Shakespeare was Shakespeare, not Greville, or Marlowe, or Bacon, or Oxford
Jim KQKnave
of Shakespeare's works by the loons on this newsgroup,
William Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate
supported by the historical evidence.
see also
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Christian Lanciai
> Despite the many candidates proposed as the "true" author
> of Shakespeare's works by the loons on this newsgroup,
> William Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate
> supported by the historical evidence.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2q7hd9
>
> see also
>
> www.shakespeareauthorship.com
>
>
> The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
>
> Agent Jim
Evidently you have not read this:
http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
You stratfordians are hopelessly being left behind. You can't beat the
doubts, that constantly increase and grow in overwhelming probability.
C(hris)
lackpurity
MM:
Anti-Strats must present a good case. They haven't. Strats are tired
of all the jaded fantasies. Sorry.
Michael Martin
Christian Lanciai
Evidently you haven't read the declaration. Here it is again:
http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
"I am 'sort of' haunted by the conviction that the divine William is
the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient
world."
- Henry James
Chris
Dominic Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you fail to understand is that your precious Declaration of
Unreasonable Doubt does nothing to contradict the fact that "William
Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate supported by the
historical evidence." You, and the rest of the doubters, exist on a
diet of conjecture and speculation, but you do not have any evidence.
Dom
lackpurity
MM:
That website has listed Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman as
doubters.
http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/44949.html
Historians and scholars since the time of the Renaissance have
questioned the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. This controversy
surfaced mainly because it is so hard to believe that a man who led
such an ordinary life could be the genius who is known as the world’s
greatest poet and playwright today. Ralph Waldo Emerson summed up this
controversy in one quote, “I cannot marry this fact to his verse.
Other admirable men have led lives in some sort of keeping with their
thought; but this man, in wide contrast.”
MM:
This comment is open-minded to the fact that Shakespeare was a Godman,
not just your ordinary run-of-the-mill man. It is not really about
authorship, at all.
http://www.bartleby.com/229/5005.html
only one of the “wolfish earls” so plenteous in the plays themselves,
or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author
of those amazing works—works in some respects greater than anything
else in recorded literature.
MM:
Similarly, Walt Whitman left the door open to the possibility that
Shakespeare was a Godman, a Guruavatar. He even prophesied that he
would return to America a couple of generations after his death.
Whitman was a lot like Shakespeare. Notice that he mentioned two
possibilities, a wolfish earl, or a guruavatar. Shakespeare often
wrote similarly, giving us a worldly choice and a spiritual choice.
Michael Martin
Paul Crowley
news:685eb8db-5df8-46cf...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 12, 3:19 pm, Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You stratfordians are hopelessly being left behind. You can't beat the
>> doubts, that constantly increase and grow in overwhelming probability.
>
> What you fail to understand is that your precious Declaration of
> Unreasonable Doubt does nothing to contradict the fact that "William
> Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate supported by the
> historical evidence."
Those who cannot see that "Will Shake-speare"
is a glorious Elizabethan pun, are excessively
stupid, devoid of a sense of humour, ignorant
of the entire corpus of Elizabethan literature,
and quite incapable of appreciating the canon.
> You, and the rest of the doubters, exist on a
> diet of conjecture and speculation, but you do not have any evidence.
The evidence stares you in the face. It could
not be more conspicuous. It is as clear as the
annual harvest of Swiss spaghetti trees.
You've been had.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" <mah...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:685eb8db-5df8-46cf...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 12, 3:19 pm, Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> You stratfordians are hopelessly being left behind. You can't beat the
> >> doubts, that constantly increase and grow in overwhelming probability.
>
> > What you fail to understand is that your precious Declaration of
> > Unreasonable Doubt does nothing to contradict the fact that "William
> > Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate supported by the
> > historical evidence."
>
> Those who cannot see that "Will Shake-speare"
> is a glorious Elizabethan pun, are excessively
> stupid, devoid of a sense of humour, ignorant
> of the entire corpus of Elizabethan literature,
> and quite incapable of appreciating the canon.
Those who speculate that the name of a living, breathing individual
named William Shakespeare, with documentary evidence which connects
him to the plays, the theater, the acting company, etc., abbreviated
to "Will Shakespeare" (a usage that is never documented as having been
used) constitutes historical evidence for a particular alternate
candidate, have zero understanding as to what qualifies as evidence,
are more than excessively stupid, the object of derisive humor,
ignorant of anything other than their wacky conspiracy thgeory, and
quite incapable of appreciating reason.
> > You, and the rest of the doubters, exist on a
> > diet of conjecture and speculation, but you do not have any evidence.
>
> The evidence stares you in the face. It could
> not be more conspicuous. It is as clear as the
> annual harvest of Swiss spaghetti trees.
You have never produced any evidence. All you have is speculation.
> You've been had.
Prove it -- using actual evidence -- or step off. I challenge you to
set forth your ten best pieces of evidence for your candidate.
> Paul.
Dom
Christian Lanciai
> >http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
>
>
> MM:
> Anti-Strats must present a good case. They haven't. Strats are tired
> of all the jaded fantasies. Sorry.
>
> Michael Martin
There is no need for any palpable evidence to figure out by simple
logic that Shakespeare could not have been written by the silent swan
of Avon.
C.
nordicskiv2
> On 13 Jan, 01:26, lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 2:19�pm, Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
But the declaration apparently does not include among its
signatories such anti-Stratfordian luminaries as Eric Altschuler
(author of "Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars," <http://
front.math.ucdavis.edu/9810.7042>), Stephanie Caruana (author of_The
Gemstone File: A Memoir_ and coauthor of _Oxford's Revenge_; the
latter is a very worthy competitor for Montezuma's revenge), the
"Rev." "Dr." Faker, Peter Zenner (author of _The Shakespeare
Invention_, <http://www.zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix.htm>), Elisabeth
Sears (author of _Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose_), polymath and
hemidemisemiglot Elizabeth Weird, or anthologist and humorist Art
Neuendorffer. How, then, can such a document be taken seriously?
However, the remarks of the signatories do afford some welcome
amusement in places. They exhibit the familiar hallmarks of the anti-
Stratfordian "movement," ranging from borderline paranoia ("Keeping
Shakespeare's identity as it is only benefits those who make money off
of it") to formidable erudition ("Electrical Engineer. I studied
"Macbeth" as part the English Literature course of the University of
London General Certificate of Education, 1972") to eccentricity
("Campionist. Originator of the theory/website contending that St.
Edmund Campion S.J. is the author of the works of Shakespeare") to
expertise ("Longtime amateur decanter and student of forensic
conspiracy") to appeal to authority ("My college English professor has
doubts about Mr. Shakspeare"; "My mother raised me on this theory, so
I support the research.") to wishful thinking ("Book coming out next
summer -- may soon be famous author?!") to unassailable reasoning
("There must be evidence out there, we need to look to determine one
way or another"; "If the man from Stratford was the author of
Shakespeare's works, why didn't he partake in the translation of King
James' version of the Bible?"; "I have always wondered how he could
write so well and not be able to write at all.") to an inability to
write in English ("...a Will sceptic for sure, and recognise strong
circumstantial evidence for de Vere, but no concrete yet."; "As a
student I find the truth to be essential, for most papers give
analogies of the writers life experiences and how they may have
attributed [sic] to the piece(s).") to a religious conviction ("I hold
that the true author of the works, to the exclusion of all others, is,
and only can be, Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford.") to inscrutability ("I
believe that Will's ability to hold a generic quality of passion
towards all of his subjects shows a parallel to an ability to be
studying non-attachment."; "I'm too young to be in college!!") to
slapstick ("The high school graduation gift in our family was the
Complete Works of William Shakespeare, and I want to know if I should
have asked for a car instead.") -- and most of these gems come from
only the first few pages of signatories!
The declaration has the great virtue of making one aware of
amusing books and web pages that were obscure enough to have escaped
one's attention. I especially commend to the attention of
connoisseurs of crank conspiracy theories and of offbeat reasoning the
following:
<http://www.thegreatpesher.com>
<http://www.shakespeareunmasked.com>
<http://www.sirbacon.org/links/carrquixote.html>
<http://www.cappella.demon.co.uk/examine/voyage.html>
<http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewwork.asp?AuthorID=348>
Finally, Art should definitely make contact with Mr. Christopher Lee
Hodapp, the signatory who describes himself as "Author of 'Freemasons
For Dummies' [just the book Art needs!] and 'Solomon's Builders:
Freemasons, Founding Fathers and the Secrets of Washington D.C.'"
[...]
lackpurity
MM:
Simple logic? He was relatively silent, until Marlowe died. After
that, he was charged with "conceit," by Groatsworth of Wit, and
accused of being an "upstart crow."
Your "simple logic," seems to ignore a lot, but we're used to such
logic coming from Anti-Strats.
Jesus Christ was silent, also, until John the Baptist was beheaded,
but then came the "Sermon on the Mount."
You even ignore Ben Jonson's tribute to William Shakespeare. If
you're going to ignore such glaring evidence, then it's going to be
your problem.
Michael Martin
David Kathman
[snip many amusing examples]
> -- and most of these gems come from
> only the first few pages of signatories!
Check out the last page of signatories, which contains these self-
descriptions:
"Teacher/student of kabbalah and western esoteric tradition; member of
Bacon Society for 27 years."
"My doctorate in language and learning was inspired by the Bard. How
could he only have had one bed!"
"English teacher, author of "Shake-speare's Tombe 'Epigramma'," in
GAMES magazine, February 1998"
"I may one day be notable for being one of two determined female
scientists who exposed the most truth about 9/11. See
http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com"
"Voice Teacher, The Juilliard School (fired from); Tisch School of the
Arts (NYU) (fired from). I still have my smelly cooter."
"A student of Shakespeare for 45 years, I've studied the entire body
of work and favor De Vere or Bacon. After so long, what's in a name?"
"Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified history
of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship."
The whole thing is amusing but also sad. So much time and effort
wasted.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
John W. Kennedy
> "Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified history
> of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship."
Evidently once successful in the first two fields, but in respect of the
last, a follower of the Fomenko cult, which holds that all history
before the early modern period is a fraud created by evil Jesuits, with
the intention of suppressing the "truth" that the Russians are God's
chosen people -- as popular in Russia as Creationism in the US, and as
dangerous.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
Art Neuendorffer
> > >
> > > Evidently you have not read this:
> > >http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But the declaration apparently does not include among its
> > signatories such anti-Stratfordian luminaries as Eric Altschuler
> > (author of "Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars," <http://
> > front.math.ucdavis.edu/9810.7042>), Stephanie Caruana (author of_The
> > Gemstone File: A Memoir_ and coauthor of _Oxford's Revenge_; the
> > latter is a very worthy competitor for Montezuma's revenge), the
> > "Rev." "Dr." Faker, Peter Zenner (author of _The Shakespeare
> > Invention_, <http://www.zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix.htm>), Elisabeth
> > Sears (author of _Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose_), polymath and
> > hemidemisemiglot Elizabeth Weird, or anthologist and humorist Art
> >Neuendorffer. How, then, can such a document be taken seriously?
I signed but I guess it must have been with invisible ink.
(I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
> > However, the remarks of the signatories do afford some welcome
> > amusement in places. They exhibit the familiar hallmarks of the anti-
> > Stratfordian "movement," ranging from borderline paranoia ("Keeping
> > Shakespeare's identity as it is only benefits those who make money
> > off of it") to formidable erudition ("Electrical Engineer. I studied
> > "Macbeth" as part the English Literature course of the University of
> > London General Certificate of Education, 1972") to eccentricity
> > ("Campionist. Originator of the theory/website contending that St.
