GRUMMAN: Strat Morons Miss Dr. John Hall's Note Of Intention To Publish.
Elizabeth Weir
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote in message news:<b2pff...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
> Gak. I have to agree with the moron on this one.
>
High praise coming from you, Grumman.
See if you can agree with this one:
Strats have missed something in Dr. James Cooke's account
of his queer book buying encounter with Susanna Hall.
Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
. . . both intended for the Presse.
Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
notebooks.
In fact, we can deduce with all certainty that Susanna Hall did
not inform Dr. Cooke of her deceased husband's intention to
publish the two notebooks because Susanna Hall refused to
acknowledge that the notebooks even belonged to her husband.
That allows only one possibility; that Dr. Hall made a note on
both manuscripts stating that they were intended for publication.
==================================================================
Most damaging to the Strat case, proving that Susanna was
an illiterate in a household of illiterates, is the fact that for
SEVEN YEARS Susanna failed to carry out her deceased
husband's intentions.
==================================================================
Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
Dr. James Cooke arrived to "view" Dr. Hall's notebooks in
1642, seven years after Dr. Hall died. If Susanna Hall could
read--and the weight of the evidence indicates that she
could not--then she would have taken her renown husband's
notebooks to a medical scholar to have them edited and published.
Instead, Dr. Hall's unrecognized notebooks were thrown in with
an odd lot of books left as collateral for a loan by some anonymous
professor of medicine indicating that Susanna Hall was so illiterate
she couldn't recognize Hall's notebooks at all.
Greg Reynolds
You made up the note, Elizabeth.
There is no mention of a note.
Fanciful, but false.
From now on, don't make up evidence. And don't
build an argument from your made up evidence.
The only reason Cooke "shewed" her is that he determined
her to be literate.
Explain the *17* on the upper-right corner of the page.
It is a sign the book is intended for the press. Explain the
line counts on the margin. It is a sign the book is intended for
the press. There would be several other possible ways for
Cooke to deduce that the journal was intended for the press.
It is horribly cruel of you to claim Susanna can't read a note
that exists solely in your imagination.
Greg Reynolds
Bob Grumman
>of his queer book buying encounter with Susanna Hall.
Not "queer" at all.
>Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
>a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
>he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
That's because there was none. We know this because Cooke didn't mention it
to Susanna at the time nor in his preface to the published version. If there
were a note, he would have said, "These books are by your husband--see, here's
his note saying so." And he would probably have said something in his preface
to the published volume about Hall's wish that it be published.
>Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
>Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
>
> . . . both intended for the Presse.
>
>Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
Actually, we don't know that; we only know that Dr. Cooke thought this was the
case--probably because of the kind of reasons given by Greg; or maybe he heard
from some colleage of Hall's afterward that Hall planned to publish his
journals, or after reading them, saw that they seemed written for others.
Perhaps, too, it was fairly common for medical men to publish their journals.
>We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
>were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
>reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
>inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both notebooks.
We already know from what Cooke says that Susanna was not aware of the existence
of her husband's journals. If they were carefully readied for the press, and
Hall had never told her about them, it is all the more reason that she would
automatically deny their existence, thinking herself privy to all the important
parts of her husband's life with her.
>In fact, we can deduce with all certainty that Susanna Hall did
>not inform Dr. Cooke of her deceased husband's intention to
>publish the two notebooks because Susanna Hall refused to
>acknowledge that the notebooks even belonged to her husband.
>
>That allows only one possibility; that Dr. Hall made a note on
>both manuscripts stating that they were intended for publication.
Typical rigidnikal anti-continuumism. Actually, as Greg showed, there is a
continuum of possibilities, of which the above is one highly implausible one for
reasons given.
>Most damaging to the Strat case, proving that Susanna was
>an illiterate in a household of illiterates, is the fact that for
>SEVEN YEARS Susanna failed to carry out her deceased
>husband's intentions.
If there was a note, it would not PROVE Susanna was illiterate to anyone sane,
Elizabeth. There are all kinds of possible reasons she would have "failed to
carry out" Hall's wishes. Maybe the note was inside the covers. Maybe Hall
left dozens of notes and she overlooked this one. Maybe she thought the
journals were not worth publishing, or invaded too many people's privacy.
If the note were visible, she would have had to have known its contents after
seven years since SOMEone who could read would have read it to her.
>Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
>
>Dr. James Cooke arrived to "view" Dr. Hall's notebooks in
>1642, seven years after Dr. Hall died. If Susanna Hall could
>read--and the weight of the evidence indicates that she
>could not--then she would have taken her renown husband's
>notebooks to a medical scholar to have them edited and published.
This is the problem with rigidniks: they think human beings can only react one
way in any given circumstance, the way the rigidniks would have.
>Instead, Dr. Hall's unrecognized notebooks were thrown in with
>an odd lot of books left as collateral for a loan by some anonymous
>professor of medicine indicating that Susanna Hall was so illiterate
>she couldn't recognize Hall's notebooks at all.
How do you know they weren't already in the odd lot when Hall died?
Elizabeth, you are a rigidnik. Therefore, your attempts to figure out human
behavior have no chance of success.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
> a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
> he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
> Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
> . . . both intended for the Presse.
> Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
> We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> notebooks.
No, we can deduce no such thing. Cooke needs only to have read the text
to tell the difference between private notes and something "written
up" for publication.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > ===========================================================================
> >
> > bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote in message news:<b2pff...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >
> > > Gak. I have to agree with the moron on this one.
> > >
> > High praise coming from you, Grumman.
> >
> that exists solely in your imagination.
You are hysterical Reynolds. "How horribly cruel of me."
You sound like Neundorffer whose identification with Oxford
is so complete that Neuendorffer swoons everytime Oxford
is nailed.
Elizabeth Weir
> >
> You made up the note, Elizabeth.
> There is no mention of a note.
You've heard of deduction?
Dr. Hall gives a tight, step-by-step narrative of the
event:
...to see the Books left by Mr. Hall. After a view of them,
she told me she had some Books left, by one that professed
Physick, with her Husband, for some mony. I told her, if I
liked them, I would give her the mony again; she brought
them forth, amongst which there was this with another of
the Authors, both intended for the Presse. <===<
I being acquainted with Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one
or two of them were her Husband's and shewed them her; she
denyed, I affirmed, till I perceived she begun to be offended.
At last I returned her the mony.
> Fanciful, but false.
Neither fanciful nor false. The no-nonsense Dr. Cooke does
not inject his opinion at any point in the narrative; when
Susanna brings out the anonymous professor's books left as
collateral for a loan, she inadvertantly
brings out the renown Dr. Hall's notebooks, *both intended
for the press.*
There has to be some observable evidence that immediately
convinces Dr. Cooke that Dr. Hall's notebooks were "both intended
for the press," and since Hall's wife is no position
to tell Dr. Cooke anything about the notebooks because she can't
even tell that they were John Hall's notebooks, we must conclude
that Cooke saw some notation that informed him that the notebooks
were "both intended for the press."
> From now on, don't make up evidence. And don't
> build an argument from your made up evidence.
The Strats are the ones making a silk purse out of sow's ear.
There is NO evidence that Susanna Hall was literate, although
there is hard evidence in the form of Hall's childish drawn
and printed signature [note the disconnected letters--she can't
write script] as well as Cooke's damning account of his argument
with Hall as he tries to force her husband's notebooks on
her as she, in turn, tries all the harder to sell them to him.
And suceeds in unwittingly giving them away for free as part
of the anonymous professor's lot proving that Susanna was far
from "witty above her sex."
> The only reason Cooke "shewed" her is that he determined
> her to be literate.
That is very hopeful, Greg, but totally illogical.
Dr. Cooke showed the notebook to Hall and *got a reaction
he did not expect.*
Dr. Cooke, obviously familiar with Dr. Hall's reputation,
assumed that the Oxford-educated physician had married one
of his own class but instead Cooke found that Hall had married
a rich illiterate. That's what happens when your father-in-law
buys a coat of arms.
Hall came from a well-educated family of rich land owners.
The Burgher had no class as Jonson makes hilariously evident
in Every Man In His Humor. And we are expected to believe that
this rude lot produced the sublime Renaissance mind that wrote
the great Renaissance plays? How did the Burgher know intimately
the manners of the Court of Navarre, Greg, when his own daughters
were stumbling illiterates?
> Explain the *17* on the upper-right corner of the page.
> It is a sign the book is intended for the press.
It's customary to number notebook pages.
> Explain the
> line counts on the margin.
Those are not line counts, Greg.
The notebooks were Hall's medical casebooks.
The numbers in the margins are case numbers.
On page 17 Hall has written three cases; the first is
his wife's case, the second is Harbert's the third
is Maria Wilsune. They are numbered, respectively,
case 19, case, 20 and case 21.
There is a penciled "10" in the upper right hand corner
but we know that Cooke, not Hall, was the editor of
Select Observations On English Bodies so it is either
the notation of Cooke or that of his assistant editor
Richard Court, Hall's apothocary.
> It is a sign the book is intended for
> the press.
Those are case numbers, Greg. They appear next to the
names of each of the three patients whose cases are described
on page 17.
> There would be several other possible ways for
> Cooke to deduce that the journal was intended for the press.
Name "several," Greg. I've elminated two:
1. Susanna couldn't recognize the notebooks as her husband's so
we can deduce with all certainty that she did not tell Dr. Cooke
that those notebooks were "intended for the press."
2. The numbered pages and numbered cases in no way would
have indicated to Cooke, a doctor familiar with medical
casebooks, that the notebooks were "intended for the Presse."
Since Susanna Hall was incable of commicating to Dr. Hall that
the notebooks were intended to be published and since there is
no evidence on page 17 that would indicate Hall's intent,
we have to deduce that Cooke saw something in writing.
Unless you can come up with evidence or a better deduction,
Greg, we have to assume that Cooke saw a note or notation
stating Hall's intent.
> It is horribly cruel of you to claim Susanna can't read a note
> that exists solely in your imagination.
>
> Greg Reynolds
Stop confirming my suspicion that the Strats have mythologized
a new Holy Family.
Paul Crowley
> Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
>
> . . . both intended for the Presse.
>
> Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
>
> We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> notebooks.
>
> In fact, we can deduce with all certainty that Susanna Hall did
> not inform Dr. Cooke of her deceased husband's intention to
> publish the two notebooks because Susanna Hall refused to
> acknowledge that the notebooks even belonged to her husband.
Good point, Elizabeth.
The closer you look at any historical
document connected with the Stratman,
the more you find that goes against his
case. (Why should that be so?)
> That allows only one possibility; that Dr. Hall made a note on
> both manuscripts stating that they were intended for publication.
> > . . . . she brought them forth,
> > amongst which there was this with another of the Authors,
> > both intended for the Presse. I being acquainted with
> > Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were . .
Cooke _might_ have been able to deduce it
from the overall setting out of the manuscript,
or from instructions to printers within the text.
Remember he was justifying the publication
of another doctor's professional work, after he
was dead and without his specific authority.
However, the point is that Dr Hall had not
communicated any such intention to his wife.
Or, if he had, she had forgotten all about it.
In either case, the most likely explanation is
that the world of writing and books was quite
foreign to her. Most likely is that Dr Hall would
no more have discussed such a matter with
her than Einstein would have asked his
gardener for help in his theoretical work.
Paul.
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
> > a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
> > he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
>
> > Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> > Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
>
> > . . . both intended for the Presse.
>
> > Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
>
> > We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> > were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> > reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> > inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> > notebooks.
> No, we can deduce no such thing. Cooke needs only to have read the text
> to tell the difference between private notes and something "written
> up" for publication.
That simple expedient would never have occurred to Elizabeth Weird --
after all, she NEVER reads texts she cites in support of the Renaissance
genius Francis Bacon against her medieval antagonists who have hijacked
the Renaissance and thereby fouled the entire planet.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
> > a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
> > he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
>
> > Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> > Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
>
> > . . . both intended for the Presse.
>
> > Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
>
> > We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> > were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> > reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> > inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> > notebooks.
>
> No, we can deduce no such thing. Cooke needs only to have read the text
> to tell the difference between private notes and something "written
> up" for publication.
Wrong, Kennedy. There nothing in the notebooks per se that would
indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
marks" but I proved that they were not:
> Explain the *17* on the upper-right corner of the page.
> It is a sign the book is intended for the press.
It's customary to number notebook pages.
> Explain the
> line counts on the margin.
Those are not line counts, Greg.
The notebooks were Hall's medical casebooks.
The numbers in the margins are case numbers.
On page 17 Hall has written three cases; the first is
his wife's case, the second is M. Harbert's, the third
is Maria Wilsune's. They are numbered, respectively,
case 19, case, 20 and case 21.
There is a penciled "10" in the upper right hand corner
but we know that Cooke, not Hall, was the editor of
Select Observations On English Bodies so it is either
the notation of Cooke or that of his assistant editor
Richard Court, Hall's apothocary.
> It is a sign the book is intended for
> the press.
Those are case numbers, Greg. They appear next to the
names of each of the three patients whose cases are described
on page 17.
Dr. Cooke, trained to write his own case books, would not
have assumed that page numbers and case numbers were
"editing marks."
Furthermore, the notebooks were in Hall's own arcane
abbreviated Latin--hardly "ready for the press."
It took Cooke 22 years to bring the first of John Hall's
notebooks to press.
Susanna Hall was no help. She couldn't identify the case books
as John Halls. It's illogical to think that she would give
instructions to Cooke in regard to publication if she didn't
know what Cooke was holding in his hand.
We have to deduce that Cooke saw something in writing, either
a note, possibly a letter or a notation on the notebooks that
communicated Hall's intention to have them printed.
Greg Reynolds
> Greg Reynolds wrote
> > You made up the note, Elizabeth.
> > There is no mention of a note.
>
> You've heard of deduction?
>
> Dr. Hall gives a tight, step-by-step narrative of the
> event:
>
> ...to see the Books left by Mr. Hall. After a view of them,
> she told me she had some Books left, by one that professed
> Physick, with her Husband, for some mony. I told her, if I
> liked them, I would give her the mony again; she brought
> them forth, amongst which there was this with another of
> the Authors, both intended for the Presse. <===<
>
> I being acquainted with Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one
> or two of them were her Husband's and shewed them her; she
> denyed, I affirmed, till I perceived she begun to be offended.
> At last I returned her the mony.
>
> > Fanciful, but false.
>
> Neither fanciful nor false. The no-nonsense Dr. Cooke does
> not inject his opinion at any point in the narrative;
He does.
He even says that he PERCEIVED. So you are the
woman with the reading deficiency--not Susanna!
> when
> Susanna brings out the anonymous professor's books left as
> collateral for a loan,
There is no mention of a loan, you know.
> she inadvertantly
> brings out the renown Dr. Hall's notebooks, *both intended
> for the press.*
Renown is not an adjective, you know.
> There has to be some observable evidence that immediately
> convinces Dr. Cooke that Dr. Hall's notebooks were "both intended
> for the press,"
AND HERE IT IS:
Dr. Hall gave the essay a title. So it wasn't scratch paper.
He may have had a title page.
Or Hall found out five years later that they were intended for the press.
You keep wrapping the facts around your conclusion.
> and since Hall's wife is no position
> to tell Dr. Cooke anything about the notebooks because she can't
> even tell that they were John Hall's notebooks, we must conclude
> that Cooke saw some notation that informed him that the notebooks
> were "both intended for the press."
We must not invent any such notation.
Especially to furnish a way to reach your conclusion.
Do you think you can lull others the way you lull yourself and
call that deduction?
> > From now on, don't make up evidence. And don't
> > build an argument from your made up evidence.
>
> The Strats are the ones making a silk purse out of sow's ear.
> There is NO evidence that Susanna Hall was literate,
There is evidence that Cooke believed her to be literate:
He shewed her, not told her.
So that is one eyewitness in belief of her literacy and none otherwise.
> although
> there is hard evidence in the form of Hall's childish drawn
> and printed signature [note the disconnected letters--she can't
> write script]
Why would you think this is the only time in her life she wrote?
It is the only SURVIVING signature. You are so mean to her.
> as well as Cooke's damning account of his argument
> with Hall as he tries to force her husband's notebooks on
> her as she, in turn, tries all the harder to sell them to him.
...you lost me there...maybe rephrase the god-awful thing...
...but let me grade your reading comprehension as is;
You rank an F, for Failure. Here are the problems
that YOU invented to distort the historical account:
damning
- Cooke does not damn his subject's wife in his book
argument
- it was negotiation
force
- No way -- or Susanna would have had them ready
with the first batch of books (the ones that are not
Hall's and therefore give you the shivers as you
are faced with the fact of a Shakespeare owning books!).
notebooks
- we don't know if it is one or two notebooks, so
pluralize at your own peril--no conclusion is given by Cooke
> And suceeds in unwittingly giving them away for free as part
> of the anonymous professor's lot proving that Susanna was far
> from "witty above her sex."
She got what she wanted. She was made whole again. Perhaps
it was a stunningly great sum. Don't equate her intellect to a
onesided account 7 years after her death.
She was very well off, having inherited many of her father's
properties including his London apartment and garden at the
Blackfriars. So getting ripped off wasn't a problem. They
sought her out. If she wanted to make a killing selling the
books, she would have sold them years ago.
> > The only reason Cooke "shewed" her is that he determined
> > her to be literate.
>
> That is very hopeful, Greg, but totally illogical.
From you that's a compliment, dearie.
> Dr. Cooke showed the notebook to Hall and *got a reaction
> he did not expect.*
>
> Dr. Cooke, obviously familiar with Dr. Hall's reputation,
Could you make that obvious here at HLAS?
> assumed that the Oxford-educated physician had married one
> of his own class but instead Cooke found that Hall had married
> a rich illiterate.
SO your scourge of the Shakespeares will have
collateral damage in making Dr. Cooke a classist.
You don't care who gets hurt.
> That's what happens when your father-in-law
> buys a coat of arms.
He was worthy. Deal with it.
There was nothing peculiar, and again there is no sensible
connection to illiterate daughters in law.
> Hall came from a well-educated family of rich land owners.
> The Burgher had no class as Jonson makes hilariously evident
> in Every Man In His Humor.
