a fraction below 100% illiteracy
among English women.

Of course that was after the dissolution of
the monasteries. In the era of the monasteries,
chantries and nunneries, England had a degree
of literacy.

This is a great thread, Crowley. I'm enjoying
your argument with Grumman.
>
> Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Jan 2, 5:03 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> Well, I doubt that Strit&Co are particularly worried
> >>> about Peter's question.  It's no different than questions
> >>> I and others have asked them about the Meres list
>
> >> It's very different.  Peter has pointed out
> >> a specific aspect of Meres's list which is
> >> explicable only as:
> >> (a) the list is historically accurate
> >> and comprehensive, and the poet's use of
> >> these techniques (run-on lines and feminine
> >> endings) was dramatically different before
> >> and after the list came out (in 1598);
>
> > Who says "dramatically different?"  You always push
> > the ideas of your opponetns to extremes.
>
> OK, 'dramatically' was too strong.  But, on
> this I support Peter.  My point stands that
> he is making a stronger case than you ever
> did.

He focussed on a detail of my general question, which
is why Meres listed only early plays of Shakespeare. And
I stated why they were earlier, using various stylometric
indicators like Peter's and increased rhyme, etc. Peter's
presentation was stronger than mine, I will agree--it forced
two simple answers.

I just checked at the Fellowship, by the way, and it seems
you are right. Some, at least, think Peter was answered.

> >>   OR
> >> (b) the list was deliberately contrived
> >> (from the total of the plays, or a wide
> >> selection of them) to present the
> >> appearance of such a 'development';
> >>   OR
> >> (c) it arose by chance.
>
> >> You (uniquely, I think) accept the latter
> >> even if the odds against it are astronomical.
>
> > Of course I don't think that.
>
> I can only go by what you wrote:

Quote it. I could not possibly have said that because I have
always believed Peter's trend existed. I may once have said that
a given play might have few run-ons and feminine endings and
still be a late play. And, of course, I have said that Shakespeare
wasn't aware of his rate of feminine endings as he wrote, but
that doesn't mean it was random.

> >>> He got responses, some of
> >>> them pertinent in my view.  But no answers that I can
> >>> remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
> >>> picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to
> >>> like the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.
>
> Your phrase " . .  just happened . ." suggests chance.

I explained why it wasn't. They picked the early plays because
they liked them, and the early plays had fewer run-ons and feminine
endings. They may even have unconsciously realized that and
liked it.

> > I've always been with (a).
>
> So what is the distinct answer that you've
> been claiming to make?
>
> > Your (b). is totally insane, for you're hypothesizing
> > your hoaxsters' going through all of Oxford's plays
> > and separating them on the basis of which ones are
> > high, which low, in run-on lines and feminine endings,
> > then making sure to give Meres just the ones low on
> > these things, as if anyone reading Meres would know
> > that was the case.  No one mentioned it till when?
> > this century?
>
> God help us.  Poets and playwrights around
> 1600 were fully aware of these differences.

You're too stupid to argue with on this point, Paul.
They knew what feminine endings and run-ons were,
but they wouldn't have been consciously aware, to
much of an extent, what the rates of these things
were in given plays, nor would they ever have expected
the public they were trying to fool to.

> (Next you'll be telling us that they did not
> know when lines rhymed.)  They knew exactly
> how fashions were changing.  It was not hard
> to pick out plays that were (superficially)
> closer to older fashions.  Even you could do it.

Yes, Paul. But not on the basis of line endings.

> > My Oxfordian answer to Peter is much better than
> > yours: it's that Shakespeare's early plays were low in
> > feminine endings and run-on lines
>
> Then you commit yourself to Farey's daft
> 'incremental use' -- the automaton which
> 'writes as he feels' without any conscious
> awareness, slowly 'improving' his overall
> figures (if not his separate ones) year by
> year.  You will also trip over Farey's
> argument that one ('automatic') writer is
> unlikely to be way ahead of current fashion.

Your concept of what Farey and I believe is too
insane for anyone to argue against.

> > (a) Meres chose his favorite plays for the list and
> > liked the early ones
>
> Makes no sense whatever.
>
> > OR
>
> > (b) the hoaxsters were releasing Oxford's plays in
> > order of their composition, and had only released the
> > ones up to R&J by 1598.
>
> Why should they do that?  It makes no
> sense.

Right. They should have had their young front take credit for
Lear in 1592, and for Titus in 1604.

> > Note: the above shows how much brighter than the
> > Oxfordians I am, and how easy it is to squirm out of
> > any trouble your theory runs into, however wacked-out
> > it is.
>
> Your 'squirming' is painfully obvious,
> and creates far more problems than it
> solves.
>
> >>> Why, in particular, it only contains plays most people
> >>> consider his earliest plays,
>
> >> This is silly.  Most people (including ALL
> >> the academics) know which of the canonical
> >> plays are early -- because nearly all of
> >> them are on Meres's list.
>
> > Not so.  It contains plays most people consider
> > his earliest plays FOR OTHER REASONS than
> > their appearance of Meres's list.
>
> There are NO other reasons.

Oh.

> > Or do you believe
> > anyone sane would think Two Gentlemen of Verona
> > written after Twelfth Night, or King John after the
> > Henry IV plays or Titus Andronicus after Hamlet?
>
> When you put a late date to Henry 8,
> Pericles, Cymbeline, Coriolanus, and
> Timon of Athens, you have no clue as
> to what is going on.

Others who know more than I do.

> > What play in Meres would you claim was written by WS
> > at the very height of his power?
>
> Richard 2, Richard 3, MSND, and LLL;
> (the last is peculiar -- written for
> a particular purpose and occasion).

And H8 couldn't have been peculiar?

You're just giving your subjective opinion, then refusing
to accept any other as valid because you are sole judge of the
matter. I think dating plays extremely difficult. All kinds of
problem that perhaps only someone who has written plays,
and studied a great mnay plays by others, as you have not,
and is aware of the creative process can even start to get a
firm handle on. For instance,how would a play written in
1590 but considered too poor for performance, then rewritten
in 1610 fit into a dating scheme?

The scholars in the field look at many factors, not just the single
one you do, which seems to be how the play fits your insane
notion of Oxford as a court reporter, combined with your insane
notion of Oxford's life and what was going on at court.

Ah, you saw that.

Pure bardolatry.

> > and they seem to the
> > casual eye to have come from random places at random
> > times.
>
> That's only to a very casual eye.

Right. Joyce was a powerful political figure. Wordsworth
ran England.