> > Edmund Campion S.J. is the author of the works of Shakespeare")
> >
> > -- and most of these gems come from
> > only the first few pages of signatories!
.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Check out the last page of signatories,
> which contains these self- descriptions:
>
> "Teacher/student of kabbalah and western esoteric tradition;
> member of Bacon Society for 27 years."
>
> "My doctorate in language and learning was inspired by the Bard.
> How could he only have had one bed!"
You should see his worst beds.
.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> "English teacher, author of "Shake-speare's Tombe 'Epigramma',
> "in GAMES magazine, February 1998"
I used to know someone who knew Charles Arthur Young.
(so I'm a signatory twice removed).
.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> "I may one day be notable for being one of two determined female
> scientists who exposed the most truth about 9/11.
> Seehttp://shoes4industry.blogspot.com"
There are other female scientists who are undetermined.
.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> "Voice Teacher, The Juilliard School (fired from); Tisch School
> of the Arts (NYU) (fired from). I still have my smelly cooter."
>
Pseudemys, a genus of turtles of the southern United States.
Inverness, Florida sparked controversy by founding
a "cooter festival" in celebration of their local turtles.
.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> "A student of Shakespeare for 45 years, I've studied the entire body
> of work and favor De Vere or Bacon. After so long, what's in a name?"
>
> "Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified
> history of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship."
Here's a "null set designer" opening for Webb.
.
David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The whole thing is amusing but also sad.
> So much time and effort wasted.
It's certainly not as palpably lucrative as Stratfordianism can be.
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<e1a6b384-1e82-4ab3...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Evidently you have not read this:
> > > >http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > But the declaration apparently does not include among its
> > > signatories such anti-Stratfordian luminaries as Eric Altschuler
> > > (author of "Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars," <http://
> > > front.math.ucdavis.edu/9810.7042>), Stephanie Caruana (author of_The
> > > Gemstone File: A Memoir_ and coauthor of _Oxford's Revenge_; the
> > > latter is a very worthy competitor for Montezuma's revenge), the
> > > "Rev." "Dr." Faker, Peter Zenner (author of _The Shakespeare
> > > Invention_, <http://www.zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix.htm>), Elisabeth
> > > Sears (author of _Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose_), polymath and
> > > hemidemisemiglot Elizabeth Weird, or anthologist and humorist Art
> > >Neuendorffer. How, then, can such a document be taken seriously?
> I signed but I guess it must have been with invisible ink.
What?! You mean that you're so far enough out on the lunatic
fringe that you're even an embarrassment even to the...uh...VERy
eccentric signatories of the declaration?! That's quite an
accomplishment, Art!
> (I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
Who is the major domo, Art?
> > > However, the remarks of the signatories do afford some welcome
> > > amusement in places. They exhibit the familiar hallmarks of the anti-
> > > Stratfordian "movement," ranging from borderline paranoia ("Keeping
> > > Shakespeare's identity as it is only benefits those who make money
> > > off of it") to formidable erudition ("Electrical Engineer. I studied
> > > "Macbeth" as part the English Literature course of the University of
> > > London General Certificate of Education, 1972") to eccentricity
> > > ("Campionist. Originator of the theory/website contending that St.
> > > Edmund Campion S.J. is the author of the works of Shakespeare")
> > >
> > > -- and most of these gems come from
> > > only the first few pages of signatories!
> David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Check out the last page of signatories,
> > which contains these self- descriptions:
> >
> > "Teacher/student of kabbalah and western esoteric tradition;
> > member of Bacon Society for 27 years."
> >
> > "My doctorate in language and learning was inspired by the Bard.
> > How could he only have had one bed!"
> You should see his worst beds.
> David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > "English teacher, author of "Shake-speare's Tombe 'Epigramma',
> > "in GAMES magazine, February 1998"
> I used to know someone who knew Charles Arthur Young.
> (so I'm a signatory twice removed).
But you know Mr. Streitz, don't you, Art? I note that he is a
signatory, so you're only once removed.
> David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > "I may one day be notable for being one of two determined female
> > scientists who exposed the most truth about 9/11.
> > Seehttp://shoes4industry.blogspot.com"
> There are other female scientists who are undetermined.
Or perhaps even indeterminate?
> David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Voice Teacher, The Juilliard School (fired from); Tisch School
> > of the Arts (NYU) (fired from). I still have my smelly cooter."
That one was most amusing.
> Pseudemys, a genus of turtles of the southern United States.
> Inverness, Florida sparked controversy by founding
> a "cooter festival" in celebration of their local turtles.
> David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > "A student of Shakespeare for 45 years, I've studied the entire body
> > of work and favor De Vere or Bacon. After so long, what's in a name?"
> >
> > "Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified
> > history of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship."
> Here's a "null set designer" opening for Webb.
Excellent, Art -- but it's a temptation that I was able to resist.
> David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > The whole thing is amusing but also sad.
> > So much time and effort wasted.
> It's certainly not as palpably lucrative as Stratfordianism can be.
And how do you imagine that "Stratfordianism" is "lucrative," Art?
Most (sane) people agree that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote
the works attributed to him, but the vast majority have not made so
much as a penny as a result.
> Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> David Kathman wrote:
> > "Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified history
> > of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship."
>
> Evidently once successful in the first two fields, but in respect of the
> last, a follower of the Fomenko cult, which holds that all history
> before the early modern period is a fraud created by evil Jesuits, with
> the intention of suppressing the "truth" that the Russians are God's
> chosen people -- as popular in Russia as Creationism in the US, and as
> dangerous.
When one considers that this group boasts among its anti-
Stratfordian participants (1) an anti-Einstein physics crank who
argues that special relativity is both wrong and "plagerized" from
others who deserve the credit; (2) a biological revisionist who
believes that AIDS is "a hoax"; (3) at least two erudite philologists
who believe that Old English was still spoken in the nineteenth
century; (4) an "aquatic apes" adherent; (5) a creative linguist who
believes that Andean speakers of Spanish do not know how to conjugate
stem-changing verbs in their own tongue; (6) a mathematical crank
(although his crankery is by no means confined to mathematics) who
thinks that he has "solved" Fermat's Last Theorem, and that the Apollo
lunar landing was a crude NASA-contrived hoax (and who moreover boasts
of his copulations with trees); and (7) a moron who believes that only
one person on the entire planet could possibly be named Peter Gay, I
suppose that the eventual appearance of an adherent of "New
Chronology" among anti-Stratfordian ranks was just a matter of time.
I'm still waiting to find anti-Stratfordian angle trisectors, circle
squarers, special creationists, and flat-earth fanatics -- one cannot
but feel quite confident that they are out there.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > > > > Evidently you have not read this:
> > > > >http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
> > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > But the declaration apparently does not include among its
> > > > signatories such anti-Stratfordian luminaries as Eric Altschuler
> > > > (author of "Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars," <http://
> > > > front.math.ucdavis.edu/9810.7042>), Stephanie Caruana (author of_The
> > > > Gemstone File: A Memoir_ and coauthor of _Oxford's Revenge_; the
> > > > latter is a very worthy competitor for Montezuma's revenge), the
> > > > "Rev." "Dr." Faker, Peter Zenner (author of _The Shakespeare
> > > > Invention_, <http://www.zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix.htm>), Elisabeth
> > > > Sears (author of _Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose_), polymath and
> > > > hemidemisemiglot Elizabeth Weird, or anthologist and humorist Art
> > > >Neuendorffer. How, then, can such a document be taken seriously?
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > I signed but I guess it must have been with invisible ink.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> What?! You mean that you're so far enough out on the lunatic
> fringe that you're even an embarrassment even to the...uh...VERy
> eccentric signatories of the declaration?! That's quite an
> accomplishment, Art!
T'wern't nothin'
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > (I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Who is the major domo, Art?
The initials are M.H. and he's on the list.
.
> > > > However, the remarks of the signatories do afford some welcome
> > > > amusement in places. They exhibit the familiar hallmarks of the anti-
> > > > Stratfordian "movement," ranging from borderline paranoia ("Keeping
> > > > Shakespeare's identity as it is only benefits those who make money
> > > > off of it") to formidable erudition ("Electrical Engineer. I studied
> > > > "Macbeth" as part the English Literature course of the University of
> > > > London General Certificate of Education, 1972") to eccentricity
> > > > ("Campionist. Originator of the theory/website contending that St.
> > > > Edmund Campion S.J. is the author of the works of Shakespeare")
>
> > > > -- and most of these gems come from
> > > > only the first few pages of signatories!
.
> > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Check out the last page of signatories,
> > > which contains these self- descriptions:
>
> > > "Teacher/student of kabbalah and western esoteric tradition;
> > > member of Bacon Society for 27 years."
>
> > > "My doctorate in language and learning was inspired by the Bard.
> > > How could he only have had one bed!"
..
You should see his Worstead beds.
.
> > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "English teacher, author of "Shake-speare's Tombe 'Epigramma',
> > > "in GAMES magazine, February 1998"
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > I used to know someone who knew Charles Arthur Young.
> > (so I'm a signatory twice removed).
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But you know Mr. Streitz, don't you, Art? I note that
> he is a signatory, so you're only once removed.
I'm a-Paul'd by the idea that I know Mr. Streitz.
> > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "I may one day be notable for being one of two determined
> > > female scientists who exposed the most truth about 9/11.
> > > See http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com"
> > There are other female scientists who are undetermined.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Or perhaps even indeterminate?
Can you determine if H. Nicole Young is Huguette Nicole Pelletier?
(I've given up on folks who are Young or Gay.)
> > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Voice Teacher, The Juilliard School (fired from); Tisch School
> > > of the Arts (NYU) (fired from). I still have my smelly cooter."
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That one was most amusing.
Have any of your students ever done a prank on you?
http://gradacting.tisch.nyu.edu/object/YountsS.html
> > Pseudemys, a genus of turtles of the southern United States.
> > Inverness, Florida sparked controversy by founding
> > a "cooter festival" in celebration of their local turtles.
.
> > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > "A student of Shakespeare for 45 years, I've studied the entire body
> > > of work and favor De Vere or Bacon. After so long, what's in a name?"
>
> > > "Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified
> > > history of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship."
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > Here's a "null set designer" opening for Webb.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Excellent, Art -- but it's a temptation that I was able to resist.
Nicole Pelletier is a costume designer convicted on May 20, 2002, of
Murder as an Accessory in the beating death of her husband (maybe).
.
> > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > The whole thing is amusing but also sad.
> > > So much time and effort wasted.
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > It's certainly not as palpably lucrative as Stratfordianism can be.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> And how do you imagine that "Stratfordianism" is "lucrative," Art?
Ask the Birthplace Trust.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Most (sane) people agree that William Shakespeare
> of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him, but the
> vast majority have not made so much as a penny as a result.
But none of the Anti-Strats have made a penny.
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<f3459304-e070-4db1...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > > > Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Evidently you have not read this:
> > > > > >http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/declaration
>
> > > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > > But the declaration apparently does not include among its
> > > > > signatories such anti-Stratfordian luminaries as Eric Altschuler
> > > > > (author of "Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars," <http://
> > > > > front.math.ucdavis.edu/9810.7042>), Stephanie Caruana (author of_The
> > > > > Gemstone File: A Memoir_ and coauthor of _Oxford's Revenge_; the
> > > > > latter is a very worthy competitor for Montezuma's revenge), the
> > > > > "Rev." "Dr." Faker, Peter Zenner (author of _The Shakespeare
> > > > > Invention_, <http://www.zenigmas.fsnet.co.uk/phoenix.htm>), Elisabeth
> > > > > Sears (author of _Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose_), polymath and
> > > > > hemidemisemiglot Elizabeth Weird, or anthologist and humorist Art
> > > > >Neuendorffer. How, then, can such a document be taken seriously?