"This side idolatry" for a man with no class?
> And we are expected to believe that
> this rude lot produced the sublime Renaissance mind that wrote
> the great Renaissance plays?
Chaucer was a common man. Why not blot him out, too.
> How did the Burgher know intimately
> the manners of the Court of Navarre, Greg, when his own daughters
> were stumbling illiterates?
HA! the manners of the court! That was fiction, I thought you'd know.
He MADE it up! That's how. Ya see, writing trumps experience!
Who is this imaginary friend of yours, the Burgher? You are always
bringing him up...
BUT
Shakespeare was a London gentleman and a royal servant.
He deserves your respect.
> > Explain the *17* on the upper-right corner of the page.
> > It is a sign the book is intended for the press.
>
> It's customary to number notebook pages.
Notebook pages that are intended for the press!
> > Explain the
> > line counts on the margin.
>
> Those are not line counts, Greg.
>
> The notebooks were Hall's medical casebooks.
I wonder how he'd treat antiStratfordianism.
> The numbers in the margins are case numbers. On page
> 17 Hall has written three cases; the first is
> his wife's case, the second is Harbert's the third
> is Maria Wilsune. They are numbered, respectively,
> case 19, case, 20 and case 21.
Then this page is buried in the book somewhere and
you are destroying your earlier statement that this was
the first page, the one Cooke showed her with her
name Hall so obvious at the top. Boy, was that ever
a vicious, unfounded attack on Susanna.
Brutal, Weir!
Ever notice that you don't retract your errors, Elizabeth?
They just hang in the air like your own special perfume
wafting around the place.
> There is a penciled "10" in the upper right hand corner
> but we know that Cooke, not Hall, was the editor of
> Select Observations On English Bodies so it is either
> the notation of Cooke or that of his assistant editor
> Richard Court, Hall's apothocary.
You just misused the word "SO."
You have no idea who wrote the "10."
It may have been Susanna.
> > It is a sign the book is intended for
> > the press.
>
> Those are case numbers, Greg. They appear next to the
> names of each of the three patients whose cases are described
> on page 17.
>
> > There would be several other possible ways for
> > Cooke to deduce that the journal was intended for the press.
>
> Name "several," Greg.
It had a title.
It had a cover page.
It had an epistle to it's readers.
The mate said so.
Hall had the same publisher and he told Cooke.
Cooke found out in the 12 ensuing years.
> I've elminated two:
You are guessing that his statement "intended for the presse"
was an issue that day, but we don't know that Cooke knew
they were intended for the press on that day that they met.
This is in retrospect several years later.
> 1. Susanna couldn't recognize the notebooks as her husband's so
> we can deduce with all certainty that she did not tell Dr. Cooke
> that those notebooks were "intended for the press."
Hey, I gave you several more possible ways he knew. You don't
need to destroy your own artificial ones.
> 2. The numbered pages and numbered cases in no way would
> have indicated to Cooke, a doctor familiar with medical
> casebooks, that the notebooks were "intended for the Presse."
And you credentials are?
> Since Susanna Hall was incable of commicating to Dr. Hall that
> the notebooks were intended to be published and since there is
> no evidence on page 17 that would indicate Hall's intent,
> we have to deduce that Cooke saw something in writing.
Way wrong. Thanks for showing how your mind works.
By the way...
Page 17 has NOTHING to do with it! That's the only page
that YOU've seen, but it is not any part of Cooke's account.
He does not mention page 17, Hall's name, any note. You
are demonstrating your proclivity to create chaos.
But a simple read of the source material tosses your version
out; you'll never be able to conceal your contempt for the
Shakespeares I'm afraid.
> Unless you can come up with evidence or a better deduction,
> Greg, we have to assume that Cooke saw a note or notation
> stating Hall's intent.
I gave several practical and obvious scenarios, all of
them more sensible than any assumption of yours.
You MADE UP the note idea. Now you want people to
join you in your madness.
> > It is horribly cruel of you to claim Susanna can't read a note
> > that exists solely in your imagination.
> >
> > Greg Reynolds
>
> Stop confirming my suspicion that the Strats have mythologized
> a new Holy Family.
We have no room,
but there is a gatehouse
at the Blackfriars
where you can stay.
And the Shakespeares
lived happily ever after.
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<klN4a.441905$HG.76...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
> > > a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
> > > he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
> >
> > > Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> > > Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
> >
> > > . . . both intended for the Presse.
> >
> > > Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
> >
> > > We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> > > were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> > > reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> > > inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> > > notebooks.
> >
> > No, we can deduce no such thing. Cooke needs only to have read the text
> > to tell the difference between private notes and something "written
> > up" for publication.
>
> Wrong, Kennedy. There nothing in the notebooks per se that would
> indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
This indicates you've read the notebook.
Who are you fooling?
> Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> marks" but I proved that they were not
Tee-hee.
You never got close. You steered us to your rather flimsy assumption
that you find so intoxicating. It was cute.
Now you sound like Napoleon bragging about Waterloo.
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
quarto format, making it obviously intended
for the press.
And this would be a good reason why a
literate person who is not familiar with
printing standards would not know
which way it was to be read.
Unlike the First Folio, Select Observations
is not set in type. But if it is in quarto
format, it is a piece of paper folded in half
twice, yielding four leaves or eight pages.
(I am not sure, but one half the writing may
appear to be upside down if the quarto is
yet unfolded.)
So this is to me the most sensible reason
for Cooke knowing it was intended for
the press, and Susanna not caring about it.
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
> Hall's journal may have been layed out in
> quarto format, making it obviously intended
> for the press.
>
> And this would be a good reason why a
> literate person who is not familiar with
> printing standards would not know
> which way it was to be read.
>
I need to retract this line:
> Unlike the First Folio, Select Observations
> is not set in type.
This is incorrect and not relevant to my argument that
the journal may have been layed out in quarto format.
Sorry again.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<klN4a.441905$HG.76...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > > Strats have failed to deduce that Dr. John Hall attached
> > > > a comment or note to his notebooks to the effect that
> > > > he intended the notebooks to be published after his death.
>
> > > > Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> > > > Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
>
> > > > . . . both intended for the Presse.
>
> > > > Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
>
> > > > We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> > > > were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> > > > reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> > > > inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> > > > notebooks.
> > >
> > > No, we can deduce no such thing. Cooke needs only to have read the text
> > > to tell the difference between private notes and something "written
> > > up" for publication.
> >
> > Wrong, Kennedy. There nothing in the notebooks per se that would
> > indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
>
> This indicates you've read the notebook.
> Who are you fooling?
I can see that you're cornered and this is not going
to be a serious post.
> > Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> > marks" but I proved that they were not
WHERE'S THE EDITING MARKS HERE, Reynolds? You cut my post and
didn't indicate an edit.
> Tee-hee.
You're supposed to be showing us where I am wrong about pagination
and case numbers, not sitting there giggling.
> You never got close. You steered us to your rather flimsy assumption
> that you find so intoxicating. It was cute.
What are you finding so intoxicating?
> Now you sound like Napoleon bragging about Waterloo.
I wouldn't compare kicking your ass to Waterloo.
> Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message news:efbc3534.03021...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Dr. Cooke's tightly condensed narrative of his encounter with
> > Susanna Hall includes the overlooked phrase
> >
> > . . . both intended for the Presse.
> >
> > Dr. Hall intended that both his medical notebooks be published.
> >
> > We can deduce from Cooke's phrase that Dr. Hall's instructions
> > were in a note or scribbled on the manuscript cover for the simple
> > reason that at no point in Cooke's recital does Susanna Hall
> > inform Cooke of her husband's intention to publish both
> > notebooks.
> >
> > In fact, we can deduce with all certainty that Susanna Hall did
> > not inform Dr. Cooke of her deceased husband's intention to
> > publish the two notebooks because Susanna Hall refused to
> > acknowledge that the notebooks even belonged to her husband.
>
> Good point, Elizabeth.
>
> The closer you look at any historical
> document connected with the Stratman,
> the more you find that goes against his
> case. (Why should that be so?)
Because the Stratfordian and Oxfordian cases have something
in common, Crowley. Both can attack [neither side bothers
to attack Bacon--they attack me instead and pretend its an
attack on the Baconian case] but neither can defend.
Stratfordianism and Oxfordianism are perfectly congruent in
this because neither has the right author.
> > That allows only one possibility; that Dr. Hall made a note on
> > both manuscripts stating that they were intended for publication.
>
> > > . . . . she brought them forth,
> > > amongst which there was this with another of the Authors,
> > > both intended for the Presse. I being acquainted with
> > > Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were . .
>
> Cooke _might_ have been able to deduce it
> from the overall setting out of the manuscript,
> or from instructions to printers within the text.
No, I've already refuted Greg on this point. Those
marks are just pagination and case numbers. We know
absolutely that Cooke and Court edited Select Observations
On English Bodies, not Hall.
> Remember he was justifying the publication
> of another doctor's professional work, after he
> was dead and without his specific authority.
Without Hall's specific authority . . . you've just
made me connect something up, Crowley.
I just realized that there were TWO sets of instructiosn
given by Hall.
I should have seen this before. I'll have to write a
separate post on this. Thank you.
> However, the point is that Dr Hall had not
> communicated any such intention to his wife.
> Or, if he had, she had forgotten all about it.
Hall did give a set of instructions--in fact
two sets--I just put it together when you wrote
"specific authority." He left one set of instructions
in his will to burn his notebooks--he didn't care.
I'll call that Hall's "non-specific authority."
The reason Hall didn't care--I couldn't figure that
out--was that he had already pulled out the best cases
of his huge practice and long career--and compiled
them in Select Observations. That's what the scientific-
minded Dr. James Cooke saw when he arrived at New House.
Susanna first showed Cooke . . . I'll but this in another
post because I want to use citations.
I will bet anything the Strats have never figured this
out. They don't do authentic scholarship, they just
keep trying to repair the Obnoxious Myth.
> In either case, the most likely explanation is
> that the world of writing and books was quite
> foreign to her.
That's the definite implication of Susanna Hall
handing away John Hall's priceless Select Observations.
> Most likely is that Dr Hall would
> no more have discussed such a matter with
> her than Einstein would have asked his
> gardener for help in his theoretical work.
>
> Paul.
No, but Einstein might have asked Poincare's housemaids
if they'd seen any papers lying around.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I note that Elizabeth has not replied to the post below.
--Bob G.
In article <b2vnv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bob says...
Greg Reynolds
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3E5478B4...@core.com>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> There nothing in the notebooks per se that would
> > > indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
> >
> > This indicates you've read the notebook.
> > Who are you fooling?
>
> I can see that you're cornered and this is not going
> to be a serious post.
Hate to break it to you, Elizabeth, but you are read strictly for comedy.
History rejects your braindead ideas. You lie like a rug, and leave the
lies here for posterity. You hide from the hard truths available in
every library in the world. You invent evidence to keep your dumb
conclusions company. And you are the beacon of dishonesty at HLAS.
Directly above you stated,
<There nothing in the notebooks per se that
<would indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
You cannot make that claim without thoroughly perusing the
notebook, which you have not, so your statement is rendered
groundless. You falsified.
This is a serious post.
> > > Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> > > marks" but I proved that they were not
>
> WHERE'S THE EDITING MARKS HERE, Reynolds? You cut my post and
> didn't indicate an edit.
You are simply mistaken. Just look at your post to see I
left it all intact. I cut nothing. But you sure filter out the
untouchables when you attempt to answer me. I don't know
why you bother. You are not building a case for Bacon,
you are just doing your topnotch impersonation of Delia.
> > Tee-hee.
>
> You're supposed to be showing us where I am wrong about pagination
> and case numbers, not sitting there giggling.
Poor you. If you could read with comprehension you would
know that those are just two of the seven ways I mentioned
by which Cooke could tell the (one or two) notebook(s) were
pressbound.
You have not begun to rebut these reasons.
Instead you lie that you are familiar with the book and that
<There nothing in the notebooks per se that
<would indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
You don't know what you are talking about.
> > You never got close. You steered us to your rather flimsy assumption
> > that you find so intoxicating. It was cute.
>
> What are you finding so intoxicating?
It's not me, it's you.
You ignore the details and invent a note to please yourself.
We're trying to run a newsgroup here.
> > Now you sound like Napoleon bragging about Waterloo.
>
> I wouldn't compare kicking your ass to Waterloo.
You obviously are behind in your reading again.
You got torched. No wonder you haven't replied.
I direct your attention to the title of this thread.
It contains your lie that there was a note attached to the journal.
Please retract that because you sure can't substantiate it.
There's a note attached to you -- FRAGILE
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
As Elizabeth spends her life trying to dumb down the girls.
> Stratfordianism and Oxfordianism are perfectly congruent in
> this because neither has the right author.
Bacon wrote Bacon.
Oxford wrote Oxford.
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
> > > That allows only one possibility; that Dr. Hall made a note on
> > > both manuscripts stating that they were intended for publication.
> >
> > > > . . . . she brought them forth,
> > > > amongst which there was this with another of the Authors,
> > > > both intended for the Presse. I being acquainted with
> > > > Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were . .
> >
> > Cooke _might_ have been able to deduce it
> > from the overall setting out of the manuscript,
> > or from instructions to printers within the text.
>
> No, I've already refuted Greg on this point.
We don't refute people, we refute statements.
What is your native tongue? It cannot be English.
> Those
> marks are just pagination and case numbers. We know
> absolutely that Cooke and Court edited Select Observations
> On English Bodies, not Hall.
We absolutely do not know that.
I doubt Cooke edited one word.
Editing is NOT a part of bookbinding.
The book was already edited (prepared for the press).
Are you about nine years old? I can't believe
your stunning void of common knowledge.
> > Remember he was justifying the publication
> > of another doctor's professional work, after he
> > was dead and without his specific authority.
>
> Without Hall's specific authority . . . you've just
> made me connect something up, Crowley.
>
> I just realized that there were TWO sets of instructiosn
> given by Hall.
>
> I should have seen this before. I'll have to write a
> separate post on this. Thank you.
Paul inspires Elizabeth.
> > However, the point is that Dr Hall had not
> > communicated any such intention to his wife.
> > Or, if he had, she had forgotten all about it.
>
> Hall did give a set of instructions--in fact
> two sets--I just put it together when you wrote
> "specific authority." He left one set of instructions
> in his will to burn his notebooks--he didn't care.
> I'll call that Hall's "non-specific authority."
He would have just burned them himself.
Are we allowed to be here in the middle of
your hallucinations?
> The reason Hall didn't care--I couldn't figure that
> out--was that he had already pulled out the best cases
> of his huge practice and long career--and compiled
> them in Select Observations. That's what the scientific-
> minded Dr. James Cooke saw when he arrived at New House.
Please show your work.
> Susanna first showed Cooke . . . I'll but this in another
> post because I want to use citations.
What a mind.
> I will bet anything the Strats have never figured this
> out. They don't do authentic scholarship, they just
> keep trying to repair the Obnoxious Myth.
Invent more evidence.
> > In either case, the most likely explanation is
> > that the world of writing and books was quite
> > foreign to her.
Paul, they sought her out for her books. Deal with it.
> That's the definite implication of Susanna Hall
> handing away John Hall's priceless Select Observations.
Tee-hee.
If it was SO astoundingly important, why did
the military surgeon sit on it for another 14
years? Susanna only sat on it for 7 years.
The medical techniques were 21 years
past prime when the book was released.
Elizabeth, if you're so sure of its vast worth,
tell us how many copies it sold.
> > Most likely is that Dr Hall would
> > no more have discussed such a matter with
> > her than Einstein would have asked his
> > gardener for help in his theoretical work.
> >
> > Paul.
Very funny, Paul. Funny that your snide remark
blows up right in your face!
Einstein indeed consulted the gardener....
http://www.jbrj.gov.br/ingles/history/einstein.htm
"Visiting the Botanical Garden of Rio de Janeiro in the
pleasant and lovely company of Professor Pacheco Leão
is of the most remarkable occurrences I've had through
visual impressions. I would like to express once more
my deepest gratitude"
--Albert Einstein
It is possible that, among all visits, the most remarkable one
occurred in 1925 when Albert Einstein, the creator of the
Theory of Relativity, after having heard the description of
the properties of the Jequitibá (Cariniana) from Pacheco Leão,
Director of the Botanical Garden at the time, hugged and
kissed the enormous plant.
+++
SO, Paul, by your own admission:
Since Einstein indeed consulted the gardener, Dr. Hall
indeed discussed the world of writing and books with Susanna.
You said it in your own words, Paul!
> No, but Einstein might have asked Poincare's housemaids
> if they'd seen any papers lying around.
"Science is facts. Just as houses are made of stones, so is science
made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house and a collection
of facts is not necessarily science.
-Jules Henri Poincare (1854?1912)
(speaking directly to Paul and Elizabeth about their piles)
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> > It is horribly cruel of you to claim Susanna can't read a note
> > that exists solely in your imagination.
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> You are hysterical Reynolds. "How horribly cruel of me."
>
> You sound like Neundorffer whose
> identification with Oxford is so complete that
> Neuendorffer swoons everytime Oxford is nailed.
----------------------------------------------------------
Divine Comedy - Dante
III. The Gate of Hell. The Inefficient or Indifferent.
Pope Celestine V. The Shores of Acheron. Charon.
The EARTHQUAKE and the SWOON.
----------------------------------------------------------
Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
Stave 1 MARLEY's Ghost
At this the spirit raised a frightful cry, and shook
its chain with such a dismal and appalling noise, that
Scrooge held on tight to his chair, to save himself
from falling in a SWOON. But how much greater was
his horror, when the PHANTOM taking off the bandage
round its head, as if it were too warm to wear indoors,
its lower JAW dropped down upon its breast!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ancientlanguages.org/bios/pvmaro.html
<<Virgil spent about seven Years in writing the first six Books of the
Æneid, some Part of which Augustus and Octavia longed to hear him
rehearse, and hardly prevailed with him, after many Intreaties. Virgil
to this Purpose pitches on the Sixth, which, not without Reason, he
thought would affect them most; as in it he had, with his usual
Dexterity, inserted the Funeral Panegyric of young Marcellus (who died a
little before that) whom Augustus designed for his Successor, and was
the Darling of his Mother Octavia, and of all the Romans; and as the
Poet imagined, so it happened: For after he had raised their Passions by
reciting their inimitable Lines. He at last surprizes them with
Heu miserande puer! si qua fata aspera rumpas,
Tu Marcellus eris.