> > Your particular scenario would explain only
> > one of them, which is absurd.
>
> They are each only 'explicable' in their
> context.  Each requires his or her own
> 'scenario'.  Some level of 'freedom of
> speech' is also needed, which is one
> reason why so little has ever emerged
> from large parts of history and of the
> geographical world, such as (say) Latin
> America.

And Rome. Lots of freedom in renaissance Italy, too.

> > It also conflicts with all sane theories of
> > epistemology and of the creative process.
>
> You should not use words and phrases
> that you do not understand.

If you are going to criticize my misuse of words,
you need to show how I misuse them. I've written
serious pieces on both epistemology and the
creative process, have you?

> >>> why has no one--why in particular have no terribly
> >>> brilliant aristocrats--set up schools that teach parents
> >>> how to raise a child to become a genius, and teachers
> >>> who form the proper schools to produce geniuses.
>
> > Why has this situation never come about again?  Why
> > wasn't there another Shakeapeare in the generation
> > after his, the aristocrats having succeeded in finding
> > out how to produce them?
>
> Firstly 'the aristocrats' had scarcely any
> awareness of the fact.  Those few who
> knew the truth in this case soon died out.
> Secondly, they had their own rather
> pressing problems at the time.
>
> > How did the Renaissance come
> > about? Were Michelangelo and Leonardo the result of a
> > FLorentine like Elizabeth's London?  If so, what
> > renaissance was the equivalent of the one that was
> > required for Oxford's genius's being realized?  What
> > renaissance allowed for this other renaissance.  That
> > is, you have an infinite regress here.
>
> Nonsense.  You can't deny that the
> Renaissance occurred, and that its fruits
> were enjoyed only by those with money.
> The Stratman probably never heard of it.
>

Right. No one outside of London had. But you
didn't not understand my point. You say that
among other things the Renaissance was required for
the emergence of Oxford. But the Renaissance itself
resulted in a cultural flowering in Italy equal in different
fields from what happened in England. What equivalent
of The Renaissance allowed that?

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

> Quote it. I could not possibly have said that because I
> have always believed Peter's trend existed. I may once
> have said that a given play might have few run-ons and
> feminine endings and still be a late play. And, of
> course, I have said that Shakespeare wasn't aware of his
> rate of feminine endings as he wrote

Sure -- he was a dope, who knew nothing
about poetry.

>>>>> He got responses, some of
>>>>> them pertinent in my view. But no answers that I can
>>>>> remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
>>>>> picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to
>>>>> like the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.

>> Your phrase " . . just happened . ." suggests chance.
>
> I explained why it wasn't. They picked the early plays
> because they liked them, and the early plays had fewer
> run-ons and feminine endings. They may even have
> unconsciously realized that and liked it.

Yep -- all poets, (and all readers of
poetry) before you, knew nutting.
That's why your pomes are so
superior to anything Elizabethan.

>>> Your (b). is totally insane, for you're hypothesizing
>>> your hoaxsters' going through all of Oxford's plays
>>> and separating them on the basis of which ones are
>>> high, which low, in run-on lines and feminine endings,
>>> then making sure to give Meres just the ones low on
>>> these things, as if anyone reading Meres would know
>>> that was the case. No one mentioned it till when?
>>> this century?
>>
>> God help us. Poets and playwrights around
>> 1600 were fully aware of these differences.
>
> You're too stupid to argue with on this point, Paul.
> They knew what feminine endings and run-ons were,
> but they wouldn't have been consciously aware, to
> much of an extent, what the rates of these things
> were in given plays, nor would they ever have expected
> the public they were trying to fool to.

We are talking about the PRINTING
of particular plays. Anyone with
a basic knowledge of poetry could
count (or estimate) the percentage
of each technique in each play.

>> (Next you'll be telling us that they did not
>> know when lines rhymed.) They knew exactly
>> how fashions were changing. It was not hard
>> to pick out plays that were (superficially)
>> closer to older fashions. Even you could do it.
>
> Yes, Paul. But not on the basis of line endings.

Why on earth not?

>>> What play in Meres would you claim was written by WS
>>> at the very height of his power?
>>
>> Richard 2, Richard 3, MSND, and LLL;
>> (the last is peculiar -- written for
>> a particular purpose and occasion).
>
> And H8 couldn't have been peculiar?
>
> You're just giving your subjective opinion, then
> refusing to accept any other as valid because you are
> sole judge of the matter.

I gave my opinion because you asked
for it. One reason (among many) that
I refuse to accept the Stratfordian
'dating' is that I can see how they are
obliged to date plays: i.e. in the tiny
windows available to them (i.e. each
play is 'dated' to the latest possible
time).

> I think dating plays extremely difficult.

For Strats, it's exceedingly simple.
Work out the latest possible date --
from the records of printing, theatre
performance, etc., -- that you accept.
(Of course, when you get a bunch
together, as with Meres, you have to
decide which are early and which are
late -- within that bunch.)

> All kinds of problem that perhaps only someone who has
> written plays, and studied a great mnay plays by
> others, as you have not, and is aware of the creative
> process can even start to get a firm handle on.

Pure bullshit.

> For instance,how would a play written in 1590 but
> considered too poor for performance, then rewritten in
> 1610 fit into a dating scheme?

Silly question. Obviously 1610 would
be the right date.

> The scholars in the field look at many factors,

Quite false. There is one factor
and one factor only -- the latest
record.

> not just the single one you do, which seems to be how
> the play fits your insane notion of Oxford as a court
> reporter, combined with your insane notion of Oxford's
> life and what was going on at court.

You (or any Strat or quasi-Strat) could
point out the defects in each case.
You NEVER do. For example, you can
never find that never-married Early
Modern female who controlled a large
household, and who needed to be
persuaded to marry (someone -- anyone)
and have an heir.

>>> and they seem to the
>>> casual eye to have come from random places at random
>>> times.
>>
>> That's only to a very casual eye.
>
> Right. Joyce was a powerful political figure.
> Wordsworth ran England.

Around 1600, there were no national
newspapers, and the only people who knew
what was going on were in the government.
Likewise, common people would never have
heard Tallis's "Spem in Alium", or seen
great paintings, etc., etc. Wordswoth
and Joyce could read newspapers, attend
concerts and see a few paintings. Not
that they were remotely comparable.

>> They are each only 'explicable' in their
>> context. Each requires his or her own
>> 'scenario'. Some level of 'freedom of
>> speech' is also needed, which is one
>> reason why so little has ever emerged
>> from large parts of history and of the
>> geographical world, such as (say) Latin
>> America.
>
> And Rome. Lots of freedom in renaissance Italy, too.