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > > I signed but I guess it must have been with invisible ink.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > What?! You mean that you're so far enough out on the lunatic
> > fringe that you're even an embarrassment even to the...uh...VERy
> > eccentric signatories of the declaration?! That's quite an
> > accomplishment, Art!
> T'wern't nothin'
Don't be oVERly modest, Art -- only you appear to have attained
this remarkable distinction. For example, even Mr. Streitz appears
as a signatory of the Declaration, and surely anyone aware of the
content of his bumbling book -- even an Oxfordian -- would be
painfully aware what an embarrassment he is, even without any
knowledge of his revisionist aerodynamics and biology (not to mention
his belief that only one of Shakespeare's plays is set in a foreign
country other than Italy). Do you know of anyone other than yourself
(and Peter Groves's invented "Dimwit K. Stupid" persona) who attempted
to sign the Declaration but was refused?
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > > (I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Who is the major domo, Art?
> The initials are M.H. and he's on the list.
It must be Marty Hyatt, then. But why should he (or anyone else,
for that matter) hate you? Is this your "Petulant Paranoid" persona
finding expression again, Art? Certainly nobody with a sense of humor
could eVER hate you.
You mentioned here before that Mr. Strietz corners airline pilots
at cocktail parties (no doubt with all the importunate insistence of
the Ancient Mariner) and regales them with his delusional alternatives
to the theory of aerodynamics. How do you know this if you are not
acquainted with Mr. Streitz?
[...]
> > > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > The whole thing is amusing but also sad.
> > > > So much time and effort wasted.
> .
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > > It's certainly not as palpably lucrative as Stratfordianism can be.
> .
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > And how do you imagine that "Stratfordianism" is "lucrative," Art?
> Ask the Birthplace Trust.
But Art -- most professional Shakespeare scholars are remunerated
by their home institutions and don't receive a penny from the Trust.
The same is true of the many "Stratfordians," experts and amateurs
alike, who do not hold academic positions. It is ludicrous to
characterize as "lucrative" an intellectual position such a tiny
fraction of whose adherents benefit thereby -- but one has come to
expect ludicrous pronouncements from your "Petulant Paranoid" trolling
persona.
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > > > I signed but I guess it must have been with invisible ink.
.
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > What?! You mean that you're so far enough out on the lunatic
> > > fringe that you're even an embarrassment even to the...uh...VERy
> > > eccentric signatories of the declaration?! That's quite an
> > > accomplishment, Art!
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > T'wern't nothin'
.
>
> Don't be oVERly modest, Art -- only you appear to have attained
> this remarkable distinction. For example, even Mr. Streitz appears
> as a signatory of the Declaration, and surely anyone aware of the
> content of his bumbling book -- even an Oxfordian -- would be
> painfully aware what an embarrassment he is, even without any
> knowledge of his revisionist aerodynamics and biology (not to
> mention his belief that only one of Shakespeare's plays
> is set in a foreign country other than Italy).
I'm sure that a large contingent of PT'ers are not unhappy with
Streitz book and would not bother to consider his other deficiencies.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Do you know of anyone other than yourself
> (and Peter Groves's invented "Dimwit K. Stupid" persona)
> who attempted to sign the Declaration but was refused?
No. Do you?
> > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > > (I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
.
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Who is the major domo, Art?
> > The initials are M.H. and he's on the list.
>
> It must be Marty Hyatt, then. But why should he (or anyone else,
> for that matter) hate you? Is this your "Petulant Paranoid" persona
> finding expression again, Art? Certainly nobody with
> a sense of humor could eVER hate you.
Marty has never displayed any sense of humor to me.
It is true that I have probably too critical of Roger Stritmatter:
1) Objecting to his use of statistics in his thesis
2) Objecting to his HLAS flyby's under a pseudonym
3) Objecting to the unwillingness on the part of both
Lynn & him to discuss their Tempest paper on HLAS
But while Roger has some cause, Lynn & Marty have not.
> > > > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Check out the last page of signatories,
> > > > > which contains these self- descriptions:
>
> > > > > "Teacher/student of kabbalah and western esoteric tradition;
> > > > > member of Bacon Society for 27 years."
>
> > > > > "My doctorate in language and learning was inspired
> > > > > by the Bard. How could he only have had one bed!"
> > ..
> > You should see his Worstead beds.
> > .
> > > > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "English teacher, author of "Shake-speare's Tombe 'Epigramma',
> > > > > "in GAMES magazine, February 1998"
> > .
> > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > > I used to know someone who knew Charles Arthur Young.
> > > > (so I'm a signatory twice removed).
> > .
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > But you know Mr. Streitz, don't you, Art? I note that
> > > he is a signatory, so you're only once removed.
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > I'm a-Paul'd by the idea that I know Mr. Streitz.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You mentioned here before that Mr. Strietz corners airline pilots
> at cocktail parties (no doubt with all the importunate insistence of
> the Ancient Mariner) and regales them with his delusional alternatives
> to the theory of aerodynamics. How do you know this
> if you are not acquainted with Mr. Streitz?
I was relating something that Streitz himself wrote
(; though not in those terms of course).
> > > > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The whole thing is amusing but also sad.
> > > > > So much time and effort wasted.
> > .
> > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > > It's certainly not as palpably lucrative as Stratfordianism can be.
> > .
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > And how do you imagine that "Stratfordianism" is "lucrative," Art?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > .
> > Ask the Birthplace Trust.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But Art -- most professional Shakespeare scholars are remunerated
> by their home institutions and don't receive a penny from the Trust.
> The same is true of the many "Stratfordians," experts and amateurs
> alike, who do not hold academic positions. It is ludicrous to
> characterize as "lucrative" an intellectual position such a tiny
> fraction of whose adherents benefit thereby -
.
Of course, there are those who just consider it "an honor
to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission."
.
How's your Pop doing, Dave?
.
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<1bfc6a63-644e-4b90...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > > I signed but I guess it must have been with invisible ink.
> > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What?! You mean that you're so far enough out on the lunatic
> > > > fringe that you're even an embarrassment even to the...uh...VERy
> > > > eccentric signatories of the declaration?! That's quite an
> > > > accomplishment, Art!
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > > T'wern't nothin'
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Don't be oVERly modest, Art -- only you appear to have attained
> > this remarkable distinction. For example, even Mr. Streitz appears
> > as a signatory of the Declaration, and surely anyone aware of the
> > content of his bumbling book -- even an Oxfordian -- would be
> > painfully aware what an embarrassment he is, even without any
> > knowledge of his revisionist aerodynamics and biology (not to
> > mention his belief that only one of Shakespeare's plays
> > is set in a foreign country other than Italy).
> I'm sure that a large contingent of PT'ers are not unhappy with
> Streitz book [sic] and would not bother to consider his other deficiencies.
What?! They are oblivious to the fact that Streitz identifies
Elizabeth Petroff, one of the members of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis
committee, as "Elizabeth Petrify"? They are unaware of Mr. Streitz's
xenophobic paranoia about the putative Mexican "reconquista" of the
southwestern United States, and his writing (to use the word oVERly
charitably) for the /Magic City Morning Star/? But since the powers
that be apparently allowed even Sobran to sign the Declaration, they
must be willing to oVERlook quite a lot.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Do you know of anyone other than yourself
> > (and Peter Groves's invented "Dimwit K. Stupid" persona)
> > who attempted to sign the Declaration but was refused?
> No. Do you?
No, I don't know of any; why should I? But I don't know whether,
for example, Stephanie Caruana has attempted to sign; her recent
"Gemstone" notoriety might give pause to even the most eccentric
lunatic-fringe anti-Stratfordians.
> > > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > > (I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
> > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > Who is the major domo, Art?
> > > The initials are M.H. and he's on the list.
> > It must be Marty Hyatt, then. But why should he (or anyone else,
> > for that matter) hate you? Is this your "Petulant Paranoid" persona
> > finding expression again, Art? Certainly nobody with
> > a sense of humor could eVER hate you.
> Marty has never displayed any sense of humor to me.
>
> It is true that I have probably too critical [sic] of Roger Stritmatter:
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> 1) Objecting to his use of statistics in his thesis
The misuse of statistics in his thesis was total rubbish, a fact
that I believe that even Dr. Stritmatter himself concedes; why, then,
should anyone hate you for pointing out the obvious? In any case, it
isn't as obvious or as embarrassing as the Mary Tudor/Mary Queen of
Scots gaffe, or the Mary Vere/Katherine Vere confusion.
> 2) Objecting to his HLAS flyby's [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> under a pseudonym
Under a *pseudonym*?! Why should an anti-Stratfordian object to
that? But even the posts that were signed by him -- for example, the
mad-dog attacks on Terry Ross prompted by posts of Tom Reedy, another
pair of dissimilar writers whose identities Dr. Strimtatter seemed
incapable of keeping straight -- were a major embarrassment to
Oxfordians' attributional acumen; again, why should anyone hate you
for pointing out the obvious?
> 3) Objecting to the unwillingness on the part of both
> Lynn & him to discuss their Tempest paper on HLAS
It would have been a little difficult for you to discuss a paper
that you had not even seen yet, Art; howeVER, I know that not having
read primary texts has neVER deterred you before -- indeed, it is one
of the wellsprings of your seemingly inexhaustible comedy.
> But while Roger has some cause, Lynn [sic] & Marty have not.
But Art -- where on earth did you get the idea that Lynne hated
you? She let you speak in Baltimore, despite her awareness of the
torrent of nutcase numerology and crank cryptography that must
inevitably ensue. And what does Lynne have to do with Marty Hyatt or
with the Declaration in any case?
[...]
> > > > > David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > The whole thing is amusing but also sad.
> > > > > > So much time and effort wasted.
> > > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > > > > It's certainly not as palpably lucrative as Stratfordianism can be.
> > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > And how do you imagine that "Stratfordianism" is "lucrative," Art?
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > .
> > > Ask the Birthplace Trust.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But Art -- most professional Shakespeare scholars are remunerated
> > by their home institutions and don't receive a penny from the Trust.
> > The same is true of the many "Stratfordians," experts and amateurs
> > alike, who do not hold academic positions. It is ludicrous to
> > characterize as "lucrative" an intellectual position such a tiny
> > fraction of whose adherents benefit thereby -
> Of course, there are those who just consider it "an honor
> to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission."
True -- those of us who share the Bloodline find other
compensations in our work, Art. (Incidentally, Art, if you aspire to
receive postcards from the locales where the Shakespeare Authorship
Coverup Conspirators' Conclave convenes, you should send me your
updated address.)
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > > Don't be oVERly modest, Art -- only you appear to have attained
> > > this remarkable distinction. For example, even Mr. Streitz appears
> > > as a signatory of the Declaration, and surely anyone aware of the
> > > content of his bumbling book -- even an Oxfordian -- would be
> > > painfully aware what an embarrassment he is, even without any
> > > knowledge of his revisionist aerodynamics and biology (not to
> > > mention his belief that only one of Shakespeare's plays
> > > is set in a foreign country other than Italy).