At which affecting Words the Emperor and Octavia burst both into Tears,
and Octavia feel into a SWOON. Upon her Recovery she ordered the Poet
ten Sesterces for every Line, each Sesterce making about seventy eight
Pounds in our Money. A round Sum for the whole! but they were Virgil's
Verses. In about four Years more he finished the Aeneid, and then set
out for Greece, where he designed to revise it as a Bye-work at his
Leisure; proposing to devote the chief of the remaining Part of his
Days to Philosophy, which had been always his darling Study, as he
himself informs us in these charming Lines;>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a clown, be a clown,
All the world loves a clown.
Be a crazy buffoon
And the demoiselles'll all SWOON.
Dress in huge, baggy pants
And you'll ride the road to romance.
A BUTCHER or a BAKER, ladies nEVER embrace,
A barber for a beau would be a social disgrace,
They all'll come to call if you can fall on your face,
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olifant, n. [OF.] 1. An elephant/ ivory (horn?)
Turpin, n. (Zo["o]l.) A land tortoise.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLXV
When the Archbishop beheld him SWOON, Rollant,
Never before such bitter grief he'd had;
Stretching his hand, he took that OLIFANT.
2225 Through Rencesvals a little river ran;
He would go there, fetch water for Rollant.
Went step by step, to stumble soon began,
So FEEBLE he is, no further fare he can,
For too much blood he's lost, and no strength has;
2230 Ere he has crossed an acre of the land,
His heart grows faint, he falls down forwards and
Death comes to him with very cruel pangs.
CLXVI
The count Rollanz wakes from his SWOON once more,
Climbs to his feet; his pains are very sore;
2235 Looks down the vale, looks to the hills above;
On the green grass, beyond his companions,
He sees him lie, that noble old baron;
'Tis the Archbishop, whom in His name wrought God;
There he proclaims his sins, and looks above;
2240 Joins his two hands, to Heaven holds them forth,
And Paradise prays God to him to accord.
Dead is TURPIN, the warrior of Charlon.
In battles great and very rare sermons
Against pagans ever a champion.
2245 God grant him now His Benediction!
----------------------------------------------------
KQKnave wrote:
> [But] Rollett's methods, if consistently applied,
point to "T."
<<THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER, THE FORTH T>>
-------------------------------------------------------
TO THE ONLIE BEGETTOR OF
*THESE* INSVING *SONNETS*
Mr W H *ALL* HAPPINESSE
AND THAT ETERNITIE
PROMISED
*BY*
OVR *EVER*-LIVING POET
WISHETH
*THE* WELL-WISHING
ADVENTVRER IN
SETTING
*FORTH*
T.*T.*
---------------------------------------------------------
<<THESE SONNETS ALL BY E.VER THE FOURTH "T">>
[i.e., Edward VERE the 4th CROSS:]
---------------------------------------------------------
3:14. Pronunciansque Nabuchodonosor rex, ait eis:
VERENE, SIDRACH, MISACH, ET ABDENAGO deos meos non colitis,
et statuam auream, quam constitui, non adoratis?
---------------------------------------------------------
3:14. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them,
Is it True, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve
my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?
3:24. did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?
They answered and said unto the king, TRUE, O king.
3:25. He answered and said, LO, I see four men loose,
walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;
and the form of THE FOURTH is like the SON of GOD.
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkh...@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
> news:<nCQ4a.10581$V6.1...@news.indigo.ie>...
[...]
> > The closer you look at any historical
> > document connected with the Stratman,
> > the more you find that goes against his
> > case. (Why should that be so?)
> Because the Stratfordian and Oxfordian cases have something
> in common, Crowley. Both can attack [neither side bothers
> to attack Bacon--they attack me instead and pretend its an
> attack on the Baconian case] but neither can defend.
Nobody "attacks" the Baconian "case" -- it would be a bit like
attacking Velikovskian planetary "science." There is no credible case,
and it would be too easy a target. The few people who bother to respond
merely refute the "case" decisively by pointing out a few of Baconians'
copious blunders, comic misunderstandings, and wanton inventions. Nor
does anyone "attack" Elizabeth Weird, who is far too incompetent to be a
serious target of attack. Rather, numerous people have merely pointed
that Elizabeth (1) doesn't know what she's talking about in objective
factual matters (see her post on Russell's Nobel), (2) hasn't even read
the primary sources she cites (see her post on Akrigg), (3) has
farcically misunderstood the few secondary sources she has grepped on
the web (see her comic contention that the geometry of Minkowski space
is "hyperbolic geometry"), (4) makes things up as she goes along --
unless those apparent inventions are actually hallucinations (see her
assertion that Southampton played female roles on stage, or her gloss of
the nonce-word "Shake-scene"), and (5) cannot furnish any evidence, even
when asked for it repeatedly (see any of the above). How could one
meaningfully "attack" such a thoroughly incompetent figure of fun?
> Stratfordianism and Oxfordianism are perfectly congruent in
> this because neither has the right author.
> > > That allows only one possibility; that Dr. Hall made a note on
> > > both manuscripts stating that they were intended for publication.
> >
> > > > . . . . she brought them forth,
> > > > amongst which there was this with another of the Authors,
> > > > both intended for the Presse. I being acquainted with
> > > > Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were . .
> > Cooke _might_ have been able to deduce it
> > from the overall setting out of the manuscript,
> > or from instructions to printers within the text.
> No, I've already refuted Greg on this point.
Elizabeth, of course, has never "refuted" anything since she
inaugurated her long-running Reign of Error.
[...]
> > Remember he was justifying the publication
> > of another doctor's professional work, after he
> > was dead and without his specific authority.
> Without Hall's specific authority . . . you've just
> made me connect something up, Crowley.
[...]
> > Most likely is that Dr Hall would
> > no more have discussed such a matter with
> > her than Einstein would have asked his
> > gardener for help in his theoretical work.
> >
> > Paul.
> No, but Einstein might have asked Poincare's housemaids
> if they'd seen any papers lying around.
Since Einstein was in Switzerland, the likelihood of his cultivating
an aquaintance with, winning the confidence of, and then interrogating
Poincaré's household staff is just as remote as most of Elizabeth's
Weird inventions and/or hallucinations.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3E5478B4...@core.com>...
> > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > >
> There nothing in the notebooks per se that would
> > > > indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
> > >
> > > This indicates you've read the notebook.
> > > Who are you fooling?
> >
> > I can see that you're cornered and this is not going
> > to be a serious post.
>
> Hate to break it to you, Elizabeth, but you are read strictly for comedy.
> History rejects your braindead ideas. You lie like a rug, and leave the
> lies here for posterity. You hide from the hard truths available in
> every library in the world. You invent evidence to keep your dumb
> conclusions company. And you are the beacon of dishonesty at HLAS.
You can make all the claims you want, Greg, but "tee hee" is no
substitute for evidence.
> Directly above you stated,
> <There nothing in the notebooks per se that
> <would indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
>
> You cannot make that claim without thoroughly perusing the
> notebook, which you have not, so your statement is rendered
> groundless. You falsified.
Could you turn down the hyperbole, please.
You are wrong, Greg.
There are TWO reasons that we can determine that Hall's notebooks
were not edited:
1. No editing marks as I demonstrated to Kennedy in the section
you conveniently snipped without editing notice.
2. Hall's notebooks were written in an abbreviated Latin of Hall's
own invention.
The notebooks would have to be translated into English, THEN, the
English manuscripts would be edited.
There would be no point in putting editing marks on an abbreviated
Latin because once translated, the page numbers would change.
Dr. James Cooke immediately saw that Hall's notebooks had not
been translated or transliterated--from Hall's own arane
abbreviated Latin.
So we don't have to guess. Hall did not edit his notebooks.
Hall's notebooks were *intended for the press* but *not ready
for the press.*
The editors, Dr. James Cooke and his assitant Richard Court,
had to translate the Latin abbreviations. And it appears that
Cooke and Court had so much respect for the MS itself--now kept
in the British Museum--that unlike arrogant Strats that have marked
up so many manuscripts, sometimes to the point of destroying
their validity--Cooke and Court were conscientious enough not
to deface Hall's MS.
> This is a serious post.
I'm struggling to take it seriously.
> > > > Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> > > > marks" but I proved that they were not
> >
> > WHERE'S THE EDITING MARKS HERE, Reynolds? You cut my post and
> > didn't indicate an edit.
>
> You are simply mistaken.
I'm not mistaken. You cut the whole section where I explain
to Kennedy that I have already demonstrated to you that there
are no editing marks. In fact you were so careless in your
edit that
you snipped the colon
off the end of my sentence:
> > > > Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> > > > marks" but I proved that they were not <==< MISSING COLON
and you did not leave an editing notice [...].
Here it is with the colon followed by my explanation to Kennedy
in which I cite my quote to you:
Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
marks" but I proved that they were not:
> Explain the *17* on the upper-right corner of the page.
> It is a sign the book is intended for the press.
It's customary to number notebook pages.
> Explain the
> line counts on the margin.
Those are not line counts, Greg.
The notebooks were Hall's medical casebooks.
The numbers in the margins are case numbers.
On page 17 Hall has written three cases; the first is
his wife's case, the second is M. Harbert's, the third
is Maria Wilsune's. They are numbered, respectively,
case 19, case, 20 and case 21.
There is a penciled "10" in the upper right hand corner [etc].
You responded to that proof with "Tee-hee:."
> Tee-hee.
> You never got close. You steered us to your rather flimsy assumption
> that you find so intoxicating. It was cute.
> Now you sound like Napoleon bragging about Waterloo.
> Greg Reynolds
That's not cricket, Greg.
> Just look at your post to see I
> left it all intact. I cut nothing. But you sure filter out the
> untouchables when you attempt to answer me.
What "untouchables?"
> I don't know
> why you bother. You are not building a case for Bacon,
> you are just doing your topnotch impersonation of Delia.
Delia Bacon was NOT a Baconian.
That's a myth perpetuated by ignorant Strats and Oxfordians.
Delia Bacon was a "groupist" and Oxfordians have to take
Delia Baconianism into their sorry theory to get around
the Strachey letter, the 20,000 edits and emendations as well
as new lines and scenes in the FF and in fact every topical
allusion after 1604.
In fact, Neuendorffer is a Delia Baconian. He thinks that
the dialectically-impaired Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works
while Oxford's cousin, the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon,
merely contributed some edits.
> > > Tee-hee.
My exact sentiments.
> > You're supposed to be showing us where I am wrong about pagination
> > and case numbers, not sitting there giggling.
>
> Poor you. If you could read with comprehension you would
> know that those are just two of the seven ways I mentioned
> by which Cooke could tell the (one or two) notebook(s) were
> pressbound.
Iirc based on editing marks. There are none in Hall's notebooks
for the simple reason that it had not been edited when Cooke and
Court got it.
It HAD TO BE TRANSLATED BEFORE IT COULD BE EDITED, GREG.
If the editing marks were put on the abbreviated Latin the
pagination would be screwed up just for starters.
> You have not begun to rebut these reasons.
You're not paying attention.
> Instead you lie that you are familiar with the book and that
> <There nothing in the notebooks per se that
> <would indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
>
> You don't know what you are talking about.
So it's incumbent upon you to produce evidence that
I am wrong.
I have produced evidence--a facsimile page free of
editing marks written in neither Latin nor English.
<http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Images/HallManuscript.jpg>
So let's see yours.
> > > You never got close. You steered us to your rather flimsy assumption
> > > that you find so intoxicating. It was cute.
> >
> > What are you finding so intoxicating?
>
> It's not me, it's you.
> You ignore the details and invent a note to please yourself.
> We're trying to run a newsgroup here.
alt.humanities.lit.puerileinsults
> > > Now you sound like Napoleon bragging about Waterloo.
> >
> > I wouldn't compare kicking your ass to Waterloo.
>
> You obviously are behind in your reading again.
> You got torched. No wonder you haven't replied.
I'm not in the position of Strats who can always turn to
Canned Pap to get their Manufactured Excuses.
Kathman didn't even have to think for himself when he stranded
Sir Dudley Digges at Aldermanbury without the crucial Strachey
letter, he just turned to that fluttery airhead Hotson. Writer
of 1920s serial romances.
> I direct your attention to the title of this thread.
> It contains your lie that there was a note attached to the journal.
> Please retract that because you sure can't substantiate it.
It's a deduction based on the available evidence.
> There's a note attached to you -- FRAGILE
Stratfordianism only exists because Sir Sidney Lee was
an amateur Freudian who began the very uncivil but also very
effective process of damning anti-Strats with labels like
"psychopath." A very ugly beginning for Stratfordianism
but one they're apparently proud to maintain.
Greg Reynolds
which ELIZABETH WEIR has not responded.
I don't mind if she doesn't respond, but these are
key ingredients of our discussion underway and
it's pointless to continue without her being up to date.
GDR
> she inadvertently
AND HERE IT IS:
- Cooke does not damn Hall's wife in this book
> I've elminated two:
And your credentials are?
Greg Reynolds
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3E557018...@core.com>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > > Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3E5478B4...@core.com>...
> > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > >
> > There nothing in the notebooks per se that would
> > > > > indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
> > > >
> > > > This indicates you've read the notebook.
> > > > Who are you fooling?
> > >
> > > I can see that you're cornered and this is not going
> > > to be a serious post.
> >
> > Hate to break it to you, Elizabeth, but you are read strictly for comedy.
> > History rejects your braindead ideas. You lie like a rug, and leave the
> > lies here for posterity. You hide from the hard truths available in
> > every library in the world. You invent evidence to keep your dumb
> > conclusions company. And you are the beacon of dishonesty at HLAS.
>
> You can make all the claims you want, Greg, but "tee hee" is no
> substitute for evidence.
I have to laugh.
> > Directly above you stated,
> > <There nothing in the notebooks per se that
> > <would indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
> >
> > You cannot make that claim without thoroughly perusing the
> > notebook, which you have not, so your statement is rendered
> > groundless. You falsified.
>
> Could you turn down the hyperbole, please.
>
> You are wrong, Greg.
>
> There are TWO reasons that we can determine that Hall's notebooks
> were not edited:
I wish you'd get to the Note, the reason you started this thread.
> 1. No editing marks as I demonstrated to Kennedy in the section
> you conveniently snipped without editing notice.
Need a usenet tutorial?
> 2. Hall's notebooks were written in an abbreviated Latin of Hall's
> own invention.
Susanna just wrote in plain English.
> The notebooks would have to be translated into English, THEN, the
> English manuscripts would be edited.
It is translating latin shorthand and composing english text.
You're making way too much of editing. The thread is about a Note.
> There would be no point in putting editing marks on an abbreviated
> Latin because once translated, the page numbers would change.
Not if Hall had layed out each page (dummied)
and wanted his format followed. Which we don't know.
> Dr. James Cooke immediately saw that Hall's notebooks had not
> been translated or transliterated--from Hall's own arane
> abbreviated Latin.
So now you have Susanna illiterate in two languages,
English and latin.
> So we don't have to guess. Hall did not edit his notebooks.
Don't you admire his spelling and punctuation?
> Hall's notebooks were *intended for the press* but *not ready
> for the press.*
Good, because it took 21 years to publish them. Hope nobody
was waiting for a cure.
> The editors, Dr. James Cooke and his assitant Richard Court,
> had to translate the Latin abbreviations. And it appears that
> Cooke and Court had so much respect for the MS itself--now kept
> in the British Museum--that unlike arrogant Strats that have marked
> up so many manuscripts, sometimes to the point of destroying
> their validity--Cooke and Court were conscientious enough not
> to deface Hall's MS.
You deface Shakespeare more before noon than most people do
in a lifetime, Elizabeth
> > This is a serious post.
>
> I'm struggling to take it seriously.
Struggle to make it shorter. Zip-zip--No more baby talk.
Get to the Note.
> > > > > Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> > > > > marks" but I proved that they were not
> > >
> > > WHERE'S THE EDITING MARKS HERE, Reynolds? You cut my post and
> > > didn't indicate an edit.
> >
> > You are simply mistaken.
>
> I'm not mistaken. You cut the whole section where I explain
> to Kennedy that I have already demonstrated to you that there
> are no editing marks. In fact you were so careless in your
> edit that
>
> you snipped the colon
>
> off the end of my sentence:
>
> > > > > Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> > > > > marks" but I proved that they were not <==< MISSING COLON
>
> and you did not leave an editing notice [...].
I had answered all your lame problems an hour earlier, and
you were just blurting it all over again to John Kennedy.
[...don't expect editing notices and you won't be so disappointed...]
[...had you seen and answered the post, we'd not be here now...]
> Here it is with the colon followed by my explanation to Kennedy
> in which I cite my quote to you:
>
> Greg claimed that the pagination and case numbers were "editing
> marks" but I proved that they were not:
[...deleted redundant diatribe that was already answered two days back...]
> > I don't know
> > why you bother. You are not building a case for Bacon,
> > you are just doing your topnotch impersonation of Delia.
>
> Delia Bacon was NOT a Baconian.
That's not the aspect you impersonate.
> That's a myth perpetuated by ignorant Strats and Oxfordians.
>
> Delia Bacon was a "groupist" and Oxfordians have to take
> Delia Baconianism into their sorry theory to get around
> the Strachey letter, the 20,000 edits and emendations as well
> as new lines and scenes in the FF and in fact every topical
> allusion after 1604.
So Delia Bacon was a Delia Baconianist
> In fact, Neuendorffer is a Delia Baconian.
Except for his chronic recusancy.
> He thinks that
> the dialectically-impaired Oxford wrote the Shakespeare works
> while Oxford's cousin, the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon,
> merely contributed some edits.
Yeah, I remember when David Webb posted a long list of his stuff.
> > > > Tee-hee.
>
> My exact sentiments.