A surprising amount -- with a great variety
of States and rulers, most of whom were
keen patrons of the arts.

>>> What
>>> renaissance allowed for this other renaissance. That
>>> is, you have an infinite regress here.
>>
>> Nonsense. You can't deny that the
>> Renaissance occurred, and that its fruits
>> were enjoyed only by those with money.
>> The Stratman probably never heard of it.
>>
> Right. No one outside of London had. But you didn't
> not understand my point. You say that among other
> things the Renaissance was required for the emergence
> of Oxford. But the Renaissance itself resulted in a
> cultural flowering in Italy equal in different fields
> from what happened in England. What equivalent of The
> Renaissance allowed that?

You miss my point. The 'infinite regress'
you expect would go back to the creation
of the world or the Big Bang. But we
are only talking about Shake-speare, and
very roughly comparable literary figures.
I don't have to explain EVERYTHING
in order to give some account of him.

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Jan 3, 5:37 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > Quote it.  I could not possibly have said that because I
> > have always believed Peter's trend existed.  I may once
> > have said that a given play might have few run-ons and
> > feminine endings and still be a late play.  And, of
> > course, I have said that Shakespeare wasn't aware of his
> > rate of feminine endings as he wrote
>
> Sure -- he was a dope, who knew nothing
> about poetry.

You're saying that a person who writes verse but can't tell you
the rate at which he uses feminine endings knows nothing about
poetry. So, would he know exactly how many times he used
the word "the" in each of his plays? Would he know exactly how
many of his words in a play were verse, how many prose?

I ask again, just what is your basis for this presumption of yours
that you know what poets do and what they think while doing it?
How many poems have you written? How much poetry by anyone
other than Shakespeare have you read? How many close readings
of non-Shakespearean poetry have you written? How many books
or essay on poetics in general have you written? What books or
essays on the creative process have you read or written? What works
of art have you produce other than poems that would give you any
insight into the workings of the creative mind?

Oh, and how many formal poets have you interviewed who have
been able to tell you their rate of feminine to regular endings in
any book of theirs. Or any book of poems by another formal
poet?

You simply have no idea of what goes on in a poet's mind when
he writes a line.

> >>>>> He got responses, some of
> >>>>> them pertinent in my view.  But no answers that I can
> >>>>> remember--until mine, which is that the hoaxsters
> >>>>> picking the plays for Meres's list just happened to
> >>>>> like the ones with fewer run-on lines and feminine endings.
> >> Your phrase " . .  just happened . ." suggests chance.
>
> > I explained why it wasn't.  They picked the early plays
> > because they liked them, and the early plays had fewer
> > run-ons and feminine endings.  They may even have
> > unconsciously realized that and liked it.
>
> Yep -- all poets, (and all readers of
> poetry) before you, knew nutting.
> That's why your pomes are so
> superior to anything Elizabethan.

Again, this strange idea that if you don't know
about feminine endings, you know nothing about poetry.
Plus, as usual, you misrepresent me--or have you
identified the hoaxsters and found them all to be
poets?

How can my poems be superior to anything
Elizabethan, Paul? I've already told you that
I don't think about feminine endings when I
write conventional poems. When I used to
write formal verse, I was usually aware of when I
used a feminine ending, but certainly not of
the rate at which I was using such endings.

>
>
>
>
> >>> Your (b). is totally insane, for you're hypothesizing
> >>> your hoaxsters' going through all of Oxford's plays
> >>> and separating them on the basis of which ones are
> >>> high, which low, in run-on lines and feminine endings,
> >>> then making sure to give Meres just the ones low on
> >>> these things, as if anyone reading Meres would know
> >>> that was the case.  No one mentioned it till when?
> >>> this century?
>
> >> God help us.  Poets and playwrights around
> >> 1600 were fully aware of these differences.
>
> > You're too stupid to argue with on this point, Paul.
> > They knew what feminine endings and run-ons were,
> > but they wouldn't have been consciously aware, to
> > much of an extent, what the rates of these things
> > were in given plays, nor would they ever have expected
> > the public they were trying to fool to.
>
> We are talking about the PRINTING
> of particular plays.  Anyone with
> a basic knowledge of poetry could
> count (or estimate) the percentage
> of each technique in each play.

Gosh, I didn't think of that. You see, Paul, when
I read verse plays, I read the words, I don't count
the syllables, or remember how many feminine endings
I come across. Sure, I could count the percentages,
by why on earth would I? And I'm a specialist in
poetry as most readers are not, and the members
of the general public you r hoaxsters were trying to
fool were.

To use one of your moron debating techniques, let me
ask you if you've ever interviewed people at a performance
of Hamlet during an intermission and asked them if they
can tell you if Hamlet's rate of feminine endings is
greater or less than the rate in A Midsummer's Night's Dream?
I think most will consider you a crank.

> >> (Next you'll be telling us that they did not
> >> know when lines rhymed.)  They knew exactly
> >> how fashions were changing.  It was not hard
> >> to pick out plays that were (superficially)
> >> closer to older fashions.  Even you could do it.
>
> > Yes, Paul.  But not on the basis of line endings.
>
> Why on earth not?

I could, yes, but I wouldn't as it would be tedious work
counting feminine endings. I'd use intuition to let me
know which plays sounded early, which late.

> >>> What play in Meres would you claim was written by WS
> >>> at the very height of his power?
>
> >> Richard 2, Richard 3, MSND, and LLL;
> >> (the last is peculiar -- written for
> >> a particular purpose and occasion).
>
> > And H8 couldn't have been peculiar?
>
> > You're just giving your subjective opinion, then
> > refusing to accept any other as valid because you are
> > sole judge of the matter.
>
> I gave my opinion because you asked
> for it.  

Yes, but I said Meres listed plays most people would
consider early plays.

> One reason (among many) that
> I refuse to accept the Stratfordian
> 'dating' is that I can see how they are
> obliged to date plays: i.e. in the tiny
> windows available to them (i.e. each
> play is 'dated' to the latest possible
> time).

You of course are uninfluenced by the need to
date plays as early as possible. But motivation for
dating a play is irrelevant. What counts is what
evidence you can produce for the dating. Explicit
record of firt printing, performance, court record,
reference by a writer, inclusion of topical comments,
apparent adherence to a transient fashion, existence
of sources, are examples of such evidence.