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure that a large contingent of PT'ers are not unhappy with
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> What?! They are oblivious to the fact that Streitz identifies
> Elizabeth Petroff, one of the members of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis
> committee, as "Elizabeth Petrify"? They are unaware of Mr. Streitz's
> xenophobic paranoia about the putative Mexican "reconquista" of the
> southwestern United States, and his writing (to use the word oVERly
> charitably) for the /Magic City Morning Star/? But since the powers
> that be apparently allowed even Sobran to sign the Declaration,
> they must be willing to oVERlook quite a lot.
Apparently.
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Do you know of anyone other than yourself
> > > (and Peter Groves's invented "Dimwit K. Stupid" persona)
> > > who attempted to sign the Declaration but was refused?
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > No. Do you?
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> No, I don't know of any; why should I?
Shirley, the Grand Master, keeps track of such things.
> But I don't know whether,
> for example, Stephanie Caruana has attempted to sign; her recent
> "Gemstone" notoriety might give pause to even the most eccentric
> lunatic-fringe anti-Stratfordians.
>
> > > > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > > > > (I think the major domo in charge of this hates my guts.)
> > > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > Who is the major domo, Art?
> > > > The initials are M.H. and he's on the list.
> > > It must be Marty Hyatt, then. But why should he (or anyone else,
> > > for that matter) hate you? Is this your "Petulant Paranoid" persona
> > > finding expression again, Art? Certainly nobody with
> > > a sense of humor could eVER hate you.
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > Marty has never displayed any sense of humor to me.
>
> > It is true that I have probably been too critical of Roger Stritmatter:
>
> > 1) Objecting to his use of statistics in his thesis
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> The misuse of statistics in his thesis was total rubbish, a fact
> that I believe that even Dr. Stritmatter himself concedes; why, then,
> should anyone hate you for pointing out the obvious? In any case, it
> isn't as obvious or as embarrassing as the Mary Tudor/Mary Queen of
> Scots gaffe, or the Mary Vere/Katherine Vere confusion.
Where does Roger concede a flaw in his use of statistics?
.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > 2) Objecting to his HLAS flybys under a pseudonym
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Under a *pseudonym*?! Why should an anti-Stratfordian object to
> that? But even the posts that were signed by him -- for example, the
> mad-dog attacks on Terry Ross prompted by posts of Tom Reedy, another
> pair of dissimilar writers whose identities Dr. Strimtatter seemed
> incapable of keeping straight -- were a major embarrassment to
> Oxfordians' attributional acumen; again, why should anyone hate you
> for pointing out the obvious?
A major embarrassment to Oxfordians' attributional aquamen?
------------------------------------------------
George: What's the deal with Aquaman?
. Could he go on land, or was he just restricted to water?
.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/26171DC~Aquaman-Posters.jpg
.
Jerry: No, I think I saw him on land a couple times.
------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > 3) Objecting to the unwillingness on the part of both
> > Lynne & him to discuss their Tempest paper on HLAS
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> It would have been a little difficult for you to discuss a paper
> that you had not even seen yet, Art; howeVER, I know that not having
> read primary texts has neVER deterred you before -- indeed, it is one
> of the wellsprings of your seemingly inexhaustible comedy.
>
> > But while Roger has some cause, Lynne & Marty have not.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But Art -- where on earth did you get the idea that Lynne hated
> you? She let you speak in Baltimore, despite her awareness of the
> torrent of nutcase numerology and crank cryptography that must
> inevitably ensue. And what does Lynne have to do with
> Marty Hyatt or with the Declaration in any case?
Lynne is the beloved of the Fellowship and she holds to the
George W. philosophy that either one is for her or against her.
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > But Art -- most professional Shakespeare scholars are remunerated
> > > by their home institutions and don't receive a penny from the Trust.
> > > The same is true of the many "Stratfordians," experts and amateurs
> > > alike, who do not hold academic positions. It is ludicrous to
> > > characterize as "lucrative" an intellectual position such a tiny
> > > fraction of whose adherents benefit thereby -
> > Of course, there are those who just consider it "an honor
> > to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission."
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> True -- those of us who share the Bloodline find other
> compensations in our work, Art. (Incidentally, Art, if you aspire to
> receive postcards from the locales where the Shakespeare Authorship
> Coverup Conspirators' Conclave convenes, you should send me your
> updated address.)
Didn't the grandmaster tell you already?
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
> .
> Jerry: No, I think I saw him on land a couple times.
> ------------------------------------------------> �Art Neuendorffer � wrote:
>
> > > 3) Objecting to the unwillingness on the part of both
> > > Lynne & him to discuss their Tempest paper on HLAS
>
>
> > � �It would have been a little difficult for you to discuss a paper
> > that you had not even seen yet, Art; howeVER, I know that not having
> > read primary texts has neVER deterred you before -- indeed, it is one
> > of the wellsprings of your seemingly inexhaustible comedy.
>
> > > But while Roger has some cause, Lynne & Marty have not.
>
> .
>
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > � � But Art -- where on earth did you get the idea that Lynne hated
> > you? �She let you speak in Baltimore, despite her awareness of the
> > torrent of nutcase numerology and crank cryptography that must
> > inevitably ensue. �And what does Lynne have to do with
> > Marty Hyatt or with the Declaration in any case?
>
> Lynne is the beloved of the Fellowship and she holds to the
> George W. philosophy that either one is for her or against her.
MM:
My experience with Lynne is that there could be some wiggle room in
the middle, and she could be more forgiving than that. I think if we
take the authorship issue to extremes, then it is not mentally
healthy. If parents have a mentally retarded child, for example, they
would not necessarily hate him/her for that. They would just try to
be more patient.
Michael Martin
>
> > > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > � �But Art -- most professional Shakespeare scholars are remunerated
> > > > by their home institutions and don't receive a penny from the Trust.
> > > > The same is true of the many "Stratfordians," experts and amateurs
> > > > alike, who do not hold academic positions. �It is ludicrous to
> > > > characterize as "lucrative" an intellectual position such a tiny
> > > > fraction of whose adherents benefit thereby -
> > > Of course, there are those who just consider it "an honor
> > > to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission."
>
> .
>
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > � �True -- those of us who share the Bloodline find other
> > compensations in our work, Art. �(Incidentally, Art, if you aspire to
> > receive postcards from the locales where the Shakespeare Authorship
> > Coverup Conspirators' Conclave convenes, you should send me your
> > updated address.)
>
> Didn't the grandmaster tell you already?
>
> Art Neuendorffer- Hide quoted text -
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > > � � But Art -- where on earth did you get the idea that Lynne hated
> > > you? �She let you speak in Baltimore, despite her awareness of the
> > > torrent of nutcase numerology and crank cryptography that must
> > > inevitably ensue. �And what does Lynne have to do with
> > > Marty Hyatt or with the Declaration in any case?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> > Lynne is the beloved of the Fellowship and she holds to the
> > George W. philosophy that either one is for her or against her.
lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My experience with Lynne is that there could be some wiggle room in
> the middle, and she could be more forgiving than that. I think if we
> take the authorship issue to extremes, then it is not mentally
> healthy. If parents have a mentally retarded child, for example, they
> would not necessarily hate him/her for that. They would just try to
> be more patient.
Look at the studio filled with glamorous merchandise. Fabulous and
exciting bonus prizes. Thousands of dollars in cash. Over $150,000
just waiting to be won as we present our big bonanza of cash on Wheel
Of Fortune.
lackpurity
wrote:
Are you that mercenary? I'm wondering about your viewpoint, Art. Are
you thinking that Oxfordianism will make you rich, if you're not
already? I wonder if any snake oil salesmen ever got rich? LOL
Kidding aside, Art. You are making a good point about some Anti-
Strats. I don't know about Lynne, so I'm not including her in this.
God knows what our intentions are, and I think the almighty dollar is
a factor for a lot of Anti-Stratfordians, IMO.
Yes, I know some Anti-Strats have charged some Strats with being
mercenary, also, especially with respect to the tourism to England and
Stratford-On-Avon. I wouldn't blame people for making an honest
living, however. The people of Stratford were blessed that God
incarnated himself there. That was God's decision, not anyone
else's. Generations of Stratfordians have been blessed for the last
400 years. How many generations is that, about 20? They should thank
God for his grace, IMO.
Michael Martin
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > > My experience with Lynne is that there could be some wiggle room in
> > > the middle, and she could be more forgiving than that. I think if we
> > > take the authorship issue to extremes, then it is not mentally
> > > healthy. If parents have a mentally retarded child, for example, they
> > > would not necessarily hate him/her for that. They would just try to
> > > be more patient.
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > Look at the studio filled with glamorous merchandise. Fabulous and
> > exciting bonus prizes. Thousands of dollars in cash. Over $150,000
> > just waiting to be won as we present our big bonanza of cash on Wheel
> > Of Fortune.
lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Are you that mercenary? I'm wondering about your viewpoint, Art. Are
> you thinking that Oxfordianism will make you rich, if you're not
> already? I wonder if any snake oil salesmen ever got rich? LOL
Charlie: Does Raymond know how much money he's inherited?
Dr. Bruner: No, he doesn't understand the concept of money.
Charlie: He doesn't understand the concept of money? He just inherited
$3,000,000 and he doesn't understand the concept of money? Wow, good
work,
Dad. I'm getting fucking poetic here.
> Yes, I know some Anti-Strats have charged some Strats with being
> mercenary, also, especially with respect to the tourism to England and
> Stratford-On-Avon. I wouldn't blame people for making an honest
> living, however. The people of Stratford were blessed that God
> incarnated himself there. That was God's decision, not anyone
> else's.
Charlie: I just realized I'm not pissed off anymore. My father cut me
out of his will. You probably knew he tried to contact me over the
years. I never called him back. I was a prick. If he was my son and
didn't return my calls, I'd have written him out. But it's not about
the money anymore. You know, I just don't understand. Why didn't he
tell me I had a brother? Why didn't anyone ever tell me that I had a
brother? Because it'd have been nice to know him for more than just
the past six days.
Greg Reynolds
> That was God's decision, not anyone else's.
You personify the Almighty?
> They should thank God for his grace, IMO.
You place yourself between man and God?
Michael. please stop providing these unsolicited misunderstandings of
God. You're no shepherd and we're no flock.
You can't understand our topic because you pretend to teach us
instead. Like date rape, you force yourself on us with your trite self-
indulgence.
Reincarnate maybe. Treat some other newsgroup to enlightenment-lite.
Greg Reynolds
John W. Kennedy
> On Jan 18, 8:46 pm, lackpurity wrote:
>> That was God's decision, not anyone else's.
> You personify the Almighty?
Hey, for once, he accidentally had a moment of non-blasphemy. We should
be encouraging that.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
Christian Lanciai
> > There is no need for any palpable evidence to figure out by simple
> > logic that Shakespeare could not have been written by the silent swan
> > of Avon.
>
> > C.
>
> MM:
> Simple logic? He was relatively silent, until Marlowe died.
Swans (of the common kind found in England) never sing. They are mute
and only wheeze occasionally. So why would Jonson call him a swan? Try
to figure that one out, if your IQ is sufficient.
C.
Peter Groves
news:56f2257b-6aa5-42fe...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There is no need for any palpable evidence to figure out by simple
> > logic that Shakespeare could not have been written by the silent swan
> > of Avon.
>
> > C.
>
> MM:
> Simple logic? He was relatively silent, until Marlowe died.
> Michael Martin
Swans (of the common kind found in England) never sing. They are mute
and only wheeze occasionally. So why would Jonson call him a swan?
**Maybe because in the Greek tradition, the swan is a symbol of the Muses.
Poetry (clearly you need to be informed of this) is not the same as Natural
History (otherwise we'd be very worried about dragons).