>
> > > You're supposed to be showing us where I am wrong about pagination
> > > and case numbers, not sitting there giggling.
> >
> > Poor you. If you could read with comprehension you would
> > know that those are just two of the seven ways I mentioned
> > by which Cooke could tell the (one or two) notebook(s) were
> > pressbound.
>
> Iirc based on editing marks. There are none in Hall's notebooks
> for the simple reason that it had not been edited when Cooke and
> Court got it.
>
> It HAD TO BE TRANSLATED BEFORE IT COULD BE EDITED, GREG.
THAT'S FINE BECAUSE "EDITING MARKS" IS YOUR TERM, not mine.
And not a part of my argument to you which is:
Since you cannot establish that Hall left a note, you must retract it.
Was the note in latin, Elizabeth? I wonder when you'll admit
that you have no knowledge of this note and that you made
it up. You are falsifying history right before our eyes.
> If the editing marks were put on the abbreviated Latin the
> pagination would be screwed up just for starters.
>
> > You have not begun to rebut these reasons.
>
> You're not paying attention.
Refuting any of my 1/2 dozen possibilities does not help your
statement that there is a note because there isn't one.
> > Instead you lie that you are familiar with the book and that
> > <There nothing in the notebooks per se that
> > <would indicate that they were "intended for the Presse."
> >
> > You don't know what you are talking about.
>
> So it's incumbent upon you to produce evidence that
> I am wrong.
The note doesn't exist.
SO your statement that it did/does is WRONG.
Elizabeth + Note = Wrong
> I have produced evidence--a facsimile page free of
> editing marks written in neither Latin nor English.
The page is plenty marked.
> <http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Images/HallManuscript.jpg>
No different from Diana's page. Too bad its the only
page you have and it won't verify your claim of a note.
> So let's see yours.
I added another possibility in a post called "intended for the presse."
but we'll need more than two shots of page 17 to test it out.
> > > > You never got close. You steered us to your rather flimsy assumption
> > > > that you find so intoxicating. It was cute.
> > >
> > > What are you finding so intoxicating?
> >
> > It's not me, it's you.
> > You ignore the details and invent a note to please yourself.
> > We're trying to run a newsgroup here.
>
> alt.humanities.lit.puerileinsults
alt.binary.reallythereisanotereallypleasebelieveme
> > > > Now you sound like Napoleon bragging about Waterloo.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't compare kicking your ass to Waterloo.
> >
> > You obviously are behind in your reading again.
> > You got torched. No wonder you haven't replied.
>
> I'm not in the position of Strats who can always turn to
> Canned Pap to get their Manufactured Excuses.
You are unique. Don't change.
> Kathman didn't even have to think for himself when he stranded
> Sir Dudley Digges at Aldermanbury without the crucial Strachey
> letter, he just turned to that fluttery airhead Hotson. Writer
> of 1920s serial romances.
Strachey brought his prerelease copy of Tempest
to the American shipwreck--that was my favorite.
> > I direct your attention to the title of this thread.
> > It contains your lie that there was a note attached to the journal.
> > Please retract that because you sure can't substantiate it.
>
> It's a deduction based on the available evidence.
And the morons. What was that? Only nonmorons can deduce
things that don't exist?
> > There's a note attached to you -- FRAGILE
>
> Stratfordianism only exists because Sir Sidney Lee was
> an amateur Freudian who began the very uncivil but also very
> effective process of damning anti-Strats with labels like
> "psychopath."
Bodacious chronology, Elizabeth. You left out his
fellowes printing his words and his picture and
the poet laureate of England praising him right
before the eyes of Renaissance genius Francis Bacon.
> A very ugly beginning for Stratfordianism
> but one they're apparently proud to maintain.
It doesn't take a Renaissance Genius to know that
letting your Burgher take all the credit and the fame
and the money was S t U p I d of Frankie.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
& coheire
TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B[U'C]HER son-in-law John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
WIL[]L of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November 1612
B[U'C]HER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/DOCS/elizwill.html
<<I the lady Elizabeth Vere Countesse Dowager of Oxenford late wife
of Edward de Vere late Earle of Oxenford doe make and ordayne
this my last will. . . Item I give vnto my worthie good friend
S{i}r Edward Mooreknight my longe SILVER BASON wth the eWER to it.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
And say wilt please your Lordship coole your hands.>>
Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
<<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
Second Servant:
<<WILL't please your mightiness to wash your hands?
O[xford?], how we joy to see your wit restored!
O[xford?], that once more you knew but what you are!
These fifteen years you have been in a dream;
Or when you WAKED, so WAKED as if you SLePT.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/thingitself.html
[Oxford Bible] Verses on Kathman's list but not Stritmatter's:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/1sam2611-12.gif
1 SAMUEL 26:12 So David took the SPEAR & the CRUSE of WATER
from Saul's bolster; and they gat them away, and no man saw it,
nor knew it, neither AWAKED: for they were all ASLEEP;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_The Annotated Mother Goose_
<<For centures, jumping over a candle has been both a sport and a way
of telling fortunes in England. A candlestick with a lighted candle in
it was placed on the floor. The person who could jump over it without
putting out the flame was assured of having good luck for a year.
This custom was associated with the festivities of the lace-makers
of Wendover in Buckinghamshire on St. Catherine's Day (Nov.25) -
the last popular holiday before Advent & a day for weddings.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<In medieval England, most weddings were held on November 25,
St. Catherine's Day. The festivities usually ended with a strange
ritual. A candlestick with a lighted candle was placed on the floor
and everyone took turns jumping over it. If you didn't extinguish the
flame, you'd have good luck for a full year. If you put out the flame,
you might as well write off the next year and take a long vacation.>>
Jack be nimble,
Jack be quick,
Jack jump over
The candlestick.
Do I envy those Jacks that nimble leap,
To kiss the tender inward of thy hand,
Whilst my poor lips which should that harvest reap,
At the woods boldness by thee blushing stand.
---------------------------------------------------------
Mousetrap opens Tue. November 25, 1952
Jack Hall dies Wed. November 25, 1635
Lope de Vega dies Sun. August 26, 1635
Lope de Vega born Wed. November 25, 1562
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
>
> > Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
> GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
> & coheire
> TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
> DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> B[U'C] <==< What's that? Does the marker acutally
say "butcher's son-in-law?"
> HER son-in-law John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
> WIL[]L of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November 1612
> B[U'C]HER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
>
>
>
Art Neuendorffer
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
> > GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
> > & coheire
> > TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
> > DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> > B[U'C] <==< What's that?
AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
L[CU]LIW
A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
> Does the marker acutally say "butcher's son-in-law?"
No but both Lope de Vega & John Hall were.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > The closer you look at any historical
> > > document connected with the Stratman,
> > > the more you find that goes against his
> > > case. (Why should that be so?)
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
>
> > Because the Stratfordian and Oxfordian cases have something
> > in common, Crowley. Both can attack [neither side bothers
> > to attack Bacon--they attack me instead and pretend its an
> > attack on the Baconian case] but neither can defend.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Nobody "attacks" the Baconian "case" -- it would be a bit like
> attacking Velikovskian planetary "science." There is no credible case,
Velikovskian planetary "science" is based upon the literal truth of
Biblical miracles which "Preachers apte to their auditors to showe."
Stratfordian literary "history" is based upon the literal truth of
Stratfordian legends which "Preachers apte to their auditors to showe."
> and it would be too easy a target. The few people who bother to respond
> merely refute the "case" decisively by pointing out a few of Baconians'
> copious blunders, comic misunderstandings, and wanton inventions. Nor
> does anyone "attack" Elizabeth Weird, who is far too incompetent to be a
> serious target of attack. Rather, numerous people have merely pointed
> that Elizabeth (1) doesn't know what she's talking about in objective
> factual matters (see her post on Russell's Nobel), (2) hasn't even read
> the primary sources she cites (see her post on Akrigg), (3) has
> farcically misunderstood the few secondary sources she has grepped on
> the web (see her comic contention that the geometry of Minkowski space
> is "hyperbolic geometry"), (4) makes things up as she goes along --
> unless those apparent inventions are actually hallucinations (see her
> assertion that Southampton played female roles on stage, or her gloss of
> the nonce-word "Shake-scene"), and (5) cannot furnish any evidence, even
> when asked for it repeatedly (see any of the above). How could one
> meaningfully "attack" such a thoroughly incompetent figure of fun?
Anti-Strats can & do meaningfully "attack" a thoroughly incompetent
figure of fun (i.e., moniment): the illiterate Stratford boob.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...]
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
>
> > > B[U'C] <==< What's that?
> AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
> L[CU]LIW
>
> A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
Thanks for clearing that up, Art -- plainly, the cuckoo in question
is aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Art Neuendorffer
HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
& coheire
TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WIL[]L of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November 1612
B[U'C]HER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
> > L[CU]LIW
> >
> > A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Thanks for clearing that up, Art -- plainly, the cuckoo in question
> is aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
--------------------------------------------------------
Some wicked wits have libeled all the fair. --Pope.
LIBEL, v. t. To defame, or expose to public hatred, contempt,
or ridicule, by a writing, picture, sign, etc.; to lampoon.
LIBEL, v. i. To spread defamation, written or printed.
What's this but libeling against the senate? --Shak.
[He] libels now 'gainst each great man. --Donne.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[CU]ckold, n. [OE. coc-{COU}, F. {COU}-{COU}, cf. L. CU-CU-lus.]
refering to the habit of the female CU-ckoo to lay her eggs
in the nests of other birds, to be hatched by them.
------------------------------------------------------------
_MINERVA BRITANNA_ Banner Folding:
(V I\V\ I T U R
I N G \E\ N I O
|C||E||T| E \R\ A M
|O||R||T| I S \E\ R
|U||N||T|
http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/title.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------
Billy BUDd: LIBEL-POTENT
"the HMS BELLI-POTENT" six times
& "the HMS INDOMITABLE" twenty-five times
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rape of Lucrece [Stanza 122]
'Why should the WORM intrude the maiden BUD?
Or hateful *CUCKOOS* hatch in SPARROWS' nests?
<<I am mad to think how minute a cause has prevented me hitherto from
reading Shakspeare. But until now, every copy that was come-atable
to me, happened to be in a VILE small print unendurable to my eyes
which are tender as *YOUNG SPARROWS* . But chancing to fall in
with this glorious edition, I now exult in it, PAGE after PAGE.>>
-- Melville Letter to Evert Duyckinck, February 24 1849
[T]o fill with WORM-holes stately monuments,
[T]o feed oblivion with decay of things,
[T]o BLOT old books and alter their contents,
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> > >
> > > > Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
> > > GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
> > > & coheire
> > > TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
> > > DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
>
> > > B[U'C] <==< What's that?
>
> AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
> L[CU]LIW
>
> A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
What--Anne Cecil's alleged cuckholding of Oxford? How
does "CU" stand for "a cuckoo's egg?" Where's the egg?
The parentheses?
Also, how can Oxfordians believe Oxford's version and still
accept De Vere's daughters as the De Vere bloodline? If their
mother was cuckholding De Vere as he claimed, then shouldn't
their names be removed from the official Oxfordian genealogy?
> > Does the marker acutally say "butcher's son-in-law?"
>
> No but both Lope de Vega & John Hall were.
>
> > > HER son-in-law John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
> > > WIL[]L of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November 1612
> > > B[U'C]HER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
All I get from B[U'C]HER is George Buc or Francois Boucher. Too bad
it isn't Poussin.
> > > <<I the lady Elizabeth Vere Countesse Dowager of Oxenford late wife
> > > of Edward de Vere late Earle of Oxenford doe make and ordayne
> > > this my last will. . . Item I give vnto my worthie good friend
> > > S{i}r Edward Mooreknight my longe SILVER BASON wth the eWER to it.>>
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > <<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
> > > Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
> > > Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
> > > And say wilt please your Lordship coole your hands.>>
Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason." Bacon is
Bassanio in the MoV [Antonio/Anthony and Bassanio/Bacon--and
the roles are from life]. Bassanio is the only role I'm sure
Bacon wrote himself into--Antonio/Anthony bailed him out from
his imprisonment by a "hard Jew" as in the play.
> > > Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
> > >
> > > <<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
> > > BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
If Bason is the attendant Bacon who is the attendant Ewer?
You vvere? [Groan].
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ewer \Ew"er\, n. [OF. ewer, euwier, prop. a water carrier, F.
['e]vier a washing place, sink, aigui[`e]re ewer, L.
aquarius, adj., water carrying, n., a water carrier, fr. aqua
water; akin to Goth. ahwa water, river, OHG, aha, G. au, aue,
meadow. [root]219. Cf. {Aquarium}, {Aquatic}, {Island}.]
A kind of widemouthed pitcher or jug; esp., one used to hold
water for the toilet.
Basins and ewers to lave her dainty hands. --Shak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit that the Shakespeare plays are swamped with word play--that
to be expected by the unstoppable jester Bacon [Jonson]--but I d
on't think that the word play indicates a conspiracy.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
> > > > GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
> > > > & coheire
> > > > TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
> > > > DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> >
> > > > B[U'C] <==< What's that?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
> > L[CU]LIW
> > A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> What--Anne Cecil's alleged cuckholding of Oxford?
Yes, that's one of the clues!
(Whether it is actually true or not is a secondary matter.)
What matters is the whole complex riddle that
we are asked to: "READ IF THOU CANST"
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> How does "CU" stand for "a cuckoo's egg?"
> Where's the egg? The parentheses?
Well then make it the {COU}-{COU}chick itself if you prefer:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[CU]ckold, n. [OE. coc-{COU}, F. {COU}-{COU}, cf. L. CU-CU-lus.]
refering to the habit of the female CU-ckoo to lay her eggs
in the nests of other birds, to be hatched by them.
------------------------------------------------------------
_MINERVA BRITANNA_ Banner Folding:
(V I\V\ I T U R
I N G \E\ N I O
|C||E||T| E \R\ A M
|O||R||T| I S \E\ R
|U||N||T|
http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/title.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rape of Lucrece [Stanza 122]
'Why should the WORM intrude the maiden BUD?
Or hateful *CUCKOOS* hatch in SPARROWS' nests?
<<I am mad to think how minute a cause has prevented me hitherto from
reading Shakspeare. But until now, every copy that was come-atable
to me, happened to be in a VILE small print unendurable to my eyes
which are tender as *YOUNG SPARROWS* . But chancing to fall in
with this glorious edition, I now exult in it, PAGE after PAGE.>>
-- Melville Letter to Evert Duyckinck, February 24 1849
[T]o fill with WORM-holes stately monuments,
[T]o feed oblivion with decay of things,
[T]o BLOT old books and alter their contents,
----------------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Also, how can Oxfordians believe Oxford's version and still
> accept De Vere's daughters as the De Vere bloodline? If their
> mother was cuckholding De Vere as he claimed, then shouldn't
> their names be removed from the official Oxfordian genealogy?
The daughters were "NO HEIR begotten of his body."
The "son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME* "
was either:
1) His plays (which got published) or
2) His son Henry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldinfozone.com/features.php?section=Richmond
<<*SHENE* was the palace of *Henry V*>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<= 28 DOTS =>
TOTHEO /N/ LIEB/E/G E. TTER *oF* THES /E/ IN [S]
UINGS /O/ NNET/ß/MRW \H\ ALLH *A* PPI /N/ ESS [E]
[A] NDT /H/ ATET/E/RNITI \E\ PRO *M* IS /E/ DBYO [U]
[R] EV /E/ RLIV/I/NGPOETW \I\ SH *E* T /H/ THEWE [L]
[L] W /I/ SHIN/G/ADVENTURE \R\ IN /S/ ETTING [F]
[O] /R/ TH
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME* ,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Leaving NO HEIR begotten of his body--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dedication to Oxford in Fairie Queene (1590)
-----------------------------------------------------------
To the right Honourable the Earle of Oxenford,
Lord high Chamberlayne of England. &c.
REceiue most Noble Lord in gentle gree,
The vnripe fruit of an vnready WIT:
Which by thy countenaunce doth craue to bee
Defended from foule *ENUIES* poisnous bit.
(W)hich so to doe may thee right well befit,
(S)ith th'antique glory of thine auncestry
*Vnder a shady VELE is therein writ* ,
[VELLE = L., to WILL]
And eke thine owne long *liuing MEMORY* ,
Succeeding them in TRUE nobility:
And also for the loue, which thou doest beare
To th'HELICONian ymps, and they to thee,
They vnto thee, and thou to them most deare:
Deare as thou art unto thy selfe, so loue
That loues & honours thee, as doth behoue. -- E.S.
----------------------------------------------------------
<<The Muses: These Greek deities of art and inspiration are among
the most familiar of the ancient divinities. Originally there
were only 3, at Mount HELICON: Melete, M N E M E , and Aoide.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of *MEMORY*, great HEIR of FAME,
TOT HEONL IEBE
GET TEROF THES
EIN SVING [S] ONN
ETS [M] R WHA [L] LHA
PPI [N] E SS E [A] NDT
HAT [E] T ER N [I] TIE
PRO [M] I SE D [B] YOV
REV [E] R LI V [I] NGP
OET WISH E [T] HTH
EWE LLWI [S.] [H.] ING
ADV ENTV [R.] [E.] RIN
SET TING [F.] [O.] RTH
---------------------------------------------------------
F.R.S.: [F]ellowship of the [R]oyal [S]ociety.
---------------------------------------------------------
> > > Does the marker acutally say "butcher's son-in-law?"
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > No but both Lope de Vega & John Hall were.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > HER son-in-law John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
> > > > WIL[]L of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November 1612
> > > > B[U'C]HER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> All I get from B[U'C]HER is George Buc or Francois Boucher.
> Too bad it isn't Poussin.
I'm not asking people accept everything I write;
just that they read the parts that seem interesting to them.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > <<I the lady Elizabeth Vere Countesse Dowager of Oxenford late wife
> > > > of Edward de Vere late Earle of Oxenford doe make and ordayne
> > > > this my last will. . . Item I give vnto my worthie good friend
> > > > S{i}r Edward Mooreknight my longe SILVER BASON wth the eWER to it.>>
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > <<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
> > > > Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
> > > > Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
> > > > And say wilt please your Lordship coole your hands.>>
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason."