> > I think dating plays extremely difficult.
>
> For Strats, it's exceedingly simple.
> Work out the latest possible date --
> from the records of printing, theatre
> performance, etc., -- that you accept.
> (Of course, when you get a bunch
> together, as with Meres, you have to
> decide which are early and which are
> late -- within that bunch.)
>
> > All kinds of problem that perhaps only someone who has

> > written plays, and studied a great many plays by

> > others, as you have not, and is aware of the creative
> > process can even start to get a firm handle on.
>
> Pure bullshit.
>
> > For instance,how would a play written in 1590 but
> > considered too poor for performance, then rewritten in
> > 1610 fit into a dating scheme?
>
> Silly question. Obviously 1610 would
> be the right date.

Even if the 1610 version were only five percent different
from the 1590 version?

> > The scholars in the field look at many factors,
>
> Quite false.  There is one factor
> and one factor only -- the latest
> record.

Read the Arden.

> > not just the single one you do, which seems to be how
> > the play fits your insane notion of Oxford as a court
> > reporter, combined with your insane notion of Oxford's
> > life and what was going on at court.
>
> You (or any Strat or quasi-Strat) could
> point out the defects in each case.
> You NEVER do.  For example, you can
> never find that never-married Early
> Modern female who controlled a large
> household, and who needed to be
> persuaded to marry (someone -- anyone)
> and have an heir.

I don't have to, and you are the only person who thinks
I should.

You argued that the production of genius requires
a renaissance.

I probably won't be able to continue this argument.
But I'll be glad to critique your monograph on what
is required for geniuses at the highest level to emerge.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>>> And, of
>>> course, I have said that Shakespeare wasn't aware of his
>>> rate of feminine endings as he wrote
>>
>> Sure -- he was a dope, who knew nothing
>> about poetry.
>
> You're saying that a person who writes verse but
> can't tell you the rate at which he uses feminine
> endings knows nothing about poetry.

I am saying that it was impossible for
a highly-skilled Elizabethan poet to
employ a feminine ending without
knowing that he was doing so, and that
every such poet could tell you about
his rate of usage. He might not know
the exact percentage, but he could
make a fair estimate. It would be like
knowing when he rhymed his lines as
against when he didn't. Both would
be fair estimates -- much the same as
could be given by any intelligent
reader of the play.

> So, would he know exactly how many times he used the
> word "the" in each of his plays?

No. Likewise he would be unlikely to be
able to tell you how many 'e's he used.
One type of practice involves decisions
about style. The other does not involve
conscious decisions.

> Would he know exactly how many of his words in a play
> were verse, how many prose?

He could give you a fair estimate --
much as could any intelligent reader
of the play.

> I ask again, just what is your basis for this
> presumption of yours that you know what poets do and
> what they think while doing it?

Some human behaviours require decisions;
others don't. You don't usually think about
your breathing. But, if you are a poet, you
do need (at some point) to decide what kind
of verse you are going to write.

Give me ONE example of some verse, with a
mix of different types of line-ending, where
the poet MAY, in your opinion, have NOT
needed to think about how he was going to
end each line.

[..]

> You simply have no idea of what goes on in a poet's
> mind when he writes a line.

Give me ONE example of some verse, with a
mix of different types of line-ending, where
the poet MAY, in your opinion, have NOT
needed to think about how he was going to
end each line.

>> We are talking about the PRINTING
>> of particular plays. Anyone with
>> a basic knowledge of poetry could
>> count (or estimate) the percentage
>> of each technique in each play.
>
> Gosh, I didn't think of that. You see, Paul,
> when I read verse plays, I read the words, I
> don't count the syllables, or remember how many
> feminine endings I come across. Sure, I could
> count the percentages, by why on earth would I?

No one would expect you to count the
percentages, but most would expect you
to notice the difference in styles (in
these respects) between (say) Cymbeline
and Mid-Summer's Nights Dream -- while
also realising that MSND is a much more
mature work.

> And I'm a specialist in poetry as most readers
> are not, and the members of the general public
> you r hoaxsters were trying to fool were.

Wrong. The 'general public' did not buy
copies of plays; the hoaxsters were
concerned about the literati, and about
competent poets like Thomas Greene, or
highly competent ones like Dunn or Milton.

>> One reason (among many) that
>> I refuse to accept the Stratfordian
>> 'dating' is that I can see how they are
>> obliged to date plays: i.e. in the tiny
>> windows available to them (i.e. each
>> play is 'dated' to the latest possible
>> time).
>
> You of course are uninfluenced by the need to
> date plays as early as possible. But motivation for
> dating a play is irrelevant. What counts is what
> evidence you can produce for the dating. Explicit
> record of firt printing, performance, court record,
> reference by a writer, inclusion of topical comments,
> apparent adherence to a transient fashion, existence
> of sources, are examples of such evidence.

When your scenario leaves only a tiny
window open for the date of each play
(and that is the result of a cavalier
disregard of evidence -- inventing the
need for Ur-Lears, Ur-Hamlets, Ur-
Taming of Shrews . . and so on) you
should know that you have gone wrong
somewhere.
[..]

>> You (or any Strat or quasi-Strat) could
>> point out the defects in each case.
>> You NEVER do. For example, you can
>> never find that never-married Early
>> Modern female who controlled a large
>> household, and who needed to be
>> persuaded to marry (someone -- anyone)
>> and have an heir.
>
> I don't have to, and you are the only person who
> thinks I should.

It's a question of whether you want to
pretend to take an intelligent part in
the discussion. Naturally, being a Strat,
you don't. You know what you believe,
and evidence is irrelevant.

>> I don't have to explain EVERYTHING
>> in order to give some account of him.
>
> You argued that the production of genius requires
> a renaissance.

The production of the genius that was
Shakespeare required the Renaissance.
It was not necessary for (say) Aristotle.

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Jan 4, 5:19 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

Any poem. Sonnet 18. He knows his theme in advance
and has made the form second-nature so automatically
writes iambic pentameter. And makes end-rhymes in the
right places, sometimes without thinking, sometimes
having to struggle to come up with one, who knows. I
suspect he preferred not to use feminine endings but
would sometimes be forced by what he wanted to say
to do so. He'd realize he was using one, and think, oh
well they're acceptable. Don't want to use too many of
them, though. In Sonnet 18, I suspect he NEVER thought
about how his lines were ending, just automatically ended
them without extra syllables and without running them on.
All this is subjective on my part. Neither I nor you can
know how he operated. But I can go by my own experience
as a poet and creative artist, and by what I read and
heard about other poets--and common sense based on
a knowledge of how the brain works.

I thought these fellows were in on the hoax. How
could they not be? How, for instance, could they
miss the three billion puns in "Shake-speare" that
give away the fact that it's a pen-name?

Fine. Unprecedented, so having nothing to do with
how geniuses are produced.