--
Peter G.
"A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
Templars." (Umberto Eco)
John W. Kennedy
> "Christian Lanciai" <clan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:56f2257b-6aa5-42fe...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>> There is no need for any palpable evidence to figure out by simple
>>> logic that Shakespeare could not have been written by the silent swan
>>> of Avon.
>>> C.
>> MM:
>> Simple logic? He was relatively silent, until Marlowe died.
>> Michael Martin
>
> Swans (of the common kind found in England) never sing. They are mute
> and only wheeze occasionally. So why would Jonson call him a swan?
>
> **Maybe because in the Greek tradition, the swan is a symbol of the Muses.
> Poetry (clearly you need to be informed of this) is not the same as Natural
> History (otherwise we'd be very worried about dragons).
The silver swan, who living had no note,
When death approach'd, unlock'd her silent throat;
Leaning her breast against the reedy shore,
Thus sung her first and last, and sung no more.
Farewell, all joys; O Death, come close mine eyes;
More geese than swans now live, more fools than wise.
-- Orlando Gibbons
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
lackpurity
MM:
Read my reply to Lyra about swans (hansas.) Jonson was emphasizing
his (Shakespeare's) sweetness, and his ability to fly to mystic planes
of consciousness. You say he was mute? Are you kidding? Since Jesus
Christ, he has had more impact on the English speaking world than
anyone. That is hardly evidence of silence. He even admitted, "my
extern was honored." I rest my case.
Michael Martin
book...@yahoo.com
(quotes)
The so-called mute swan is not, in fact, mute. It grunts, snorts,
hisses, makes shrill noises, and in flight produces a sighing whistle
from the action of its wings on the downstroke.
The Modern English word swan comes from Middle English and Old English
swan. It is based on an Indo-European root meaning "to sound, to
sing."
The root was probably applied to the swan because of the widespread
ancient belief that the common mute swan, after a lifetime of silence,
may sing one beautiful song just before it dies. That belief
influenced Plato's Phaedo, Aesop's "The Swan Mistaken for a Goose,"
Ovid's "The Story of Picus and Canens," and many other ancient
literary works. In one Greek legend, the soul of Apollo, the god of
music, passed into a swan.
(unquotes)
Possible connections between mute swan and Titus Andronicus.
1. Obvious one about tongue cut out after rape, resulting in mute.
2. Rape of Leda by Swan represents myth of Zeus' rape of Nemesis,
goddess of retribution. Zeus is suspected of divine plan to produce
beautiful women to plague mankind with trouble and misdeeds; hence,
motivation behind TA plot.
3. Idea of "twins" may have attracted Shakespeare, the father of
twins, to the resulting eggs produced by Leda: the Gemini Twins,
Castor and Pollux, and their sisters, Clytemnestra and Helen. Helen
is credited with being the beautiful cause of the Trojan War, which
preceded the Dark Age of Greece.
4. Shakespeare liked Ovid's concept of metamorphosis, involving
transmutation of humans into symbols of enduring meaning; so in
ghastly irony his rape victim is like Leda, a muted swan, beautiful
but unable to talk or point to her rapists--except by artistry.
Christian Lanciai
Thanks for this. Lyra has also produced a very elucidating ornitology
about swans and their swansongs. The Cygnys Cygnus is actually called
"The Singing Swan" in Nordic countries but is not found in Britain
except as a rare visitor. It has a booming voice and is quite
impressive when it appears in migrating numbers, which Sibelius
actually has tried to render in some of his (tonal) music, with better
results than (the atonal) Messiaen. Still, the possible double and
dubious meaning of Jonson's expression remains, especially considering
the muteness of common English swans like the ones generally found in
the vicinity of Avon.
C(hris)
nordicskiv2
"Peter Groves" <what...@whatever.org> wrote:
> "Christian Lanciai" <clan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:56f2257b-6aa5-42fe...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Swans (of the common kind found in England) never sing. They are mute
> and only wheeze occasionally. So why would Jonson call him a swan?
> **Maybe because in the Greek tradition, the swan is a symbol of the Muses.
> Poetry (clearly you need to be informed of this) is not the same as Natural
> History (otherwise we'd be very worried about dragons).
To make matters worse, his command of natural history is apparently
no better than his awareness of classical tradition; indeed, anyone
who has spent a modest amount of time observing birds in the field
knows that swans (even /Cygnus olor/, the so-called Mute Swan) are
anything but mute -- in particular, the Mute Swan has a variety of
vocalizations, as Christian could easily have discovered by the simple
expedient of consulting a field guide. For example, David Sibley's
excellent field guide (my favorite) notes that the Mute Swan "...gives
a variety of calls", some of which Sibley describes: "...an explosive,
exhaling /kheorrrr/ with rumbling end; sometimes a clear, bugling /
kloorrr/ reminiscent of Tundra Swan..." Christian could even have
listened to a RealPlayer file one of the vocalizations of the species
from the extensive Cornell recording collection at
<http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/audio/Mute_Swan.ram>.
The authoritative nature of many anti-Stratfordians' definitive
pronouncements on subjects of which they are completely ignorant --
e.g., "Dr." Faker on number theory or lunar landings, Mr. Streitz on
fluid dynamics or the etiology of AIDS, Stephanie Caruana on the
history of printing, Mr. Innes on philology, Art on modern languages,
Crowley on primate evolution, or Elizabeth Weird on virtually any
subject -- is one of the most consistently comic aspects of h.l.a.s.
Dominic Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chris -- time to give up and simply admit that you were wrong when you
said Jonson would have no reason to use the swan imagery in referring
to Shakespeare. There is no double or dubious meaning, no ambiguity,
in his use of that expression.
Dom
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> The authoritative nature of many anti-Stratfordians' definitive
> pronouncements on subjects of which they are completely ignorant --
> e.g., "Dr." Faker on number theory or lunar landings, Mr. Streitz on
> fluid dynamics or the etiology of AIDS, Stephanie Caruana on the
> history of printing, Mr. Innes on philology, Art on modern languages,
> Crowley on primate evolution, or Elizabeth Weird on virtually any
> subject -- is one of the most consistently comic aspects of h.l.a.s.
Even more amusing is their insistance that whatever pronouncement they
have trotted out still has evidentiary value, even after it has been
proven wrong. Christian epitomizes this nutty thinking in his latest
message: "Still, the POSSIBLE double and dubious meaning of Jonson's
expression remains . . ." (emphasis mine).
Their "logic" seems to be, "Sure, all our 'evidence' is worthless, but
it should count for something since there's so much of it."
TR
lackpurity
MM:
A comment on an excerpt from "Sar Bachan," (True Teachings) by Soami
Ji Maharaj (1818-1878:)
*Lake Mansarovar: A lake in Daswan Dwar*, also called the Lake of
Nectar (amritsar). When the soul bathes in this lake, it washes
itself clean of all gross coverings and begins its transformation
into pure soul, which Saints generally refer to as a swan (hansa)
[pure, liberated soul].
MM:
This happens at third plane, beyond the Universal Mind. It is a very
bright region, and the soul is naked, also shining with the light of
twelve suns. It shines with a white light, and that is another reason
that these hansas are called "swans."
That is what Jonson meant. He didn't mean that Shakespeare was part
of a gigantic cover-up. King James I made Jonson the Poet Laureate,
so he is a VERY CREDIBLE WITNESS for Stratfordianism.
Michael Martin
Christian Lanciai
> In article <2Mllj.5935$421.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Peter Groves" <whate...@whatever.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Christian Lanciai" <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Any animal can make sounds and noises. The fact is, that the common
swan of England is called a "Mute Swan" for being totally unmusical in
contrast to all singing birds.
With respect of all classical symbology, but Ben Jonson was above all
a realist. His feelings about Shakspere were not all flattery:
"...he redeemed his vices, with his virtues. There was ever more in him
to be praised, than to be pardoned."
Please don't fail to observe what his "Avon Swan" poem leads up to:
"Shine forth, thou star of poets, and with rage
Or influence, chide or cheer the drooping stage;
Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourn'd like night,
And despairs day, but for thy volume's light."
Selling the book!
I am just trying to see all sides of the matter including the
POSSIBILITY of a hidden contrary meaning to the appearance of what
Jonson wrote seven years after Shakspere's death.
C(hris)
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chris, the claim that Jonson considered Shakespeare a mute swan is as
ludicrous as the claim that he consider him to have feathers because
swans have feathers. The context of his poem has to tell you this.
First off, he refers to Shakespeare as an unmute author in the title
of his poem. He later refers to Shakespeare's book, a book being
something written, and he explicitly indicates that this book can be
read--i.e., has written words in it. He compares him to a number of
great playwrites, none of them mute. He speaks of him as someone "who
casts to write a living line." Shortly after that, he says, "For a
good poet's made, as well as born. And such wert thou." In other
words, Jonso explicitly says that Shakespeare is a poet. Who makes
"well-turned, and true-filed lines."
Anti-Stratfordians simply have no recourse regarding Jonson's poem but
to call it a lie intended to keep The Truth from being known twenty
years after Oxford's death, or thirty after Marlowe's "alleged"
death. Or, a little more plausibly, to protect the still-living
Bacon.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>
>>>> Swans (of the common kind found in England) never sing. They are mute
>>>> and only wheeze occasionally. So why would Jonson call him a swan?
>>>> Poetry (clearly you need to be informed of this) is not the same
>>>> as Natural History (otherwise we'd be very worried about dragons).
February 2 ritual at the great Goddess Brighid/St. Brigit's Well
.
<<As patroness of poetry & crops, Brigit is most clearly equated
with Freya whose animal is the DEER, & whose bird is the SWAN.>>
.
<<St. Brigit/Brigantia/BRITANNIA was the personified genia
of Britain and was first depicted on a coin of Antoninus Pius
(d. AD 161). Latterly, Britannia, with the attributes & weapons
of *MINERVA* , appeared on coins during the reign
of Charles II in 1665.>>
.
February 2, 1650, Charles II's mistress NELL Gwin born
February 2, 1685, Charles II: "Let not poor Nellie starve" & died.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> To make matters worse, his command of natural history is apparently
>>> no better than his awareness of classical tradition; indeed, anyone
>>> who has spent a modest amount of time observing birds in the field
>>> knows that swans (even /Cygnus olor/, the so-called Mute Swan) are
>>> anything but mute -- in particular, the Mute Swan has a variety of
>>> vocalizations, as Christian could easily have discovered by the simple
>>> expedient of consulting a field guide. For example, David Sibley's
>>> excellent field guide (my favorite) notes that the Mute Swan "...gives
>>> a variety of calls", some of which Sibley describes: "...an explosive,
>>> exhaling /kheorrrr/ with rumbling end; sometimes a clear, bugling /
>>> kloorrr/ reminiscent of Tundra Swan..." Christian could even
>>> have listened to a RealPlayer file one of the vocalizations of
>>> the species from the extensive Cornell recording collection at
>
>>> <http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/audio/Mute_Swan.ram>.
[FW 476.1] the big ass [Dave Webb] , to hear with his
unaided ears the harp in the air, *the bugle DIANAblowing* ,
wild as wild, the mockingbird whose word is misfortune,
---------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Any animal can make sounds and noises. The fact is, that
>> the common swan of England is called a "Mute Swan"
>> for being totally unmusical in contrast to all singing birds.
>>
>> With respect of all classical symbology, but Ben Jonson was above
>> all a realist. His feelings about Shakspere were not all flattery:
>>
>> "...he redeemed his vices, with his virtues.