Basin [OF. bacin, F. bassin, It. bacino]
Like the boar and the term VER. . . it is
one of many ambiguities connectioning the two cousins.
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> Bacon is
> Bassanio in the MoV [Antonio/Anthony and Bassanio/Bacon--
> and the roles are from life]. Bassanio is the only role I'm sure
> Bacon wrote himself into--Antonio/Anthony bailed him out from
> his imprisonment by a "hard Jew" as in the play.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
> > > >
> > > > <<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
> > > > BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> If Bason is the attendant Bacon who is the attendant Ewer?
> You vvere? [Groan].
You're Weir, too. :-)
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ewer \Ew"er\, n. [OF. ewer, euwier, prop. a water carrier, F.
> ['e]vier a washing place, sink, aigui[`e]re ewer, L.
> aquarius, adj., water carrying, n., a water carrier, fr. aqua
> water; akin to Goth. ahwa water, river, OHG, aha, G. au, aue,
> meadow. [root]219. Cf. {Aquarium}, {Aquatic}, {Island}.]
> A kind of widemouthed pitcher or jug; esp., one used to hold
> water for the toilet.
>
> Basins and ewers to lave her dainty hands. --Shak.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> I admit that the Shakespeare plays are swamped with word play--that
> to be expected by the unstoppable jester Bacon [Jonson]--but I d
> on't think that the word play indicates a conspiracy.
The omnipresent Goon Squad is more than enough indication of a conspiracy.
> > > > Second Servant:
> > > >
> > > > <<WILL't please your mightiness to wash your hands?
> > > > O[xford?], how we joy to see your wit restored!
> > > > O[xford?], that once more you knew but what you are!
> > > > These fifteen years you have been in a dream;
> > > > Or when you WAKED, so WAKED as if you SLePT.>>
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
In article <efbc3534.03022...@posting.google.com>,
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
aneuendor...@comicass.nut always has trouble following the
thread.
> > > > HER son-in-law John Hall dies Wed. 25 November, 1635
> > > > WIL[]L of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, Wed. 25 November 1612
> > > > B[U'C]HER son-in-law Lope de Vega born Wed. 25 November, 1562
> All I get from B[U'C]HER is George Buc or Francois Boucher. Too bad
> it isn't Poussin.
> > > > <<I the lady Elizabeth Vere Countesse Dowager of Oxenford late wife
> > > > of Edward de Vere late Earle of Oxenford doe make and ordayne
> > > > this my last will. . . Item I give vnto my worthie good friend
> > > > S{i}r Edward Mooreknight my longe SILVER BASON wth the eWER to it.>>
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > <<Let one attend him vvith a SILUER BASON
> > > > Full of Rose-water, and bestrew'd with Flowers,
> > > > Another beare the EWER: the third a Diaper,
> > > > And say wilt please your Lordship coole your hands.>>
> Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason." Bacon is
> Bassanio in the MoV [Antonio/Anthony and Bassanio/Bacon--and
> the roles are from life]. Bassanio is the only role I'm sure
> Bacon wrote himself into--Antonio/Anthony bailed him out from
> his imprisonment by a "hard Jew" as in the play.
There is only one possible response to what must be among the
funniest gems ever posted to h.l.a.s.:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> > > > Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_
> > > >
> > > > <<Enter aloft the drunkard with attendants, some with apparel,
> > > > BASON and EWER, & other appurtenances, & Lord.]>>
> If Bason is the attendant Bacon who is the attendant Ewer?
> You vvere? [Groan].
No, "Ewer" is quite obviously "E. Weir."
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
David L. Webb
> > > > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
> > > > > GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
> > > > > & coheire
> > > > > TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
> > > > > DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
> > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> > >
> > > > > B[U'C] <==< What's that?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
> > > L[CU]LIW
> > > A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > What--Anne Cecil's alleged cuckholding of Oxford?
"Cú" is Irish Gaelic for "hound"; Art is barking up the wrong tree,
as always.
> Yes, that's one of the clues!
> (Whether it is actually true or not is a secondary matter.)
Congratulations, Art -- I've neVER seen the Oxfordian credo expressed
so succinctly and clearly!
> What matters is the whole complex riddle that
> we are asked to: "READ IF THOU CANST"
Plainly, thou canst not.
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > How does "CU" stand for "a cuckoo's egg?"
> > Where's the egg? The parentheses?
As noted, "cú" is Irish Gaelic for "hound"; Art is barking up the
wrong tree, as always.
> Well then make it the {COU}-{COU}chick itself if you prefer:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> [CU]ckold, n. [OE. coc-{COU}, F. {COU}-{COU}, cf. L. CU-CU-lus.]
> refering to the habit of the female CU-ckoo to lay her eggs
> in the nests of other birds, to be hatched by them.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _MINERVA BRITANNA_ Banner Folding:
>
> (V I\V\ I T U R
> I N G \E\ N I O
> |C||E||T| E \R\ A M
> |O||R||T| I S \E\ R
> |U||N||T|
>
> http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/title.jpg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The Rape of Lucrece [Stanza 122]
>
> 'Why should the WORM intrude the maiden BUD?
> Or hateful *CUCKOOS* hatch in SPARROWS' nests?
>
> <<I am mad
Yep!
> to think how minute a cause has prevented me hitherto from
> reading Shakspeare. But until now, every copy that was come-atable
> to me, happened to be in a VILE small print unendurable to my eyes
> which are tender as *YOUNG SPARROWS* . But chancing to fall in
> with this glorious edition, I now exult in it, PAGE after PAGE.>>
> -- Melville Letter to Evert Duyckinck, February 24 1849
>
> [T]o fill with WORM-holes stately monuments,
> [T]o feed oblivion with decay of things,
> [T]o BLOT old books and alter their contents,
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, how can Oxfordians believe Oxford's version and still
> > accept De Vere's daughters as the De Vere bloodline? If their
> > mother was cuckholding De Vere as he claimed, then shouldn't
> > their names be removed from the official Oxfordian genealogy?
> The daughters were "NO HEIR begotten of his body."
Then who begot them, Art? Inquiring minds want to know!
> The "son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME* "
> was either:
>
> 1) His plays (which got published)
None of Oxford's plays "got published." The less said about at least
some of his VERse, the better.
> or
> 2) His son Henry
But Art -- Mr. Streitz suggests that William Cecil was the father (by
his own daughter) of Oxford's supposed son, and that Cecil conspired to
have Oxford murdered (by pirates, no less)! Can Mr. Streitz be wrong?
His book got PUBLISHED, you know!
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > All I get from B[U'C]HER is George Buc or Francois Boucher.
> > Too bad it isn't Poussin.
> I'm not asking people accept everything I write;
> just that they read the parts that seem interesting to them.
If you wish anyone to find your *any* parts "interesting," then why
do you keep posting the same idiotic crap oVER and oVER?
[...]
> > I admit that the Shakespeare plays are swamped with word play--that
> > to be expected by the unstoppable jester Bacon [Jonson]--but I d
> > on't think that the word play indicates a conspiracy.
> The omnipresent Goon Squad is more than enough indication of a conspiracy.
A conspiracy of the sane? No wonder the supposed conspiracy appears
to involve nearly eVERyone on the planet except you and a few of your
fellow anti-Stratfordians, Art.
[...]
John W. Kennedy
> Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason."
No, as a matter of fact, "bacon" is a French word, and it is not
pronounced so, nor could it be pronounced so by the rules of French
orthography.
Doesn't it get to be a bore after a while, making up "facts" and getting
caught?
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. John Hall died in 1635.
>
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF IOHN HALL
> > > > > > GENT : HEE MAR : SVSANNA YE DAVGH
> > > > > > & coheire
> > > > > > TER OF WILL : SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE
> > > > > > DECEASED NOVE. 25 An 1635, AGED 60.
> > > > >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote :
> > > >
> > > > > > B[U'C] <==< What's that?
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > AZBY code for O[XF]ORD:
> > > > L[CU]LIW
>
> > > > A Cuckoo's egg in "WILL".
>
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What--Anne Cecil's alleged cuckholding of Oxford?
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > Yes, that's one of the clues!
> > (Whether it is actually true or not is a secondary matter.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Congratulations, Art -- I've neVER seen the Oxfordian credo
> expressed so succinctly and clearly!
> "Cú" is Irish Gaelic for "hound"; Art is barking up the wrong tree,
----------------------------------------------------------------
PUCK Sometime a horse I'll be, sometime a HOUND,
A hog, a headless bear, sometime a fire;
And neigh, and bark, and grunt, and roar, and burn,
Like horse, HOUND, hog, bear, fire, at EVERy turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I have no desire
to call to mind, there lived not long since one of those gentlemen
that keep a lance in the lance-rack, an old buckler, a lean hack,
and a GREYHOUND for coursing.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Brooke drowned in the wreck of the GREYHOUND,
March 21, 1562.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The sign of the white GREYHOUND
------------------------------------------------------
VENVS AND ADONIS
Imprinted by Richard Field, and are to be fold at the
figne of the white GREYHOUND in Paules Church-yard. 1593.
"LUCRECE. London.
Printed by Richard Field, for Iohn Harrison,
and are to be sold at the signe of
the white GREYHOUND in Paules Church-yard, 1594" 4to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A greyHOUND/TALBOT chasing a hare was a very important symbol:
1610 Spencer's _Faerie Queene_,
1611 King James Bible,
1614 Raleigh's _History of the World_
1620 Bacon's _Novum Organum_
1623 Shakespeare _Folio_
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/abaconi1.htm
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/spenser2.html
The HOUNDs like the TALBOT usually have large drooping ears.
http://www.adopt-a-greyhound.org/gallery/new-4rubens2.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Shakspere's son-in-law John Hall died at New Place on
25 November 1635 and was interred in the chancel. His arms
(three TALBOT heads erased), are impaled with Shakespeare's.>>
_Shakespeare a Life_,p. 398, Park Honan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hall's son-in-law Thomas Nash died in 1647 and was buried
in the 'Tombe' to the immediate right of W.Shakspere.
His namesake Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) wrote:
"How would it have joyed brave TALBOT (the terror of the French)
to think that after he had lyne two hundred yeares in his TOMBE,
hee should triumphe again on the Stage, and have his bones newe
embalmed with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least;"
-- _Pierce Penilesse his Supplication to the Diuel_(1592)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Act 4, Scene 2
HOLOFERNES Ovidius Naso was the man: and why, indeed, Naso,
but for smelling out the odouriferous flowers of
fancy, the jerks of invention? Imitari is nothing:
so doth the HOUND his master, the APE his keeper,
the tired horse his rider.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry VII., a lion and dragon; two GREYHOUNDs argent;
Elizabeth, Mary, and Henry VIII., a lion & GREYHOUND.
GREYHOUND: A public-house sign, in honour of Henry VII.,
whose badge it was.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sterling.holycross.edu/departments/visarts/projects/anglia/mbse19.htm
<<St. Mary, Bury St. Edmunds, Tomb of Sir William (+ 1501) and Lady
Margaret (+ 1525) Carew, north side of chancel. William is in armor
with feet resting on a lion. Margaret is richly dressed with feet
resting on two dogs, a TALBOT & greyHOUND.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAELAPS & the NILE
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://library.thinkquest.org/10395/text/canisma.html
<<When Procris, daughter of Thespius, married CEPHALUS in ancient
Greece, she received two unique wedding presents. One gift was a dart,
which, once hurled, would seek out its target, trail it and then make a
hit. The other present was the HOUND dog, Laelaps, which, once started
on a scent left by an animal, would always get his quarry. Procris
valued these gifts highly. Her husband, CEPHALUS persuaded her to let
him use them on a hunting trip. While he was gone, Procris became lonely
for him, as she loved her husband very much, and decided to join him at
his camp. Wishing to surprise him, she left secretly. At the camp.
watchdog Laelaps growled an alert to CEPHALUS, who thought that the
rustle made by Procris was that of a wild animal. He quickly hurled
the unerring dart into the dark, silencing Procris forever.
Laelaps was placed in the skies following Orion, where he is doomed
forever to chase LEPUS the HARE in the southern sky just out of reach of
his JAWS. Laelaps was permitted however, to be the weather watchdog for
the Egyptians across the Mediterranena. From his orbiting position high
in the sky, he could watch the Upper Nile River. When the NILE
floodwaters started north, he would alert the people to have their
fields ready for irrigation. How did he do this? The priests in the
temples would daily watch the rising sun. As soon as Canis Major
showed his JAWS, as represented by Sirius rising shortly before
the sun did, the priests would send the signal over the countryside.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Gelert or "the Grave of the GREYHOUND."
A ballad by the Hon.William Robert Spencer.
The tale is that one day Llewellyn returned from hunting,
when his favourite hound, covered with gore, ran to meet him.
The chieftain ran to see if anything had happened to his infant son,
found the CRADLE overturned, and all around was sprinkled with gore &
blood. Thinking the hound had eaten the child, he stabbed it to the
heart. Afterwards he found the babe quite safe, and a huge wolf under
the bed, quite dead. Gêlert had killed the wolf and saved the child.
--------------------------------------------------------------
KING RICHARD II Act 3, Scene 2
KING RICHARD II: DOGS, EASILY WON TO FAWN ON ANY MAN!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard II.'s GREYHOUND was named MATHE. It deserted the king
and attached itself to Bolingbroke (Henry IV).
http://www.bibliomania.com//Reference/PhraseAndFable/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
The [London] Greyhound Bus Station is at the corner of
York & TALBOT streets.
http://bhlegends.homestead.com/BreedHISTORY.html
<<It is thought that the white St Huberts were probably crossed with
other white French hounds, and that from these came the early TALBOT
hounds, which were introduced into England by William the Conqueror and
by the TALBOT family, who came from Normandy and were later the Earls of
Shrewsbury. This well-known family have as their coat of arms two white
TALBOT hounds supporting the escutcheon. There are many inn signs
portraying these hounds to be found in England, especially in Somerset
and Gloucestershire. The TALBOT hounds flourished in the Middle Ages
but they died out in Europe in the 16th century. They were known,
however, in England for a much longer period, the last adult ones
there having died out between 1776 and 1812.
An early description of the TALBOT hound is interesting: 'This hound has
a round thick head, with a short nose uprising. Large open nostrils.
Ears exceedingly large and thin, and down hanging much lower than his
chaps. The flews if his upper lips are almost two inches lower than his
nether chaps; back long and straight. Huckle bones round and hidden.
Thighs round. Hams straight. Tail long and rush grown--that is, big at
the setting on, and small downwards. Legs large and lean, foot
high-knuckled, and well clawed, with dry hard sole. Such was
the ancient hound, the ancestor of our modern Bloodhound.'
From the early TALBOT hounds came the Southern Hounds, which were
mostly white & lightly marked. They were bad-fronted, heavy-headed,
deep-flewed and had extremely long ears and hanging dewlaps. The
Northern Hounds were large but lighter in bone and therefore faster.
They were also smaller in head. The old Dunne Hounde was a red brown,
generally a solid colour, and is mentioned in Tubervile in 1576.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
Don Quixote by Cervantes - Translated by John Ormsby
PART 1 - CHAPTER VI
"I should have shed tears myself," said the curate when he heard
the title, "had I ordered that book to be burned, for its author
was one of the famous poets of the world, not to say of Spain,
and was very happy in the translation of some of Ovid's fables."
PART 1 - CHAPTER IX
it is the business and duty of historians to be exact, truthful, and
wholly free from passion, and neither interest nor fear, hatred nor
love, should make them swerve from the path of truth, whose mother
is history, rival of time, storehouse of deeds, witness for the
past, example and counsel for the present, and warning for the
future. In this I know will be found all that can be desired in the
pleasantest, and if it be wanting in any good quality, I maintain it
is the fault of its hound of an author and not the fault of the
subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the siege of *Sluys* young Sir Francis Vere greatly distinguished
himself under Sir *Roger Williams* & Sir Thomas *Baskerville* .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reichenbach Falls: May 4, 1891
Post Reichenbach pre-Hiatus Holmes books:
May 4, 1847 A Study in Scarlet
May 4, 1882 The Sign of the Four.
May 4, 1889? The Hound of the Baskervilles
May 4, 1891 Reichenbach Falls Hiatus
May 4, 1899? The Hound of the Baskervilles
-----------------------------------------------------
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES
-----------------------------------------------------
"The facts of the case are simple. Sir Charles Baskerville was in the
habit every night before going to bed of walking down the famous yew
alley of Baskerville Hall. The evidence of the Barrymores shows that
this had been his custom. On the fourth of May Sir Charles had declared
his intention of starting next day for London, and had ordered Barrymore
to prepare his luggage. That night he went out as usual for his
nocturnal walk, in the course of which he was in the habit
of smoking a cigar. He never returned."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
published Time May 4 date May 4 Astrological
events
-------- ------ -----------
Stud: 1887 1881 1847 => Jup/Ven & Merc/Uran & Nept/Mars
Sign: 1889 1888 1882 => Jupiter/Venus & Merc/Nept/Satu
Bask: 1901 1889 1889 => Merc/Mars & Venus/Sun(on May 3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, October 13, 1899
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dating of the *Hound of the* Baskervilles
By Henry T. Folsom
http://www.parkcity.ne.jp/~hirayama/houndate.htm
<<The first problem that the chronologist faces in dating The Hound of
the Baskervilles is the apparent discrepancy in the implied year. A
simple reading of the text clearly indicates 1889, because Holmes speaks
of the date "1884", engraved on Dr. Mortimer's walking stick, as being
five years old. Also, the doctor's biography in the Medical Dictionary
is full of dates in the eighties. However, 1889 is an impossibility for
several reasons.
If we accept this as a post-Hiatus case, it becomes fairly easy to
determine the year: Sir Henry and Watson were to dine at Merripit House
on October 19; we know this because it was the day after October 18,
when Watson had met Holmes on the moor. We are also told explicitly that
the dinner engagement was set for Friday. This juxtaposition of Friday
and October 19 took place only twice after the return - 1894 and 1900.