No more on this, Paul. We're yet again to where
you say you're right because you say you're right.

--Bob

[lackpurity]

On Jan 4, 4:19�am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

MM:
Aristotle needed the inspiration of Plato. Similarly, Shakespeare
needed the inspiration of Marlowe. Even your hero, Oxford, needed the
inspiration of Spenser.

Two factors combine to produce the greatest geniuses, the disciple's
effort, and God's grace through the Master.

Michael Martin

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>> Give me ONE example of some verse, with a
>> mix of different types of line-ending, where
>> the poet MAY, in your opinion, have NOT
>> needed to think about how he was going to
>> end each line.
>
> Any poem. Sonnet 18. He knows his theme in
> advance and has made the form second-nature so
> automatically writes iambic pentameter. And
> makes end-rhymes in the right places, sometimes
> without thinking, sometimes having to struggle to
> come up with one, who knows. I suspect he
> preferred not to use feminine endings but would
> sometimes be forced by what he wanted to say to
> do so. He'd realize he was using one, and think,
> oh well they're acceptable. Don't want to use
> too many of them, though. In Sonnet 18, I
> suspect he NEVER thought about how his lines were
> ending, just automatically ended them without
> extra syllables and without running them on. All
> this is subjective on my part. Neither I nor you
> can know how he operated.

We can see that Sonnet 18 was constructed
with an enormous amount of care. The
notion that "he NEVER thought about
how his lines were ending" is too stupid to
waste time discussing.

> But I can go by my own
> experience as a poet and creative artist, and by
> what I read and heard about other poets--and
> common sense based on a knowledge of how the
> brain works.

Yeah, yeah. And you wonder why
I don't pay that sort of talk much heed.

>> Wrong. The 'general public' did not buy
>> copies of plays; the hoaxsters were
>> concerned about the literati, and about
>> competent poets like Thomas Greene, or
>> highly competent ones like Dunn or Milton.
>>
> I thought these fellows were in on the hoax.

As I have said, Thomas Greene was. But
there were plenty more like him -- in the
sense of being educated, intelligent,
competent poets and of a Puritan tendency.
Dunn and (especially) Milton were hardly
privy to the cover-up.

> How could they not be? How, for instance, could
> they miss the three billion puns in "Shake-
> speare" that give away the fact that it's a pen-
> name?

In much the same way as thousands of
perfessers have missed it since. They
bought the simple story they were told,
and did not conceive of a reason to
question it.

>>> You argued that the production of genius requires
>>> a renaissance.
>>
>> The production of the genius that was
>> Shakespeare required the Renaissance.
>> It was not necessary for (say) Aristotle.
>>
> Fine. Unprecedented, so having nothing to do
> with how geniuses are produced.

Geniuses are of their time. It is quite
inconceivable that a literary figure as
great as Shake-speare (who lived soon
after the Renaissance) could not have
been deeply imbued with its values,
and thoroughly familiar with its works.
Even the 14 years between 1550 and
1564 would have made a difference.
1564 is too late -- and too far removed
from Continental experience. Someone
born in England in 1564 would never
have lived under Catholicism, nor
understood the Reformation and the
Counter-Reformation, nor appreciated
the nature of conflict of the aesthetic
forces.

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

I love it: you, a non-poet, explain how a poet's mind
works while he's composing a poem. I, a poet, tell
you that you are quite wrong.

As for your cockamamie theory on the single time
during which, and the single place in which, a
Shakespeare could have existed, here's a suggestion:
diagram it. A simple map of Europe in which colors are
used to show the yearly spread of Absolutely Essential
Ideas, with the Ideas labeled. Show, too, the positioning
of the Key Minds, each with a year-by-year spreading
aura of influence. All converging in 1570, or whenever you
think Oxford exploded into Early Supreme Geniushood,
at the exact spot he composed whatever it was that
was his first work of Supreme Genius. And long gone
by 1580, or whenever my man would have first reached
the heights.

Paul, when are you going to get someone to attest at HLAS
not to your brilliance but simply to your not being completely
insane? You've advanced many theories, but never indicated
that anyone but you accepts even one of them. How come?

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

> I love it: you, a non-poet, explain how a poet's mind
> works while he's composing a poem. I, a poet, tell
> you that you are quite wrong.

Websters -- "Poet":
1. a person who composes poetry.
2. a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
of expression.

I prefer to skip Sense 1 -- which is
pretty circular, and stick to Sense 2.

As I have said before, anyone who describes
themselves as "a poet" fails, ipso facto, to
qualify. They demonstrate that do not know
how their own language works. They show
an absence of poetic thought, a lack of
imagination and creation, and have no sense
of what 'eloquence of expression' might be.

The fact, that legions currently do describe
themselves in this way, only reinforces my
point.

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

Loonier and loonier.

> Websters -- "Poet":
> 1.    a person who composes poetry.
> 2.    a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
> imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
> of expression.

No. 2 is what a poet FIGURATIVELY is. No. 1 is what
he is.

> I prefer to skip Sense 1 -- which is
> pretty circular, and stick to Sense 2.

It's not circular. On starts with a definition of poetry.
One does not then say poetry is what a poet composes.
Is not a scientist one who does science?

> As I have said before, anyone who describes
> themselves as "a poet" fails, ipso facto, to
> qualify.  They demonstrate that do not know
> how their own language works.  They show
> an absence of poetic thought, a lack of
> imagination and creation, and have no sense
> of what 'eloquence of expression' might be.

Anyone who describes themselves as anything
are weird. But it is you who demonstrate an ignorance
of how language works. For one simple thing, when
discussing facts, one uses a difference mode of
expression than when one composes a poem.
SImilarly, only a loon would poeticize his answer
to the question of where the bathroom is.

But I like the idea that you alone, again, are capable
of judging whether one is a poet or not. All I can do in
return is to tell you that I have had works published in
magazines described and bought and sold as magazines
devoted to poetry, and have been referred to as a poet
in reference works, and have chapbooks in university
libraries in the sections marked, "Poetry."

Even if I were not a poet, you haven't explained how you,
who are definitely no poet, can claim to know how a
poet's minds works.

> The fact, that legions currently do describe
> themselves in this way, only reinforces my
> point.

It's how the majority of people in the field describe them
that counts, your existence and infallability of judgement
in all areas of human existence unfortunately not known to
many, if any, in the field.

What DO you need to be able to say what goes on in
a poet's head when he creates his poems? To be Paul
Crowley?

--Bob G.

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>> Websters -- "Poet":
>> 1. a person who composes poetry.
>> 2. a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
>> imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
>> of expression.
>
> No. 2 is what a poet FIGURATIVELY is.