>> There was ever more in him to be praised, than to be pardoned."
. Hamlet (Quarto 2, 1604-5): Act 5, Scene 2
.
Ham. Giue me your *PARDON* sir, I haue done you *WRONG* ,
But *PARDON* 't as you are a gentleman, this presence knowes,
.
Laer. Exchange *FORGIUENESSE* with me noble Hamlet,
----------------------------------------------------------
<< *HEBE* was worshipped as a goddess of *PARDONs* or
*FORGIVENESS* ; freed prisoners would hang their *CHAINS*
. in the sacred grove of her sanctuary at Phlius.>>
. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/hebe.html
------------------------------------------------------------
__ GOOD FREND FOR IESVS' SAKE F{OR}[BE]{ARE},
___ TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED ___ [HE]{ARE}:
.
http://library.thinkquest.org/5175/images/grave1.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------
<<But hee redeemed his -vices, with his *VERtuEs*
. There was *EVER* more in him to be prayse-d,.
. then to be *PARDONed* .>>
.
. _DiscoVERiEs_ by [{OR-ARE} Ben Jonson (1640)
.. De Shakespeare *NOSTRAT*
. http://my.execpc.com/~berrestr/jon-sha.html
--------------------------------------------------------
On the 14th anniversary of Anne Hathaway's death [August 6, -1637].
. Ben Jonson was BURIED UPRIGHT leaning against the WALL
. of his Westminster Abbey crypt as requested:
.
'TWO FEET BY TWO FEET WILL do for all I WANT'. - Ben Jonson
. http://westminster-abbey.org/library/burial/images/jonson.
-----------------------------------------------------
. BLESTE BE Ye MAN Yt SPA[RE]S THES STONES,
. AND CVRST BE HE Yt MO[VE]S MY BONES.
---------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't fail to observe what
>> his "Avon Swan" poem leads up to:
>>
>> "Shine forth, thou star of poets, and with rage
>> Or influence, chide or cheer the drooping stage;
>> Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourn'd like night,
>> And despairs day, but for thy volume's light."
>>
>> Selling the book!
>>
>> I am just trying to see all sides of the matter including the
>> POSSIBILITY of a hidden contrary meaning to the appearance
>> of what Jonson wrote seven years after Shakspere's death.
"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Chris, the claim that Jonson considered Shakespeare a mute
> swan is as ludicrous as the claim that he consider
> him to have feathers because swans have feathers.
. With *FETHERS* soft amid the Aire.
-------------------------------------------------------------
P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses Book 8 (ed. Arthur Golding)
.
. The finding of these things,
. The spightfull heart of DaEDALUS with such a malice stings,
. That headlong from the holy towre of PALLAS downe he thrue
. His Nephew, feyning him to fall by chaunce, which was NOT TRUE.
. But PALLAS (WHO DOTH FAVOUR WITS) did stay him in his fall
. And chaunging him into a Bird did clad him over all
. With *FETHERS* soft amid the Aire. The QUICKnesse of his WIT
. (Which erst was SWift) did shed it selfe among his wings and feete.
----------------------------------------------------------
*FLEDGE* , a. furnished with FEATHERS or wings; able to fly.
......................................................
_ TOTH [E] O [N] LIEB[E]GETTEROFTHESEIN
__ SVIN [G] S [O] NNET[ß]MRWHALLHAPPINES
_ SEAN [D] T [H] ATET[E]RNITIEPROMISEDB
_ YOVR [E] V [E] RLIV(I)NGPOETWISHETHTH
_ EWEL [L] W (I) SHIN[G]ADVENTURERINSET
___ TING [F] O [R] TH
.
. probability of *FLEDGE* : 1 / 25,500[/code]
http://www.stromsborg.com/swanmyths/greeks.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> The context of his poem has to tell you this.
> First off, he refers to Shakespeare as an unmute author in the title
> of his poem. He later refers to Shakespeare's book, a book being
> something written, and he explicitly indicates that this book can be
> read--i.e., has written words in it. He compares him to a number of
> great playwrites, none of them mute. He speaks of him as someone "who
> casts to write a living line." Shortly after that, he says, "For a
> good poet's made, as well as born. And such wert thou." In other
> Who makes "well-turned, and true-filed lines."
. *He filed teeth upon a piece of yron one by one*
------------------------------------------------------------
P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses Book 8 (ed. Arthur Golding)
.
. And as he of his wretched sonne the corse in ground did hide,
. The cackling Partrich from a thicke and leavie thorne him spide,
. And clapping with his wings for joy aloud to call began.
. There was of that same kinde of Birde no mo but he as than
. In times forepast had none bene seene. It was but late anew
. Since he was made a bird: and that thou, Daedalus, mayst rew:
. For whyle the world doth last thy shame shall thereupon ensew.
. For why thy sister, ignorant of that which after hapt,
. Did put him to thee to be taught full twelve yeares old and apt
. To take instruction. He did marke the middle bone that goes
. Through fishes, and according to the paterne tane of those
. *He filed teeth upon a piece of yron one by one*
. And so devised first the Saw where erst was never none.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webcom.com/shownet/medea/bulfinch/bull20.html
.
<<DaEDALUS was so proud of his achievements that he could not bear
the idea of a rival. His sister had placed her son *TALOS* under his
charge to be taught the mechanical arts. *TALOS* was an apt scholar
and gave striking evidences of ingenuity. WALKING ON THE SEASHORE
he picked up the spine of a fish. Imitating it, he took a piece of
iron and notched it on the edge, and thus invented the *HANDSAW*
-------------------------------------------------------
[T]o life againe, to heare thy Buskin tread,
[A]nd SHAKE a stage : Or, when thy sockes were on,
[L]eave thee alone, for the comparison
[O]f all, that insolent GREECE, or haughtie Rome
[S]ent forth, or since did from their ASHES come.
.
. - Ben JONSON _First Folio_(1623)
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webcom.com/shownet/medea/bulfinch/bull20.html
.
He, put two pieces of IRON together, connecting them
at one end with a rivet, and sharpening the other ends, and
made a pair of *COMPASSES* . DaEDALUS was so ENVIOUS of his
nephew's performances that he took an opportunity, when they were
together one day on the top of a high tower to push him off. But
*MINERVA* , who favours ingenuity, saw him falling, and arrested
his fate by changing him into a bird called after his name,
the Partridge ( *PERDIX* ) . This bird does not build
his nest in the trees, nor take lofty flights,
but nestles in the HEDGES, and avoids high places.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses Book 8 (ed. Arthur Golding)
.
. And as he Partrich hight before, so hights he Partrich still.
. Yet mounteth not this Bird aloft ne seemes to have a will
. To build hir nest in tops of trees among the boughes on hie
. But flecketh nere the ground and layes hir egges in hedges drie.
. And forbicause hir former fall she ay in minde doth beare,
. She EVER since all lofty things doth warely shun for feare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<d23a49b5-5e8a-433a...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed, Art articulates that viewpoint quite explicitly in posting
(repeatedly! -- it must have appeared scores of times by now) the
following idiocy:
"'I admit that some of them are not VERy important . . .
. but look at *the NUMBER of* them'
. - Sam Spade (Maltese FALCON)"
For his own part, even when his pronouncement has been shown to be
utterly devoid of evidentiary value, Christian continues undeterred in
his delusions concerning natural history -- he writes:
"Any animal can make sounds and noises. The fact is, that the
common swan of England is called a 'Mute Swan' for being totally
unmusical in contrast to all singing birds."
This is such a hilarious pronouncement and displays such thoroughgoing
ignorance of avian vocalizations that one scarcely knows where to
begin. To correct the most salient misconception first, "mute" does
NOT mean "unmusical." Nor, for that matter, is the Mute Swan any less
musical than its close relatives. I invite Christian to test this
himself by listening to sample vocalizations of the Mute Swan's close
relations, the Tundra Swan and the Trumpeter Swan. Indeed, I urge him
to compare its vocalizations with those of almost ALL other waterfowl
-- he will find the Mute Swan's vocalizations to be among the more
musical of those of the ducks (of which there are dozens of species),
geese, swans, etc.
The notion that the Mute Swan is "...totally unmusical in contrast
to all singing birds" is so ludicrous that one almost wonders whether
Christian is engaging in a sort of farcical Neuendorfferesque parody
of anti-Stratfordian pronouncements from ignorance. I invite
Christian to listen, for example, to the remarkable song of the
American Bittern, a song that still gives me chills of delight when I
hear it in the field -- it sounds like a hydraulic pump:
<http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/audio/
American_Bittern.ram>.
He might also listen to the songs of other herons, of the Barn Owl,
the American Woodcock, LeConte's Sparrow, Common Nighthawk,
Grasshopper Sparrow (which is sometimes likened to the sizzle of a
molten ingot of metal plunged into a vat of cold water):
<http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/audio/
Grasshopper_Sparrow.ram>,
many species in the Icteridae family, the Empidonax genus of
flycatchers, the Virginia Rail (whose song is likened to a long
sequence of pig-like grunts by the online guide of the Cornell
Laboratory of Ornithology), the Pied-billed Grebe
<http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/audio/Pied-
billed_Grebe.ram>,
and many, many other species whose vocalizations are no more musical
(although no less delightful in the field) than those of the Mute
Swan. Moreover, many of these species (e.g., the Empidonax
flycatchers, the American Bittern, the American Woodcock, etc.) lack
the variety of vocalizations afforded by the Mute Swan.
So much for the ridiculously ignorant notion that the Mute Swan is
"totally unmusical in contrast to all singing birds." However, it is
not ignorance alone that makes anti-Stratfordian delusions so amusing
-- rather, as you point out, it is the durability of such delusions,
even in the face of mountains of contrary evidence from those who know
a little about the subject, that makes h.l.a.s. anti-Stratfordians'
posts so consistently entertaining.
> TR
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > Their "logic" seems to be, "Sure, all our 'evidence' is worthless,
> > but it should count for something since there's so much of it."
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Indeed, Art articulates that viewpoint quite explicitly in posting
> (repeatedly! -- it must have appeared scores of times by now)
> the following idiocy:
>
> 'I admit that some of them are not VERy important . . .
> . but look at *the NUMBER of* them'
> . - Sam Spade (Maltese FALCON)"
"Some are not VERy important"
does not equate with
"All are worthless"
Art Neuendorffer
Christian Lanciai
ornitology. Every single bird that he mentions, taking for granted I
never heard them, sounds better than the Mute Swan, but even that is
beside the point. The point about Jonson's "Shakespeare eulogy" is
that it is not a good poem, probably because the main purpose for
writing it was to market the book. That is how books were marketed in
those days, by being adorned with a lot of praise, just as they are
today by press clips, and the First Folio is a typical example. They
all had economic interests in the book, Heminge and Condell, Jonson
and the people who paid for it, the earls Pembroke and Montgomery,
probably Bacon too, they had all made money on the "Shakespeare" works
and were naturally interested in continuing to do so.
The fact is, that when Stratford Will passed away he left no
indication at all that he was the author of the "Shakespeare" works,
least of all in his will, which if anything ought to have had any
bearing on his authorship, if he had been an author. When he passed
away none of his colleagues voiced any regret of him as a colleague
nor any reference to anything he might have possibly written. The
"Shakespeare Set-Up" of the First Folio is a construction manufactured
seven years after Stratford Will's death mainly to market the book of
the 36 best Elizabethan plays.
In fact, the references we do have to Stratford Will during his
lifetime do indicate the opposite. The remarkable wordings of Sir
Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
"Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
whose carelessness was notorious.