We know that Holmes and Watson left for Dartmoor
on Saturday? , September 29 - two weeks before October 13,
the date of Watson's first written report to Holmes. Incidentally,
this Saturday departure is confirmed by Sir Henry's earlier remark
that he would be going Baskerville Hall at the "end of the week". Then
working backward, we know that during the two days previous to their
departure they had not been shadowed; that would be Thursday and Friday,
the 27th and 28th. They had met Sir Henry the day before on Wednesday,
the 26th, which was the day after their initial meeting with Dr.
Mortimer. Thus the case opened on Tuesday, September 25.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<By the morning of Friday, 13 October, 15,000 people had been seized.
"The arrest was illegal; the civil authority could not arrest clerics
responsible only to Rome. But Philip hoped to substantiate certain
charges: denial of Christ, idol worship, spitting on the crucifix,
and homosexuality - unnatural vice was a practice associated
with the Albigensians and all these accusations
were the stock in trade of heresy trials.
The French Inquisition staffed by Dominicans, 'Hound of the Lord', was
expert at extracting confessions. The brethren, unlettered soldiers,
faced a combination of cross-examining lawyers and torture chambers
whose instruments included the thumbscrew, the boot, and a rack to
dislocate limbs. Men were spread-eagled and crushed by lead weights or
filled with water through a funnel till they suffocated. there was also
'burning in the feet'. Probably the most excruciating torments were the
simplest - wedges hammered under finger nails, teeth wrenched out and
the exposed nerves prodded. The Templars would have resisted any torment
by Moslems but now, weakened by confinement in damp, filthy cells and
systematic starvation, they despaired when the torture was inflicted
by fellow Christians." >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-10.htm
Ragnarok
Ragna, plural of the Icelandic regin (god, ruler) + rok (ground, cause,
or origin) is the time when the ruling gods return to their root, their
ground, at the end of the world. The horrors depicted as accompanying
the departure of the gods are indeed chilling, punctuated by the howling
of the hound of Hel; however, this is not the end. After the toppling of
the world tree, the poem continues to describe the birth of a new world
and ends on a note of serene contentment at the dawn of a new age.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Old Curiosity Shop by Charles Dickens ** ( CHAPTER 51 )
This KIT is one of your honest people; one of your fair characters;
a prowling prying hound; a hypocrite; a double- faced, white-
liVERED, sneaking spy; a crouching cur to those that feed
and coax him, and a barking yelping dog to all besides.'
------------------------------------------------------------------
_Black dogs in folklore_ by Bob Trubshaw
For he was speechless, ghastly, wan,
Like him of whom the story ran,
Who spoke the spectre hound in man.
Sir Walter Scott, The lay of the last minstrel, Canto VI, v.26.
<<On Sunday 4th August 1577 an extremely violent thunderstorm
shook the church of Bungay, Suffolk. A fearful-looking black dog
appeared inside the church, in front of the parishioners. Two
who were touched by the animal were instantly killed and a third
shrivelled up like a drawn purse. On the same day a similar hound
appeared in the church at Blythburgh, seven miles away, also
killing three people and 'blasting' others. The market's
weathervane depicts the fiendish hound. Other such devastating
apparitions had been recorded, for sometime before 1613 a
bull-like creature manifested inside the church at Great Chart
in Kent, leaving a trail of dead and seriously injured,
before demolishing part of a wall and disappearing.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"you never clapped your eyes on that Black--Black Dog before,"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "GRIFFIN" family name originated in Cardiganshire, Wales.
http://www.cproots.com/namesgriffin.htm
The Shield is: Black with a silver griffin.
The Crest is: A black dog's head.
The motto is: "Ne Vile Velis"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > What matters is the whole complex riddle that
> > we are asked to: "READ IF THOU CANST"
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Plainly, thou canst not.
>
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > How does "CU" stand for "a cuckoo's egg?"
> > > Where's the egg? The parentheses?
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> As noted, "cú" is Irish Gaelic for "hound"; Art is barking up the
> wrong tree, as always.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > Well then make it the {COU}-{COU}chick itself if you prefer:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > [CU]ckold, n. [OE. coc-{COU}, F. {COU}-{COU}, cf. L. CU-CU-lus.]
> > refering to the habit of the female CU-ckoo to lay her eggs
> > in the nests of other birds, to be hatched by them.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > _MINERVA BRITANNA_ Banner Folding:
> >
> > (V I\V\ I T U R
> > I N G \E\ N I O
> > |C||E||T| E \R\ A M
> > |O||R||T| I S \E\ R
> > |U||N||T|
> >
> > http://f01.middlebury.edu/FS010A/students/Minerva/title.jpg
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > The Rape of Lucrece [Stanza 122]
> >
> > 'Why should the WORM intrude the maiden BUD?
> > Or hateful *CUCKOOS* hatch in SPARROWS' nests?
> >
> > <<I am mad
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Yep!
>
> > to think how minute a cause has prevented me hitherto from
> > reading Shakspeare. But until now, every copy that was come-atable
> > to me, happened to be in a VILE small print unendurable to my eyes
> > which are tender as *YOUNG SPARROWS* . But chancing to fall in
> > with this glorious edition, I now exult in it, PAGE after PAGE.>>
> > -- Melville Letter to Evert Duyckinck, February 24 1849
> >
> > [T]o fill with WORM-holes stately monuments,
> > [T]o feed oblivion with decay of things,
> > [T]o BLOT old books and alter their contents,
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also, how can Oxfordians believe Oxford's version and still
> > > accept De Vere's daughters as the De Vere bloodline? If their
> > > mother was cuckholding De Vere as he claimed, then shouldn't
> > > their names be removed from the official Oxfordian genealogy?
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > The daughters were "NO HEIR begotten of his body."
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Then who begot them, Art? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oxford may well have begot them but they were "NO HEIR"
just "HELICONian ymps"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldinfozone.com/features.php?section=Richmond
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > The "son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME* "
> > was either:
> >
> > 1) His plays (which got published)
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> None of Oxford's plays "got published."
None of Oxford's plays "got published" with his name on them.
> The less said about at least some of his VERse, the better.
Of his juvenile VERse which "got published" with his name on them:
"Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, shows, here and there, a faint talent,"
-- C.S. Lewis _Oxford History of English Literatrue_
---------------------------------------------------------------
July 12, 1819, Mon. Charles [K]INGSLEY born
Nov 22, 1819, Mon. George [E]LIOT born [=[E]vans, MARIAN]
May 31, 1819, Mon. Walt [W]HITMAN born
+ 144
------------------
Nov 22, 1963, Fri. Jack [K]ennedy assassinated
Nov 22, 1963, Fri. C.S. (Jack) l[EW]is dies
Nov 22, 1963, Fri. Aldous Huxley dies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rev 21:17: And he measured the *wall* thereof, an hundred
and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 1819, Fri. Arthur Hugh Clough born
Nov 12, 1819, Fri. Percy Florence SHELLEY born
---------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > or 2) His son Henry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldinfozone.com/features.php?section=Richmond
<<*SHENE* was the palace of *Henry V*>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<= 28 DOTS =>
TOTHEO /N/ LIEB/E/G E. TTER *oF* THES /E/ IN [S]
UINGS /O/ NNET/ß/MRW \H\ ALLH *A* PPI /N/ ESS [E]
[A] NDT /H/ ATET/E/RNITI \E\ PRO *M* IS /E/ DBYO [U]
[R] EV /E/ RLIV/I/NGPOETW \I\ SH *E* T /H/ THEWE [L]
[L] W /I/ SHIN/G/ADVENTURE \R\ IN /S/ ETTING [F]
[O] /R/ TH
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME* ,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Leaving NO HEIR begotten of his body--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> But Art -- Mr. Streitz suggests that William Cecil was the father (by
> his own daughter) of Oxford's supposed son, and that Cecil conspired to
> have Oxford murdered (by pirates, no less)! Can Mr. Streitz be wrong?
Kein Ende des Streits!
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > All I get from B[U'C]HER is George Buc or Francois Boucher.
> > > Too bad it isn't Poussin.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > I'm not asking people accept everything I write;
> > just that they read the parts that seem interesting to them.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> If you wish anyone to find your *any* parts "interesting," then why
> do you keep posting the same idiotic crap oVER and oVER?
In order to differentiate it from the mistakes that I posted only once
but that you keep posting the same idiotic crap oVER and oVER?
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > I admit that the Shakespeare plays are swamped with word play--that
> > > to be expected by the unstoppable jester Bacon [Jonson]--but I d
> > > on't think that the word play indicates a conspiracy.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > The omnipresent Goon Squad is more than enough indication of a
conspiracy.
>
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> A conspiracy of the sane?
No, conspiracy of the ill-mannered
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> No wonder the supposed conspiracy appears
> to involve nearly eVERyone on the planet except you
> and a few of your fellow anti-Stratfordians, Art.
Hardly anyone on the planet gives a damn about authorship so this pretty
much excludes the Freemason conspiracy, as well as, my fellow
anti-Stratfordians.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason."
>
> No, as a matter of fact, "bacon" is a French word, and it is not
> pronounced so, nor could it be pronounced so by the rules of French
> orthography.
Bacon in French is not "bacon." Bacon is a Norman-French word
spelled "bacean" meaning "beech." Lord Beech Tree.
Bacon in French is "lard" and surely you can remember Webb's
tediousness on Homelette au Lard:
If this and the anagram of _grudinka_ were not enough, in
the third paragraph the parody waxes ridiculous: scribbled
underneath in the same hand is "Ham-let [note the hyphenation:
'little ham'], or Homelette au Lard."
Webb adds, "The last phrase is of course French for "bacon
omelette"!" And Bacon was a ham--he could not pass by a
jeste [Jonson, Dominus Verulnum].
> Doesn't it get to be a bore after a while, making up "facts" and getting
> caught?
Are you calling Webb a bore and a liar? I doubt you're going to
be able to prove the latter. Kennedy.
Now the following from Bend Sinister is interesting because
Nabokov tells us the name of the author of the Shakespeare works:
> "His name is protean. He begets doubles at every corner. His penmanship
> is unconsciously faked by lawyers who happen to write a similar hand. On
> the wet morning of November 27, 1582, he is Shaxpere and she is a Wately
> of Temple Grafton. A couple of days later he is Shagsper and she is a
> Hathaway of Stratford-on-Avon. Who is he? William X, cunningly composed
> of two left arms and a mask.
Who else? The person who said (not for the first time)
that the glory of God is to hide a thing, and the glory of
man is to find it.
Who else.
For he [Solomon] sayeth expressly, the Glory of God is
to conceal a thing, but the Glory of a King is to find
it out [Proverbs xxv, 2]: as if according to that innocent
and affectionate play of Children, the Divine Majesty took
delight to hide his works, to the end to have them found out;
and as if Kings could not obtain greater Honour, than to be
God's play-fellows in that game; specially considering the
great command they have of wits and means, whereby the
investigation of all things may be perfected.
Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning (1605), Bk I
Webb misses the irony in the next line:
> However, the fact that the Warwickshire fellow wrote
> the plays is most satisfactorily proved on the strength of an applejohn
> and a pale primrose(1)."
>
> --Vladmir [sic] Nabokov, from <<Bend Sinister>>
John W. Kennedy
> Bacon in French is "lard"
Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
French word "bacon".
By the way, stop lying about Nabokov.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<Cr97a.588207$HG.105...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>
>>>Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason."
>>
>>No, as a matter of fact, "bacon" is a French word, and it is not
>>pronounced so, nor could it be pronounced so by the rules of French
>>orthography.
>
>
> Bacon in French is not "bacon." Bacon is a Norman-French word
> spelled "bacean" meaning "beech." Lord Beech Tree.
Citation? I cannot find "bacean" in any Anglo-Norman dictionary. OF is
"haistre" (MF "hętre"). OE is "bece" ("c" as in "church"). Germanic
languages in general are "bek..." or "bok...".
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > Bacon in French is "lard"
>
> Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
> French word "bacon".
Stop lying, Kennedy.
> By the way, stop lying about Nabokov.
Stop lying about Nabokov, Bacon and--I can't believe this--bacon!
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. His name is protean.
Bacon wrote the
Masque of Proteus and the treatis Proteus sive Materia but
as a polymath genius Bacon is often referred to as protean
or a Proteus. There are also about a dozen or more allusions
to Bacon as a concealed author who wrote under various masks.
2. He begets doubles at every corner.
Hall and Marston refer to the fact that Bacon wrote under
"Spenser," "Marlowe" and "Shakespeare" while Bacon's
translator, the meticulous classicist Spedding found
that Bacon was a ghostwriter for Walsingham, Burghley,
Essex, Elizabeth, and James.
3. His penmanship is unconsciously faked by lawyers
who happen to write a similar hand.
Neither Oxford, Marlowe or the Burgher were lawyers. Bacon was
a Bencher, Solictitor General, Elizabeth's Councillor
Extraordinare, a judge inside the Verge, Attorney General
and Lord Chief Justice.
And of course Bacon "wrote in a similar hand" to the Burgher's
since Bacon's hand is on the Henry IV fragment. According to
Sotheby's.
4. On the wet morning of November 27, 1582, he is Shaxpere. . .
Nabokov throwing doubt on the Burgher.
4. Who is he? William X, cunningly composed
of two left arms and a mask.
William X cannot be William Shaxpere since Shaxpere
is named. William X is someone else.
The Droeshout has two left arms and a mask. And of
course the title, Bend Sinister, evokes the bent left
arm and the mask.
5. Who else?
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Nabokov would satirize the Bible.
----------------------------------------------------------
6. The person who said (not for the first time) . . .
The phrase (not for the first time) is a reference to
the writer of Proverbs.
7. . . . that the glory of God is to hide a thing,
and the glory of man is to find it.
For he [Solomon] sayeth expressly, the Glory of God is
to conceal a thing, but the Glory of a King is to find
it out [Proverbs xxv, 2]: as if according to that innocent
and affectionate play of Children, the Divine Majesty took
delight to hide his works, to the end to have them found out;
and as if Kings could not obtain greater Honour, than to be
God's play-fellows in that game; specially considering the
great command they have of wits and means, whereby the
investigation of all things may be perfected.
Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning (1605), Bk I
---------------------------------------------------------------
If Nabokov is satirizing Bacon by using Proverbs xxv, 2, it would
be tantamount to blasphemy.
We can thereby conclude that Nabokov literally means that
Francis Bacon is Shakespeare.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Groves
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > Bacon in French is "lard"
> >
> > Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> > French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> > pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
> > French word "bacon".
>
> Stop lying, Kennedy.
>
It is indeed form Old french <bacon>, though that appears to have been
borrowed by the Franks from a germanic language:
OED2:
bacon ("beIk@n), n. Forms: 4 bacoun, 45 bakoun, 5 bacun, 5-6 bakon, 6
baken, 5 bacon.
[a. OF. bacon, -un (= Pr. bacon, med.L. bacon-em), a. OHG, bahho, bacho,
MHG. bache, backe, buttock, ham, side of bacon:-OTeut. *bakon-, cogn. w.
*bako-z, back n.1; cf. ODu. baken bacon.]
1. The back and sides of the pig, 'cured' by salting, drying, etc. Formerly
also the fresh flesh now called pork.
...
? 4. A rustic, a clown, a 'chaw-bacon.' Obs. (Referring, like many of the
compounds, to the fact of swine's flesh being the meat chiefly consumed by
the rural population of England.)
1596 Shakes. 1 Hen. IV, ii. ii. 93 On Bacons, on, what ye knaues? Yong men
must liue.
Is this Bacon having a sly joke at his own expense?
Peter G.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>
>>>Bacon in French is "lard"
>>
>>Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
>>French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
>>pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
>>French word "bacon".
> Stop lying, Kennedy.
Try looking in a French dictionary bigger than the Collins Gem your
mommy got you for 7th grade. Even the Micro Robert will do.
And you're still lying about Nabokov.
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<Cr97a.588207$HG.105...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > Bacon's name in French is pronounced "Bason."
> > No, as a matter of fact, "bacon" is a French word, and it is not
> > pronounced so, nor could it be pronounced so by the rules of French
> > orthography.
Elizabeth, of course, is as ignorant of the rules of French
orthography as she is of hyperbolic geometry.
> Bacon in French is not "bacon." Bacon is a Norman-French word
> spelled "bacean" meaning "beech." Lord Beech Tree.
>
> Bacon in French is "lard"
Elizabeth appears to be laboring under the curious misapprehension
that there is a bijective correspondence between the lexicon of English
and that of French, and hence that the existence of one French word
normally translated into English as "bacon" absolutely precludes the
existence of another. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of natural
language is inconceivable in anyone possessing even a superficial
acquaintance with a foreign language, and it is bizarre in the extreme
for anyone, even an ignorant monoglot with a middle-school command of
her native tongue. However, ludicrous misunderstandings best
characterized as bizarre in the extreme are quotidian fare for Elizabeth
Weird. Since she doesn't know the language herself, Elizabeth should at
least try consulting a decent French dictionary.
> and surely you can remember Webb's
> tediousness on Homelette au Lard:
The joke in question is Nabokov's, not mine. Nabokov's humor is
practically never tedious, at least to those well informed enough to
understand and appreciate it.
> If this and the anagram of _grudinka_ were not enough, in
> the third paragraph the parody waxes ridiculous: scribbled
> underneath in the same hand is "Ham-let [note the hyphenation:
> 'little ham'], or Homelette au Lard."
>
> Webb adds, "The last phrase is of course French for "bacon
> omelette"!" And Bacon was a ham--he could not pass by a
> jeste [Jonson, Dominus Verulnum [sic?!]].
What language does Elizabeth imagine that "Verulnum" is? She has
already informed us that "Verulam means 'state of truth' in Latin....";
one wonders with what farcical philological gem she will regale us next.
> > Doesn't it get to be a bore after a while, making up "facts" and getting
> > caught?
> Are you calling Webb a bore and a liar?
Once again, Elizabeth has lost the thread of the discussion
completely. First, the hypothetical boredom to which John Kennedy
alludes is, as his syntax makes clear, experienced by the person who
invents things out of thin air as she goes along and gets caught time
after time, not by her readership. Second, I have never opined that
"lard" is the unique word in the entire French language that can be
translated into English as "bacon," _pace_ Elizabeth's delusions to the
contrary.