The dictionary does not indicate
anything figurative (let alone state it).

>> I prefer to skip Sense 1 -- which is
>> pretty circular, and stick to Sense 2.
>
> It's not circular. On starts with a definition of
> poetry. One does not then say poetry is what a poet
> composes.

Websters -- "Poety":
1. the art of rhythmical composition, written
or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful,
imaginative, or elevated thoughts.
2. literary work in metrical form; verse.
3. prose with poetic qualities.
4. poetic qualities however manifested: the poetry
of simple acts and things.
5. poetic spirit or feeling: The pianist played the
prelude with poetry.
6. something suggestive of or likened to poetry:
the pure poetry of a beautiful view on a
clear day.

This is of little help. Few would call
the author of these words 'a poet':

Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare,
To dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
And cursed be he that moves my bones.

>> As I have said before, anyone who describes
>> themselves as "a poet" fails, ipso facto, to
>> qualify. They demonstrate that do not know
>> how their own language works. They show
>> an absence of poetic thought, a lack of
>> imagination and creation, and have no sense
>> of what 'eloquence of expression' might be.

> But I like the idea that you alone, again, are capable

> of judging whether one is a poet or not.

Not so. Shake-speare puts these words
into the mouth of Gloucester (not yet
Richard III):
"I thank my God for my humility."

Gloucester is, by his OWN WORDS,
demonstrating his pride and arrogance.
Likewise when you say "I am a poet"
you are showing only your own ignorance
and foolishness. It is NOTHING to do
with me, nor any judgement I might or
might not make on your verse.

> All I can do
> in return is to tell you that I have had works
> published in magazines described and bought and sold
> as magazines devoted to poetry, and have been referred
> to as a poet in reference works, and have chapbooks in
> university libraries in the sections marked, "Poetry."

Great. And you think that makes you 'a poet'?

> It's how the majority of people in the field describe
> them that counts,

So, if the majority of (say) Germans from
1939 to 1942 described themselves as
'peace-loving', then that would be what
counted? We should all describe them as
'peace-loving'? And likewise for every
other self-description?

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Jan 6, 9:58 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> Websters -- "Poet":
> >> 1.    a person who composes poetry.
> >> 2.    a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
> >> imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
> >> of expression.
>
> > No. 2 is what a poet FIGURATIVELY is.
>
> The dictionary does not indicate
> anything figurative (let alone state it).

1. Who cares what a dictionary for the general public says?
Such a dictionary will not go into detail. But the definition is
OBVIOUSLY figurative. Otherwise, who is not a "poet?"

2. To have a responsible discussion of this subject one must
go by OBJECTIVE definitions of significant terms given by specialized
dictionaries, in this case, one of poetics.

I consulted such a dictionary and "Poet" was not listed. I assume
because anyone reading such a book would know what a poet is.
The Oxford does not have your meaning but does say the term can
be extended to mean an especially good prose writer, and extended
again to mean an kind of artist.

>
> >> I prefer to skip Sense 1 -- which is
> >> pretty circular, and stick to Sense 2.
>
> > It's not circular.  On starts with a definition of
> > poetry. One does not then say poetry is what a poet
> > composes.
>

> Websters -- "Poetry":

> 1. the art of rhythmical composition, written
>      or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful,
>      imaginative, or elevated thoughts.
> 2. literary work in metrical form; verse.
> 3. prose with poetic qualities.
> 4. poetic qualities however manifested: the poetry
>       of simple acts and things.
> 5. poetic spirit or feeling: The pianist played the
>       prelude with poetry.
> 6. something suggestive of or likened to poetry:
>      the pure poetry of a beautiful view on a
>      clear day.
>
> This is of little help.  Few would call
> the author of these words 'a poet':

> Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare,
> To dig the dust enclosed here.
> Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
> And cursed be he that moves my bones.

Look, Paul, all Philistines want to call poetry they
don't like not poetry. If you want an objective definition of it,
however, you have to accept "Good Friend" as a poem.
It scans and rhymes and is coherent.

But forget what a poet is. I want to know how you can
consider yourself more qualified than a person (like I) who
is a serious creator of written works that almost
every reader would agree are poems to say what
goes on in the mind of such a person when he
is making a poem. I am saying that you are not a
poet in the sense that those of us who publish
written compositions everyone calls poems, and
that you therefore do not likely know a tenth as
much about how the minds of such people work.

> >> As I have said before, anyone who describes
> >> themselves as "a poet" fails, ipso facto, to
> >> qualify.  They demonstrate that do not know
> >> how their own language works.  They show
> >> an absence of poetic thought, a lack of
> >> imagination and creation, and have no sense
> >> of what 'eloquence of expression' might be.
> > But I like the idea that you alone, again, are capable
> > of judging whether one is a poet or not.
>
> Not so.  Shake-speare puts these words
> into the mouth of Gloucester (not yet
> Richard III):
>    "I thank my God for my humility."
>
> Gloucester is, by his OWN WORDS,
> demonstrating his pride and arrogance.
> Likewise when you say "I am a poet"
> you are showing only your own ignorance
> and foolishness.  It is NOTHING to do
> with me, nor any judgement I might or
> might not make on your verse.

This is insane. Gloucester says something false
about himself, therefore what I say about myself
must be false? But what I say about myself is
absolutely true. I am, objectively, a poet. Not
only I but others describe me as that. If we ask
Federer what he does and he says, "I am a tennis
player," is he showing his own ignorance and
foolishness?"

> > All I can do
> > in return is to tell you that I have had works
> > published in magazines described and bought and sold
> > as magazines devoted to poetry, and have been referred
> > to as a poet in reference works, and have chapbooks in
> > university libraries in the sections marked, "Poetry."
>
> Great.  And you think that makes you 'a poet'?

Because doing that is objectively what a poet does. At
least in a world in which Paul Crowley judges what's what.

> > It's how the majority of people in the field describe
> > them that counts,
>
> So, if the majority of (say) Germans from
> 1939 to 1942 described themselves as
> 'peace-loving', then that would be what
> counted?  We should all describe them as
> 'peace-loving'?  And likewise for every
> other self-description?
>

There are subjective self-descriptions as in your idiotic
example (how do you know they were not peace-loving?)
and there are objective self-descriptions. I describe\
myself as an American. Is my description wrong?