The mistake you Stratfordians commit by blindly bulldozing any thought
in any other direction than orthodox stratfordianism is that you make
no allowances for any other possibility than the Stratfordian
Infallibility, which is extremely narrow-minded, since there are so
obvious problems, which you rather bury alive and silence than even
bother to consider. If Will Shakspere stole from Glenville, he most
certainly also stole from Marlowe and Oxford, and the general picture
of him of his own time (especially as depicted by Jonson in "Every Man
out of his Humour", which has been argumented about here but silenced
down by the usual Stratfordian bulldozerism scornfully stamping it
like all other non-Stratfordian arguments as 'hilarious absurdities',)
is of an opportunist mainly interested in business, with no indication
of any theatrical, dramatic, poetic talent or interest in literature
at all.
C(hris)
On 26 Jan, 02:45, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
Tom Reedy
> You miss the point, just as David does as he gets too mixed up in
> ornitology. Every single bird that he mentions, taking for granted I
> never heard them, sounds better than the Mute Swan, but even that is
> beside the point. The point about Jonson's "Shakespeare eulogy" is
> that it is not a good poem, probably because the main purpose for
> writing it was to market the book. That is how books were marketed in
> those days, by being adorned with a lot of praise, just as they are
> today by press clips, and the First Folio is a typical example. They
> all had economic interests in the book, Heminge and Condell, Jonson
> and the people who paid for it, the earls Pembroke and Montgomery,
> probably Bacon too, they had all made money on the "Shakespeare" works
> and were naturally interested in continuing to do so.
>
> The fact is, that when Stratford Will passed away he left no
> indication at all that he was the author of the "Shakespeare" works,
> least of all in his will,
Have you not read the will? In it he leaves money for mourning rings
to John Hemings and Henry Condell, whom he calls his "fellows."
In the prefatory matter to the First Folio, Hemings and Condell call
Shakespeare their "fellow."
This is certainly an "indication" that he was the author.
> which if anything ought to have had any
> bearing on his authorship, if he had been an author.
How many other writers of the time mentioned their works in their
wills? I'm betting you have no idea, and that you're just trumpeting
your ignorance once again.
> When he passed
> away none of his colleagues voiced any regret of him as a colleague
> nor any reference to anything he might have possibly written.
Please read the relevant information. Your ignorance is astonishing,
but then again, perhaps not. It seems you're competing with Crowley on
who can make the most uninformed and ignorant statements.
The
> "Shakespeare Set-Up" of the First Folio is a construction manufactured
> seven years after Stratford Will's death mainly to market the book of
> the 36 best Elizabethan plays.
>
> In fact, the references we do have to Stratford Will during his
> lifetime do indicate the opposite.
You mean all those title pages and references to him as the author?
> The remarkable wordings of Sir
> Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
> "Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
> other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
> whose carelessness was notorious.
>
> The mistake you Stratfordians commit by blindly bulldozing any thought
> in any other direction than orthodox stratfordianism is that you make
> no allowances for any other possibility than the Stratfordian
> Infallibility, which is extremely narrow-minded, since there are so
> obvious problems, which you rather bury alive and silence than even
> bother to consider.
Is this a sentence?
> If Will Shakspere stole from Glenville, he most
> certainly also stole from Marlowe and Oxford, and the general picture
> of him of his own time (especially as depicted by Jonson in "Every Man
> out of his Humour", which has been argumented about here but silenced
> down by the usual Stratfordian bulldozerism scornfully stamping it
> like all other non-Stratfordian arguments as 'hilarious absurdities',)
> is of an opportunist mainly interested in business, with no indication
> of any theatrical, dramatic, poetic talent or interest in literature
> at all.
Inquiring minds want to know: ignorance or stupidity? One has to
wonder at what is on display here.
TR
> > --Bob G.- Hide quoted text -
christia...@gmail.com
> On Jan 28, 6:05 am, Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You miss the point, just as David does as he gets too mixed up in
> > ornitology. Every single bird that he mentions, taking for granted I
> > never heard them, sounds better than the Mute Swan, but even that is
> > beside the point. The point about Jonson's "Shakespeare eulogy" is
> > that it is not a good poem, probably because the main purpose for
> > writing it was to market the book. That is how books were marketed in
> > those days, by being adorned with a lot of praise, just as they are
> > today by press clips, and the First Folio is a typical example. They
> > all had economic interests in the book, Heminge and Condell, Jonson
> > and the people who paid for it, the earls Pembroke and Montgomery,
> > probably Bacon too, they had all made money on the "Shakespeare" works
> > and were naturally interested in continuing to do so.
>
> > The fact is, that when Stratford Will passed away he left no
> > indication at all that he was the author of the "Shakespeare" works,
> > least of all in his will,
>
> Have you not read the will? In it he leaves money for mourning rings
> to John Hemings and Henry Condell, whom he calls his "fellows."
>
Yes, fellow actors.
> In the prefatory matter to the First Folio, Hemings and Condell call
> Shakespeare their "fellow."
>
Yes, fellow actor. They were not writers.
> This is certainly an "indication" that he was the author.
>
> > which if anything ought to have had any
> > bearing on his authorship, if he had been an author.
>
> How many other writers of the time mentioned their works in their
> wills? I'm betting you have no idea, and that you're just trumpeting
> your ignorance once again.
>
> > When he passed
> > away none of his colleagues voiced any regret of him as a colleague
> > nor any reference to anything he might have possibly written.
>
> Please read the relevant information. Your ignorance is astonishing,
> but then again, perhaps not. It seems you're competing with Crowley on
> who can make the most uninformed and ignorant statements.
>
> The
>
> > "Shakespeare Set-Up" of the First Folio is a construction manufactured
> > seven years after Stratford Will's death mainly to market the book of
> > the 36 best Elizabethan plays.
>
> > In fact, the references we do have to Stratford Will during his
> > lifetime do indicate the opposite.
>
> You mean all those title pages and references to him as the author?
No, the business documents by his own hand, the only first hand
information of him that exists.
>
> > The remarkable wordings of Sir
> > Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
> > "Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
> > other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
> > whose carelessness was notorious.
>
> > The mistake you Stratfordians commit by blindly bulldozing any thought
> > in any other direction than orthodox stratfordianism is that you make
> > no allowances for any other possibility than the Stratfordian
> > Infallibility, which is extremely narrow-minded, since there are so
> > obvious problems, which you rather bury alive and silence than even
> > bother to consider.
>
> Is this a sentence?
Can't you read?
>
> > If Will Shakspere stole from Glenville, he most
> > certainly also stole from Marlowe and Oxford, and the general picture
> > of him of his own time (especially as depicted by Jonson in "Every Man
> > out of his Humour", which has been argumented about here but silenced
> > down by the usual Stratfordian bulldozerism scornfully stamping it
> > like all other non-Stratfordian arguments as 'hilarious absurdities',)
> > is of an opportunist mainly interested in business, with no indication
> > of any theatrical, dramatic, poetic talent or interest in literature
> > at all.
>
> Inquiring minds want to know: ignorance or stupidity? One has to
> wonder at what is on display here
>
- on your part, for your furious rhetoric saying nothing.
C(hris)
Dominic Hughes
> You miss the point, just as David does as he gets too mixed up in
> ornitology. Every single bird that he mentions, taking for granted I
> never heard them, sounds better than the Mute Swan, but even that is
> beside the point. The point about Jonson's "Shakespeare eulogy" is
> that it is not a good poem, probably because the main purpose for
> writing it was to market the book. That is how books were marketed in
> those days, by being adorned with a lot of praise, just as they are
> today by press clips, and the First Folio is a typical example. They
> all had economic interests in the book, Heminge and Condell, Jonson
> and the people who paid for it, the earls Pembroke and Montgomery,
> probably Bacon too, they had all made money on the "Shakespeare" works
> and were naturally interested in continuing to do so.
Assuming that Jonson, Heminge and Condell, and even the Earls Pembroke
and Montgomery all had an interest in marketing the First Folio, how
would that factor have anything to do with whether or not William
Skakespeare of Stratford wrote the works as his fellow playwright and
fellow actors said he did? If they really wanted the book to sell
well, it would seem that 1623 (long after the death of Oxenforde)
would be a perfect time to spill the beans about the true
authorship...that would be a marketer's dream come true. And yet two
of the players and a contemporary playwright asserted that the author
and the actor were the same man. What reason would the earls have had
to continue the conspiracy at this late date?
> The fact is, that when Stratford Will passed away he left no
> indication at all that he was the author of the "Shakespeare" works,
> least of all in his will, which if anything ought to have had any
> bearing on his authorship, if he had been an author.
What in the world makes you think that a legal document should contain
evidence of authorship? Can you cite any other wills of the time,
made by other authors, in which their career as an author is set forth
or alluded to in their Last Will?
> When he passed
> away none of his colleagues voiced any regret of him as a colleague
> nor any reference to anything he might have possibly written.
Do you know this for a fact or are you just repeating Oxenfordian
talking points?
> The
> "Shakespeare Set-Up" of the First Folio is a construction manufactured
> seven years after Stratford Will's death mainly to market the book of
> the 36 best Elizabethan plays.
>
I have no idea what you mean by the "Shakespeare Set-Up". However, as
I pointed out above, if the people involved in the production of the
First Folio were truly interested in marketing the works, surely 1623
would have been a propitious time to reveal that the works were
actually written by Oxenforde.
> In fact, the references we do have to Stratford Will during his
> lifetime do indicate the opposite.
There are a good number of references to William Shakespeare of
Stratford that connect him directly to the plays, the acting company
that put on the plays, and the theaters where the plays were
performed.
> The remarkable wordings of Sir
> Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
> "Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
> other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
> whose carelessness was notorious.
>
What "remarkable wordings" are you referring to here, wherein, you
claim, Sir Fulke Greville was indicating that Shakespeare material was
stolen from him?
> The mistake you Stratfordians commit by blindly bulldozing any thought
> in any other direction than orthodox stratfordianism is that you make
> no allowances for any other possibility than the Stratfordian
> Infallibility, which is extremely narrow-minded, since there are so
> obvious problems, which you rather bury alive and silence than even
> bother to consider.
No -- Stratfordians make no allowances for speculation and conjecture
that has no factual, evidentuiary basis. What are the "so obvious
problems" that are worth considering. Just list your top five such
problems and provide the factual basis for each.
> If Will Shakspere stole from Glenville, he most
> certainly also stole from Marlowe and Oxford, and the general picture
> of him of his own time (especially as depicted by Jonson in "Every Man
> out of his Humour", which has been argumented about here but silenced
> down by the usual Stratfordian bulldozerism scornfully stamping it
> like all other non-Stratfordian arguments as 'hilarious absurdities',)
> is of an opportunist mainly interested in business, with no indication
> of any theatrical, dramatic, poetic talent or interest in literature
> at all.
That's a mighty big "if" -- and even if we assume that Will
Shakespeare stole from Glenville [sic], it does not follow, as a
logical necessity, that he also stole from Marlowe and/or Oxford.
There are many pieces of evidence that demonstrate that Shakespeare of
Stratford had an interest in theater (specifically the theaters where
the Shakespeare plays were performed) and the dramas (specifically the
Shakespeare plays themselves). There are also direct references by
contemporaries as to Shakespeare's interest in poetry and the
literature of the day.
The next time you provide any actual evidence to be "argumented about
here" [sic] will be the first time.
> C(hris)
>
Dom
> > --Bob G.- Hide quoted text -
christia...@gmail.com
> > The remarkable wordings of Sir
> > Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
> > "Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
> > other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
> > whose carelessness was notorious.