> I doubt you're going to
> be able to prove the latter. Kennedy.
>
> Now the following from Bend Sinister is interesting because
> Nabokov tells us the name of the author of the Shakespeare works:
No, Nabokov exhibits yet another bizarre, insane, farcical distortion
of Shakespeare and Shakespeare scholarship, just as he does throughout
the entire chapter. Evidently Weir has never read Nabokov either,
although that oversight will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever
read a Weir post summarizing or interpreting anything that she has
supposedly "read" -- Poincaré, Born, Akrigg, Rips, etc., etc., etc.
[Idiocy concerning Nabokov snipped]
John W. Kennedy
> Elizabeth appears to be laboring under the curious misapprehension
> that there is a bijective correspondence between the lexicon of English
> and that of French, and hence that the existence of one French word
> normally translated into English as "bacon" absolutely precludes the
> existence of another. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of natural
> language is inconceivable in anyone possessing even a superficial
> acquaintance with a foreign language, and it is bizarre in the extreme
> for anyone, even an ignorant monoglot with a middle-school command of
> her native tongue.
Indeed, especially since even a monoglot Anglophone who has traveled
outside his own country knows that the word "bacon" has different
national meanings. Da goil ain't got no culcha!
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >
> >>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bacon in French is "lard"
> >>
> >>Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> >>French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> >>pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
> >>French word "bacon".
>
> > Stop lying, Kennedy.
>
> Try looking in a French dictionary bigger than the Collins Gem your
> mommy got you for 7th grade. Even the Micro Robert will do.
You can't win this dispute on an anglicized French word, Kennedy.
I'm sure that some French--excluding those in Quebec, of course--would
refer to that particular cut of the hog as "bacon with a 'k' sound"
only because English has so successfully infiltrated other languages,
no thanks to the illiterate Burgher.
> And you're still lying about Nabokov.
Prove it.
John W. Kennedy
> You can't win this dispute on an anglicized French word, Kennedy.
So you're saying that the fact that the English word "bacon" is derived
from the French word "bacon" is insufficient to prove that the French
word "bacon" exists?
Are you capable of rational thought _at_ _all_?
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > You can't win this dispute on an anglicized French word, Kennedy.
>
> So you're saying that the fact that the English word "bacon" is derived
> from the French word "bacon" is insufficient to prove that the French
> word "bacon" exists?
FWIW, from a brief review of what's on the web, it looks like the general
educated opinion concerning the origin of the English surname Bacon is
that it originated in England, not France. (There are French Bacons but
they are apparently not related.)
In short, it is said that the English Bacons are descended from a man
named Grimbald who came over from Normandy with William in 1066. The name
appears to have started with one of his grandsons who was referred to as
Ranulf de Beccen Thorpe. (The word "Thorpe" being a Danish word for
village and "Beccen", a Saxon word for Beech tree. )
> Are you capable of rational thought _at_ _all_?
Errors in her reasoning(and her facts) have been pointed out to her many
times. It is all to no effect. Her belief in her superiority as
a thinker is not to be shaken.
Rob
David Kathman
Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>> You can't win this dispute on an anglicized French word, Kennedy.
>
>So you're saying that the fact that the English word "bacon" is derived
>from the French word "bacon" is insufficient to prove that the French
>word "bacon" exists?
>
>Are you capable of rational thought _at_ _all_?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > > Bacon in French is "lard"
> > >
> > > Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> > > French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> > > pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
> > > French word "bacon".
> >
> > Stop lying, Kennedy.
> >
>
> It is indeed form Old french <bacon>, though that appears to have been
> borrowed by the Franks from a germanic language:
>
> OED2:
> bacon ("beIk@n), n. Forms: 4 bacoun, 45 bakoun, 5 bacun, 5-6 bakon, 6
> baken, 5 bacon.
>
> [a. OF. bacon, -un (= Pr. bacon, med.L. bacon-em), a. OHG, bahho, bacho,
> MHG. bache, backe, buttock, ham, side of bacon:-OTeut. *bakon-, cogn. w.
> *bako-z, back n.1; cf. ODu. baken bacon.]
Thank you for looking it up but I don't see an AS or ME entry.
> 1. The back and sides of the pig, 'cured' by salting, drying, etc. Formerly
> also the fresh flesh now called pork.
By the spelling of the Bacon family names below, I think the name
did come down from "beech tree" although the names Bacon and Beech
have a shared 5000-plus year old etymology in PIE to "bhagos."
The beech tree was the main food source for stock across Old Europe.
According to Jean Overton-Fuller, Bacon's biographer and a
philologist,
the Elizabethans pronounced both Bacon and Beacon more like the vowels
in "bear" allowing Sir John Davies to make a pun on "Lord Bacon the
Bright Beacon of the State" which would have sounded something like
"Lord Beckon the Bright Beckon of the State." Earlier members of the
Bacon family spelled their names closer to variations of Becon or
Beacon--Beacen, Becen, Baecen, Beeken, Beken, etc. Thomas Becon
spelled his name Becon in the first volume of one of his works and
Beacon in the second volume.
> ? 4. A rustic, a clown, a 'chaw-bacon.' Obs. (Referring, like many of the
> compounds, to the fact of swine's flesh being the meat chiefly consumed by
> the rural population of England.)
>
> 1596 Shakes. 1 Hen. IV, ii. ii. 93 On Bacons, on, what ye knaues? Yong men
> must liue.
>
> Is this Bacon having a sly joke at his own expense?
Frances Beacon has a better joke in the hang-hog reference in MWW
that refers to a famous quip of his father's to a murderer named
Hogg that tried to capitalize [no pun intended] on the judge's name.
It's actually a pun that goes layers deep. Strats have never
figured it out because they have changed the spelling of
"latten" to Latin and--I'll post on it.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >
> >>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bacon in French is "lard"
> >>
> >>Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> >>French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> >>pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
> >>French word "bacon".
>
> > Stop lying, Kennedy.
>
> Try looking in a French dictionary bigger than the Collins Gem your
> mommy got you for 7th grade. Even the Micro Robert will do.
Peter Groves was kind enough to post from the OED. Scroll up.
> And you're still lying about Nabokov.
Nabokov was a Baconian and a genius and he framed his
solution to the authorship question in such a way that we
couldn't dispute it.
Peter Groves
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@REMOVETHISbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<iHD7a.57239$jM5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > > > Bacon in French is "lard"
> > > >
> > > > Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> > > > French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> > > > pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from
the
> > > > French word "bacon".
> > >
> > > Stop lying, Kennedy.
> > >
> >
> > It is indeed form Old french <bacon>, though that appears to have been
> > borrowed by the Franks from a germanic language:
Sorry, that was a terrible way of puttting it. The Franks were, of course,
Germanic (which is how all those Germanic words like "guerre" and "garde"
got into French, along with "bacon"
> >
> > OED2:
> > bacon ("beIk@n), n. Forms: 4 bacoun, 45 bakoun, 5 bacun, 5-6 bakon, 6
> > baken, 5 bacon.
> >
> > [a. OF. bacon, -un (= Pr. bacon, med.L. bacon-em), a. OHG, bahho, bacho,
> > MHG. bache, backe, buttock, ham, side of bacon:-OTeut. *bakon-, cogn. w.
> > *bako-z, back n.1; cf. ODu. baken bacon.]
>
> Thank you for looking it up but I don't see an AS or ME entry.
Earliest use appears to be C14:
c1330 Poem temp. Edw. II, 388 in Pol. Songs 341 For beof ne for
bakoun..Unnethe wolde eny do a char.
1377 Langl. P. Pl. B. v. 194 As a bondman of his bacoun his berde was
bidraueled.
c1386 Chaucer Wyf's Prol. 217 The bacoun was nought fet for hem..That som
men fecche in Essex at Donmowe.
>
> > 1. The back and sides of the pig, 'cured' by salting, drying, etc.
Formerly
> > also the fresh flesh now called pork.
>
> By the spelling of the Bacon family names below, I think the name
> did come down from "beech tree" although the names Bacon and Beech
> have a shared 5000-plus year old etymology in PIE to "bhagos."
> The beech tree was the main food source for stock across Old Europe.
>
> According to Jean Overton-Fuller, Bacon's biographer and a
> philologist,
> the Elizabethans pronounced both Bacon and Beacon more like the vowels
> in "bear" allowing Sir John Davies to make a pun on "Lord Bacon the
> Bright Beacon of the State" which would have sounded something like
> "Lord Beckon the Bright Beckon of the State." Earlier members of the
> Bacon family spelled their names closer to variations of Becon or
> Beacon--Beacen, Becen, Baecen, Beeken, Beken, etc. Thomas Becon
> spelled his name Becon in the first volume of one of his works and
> Beacon in the second volume.
>
It's always possible that "beacon" is the source of the name:
beacon ("bi:k@n), n. Forms: 1 béacen, becen, becun, 2 bæcen, 4 bikene,
bekne, 45 bekene, beeken, 56 beken, -yn, 6 bekin, beakon, 6 beacon, s.w.
dial. bick'n.
[OE. béacn (neut.) = OFris. bácen, be¥´cen, OS. bôkan, MDu. bôkin, -en, OHG.
bouhhan, MHG. bouchen:-OTeut. *baukno(m). Not known outside of Teutonic.
(In this and the following words in bea- the occasional identity of the OE.
and modern spellings is not due to continuity of form, the two being
separated by a ME. spelling in e, ee, which prevailed for more than 3
centuries. Modern ea represents not merely OE. éa and ea, but also many
other OE. and OF. vowels, as seen in bead, beadle, beak, bear, beast. See
ea-.)]
Peter G.
Rob Zigler
at elizabe...@mail.com wrote on 3/1/03 5:22 AM:
So where is the evidence that "bacon" in France was pronounced
"bason"?
Rob
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<Pys7a.603590$HG.109...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > Bacon in French is "lard"
> >
> > Actually, French "lard" translates the English word "bacon", but the
> > French translation of the American word "bacon" is "bacon", and it's
> > pronounced with a "k". And the English word "bacon" is derived from the
> > French word "bacon".
> Stop lying, Kennedy.
> > By the way, stop lying about Nabokov.
> Stop lying about Nabokov, Bacon and--I can't believe this--bacon!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. His name is protean.
>
> Bacon wrote the
> Masque of Proteus and the treatis [sic] Proteus sive Materia but
> as a polymath genius Bacon is often referred to as protean
> or a Proteus. There are also about a dozen or more allusions
> to Bacon as a concealed author who wrote under various masks.
As readers of Nabokov (of course, those readers do not include
Elizabeth Weird) know, Nabokov was well read in the literature of what
he regarded as crackpot crankery, as his devastating parody of the
clinical literature of psychoanalysis in _Pnin_ attests (see the
commentary by Brian Boyd that tracks down the actual papers parodied by
Nabokov). As I have noted many times, the ENTIRE CHAPTER of the novel
_Bend Sinister_ from which the text above is drawn (which, of course,
Elizabeth Weird has not even read) is an extended farce burlesquing many
bizarre misreadings of Shakespeare and other grotesque Shakspearean
aberrations. Matters being so, it is scarcely surprising that Baconians
are among the targets of Nabokov's creative ridicule.
Moreover, Elizabeth Weird, not having read the novel, is evidently
unaware of the following extract from Chapter 5:
"...the priest had failed to perceive the futility of his
metaphysical promise in relation to those favored ones [...] for
whom this world is a paradise in itself and who would be always
one point up no matter what happened to everyone in the melting
pot of eternity. And even, said Skotoma, if the last became the
first and vice versa, imagine the patronizing smile of the
_ci-devant_ William Shakespeare on seeing a former scribbler of
hopelessly bad plays blossom anew as the Poet Laureate of heaven."
> 2. He begets doubles at every corner.
>
> Hall and Marston refer to the fact that Bacon wrote under
> "Spenser," "Marlowe" and "Shakespeare"
Citation? (Of course, this question is purely rhetorical. Numerous
requests for citations from Elizabeth by various people have never, to
my knowledge, elicited anything of substance. Indeed, most often her
response, if there is any response at all, is a ludicrous list grepped
from the web of sources, none of which Elizabeth has read, but which she
nonetheless fondly hallucinates must have something to do with whatever
preposterous claim she has just made. In some cases, the source says
the opposite of what Elizabeth has claimed.)
> while Bacon's
> translator, the meticulous classicist Spedding found
> that Bacon was a ghostwriter for Walsingham, Burghley,
> Essex, Elizabeth, and James.
What?! Not Ivan Groznyi as well?
> 3. His penmanship is unconsciously faked by lawyers
> who happen to write a similar hand.
>
> Neither [sic] Oxford, Marlowe or the Burgher were [sic] lawyers.
What an astonishing non sequitur!
> Bacon was
> a Bencher, Solictitor [sic] General, Elizabeth's Councillor
> Extraordinare, a judge inside the Verge, Attorney General
> and Lord Chief Justice.
Don't forget Eagle Scout.
> And of course Bacon "wrote in a similar hand" to the Burgher's
> since Bacon's hand is on the Henry IV fragment. According to
> Sotheby's.
Now there's a reliable source.
> 4. On the wet morning of November 27, 1582, he is Shaxpere. . .
>
> Nabokov throwing doubt on the Burgher.
No, as noted above, Nabokov is pillorying the clueless cretins who do
so, just as he pitilessly parodies Shakespearean pathology throughout
the entire chapter -- which, of course, Elizabeth has not read.
> 4. Who is he? William X, cunningly composed
> of two left arms and a mask.
>
> William X cannot be William Shaxpere since Shaxpere
> is named. William X is someone else.
>
> The Droeshout has two left arms and a mask. And of
> course the title, Bend Sinister, evokes the bent left
> arm and the mask.
No, "bend sinister" is a term from heraldry, as Nabokov notes when he
explains his choice of title in the Preface -- which of course Elizabeth
Weird also has not read:
"The term 'bend sinister' means a heraldic bar or band drawn from
the left side (and popularly, but incorrectly, supposed to denote
bastardy). This choice of title was an attempt to suggest an
outline broken by refraction, a distortion in the mirror of being,
a wrong turn taken by life, a sinistral and sinister world."
Few phrases characterize the monomania of many anti-Stratfordians better
than "a wrong turn taken by life."
> 5. Who else?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think Nabokov would satirize the Bible.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Whenever Elizabeth opines "I don't think that...", what follows is
invariably hilarious! Who, besides an illiterate, would infer from
Nabokov's playful skewering of bumbling Baconians that he was also
satirizing the Bible?! (Incidentally, Nabokov parodied anything and
everything, including literary icons like Anna Akhmatova, and even his
own persona; see his novel _Look at the Harlequins!_.)
> 6. The person who said (not for the first time) . . .
>
> The phrase (not for the first time) is a reference to
> the writer of Proverbs.
So?
> 7. . . . that the glory of God is to hide a thing,
> and the glory of man is to find it.
>
> For he [Solomon] sayeth expressly, the Glory of God is
> to conceal a thing, but the Glory of a King is to find
> it out [Proverbs xxv, 2]: as if according to that innocent
> and affectionate play of Children, the Divine Majesty took
> delight to hide his works, to the end to have them found out;
> and as if Kings could not obtain greater Honour, than to be
> God's play-fellows in that game; specially considering the
> great command they have of wits and means, whereby the
> investigation of all things may be perfected.
>
> Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning (1605), Bk I
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> If Nabokov is satirizing Bacon by using Proverbs xxv, 2, it would
> be tantamount to blasphemy.
Nabokov is not "satirizing Bacon"; rather, his target is the cadre of
misreaders -- or, in Elizabeth's case, nonreaders -- who believe that
Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare, as well as other comparable
exemplars of Shakespearean intellectual pathology.
> We can thereby conclude that Nabokov literally means that
> Francis Bacon is Shakespeare.
That certainly isn't what Nabokov says outside his fiction. For that
matter, it isn't even what he says *within* his fiction, but functional
literacy is required to make any sense of the latter.
I've been reading Elizabeth's Weird's effusions of unintentional
hilarity for some time now, but for sheer lunacy this one is one of the
funniest by far that I can ever recall!
John W. Kennedy
> FWIW, from a brief review of what's on the web, it looks like the general
> educated opinion concerning the origin of the English surname Bacon is
> that it originated in England, not France. (There are French Bacons but
> they are apparently not related.)
> In short, it is said that the English Bacons are descended from a man
> named Grimbald who came over from Normandy with William in 1066. The name
> appears to have started with one of his grandsons who was referred to as
> Ranulf de Beccen Thorpe. (The word "Thorpe" being a Danish word for
> village and "Beccen", a Saxon word for Beech tree. )
...which would, then, be pronounced with the "church" sound, not an "s".
(I _think_ "beccen" is "beech trees", actually, but I have less than a
smattering of OE.)
So let's sum it up. In this one thread, she's mispronounced French,
confused OE and Anglo-Norman, refused to accept _Robert_ as a source for
French vocabulary, refused to recognize that the English word "bacon"
means different things in different parts of the world, added a new
English sound law by which /s/ before an unaccented syllable directly
becomes /k/, lied about Nabokov, AND refused to admit that the existence
of something is strong evidence that it exists.
Back in the early sixties, I had a toy computer made of plastic and
rubber bands that could think more clearly.
John W. Kennedy
> Nabokov was a Baconian and a genius and he framed his
> solution to the authorship question in such a way that we
> couldn't dispute it.
Indeed, you (which is to say, the anti-Strats) cannot dispute the fact
that Nabokov's solution to the "authorship question" is that anti-Strats
are fully commissioned officers in the 1st Royal Bengal Wackadoodles.
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com wrote:
> > FWIW, from a brief review of what's on the web, it looks like the general
> > educated opinion concerning the origin of the English surname Bacon is
> > that it originated in England, not France. (There are French Bacons but
> > they are apparently not related.)
>
> > In short, it is said that the English Bacons are descended from a man
> > named Grimbald who came over from Normandy with William in 1066. The name
> > appears to have started with one of his grandsons who was referred to as
> > Ranulf de Beccen Thorpe. (The word "Thorpe" being a Danish word for
> > village and "Beccen", a Saxon word for Beech tree. )
> ...which would, then, be pronounced with the "church" sound, not an "s".