Zounds, the reasoning wacks use to avoid losing an
argument. The bottom line is that no one but you thinks
you know a damned thing about poetry, Paul, but many
people think I do. That's why my idea of how Shakespeare
composed is 99.9999% certainly to be significantly closer
to the truth than yours.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>>>> Websters -- "Poet":
>>>> 1. a person who composes poetry.
>>>> 2. a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
>>>> imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
>>>> of expression.
>>>
>>> No. 2 is what a poet FIGURATIVELY is.
>>
>> The dictionary does not indicate
>> anything figurative (let alone state it).
>
> 1. Who cares what a dictionary for the general public
> says? Such a dictionary will not go into detail. But
> the definition is OBVIOUSLY figurative. Otherwise, who
> is not a "poet?"

If YOU say that X is a poet, you are
implying that he or she " . . has the

gift of poetic thought, imagination,
and creation, together with eloquence
of expression."

That's how language works. If you
say that George Bush is stupid, you
are implying . . . . . (you can fill in
the blank).
[..]

>> This is of little help. Few would call
>> the author of these words 'a poet':
>
>> Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare,
>> To dig the dust enclosed here.
>> Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
>> And cursed be he that moves my bones.
>
> Look, Paul, all Philistines want to call poetry they
> don't like not poetry. If you want an objective
> definition of it, however, you have to accept "Good
> Friend" as a poem. It scans and rhymes and is
> coherent.

Most people would call it 'worthless
doggerel' and far from poetry. Both
its metre and its rhyme are awful.
[..]

>> Not so. Shake-speare puts these words
>> into the mouth of Gloucester (not yet
>> Richard III):
>> "I thank my God for my humility."
>>
>> Gloucester is, by his OWN WORDS,
>> demonstrating his pride and arrogance.
>> Likewise when you say "I am a poet"
>> you are showing only your own ignorance
>> and foolishness. It is NOTHING to do
>> with me, nor any judgement I might or
>> might not make on your verse.
>
> This is insane. Gloucester says something false
> about himself, therefore what I say about myself
> must be false?

I was giving an example of a performative
act where the making of the claim is its
own disproof -- in exactly the same way
as the claim "I am a poet" is its own
disproof.

> But what I say about myself is
> absolutely true. I am, objectively, a poet.

Where does this 'objectively' come from?

> Not only I but others describe me as that. If we
> ask Federer what he does and he says, "I am a tennis
> player," is he showing his own ignorance and
> foolishness?"

Federer has proved that he is a tennis
player, and one of the highest standard.
BUT the great bulk of those who call
themselves 'poets' have shown no good
evidence to anyone. The great beauty of
this claim (to those who make it) is that
you don't have to enter competitions
(especially against people like Nadal)
and you don't have to win, or even make
a reasonable match of it. ANYONE
can claim to be 'a poet', and huge
numbers of the hopelessly incompetent
and inarticulate do so.

This is another strand of my argument
that anyone who calls themselves 'a poet'
can't be one. In making that claim you
are joining a bunch of hopelessly
pretentious clowns -- most of whom
have never heard of an iambic pentameter,
and many who would not try to rhyme
because they find it too hard. You have
to be either extremely ignorant or very
thick-skinned not to know or care about
such facts. The extremely ignorant and
very thick-skinned must necessarily be
excluded from any definition of 'poet'.
[..]

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

On Jan 7, 2:34 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>>> Websters -- "Poet":
> >>>> 1.    a person who composes poetry.
> >>>> 2.    a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
> >>>> imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
> >>>> of expression.
>
> >>> No. 2 is what a poet FIGURATIVELY is.
>
> >> The dictionary does not indicate
> >> anything figurative (let alone state it).
>
> > 1. Who cares what a dictionary for the general public
> > says? Such a dictionary will not go into detail.  But
> > the definition is OBVIOUSLY figurative.  Otherwise, who
> > is not a "poet?"
>
> If YOU say that X is a poet, you are
> implying that he or she " . . has the
> gift of poetic thought, imagination,
> and creation, together with eloquence
> of expression."

You may be implying that but you are SAYING the person
constructs little verbal machines that other people
accept as poems.

> That's how language works.  If you
> say that George Bush is stupid, you
> are implying . . . . . (you can fill in
> the blank).
> [..]
>
> >> This is of little help.  Few would call
> >> the author of these words 'a poet':
>
> >> Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare,
> >> To dig the dust enclosed here.
> >> Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
> >> And cursed be he that moves my bones.
>
> > Look, Paul, all Philistines want to call poetry they
> > don't like not poetry.  If you want an objective
> > definition of it, however, you have to accept "Good
> > Friend" as a poem. It scans and rhymes and is
> > coherent.
>
> Most people would call it 'worthless
> doggerel' and far from poetry.  Both
> its metre and its rhyme are awful.

Most people are morons. BUT if you want
an objective definition of "poetry," you can't
say it's what you like.

> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Not so.  Shake-speare puts these words
> >> into the mouth of Gloucester (not yet
> >> Richard III):
> >>    "I thank my God for my humility."
>
> >> Gloucester is, by his OWN WORDS,
> >> demonstrating his pride and arrogance.
> >> Likewise when you say "I am a poet"
> >> you are showing only your own ignorance
> >> and foolishness.  It is NOTHING to do
> >> with me, nor any judgement I might or
> >> might not make on your verse.
>
> > This is insane.  Gloucester says something false
> > about himself, therefore what I say about myself
> > must be false?
>
> I was giving an example of a performative
> act where the making of the claim is its
> own disproof -- in exactly the same way
> as the claim "I am a poet" is its own
> disproof.

How?

> > But what I say about myself is
> > absolutely true.  I am, objectively, a poet.
>
> Where does this 'objectively' come from?

It comes from the objective definition of a poet
as one whom makes things which are by objective
standards poems. If I said I am a surgeon, it would
objectively mean that I am someone who performs
surgical operations.

> > Not only I but others describe me as that.  If we
> > ask Federer what he does and he says, "I am a tennis
> > player," is he showing his own ignorance and
> > foolishness?"
>
> Federer has proved that he is a tennis
> player, and one of the highest standard.

You miss my point. You were saying, as far as
I can see, that someone who self-describes himself
must be wrong.

But I will further say that I am a tennis player. That
doesn't mean I can give Federer competition; it means
that I use a thing called a tennis racquet to hit a thing
called a tennis ball over a things called a net on a thing
called a tennis court, and someone on the other side
of the net tries to hit the ball back to me. Etc. I'm a
lousy tennis player, but I'm still a tennis player.

I may be a lousy poet, too, but I use the equipment of
poets to make things called poems. Ergo, I am a poet.