> (I _think_ "beccen" is "beech trees", actually, but I have less than a
> smattering of OE.)
>
> So let's sum it up. In this one thread, she's mispronounced French,
> confused OE and Anglo-Norman, refused to accept _Robert_ as a source for
> French vocabulary, refused to recognize that the English word "bacon"
> means different things in different parts of the world, added a new
> English sound law by which /s/ before an unaccented syllable directly
> becomes /k/, lied about Nabokov, AND refused to admit that the existence
> of something is strong evidence that it exists.
That's a succinct and accurate summary of the situation. However,
Elizabeth Weird's performance in another thread is perhaps even more
remarkable: within the confines of a SINGLE brief post, she managed to:
(1) Attribute her own quoted words to Peter Groves (this is by no means
her first misattribution of her own words!);
(2) Characterized Aubrey, who was born some two decades after Oxford's
death, as a "corroborative eye witness" to Oxford's putative pederasty;
(Oh well -- Mr. Streitz evidently believes that Oxford was posthumously
conceived (the alternative is that Elizabeth endured the longest human
pregnancy on record, rivaling even the gestation period of an elephant),
so perhaps Oxford engaged in pederasty posthumously and was observed in
the act by Aubrey -- indeed, perhaps posthumous sexual activity ran in
Oxford's family.)
(3) Attributed Arundel's words to Aubrey, despite the fact that at
Nelson's web site the narrative in question is very clearly attributed
to Arundel.
> Back in the early sixties, I had a toy computer made of plastic and
> rubber bands that could think more clearly.
I don't doubt it. It probably had more memory as well.
Art Neuendorffer
> > Stop lying about Nabokov, Bacon and--I can't believe this--bacon!
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1. His name is protean.
> >
> > Bacon wrote the Masque of Proteus
> > and the treatis [sic] Proteus sive Materia but
> > as a polymath genius Bacon is often referred to as protean
> > or a Proteus. There are also about a dozen or more allusions
> > to Bacon as a concealed author who wrote under various masks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINE Cease to persuade, my loving PROTEUS:
(Home-keeping youth have ev)ER HOMELY WITS.
M. WRIOTHESLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions
Charles MacKay ** ( THE ROSICRUCIANS. )
<<"A New Method of Rosicrucian Physic; by John Heydon, the servant of
God and the secretary of Nature": A few extracts show the ideas of the
English Rosicrucians about this period. Its author was an attorney,
"practising (to use his own words) at Westminster Hall all term times as
long as he lived, and in the vacations devoting himself to alchymical
and Rosicrucian meditation." In his preface, called by him an Apologue
for an Epilogue, he enlightens the public upon the true history and
tenets of his sect. Moses, Elias, and EZEKIEL were, he says, the most
ancient masters of the Rosicrucian philosophy. Those few then existing
in England and the rest of Europe, were as the eyes and ears of the
great King of the universe, seeing and hearing all things; seraphically
illuminated; companions of the holy company of unbodied souls and
immortal angels; turning themselves, PROTEUS-like, into any shape, and
having the power of working miracles.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<PROTEUS boards a ship to go from Verona to Milan,
WAITing moreover for the TIDE.>>
Excellent well; you are a FISHMONGER.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor
"Your morning letters, if I remember right,
were from a FISH-MONGER and a TIDE-WAITER."
He broke the SEAL and glanced over the contents.
"Lord Robert Walsingham de Vere St. Simon, second son of the Duke
of Balmoral. Hum! Arms: Azure, three caltrops in chief over a
fess sable. Born in 1846. He's forty-one years of age, which
is mature for marriage. They inherit PLANTAGENET blood by
direct descent, and Tudor on the distaff side. Ha!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by diana on April 04, 19102 at 15:06:59:
http://westerncanon.com/cgibin/lecture/Aeschylushall/cas/68.html
<<The satyr play for Aeschylus' Orestia was called _PROTEUS_. It doesn't
exist, but the story is that it is an account of Menelaus' adventures in
Egypt (these are also recounted in the Odyssey). On his way home from the
Trojan War, Menelaus is becalmed on the island of Pharos off the coast of
Egypt, which is ruled by Proteus, the "Old man of the sea." Proteus'
daughter, Eidothea, pities Menelaus and gives him these instructions:
Proteus owns a flock of SEALs, and every day goes down to the water to count
them. Menelaus must disgiuse himself as a SEAL and join the herd. Then when
Proteus comes down the next day, he must seize him, and because Proteus can
change shape, he will try to escape by changing form. But if Menelaus can
maintain his hold, Proteus will get tired, return to his original form and
answer any questions that M has. M does this and Proteus tells him why he is
becalmed, that certain gods are angry with him. Then M can make things right
with the gods and obtain wind and go home to Greece. Most likely in
Aeschylus' version of this story in his satyr play, _PROTEUS_, he makes a
parody of the incident that happened to Menelaus' less fortunate brother,
Agamemnon. Satyr plays often made parodies of the tragedies in their
trilogies, and most likely these were linked.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.elizabethanauthors.com/goldBio.htm
ARTHUR GOLDING: By Barboura Flues copyright © 2002
<< Oxford's close relationship with Golding is evident
in recorded fact: the dedications to Oxford of translations of Aretine's
History (1563) and of The Psalmes of David and others, With M. John
Calvins Commentaries (1571). The letter dedicatory to the Psalmes
expresses Golding's fear that Oxford might desert the Protestant
religion, saying: "But if you should become either a counterfeit
Protestant or a professed Papist or a cool and careless neuther (which
God forbid) the harm could not be expressed which you should do to your
native country," warning that "the devil hath more shapes than PROTEUS;
first and foremost, the obstinate-hearted Papists, the sworn enemies of
God, the pestilent poisons of mankind, and the very welsprings of all
errors, hypocrisy and ungraciousness" [Golding, pp. 65-667]>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<HERODOTUS, ii. 121. The next to reign after PROTEUS (they said)
was Rhampsinitus. The memorial of his name left by him
was the western forecourt of the temple of Hephaestus;
he set two statues here 41 feet high;
the northernmost of these the Egyptians call SUMMER, &
the southernmost WINTER;
the one that they call Summer they worship and treat well,
but do the opposite to the statue called Winter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brag. This side is Hiems, Winter. This VER, the Spring:
The one maynteined by the Owle, th'other by the CUckow.
B. Ver begin. The Song.
When Dasies pied, and Violets blew,
And CUckow-budds of yellow hew:
And Ladi-smockes all silver white,
Do paint the Meadowes with delight:
The CUckow then on EUERie tree,
Mocks married men; for thus singes hee,
CUckow. CUckow, CUckow: O word of feare,
Vnpleasing to a married eare.
Winter.
When Isacles hang by the *wall*
And Dicke the Sheepheard blowes his *NAILE*
---------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> As readers of Nabokov (of course, those readers do not include
> Elizabeth Weird) know, Nabokov was well read in the literature of what
> he regarded as crackpot crankery, as his devastating parody of the
> clinical literature of psychoanalysis in _Pnin_ attests (see the
> commentary by Brian Boyd that tracks down the actual papers parodied by
> Nabokov). As I have noted many times, the ENTIRE CHAPTER of the novel
> _Bend Sinister_ from which the text above is drawn (which, of course,
> Elizabeth Weird has not even read) is an extended farce burlesquing many
> bizarre misreadings of Shakespeare and other grotesque Shakspearean
> aberrations. Matters being so, it is scarcely surprising that Baconians
> are among the targets of Nabokov's creative ridicule.
>
> Moreover, Elizabeth Weird, not having read the novel, is evidently
> unaware of the following extract from Chapter 5:
>
> "...the priest had failed to perceive the futility of his
> metaphysical promise in relation to those favored ones [...] for
> whom this world is a paradise in itself and who would be always
> one point up no matter what happened to everyone in the melting
> pot of eternity. And even, said Skotoma, if the last became the
> first and vice versa, imagine the patronizing smile of the
> _ci-devant_ William Shakespeare on seeing a former scribbler of
> hopelessly bad plays blossom anew as the Poet Laureate of heaven."
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 2. He begets doubles at every corner.
> >
> > Hall and Marston refer to the fact that Bacon wrote under
> > "Spenser," "Marlowe" and "Shakespeare"
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Citation? (Of course, this question is purely rhetorical. Numerous
> requests for citations from Elizabeth by various people have never, to
> my knowledge, elicited anything of substance. Indeed, most often her
> response, if there is any response at all, is a ludicrous list grepped
> from the web of sources, none of which Elizabeth has read, but which she
> nonetheless fondly hallucinates must have something to do with whatever
> preposterous claim she has just made. In some cases, the source says
> the opposite of what Elizabeth has claimed.)
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > while Bacon's
> > translator, the meticulous classicist Spedding found
> > that Bacon was a ghostwriter for Walsingham, Burghley,
> > Essex, Elizabeth, and James.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> What?! Not Ivan Groznyi as well?
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 3. His penmanship is unconsciously faked by lawyers
> > who happen to write a similar hand.
> >
> > Neither [sic] Oxford, Marlowe or the Burgher were [sic] lawyers.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> What an astonishing non sequitur!
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > Bacon was
> > a Bencher, Solictitor [sic] General, Elizabeth's Councillor
> > Extraordinare, a judge inside the Verge, Attorney General
> > and Lord Chief Justice.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Don't forget Eagle Scout.
The patron saint of Boy Scouts: St. GEORGE
The patron saint of Girl Scouts: St. AGNES
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > And of course Bacon "wrote in a similar hand" to the Burgher's
> > since Bacon's hand is on the Henry IV fragment. According to
> > Sotheby's.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Now there's a reliable source.
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 4. On the wet morning of November 27, 1582, he is Shaxpere. . .
> >
> > Nabokov throwing doubt on the Burgher.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> No, as noted above, Nabokov is pillorying the clueless cretins who do
> so, just as he pitilessly parodies Shakespearean pathology throughout
> the entire chapter -
Just like I do, right Dave?
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 4. Who is he? William X, cunningly composed
> > of two left arms and a mask.
> >
> > William X cannot be William Shaxpere since Shaxpere
> > is named. William X is someone else.
> >
> > The Droeshout has two left arms and a mask. And of
> > course the title, Bend Sinister, evokes the bent left
> > arm and the mask.
BEND SINISTER
SID BERNSTEIN (INPNC = 12/12)
http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2001/sid_int.asp
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> No, "bend sinister" is a term from heraldry, as Nabokov notes
> when he explains his choice of title in the Preface --
>
> "The term 'bend sinister' means a heraldic bar or band drawn from
> the left side (and popularly, but incorrectly, supposed to denote
> bastardy). This choice of title was an attempt to suggest an
> outline broken by refraction, a distortion in the mirror of being,
> a wrong turn taken by life, a sinistral and sinister world."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shakspere Blazon & Coat of Arms:
"Gold on a BEND sable, a spear of the first, and for his crest or
cognizance a falcon, his wings displayed argent, standing on a
wreathe of his colors, supporting a spear gold steeled as aforesaid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BEND: a diagonal bar, 1/5th the width of the shield,
from upper left to lower right as one faces the shield.
Capital Letters: 145(= 5 x 29)
T O.T H E.
O N L I E.
B E G E T
T E R.O F.
T H E S E.
I N S V I
N G.S O N
N E T S Mr
A L L.
P P I
*W*H S E. W{H}
A H*A* H {H}A
| *S* S
| *T* T
| N E *E* E?
[2 9] A N D
| A T.E T
| R N I T I
| E P R O M
v I S E D.B
Y.O V R.E
V E R-L I
V I N G.P
O E T.W I
S H E T H.
T H E.W E
L L-W I S
H I N G.A
D V E N T
V R E R I
N.S E T T
I N G.F O
R T H.T.T.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"witch" - an English form of the Saxon verb wicca, meaning
"to bend" or "to yield" (as indeed do WILLOW)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sidhé was a transcendent intellect, known to the Druids as the
Web of the Wise, while "druid" (druidhe) was itself a Celtic word
for "witch" - an English form of the Saxon verb wicca, meaning
"to bend" or "to yield" (as indeed do WILLOW and wicker).>>
-- Sir Laurence Gardner
Nexus Magazine, Volume 6, Number 5 (August-September 1999).
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/Star/ch05.html
<<Lord ST. JOHN had written the [3rd] Earl of Rutland,
Edward Manners, who was in Paris:
"The Earl of Oxford hath gotten him a wife -- or at least a wife hath
caught him; this is Mistress Anne Cecil; whereunto the Queen hath given
her consent, and the which hath caused great WEEPING, wailing, and
sorrowful cheere of those who had hoped to have that GOLDEN DAY.
Thus you may see that whilst some triumph with olive branches,
others follow the chariot with WILLOW GARLANDS.">>
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUEEN GERTRUDE There is a WILLOW grows aslant a BROOK,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;
There with fantastic GARLANDS did she come
There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds
CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRIN[G] TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A L
G E
A N
B K
O C
N N
[D] I
R
B
S
A
M
O
H
T
Genesis 4:12 a fugitive and a VAGABOND shalt thou be in the earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN ( Stringendo .) He has hidden his own name, a fair name,
William, in the plays, a super here, a clown there, as a painter of old
Italy set his face in a dark corner of his canvas. He has revealed it in
the sonnets where there is Will in overplus. Like John O'Gaunt his name
is dear to him, as dear as the coat of arms he toadied for, on a bend
sable a spear or steeled argent, honorificabilitudinitatibus, dearer
than his glory of greatest shakescene in the country. What's in a name?
That is what we ask ourselves in childhood when we write the name that
we are told is ours. A STAR, a daystar, a firedrake rose at his birth.
It shone by day in the heavens alone, brighter than Venus in the night,
and by night it shone over delta in Cassiopeia, the recumbent
constellation which is the signature of his initial among the stars.
His eyes watched it, lowlying on the horizon, eastward of the bear,
as he walked by the slumberous summer fields at midnight,
returning from Shottery and from her arms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Few phrases characterize the monomania of many anti-Stratfordians better
> than "a wrong turn taken by life."
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 5. Who else?
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > I don't think Nabokov would satirize the Bible.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Whenever Elizabeth opines "I don't think that...", what follows is
> invariably hilarious! Who, besides an illiterate, would infer from
> Nabokov's playful skewering of bumbling Baconians that he was also
> satirizing the Bible?! (Incidentally, Nabokov parodied anything and
> everything, including literary icons like Anna Akhmatova, and even his
> own persona; see his novel _Look at the Harlequins!_.)
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 6. The person who said (not for the first time) . . .
> >
> > The phrase (not for the first time) is a reference to
> > the writer of Proverbs.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> So?
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > 7. . . . that the glory of God is to hide a thing,
> > and the glory of man is to find it.
> >
> > For he [Solomon] sayeth expressly, the Glory of God is
> > to conceal a thing, but the Glory of a King is to find
> > it out [Proverbs xxv, 2]: as if according to that innocent
> > and affectionate play of Children, the Divine Majesty took
> > delight to hide his works, to the end to have them found out;
> > and as if Kings could not obtain greater Honour, than to be
> > God's play-fellows in that game; specially considering the
> > great command they have of wits and means, whereby the
> > investigation of all things may be perfected.
> >
> > Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning (1605), Bk I
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > If Nabokov is satirizing Bacon by using Proverbs xxv, 2,
> > it would be tantamount to blasphemy.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Nabokov is not "satirizing Bacon"; rather, his target is the cadre of
> misreaders -- or, in Elizabeth's case, nonreaders -- who believe that
> Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare, as well as other comparable
> exemplars of Shakespearean intellectual pathology.
> elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> > We can thereby conclude that Nabokov literally means that
> > Francis Bacon is Shakespeare.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> That certainly isn't what Nabokov says outside his fiction.
> For that matter, it isn't even what he says *within* his fiction,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1924 Nabokov wrote a little poem in Russian which his son,
Dmitri, translated into English in 1988:
Shakespeare
Amid grandees of times Elizabethan
you shimmered too, you followed sumptuous custom;
the circle of ruff, the silv'ry satin that
encased your thigh, the wedgelike beard - in all of this
you were like other men... Thus was enfolded
your godlike thunder in a succinct cape.
Haughty, aloof from theatre's alarums,
you easily, regretlessly relinquished
the laurels twinning into a dry wreath,
concealing for all time your. monstrous genius
beneath a mask; and yet, your phantasm's echoes
still vibrate for us; your Venetian Moor,
his anguish; Falstaff's visage, like an udder
with pasted-on MUSTACHE; the raging Lear..
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Rob Zigler <robz...@attbi.com> wrote:
She can furnish none, of course. Elizabeth Weird doesn't know any
French, so she supposes that nobody else knows it either, and therefore
she feels at liberty to invent hilarious crap out of thin air.
The remarkable thing about Elizabeth is that she never LEARNS from
her howlers! Last summer she soberly informed us (at least, I have no
reason to suppose that she was intoxicated at the time) that "Verulam
means 'state of truth' in Latin...." Peter Groves's response was right
on target, as usual: "Elizabeth's motto: There's nothing either true or
false, but thinking makes it so."
Another of Elizabeth's hilarious inventions, this one a foray into
spurious lexicography, is her confident proclamation that "The term
'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the factotum who toted
scenery around between acts." Of course, despite having been asked to
adduce evidence for over eight months, Elizabeth has not done so, simply
because she cannot -- not even the most complete and authoritative
English dictionaries appear to possess Elizabeth's rare insight into the
sense of this nonce-word.
But such gaffes are the hallmark of Elizabeth Weird's posts. She
invariably fails to reproduce *any* evidence in support of the dogmatic
declarations that she apparently hopes to pass off by means of mere
Proof by Assertion. One would think that anyone of intelligence even a
standard deviation below the mean would have learned by now to state her
uninformed guesses as cautious conjectures rather than as established
fact.
Elizabeth Weir
========================================================================
Date: 2003-02-28 7:56 AM PST
"The main theme of Bend Sinister, then, is the
beating of Krug's loving heart. . . "
ISBN 0-459-72727-2