> BUT the great bulk of those who call
> themselves 'poets' have shown no good
> evidence to anyone. The great beauty of
> this claim (to those who make it) is that
> you don't have to enter competitions
> (especially against people like Nadal)
> and you don't have to win, or even make
> a reasonable match of it.  ANYONE
> can claim to be 'a poet', and huge
> numbers of the hopelessly incompetent
> and inarticulate do so.

Anyone can claim to be a poet who seriously
makes things called poems. Not anyone can
accurately claim to be a good poet. For our discussion
it doesn't matter. I am not claiming to be a good
poet (although I most of the time think I am), I am
merely claiming to be a person who spends time
seriously making things many many other people
recognize as poems, some liking them, more
not particularly liking them.

My simple argument is that a person who has seriously
made things other people recorgnize as poems will likely
know more about how poets' minds work than someone
like you who has not--even if the person's poems are poor.

>
> This is another strand of my argument
> that anyone who calls themselves 'a poet'
> can't be one.  In making that claim you
> are joining a bunch of hopelessly
> pretentious clowns -- most of whom
> have never heard of an iambic pentameter,
> and many who would not try to rhyme
> because they find it too hard. You have
> to be either extremely ignorant or very
> thick-skinned not to know or care about
> such facts.  The extremely ignorant and
> very thick-skinned must necessarily be
> excluded from any definition of 'poet'.

One thing you're saying is that no ones can
accurately call themselfs poets, which seems
strange to me. What would someone who makes
things YOU would accept as poems call himself?

To get to the ultimate point, what makes you right
about how Shakespeare thought other than the fact
that you say you're right? For what reason should anyone
accept you as the authority you claim to be? Why aren't
you a professor of poetry at Oxford? Surely, all you should
have to do is tell them you know more about poetry than
anybody else in England. You should consider it. With such
a position, you could get people to listen to your view of
the Sonnets, and lots else.

--Bob

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

> BUT the great bulk of those who call
> themselves 'poets' have shown no good
> evidence to anyone.

You make so many stupid statements, that I
forget to reply to all of them. Here you are
making the insane claim that because some
people miscall themselves poets, anyone
who calls himself that is wrong.

AND:

> In making (the claim that I are a poet, I am)

> joining a bunch of hopelessly
> pretentious clowns -- most of whom
> have never heard of an iambic pentameter,
> and many who would not try to rhyme
> because they find it too hard. You have
> to be either extremely ignorant or very
> thick-skinned not to know or care about
> such facts.  The extremely ignorant and
> very thick-skinned must necessarily be
> excluded from any definition of 'poet'.

Your logic: some people hopelessly ignorant of poetry
call themselves poets;

I call myself a poet;

Ergo: I am hopelessly ignorant of poetry.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:

>>>>>> Websters -- "Poet":
>>>>>> 1. a person who composes poetry.
>>>>>> 2. a person who has the gift of poetic thought,
>>>>>> imagination, and creation, together with eloquence
>>>>>> of expression.

>> If YOU say that X is a poet, you are

>> implying that he or she " . . has the
>> gift of poetic thought, imagination,
>> and creation, together with eloquence
>> of expression."
>
> You may be implying that but you are SAYING
> the person constructs little verbal machines
> that other people accept as poems.

I accept that many modern people no
longer understand the word 'poet'
and are saying something along the
lines of what you suggest. But it
is a sense born in ignorance and
confusion, and one that can only
lead to more confusion.

>> Most people would call it 'worthless
>> doggerel' and far from poetry. Both
>> its metre and its rhyme are awful.
>
> Most people are morons. BUT if you want
> an objective definition of "poetry," you can't
> say it's what you like.

There can be no such thing as an
objective definition of "poetry".
At some point you have to be able to
say about a collocation of words put
together by some half-wit (which he
claims is 'poetry') "NO, that is
NOT poetry". (Maybe think of the
'work' of Edward Nilges on this NG.)

>>> But what I say about myself is
>>> absolutely true. I am, objectively, a poet.
>>
>> Where does this 'objectively' come from?
>
> It comes from the objective definition of a poet
> as one whom makes things which are by objective
> standards poems. If I said I am a surgeon, it
> would objectively mean that I am someone who
> performs surgical operations.

Even in that field there are border-
line cases: such as emergency procedures
carried out in remote locations. Take
the guy who chopped off his own arm when
it got stuck while he was climbing on his
own in a gully. Was he a surgeon? Is
a witch-doctor who does similar things
a surgeon?

The main difference with the field of
poetry is that almost every case is
borderline. And the person least
qualified to be the judge is the
author -- the supposed 'poet'.

>>> Not only I but others describe me as that. If we
>>> ask Federer what he does and he says, "I am a tennis
>>> player," is he showing his own ignorance and
>>> foolishness?"
>>
>> Federer has proved that he is a tennis
>> player, and one of the highest standard.
>
> You miss my point. You were saying, as far as
> I can see, that someone who self-describes himself
> must be wrong.

No. In many circumstances, you can
self-describe aspects of your body
or character without excessive risk
of error. But there are many
statements that no one sensible
would trust. "I am a fair-minded
person"; "I thank my God for my
humility"; "I am a statesman".

> I may be a lousy poet, too, but I use the
> equipment of poets to make things called poems.
> Ergo, I am a poet.

Could a parrot (or other animal) be a
poet? Could a computer be one?

>> ANYONE
>> can claim to be 'a poet', and huge
>> numbers of the hopelessly incompetent
>> and inarticulate do so.
>
> Anyone can claim to be a poet who seriously
> makes things called poems.

You are merely trying to shift the
definition to one of what a poem is.
At some point you have to say that
'ga-ga-ga-ga' is not a poem -- in
spite of the claim of the maker.

[..]

> One thing you're saying is that no ones can
> accurately call themselfs poets, which seems
> strange to me. What would someone who makes
> things YOU would accept as poems call himself?

People USED to describe themselves in
more humble terms -- "I am a versifier,
making attempts at poetry". They left
it to OTHERS to say whether or not
they succeeded.

Of course, that was when poetry was
poetry, and culture had not yet
degenerated into some kind of primeval
sludge.
[..]

Paul.

[bobgr...@nut-n-but.net]

Paul, I'll only say that there is something I call verososphy
which is the search for objective truth. Verosophy is what
I do, you don't. Subjective truth is all that counts for you, so
long as it's your subjective truth.

--Bob

[lackpurity]

On Jan 8, 12:31�pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-

MM:
Crowley seeks support for his Anti-Strat ideas. Bob has his own
ideas, and he seeks support for them. What's the difference?
Objective truth is found by meditation, not by guesswork. Why were
Marlowe and Shakespeare the darlings of the MUSES?

Michael Martin