>
> What "remarkable wordings" are you referring to here, wherein, you
> claim, Sir Fulke Greville was indicating that Shakespeare material was
> stolen from him?
>
It's not long ago that case was up again. Try googling on "Fulke
Greville".
You must be new here. All these things have been discussed over and
over again here ever since I joined more than 6 years ago. Just look
them up in the dictionary. The whole Internet and HLAS is open to
you.
You claim we have no evidence while you have no watertight evidence
either. So we have to investigate the circumstantial evidence. There
you have some and we also. The rub is, that "Shakespeare" was one of
the most aristocratic writers in history (style, content, mentality,
outlook,) although he wrote for the common stage and included common
people among the actors, but he is still even more aristocratic than
even Dante, who came directly from the highest aristocracy class,
while Will Shakspere's background is without any university education
and without any aristocracy background, while his first hand documents
testify to a common business man with an ignoble talent for greed. It
just doesn't fit. Mind you, I am not an Oxfordian, while I must
recognize both Oxford's and Derby's influence in the Shakespeare case,
which you stratfordians blindly refuse to do, making any discussion
with you impossible, headed as you are by the dominating ornament of
fundamentalist stratfordianism here Mad Jim Carroll, who never answers
anything and whose example is enough to turn anyone into an anti-
stratfordian.
To return to the issue, Derby, being Oxford's son-in-law and one of
the chief interests behind the stagings of Marlowe and Shakespeare,
did in fact have very obvious reasons to smoke screen Shakespeare
being a catholic and as close to the throne as James VI while his
elder brother was murdered, as later his son. Another factor to be
ever remindful of is the constant persecution of the theatre by the
puritans, who finally burnt down Derby's castle and library and
extolled the official murder of Marlowe. All those plots and others
you can find here in HLAS and works on the Internet. Just google.
C(hris)
snips
Paul Crowley
news:279edd01-9d4b-4aca...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 28, 7:05 am, Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You miss the point, just as David does as he gets too mixed up in
>> ornitology. Every single bird that he mentions, taking for granted I
>> never heard them, sounds better than the Mute Swan, but even that is
>> beside the point. The point about Jonson's "Shakespeare eulogy" is
>> that it is not a good poem, probably because the main purpose for
>> writing it was to market the book. That is how books were marketed in
>> those days, by being adorned with a lot of praise, just as they are
>> today by press clips, and the First Folio is a typical example. They
>> all had economic interests in the book, Heminge and Condell, Jonson
>> and the people who paid for it, the earls Pembroke and Montgomery,
>> probably Bacon too, they had all made money on the "Shakespeare" works
>> and were naturally interested in continuing to do so.
>
> Assuming that Jonson, Heminge and Condell, and even the Earls Pembroke
> and Montgomery all had an interest in marketing the First Folio, how
> would that factor have anything to do with whether or not William
> Skakespeare of Stratford wrote the works as his fellow playwright and
> fellow actors said he did? If they really wanted the book to sell
> well, it would seem that 1623 (long after the death of Oxenforde)
> would be a perfect time to spill the beans about the true
> authorship...that would be a marketer's dream come true.
You will be lucky to ever get a straight
and honest response from most anti-Strats,
such as Christian here. It's easy enough to
sense that much is wrong with the official
story -- to smell the stinking rat -- but it is
very difficult to work out what actually
happened. Most anti-Strats fairly early
latch on to some bad ideas, and then refuse
to let go.
Firstly, the publication of the First Folio
was NEVER a commercial enterprise. It was
not done for profit -- far too few in the nation
being able to afford its price. Secondly the
revelation that the author was not a low-
class actor, but a noble, would have been far
less popular than it is now. Imagine it being
declared around (say) 1900. It would have
been a most unwelcome scandal at most times
in the past 400 years. Thirdly, it would have
been misread by the ignorant populace. All
the bawdy jokes would have been taken as
serious statements of fact -- much as
Americans here react to the scatological jokes.)
> And yet two of the players and a contemporary playwright
> asserted that the author and the actor were the same man.
Nope, they don't. They may suggest it,
but they certainly don't assert it.
>> The
>> "Shakespeare Set-Up" of the First Folio is a construction manufactured
>> seven years after Stratford Will's death mainly to market the book of
>> the 36 best Elizabethan plays.
An anti-Strat goes wrong.
> I have no idea what you mean by the "Shakespeare Set-Up". However, as
> I pointed out above, if the people involved in the production of the
> First Folio were truly interested in marketing the works, surely 1623
> would have been a propitious time to reveal that the works were
> actually written by Oxenforde.
If 'marketing' had indeed been a concern,
you might have an argument.
>> In fact, the references we do have to Stratford Will during his
>> lifetime do indicate the opposite.
>
> There are a good number of references to William Shakespeare of
> Stratford that connect him directly to the plays, the acting company
> that put on the plays, and the theaters where the plays were
> performed.
Anyone who can believe that an illiterate
clown from a remote provincial town (with
illiterate parents, illiterate siblings, an
illiterate wife, and illiterate daughters) is
a complete and total idiot, capable of
believing in almost anything.
> No -- Stratfordians make no allowances for speculation and conjecture
> that has no factual, evidentuiary basis. What are the "so obvious
> problems" that are worth considering. Just list your top five such
> problems and provide the factual basis for each.
Hey -- (1) his illiterate parents, (2) illiterate
siblings, (3) illiterate wife, (4) illiterate
daughters, and (5) his illiterate 'signature'.
>> If Will Shakspere stole from Glenville, he most
>> certainly also stole from Marlowe and Oxford, and the general picture
>> of him of his own time (especially as depicted by Jonson in "Every Man
>> out of his Humour", which has been argumented about here but silenced
>> down by the usual Stratfordian bulldozerism scornfully stamping it
>> like all other non-Stratfordian arguments as 'hilarious absurdities',)
>> is of an opportunist mainly interested in business, with no indication
>> of any theatrical, dramatic, poetic talent or interest in literature
>> at all.
Christian has not begun to appreciate the
'stooge' nature of the Stratman, and the
fact that he had one single 'possession'
he could 'lease' -- his name. This bore a
resemblance to an established pseudonym
of the poet -- a glorious Elizabethan pun,
as is apparent to anyone who knows the
least thing about Elizabethan literature.
Of course, the fact that he was an illiterate
stooge did not necessarily mean that he was
fully under the control of his bosses. Some
of the deals he executed in London, and
some of his other 'quasi-theatrical' activities,
may not have had their full sanction or
approval.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:32e6a844-cd82-4d37...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 28, 6:05 am, Christian Lanciai <clanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The fact is, that when Stratford Will passed away he left no
> > indication at all that he was the author of the "Shakespeare" works,
> > least of all in his will,
The Stratman left NO SIGNIFICANT
indication that he was the poet.
> Have you not read the will? In it he leaves money for mourning rings
> to John Hemings and Henry Condell, whom he calls his "fellows."
>
> In the prefatory matter to the First Folio, Hemings and Condell call
> Shakespeare their "fellow."
>
> This is certainly an "indication" that he was the author.
There are certainly 'indications' that he
was the poet -- but they are exceptionally
weak and peculiar. They are curiously
restricted to documents which were public,
or liable to become public as the result of
litigation. None are casual, 'natural', or to
be found in conditions where the originators
would not have expected them to be
disclosed. All of the records where we would
expect to see real information -- such as on
tombstones (of his own, his daughter, her
husband, and so on) or in casual remarks,
such as that by the maid of the house where
he lodged, reveal the opposite of what we
would expect (only "the lodger upstairs" and
not "the famous actor and play-writer").
> Please read the relevant information. Your ignorance is astonishing,
> but then again, perhaps not. It seems you're competing with Crowley on
> who can make the most uninformed and ignorant statements.
It's a shame that you can never identify
any of my "most uninformed and ignorant
statements".
Sound theories do not emerge in an instant.
They may take years, or decades to develop,
but one indication of their validity is their
ability to grow, and to gradually fill in more
and more of the picture.
Stratfordians have puzzled for centuries over
why, in his sonnets, the poet addressed his
beloved sometimes as 'you' and sometimes
as 'thou'. Only yesterday did the solution
occur to me. In retrospect it seems blindingly
obvious, and I wonder how I could have
failed to see it for so long. But that is often
the case.
Will there be any criticism in this forum of
this major new development in Shake-
spearean studies ?
Not a chance.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Tom Reedy" <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In your case, the only safe course is to consider all of them as such>
I rest assured that if you ever make one that isn't uninformed and
ignorant, someone will surely alert me.
TR
David Kathman
> You claim we have no evidence while you have no watertight evidence
> either. So we have to investigate the circumstantial evidence. There
> you have some and we also.
Your definition of "circumstantial evidence" is radically different
from that used by actual historians.
> The rub is, that "Shakespeare" was one of
> the most aristocratic writers in history (style, content, mentality,
> outlook,) although he wrote for the common stage and included common
> people among the actors, but he is still even more aristocratic than
> even Dante, who came directly from the highest aristocracy class,
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Are you actually serious? This is one of the silliest of the many
silly claims I've seen on this newsgroup. It betrays profound
ignorance of the historical background. See this, which is based on
posts I made to this newsgroup years ago:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/aristocrat.html
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Dominic Hughes
> snips
You're here whining about how your arguments are "bulldozed" by the
fascist Stratfordians, and yet when I attempt to engage you in a
debate regarding your position, you either snip what I've said or
dodge the question.
> > > > The remarkable wordings of Sir
> > > Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
> > > "Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
> > > other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
> > > whose carelessness was notorious.
>
> > What "remarkable wordings" are you referring to here, wherein, you
> > claim, Sir Fulke Greville was indicating that Shakespeare material was
> > stolen from him?
>
> It's not long ago that case was up again. Try googling on "Fulke
> Greville".
Try providing the specific "remarkable wordings" to which you were
referring. Is that all that difficult for you to do?
> You must be new here. All these things have been discussed over and
> over again here ever since I joined more than 6 years ago. Just look
> them up in the dictionary. The whole Internet and HLAS is open to
> you.
So much for your interest in debating the issues...
> You claim we have no evidence while you have no watertight evidence
> either.
The evidence for the Stratfordian position may not rise to the level
of metaphysical certainty (what does), but I have yet to see where any
reasonable doubt has been raised as to that evidence.
> So we have to investigate the circumstantial evidence.
What is the "circumstantial evidence" that you are referring to here?
Just list your top 5 pieces of evidence...
>There
> you have some and we also. The rub is, that "Shakespeare" was one of
> the most aristocratic writers in history (style, content, mentality,
> outlook,) although he wrote for the common stage and included common
> people among the actors, but he is still even more aristocratic than
> even Dante, who came directly from the highest aristocracy class,
> while Will Shakspere's background is without any university education
> and without any aristocracy background, while his first hand documents
> testify to a common business man with an ignoble talent for greed. It
> just doesn't fit.
In what way do you believe that the author was "aristocratic"? The
first-hand documents reveal that Shakespeare of Stratford was
connected to the plays, the players, and the theaters -- do you deny
that fact?
> Mind you, I am not an Oxfordian, while I must
> recognize both Oxford's and Derby's influence in the Shakespeare case,
> which you stratfordians blindly refuse to do, making any discussion
> with you impossible, headed as you are by the dominating ornament of
> fundamentalist stratfordianism here Mad Jim Carroll, who never answers
> anything and whose example is enough to turn anyone into an anti-
> stratfordian.
This is ironic in light of your obvious refusal to answer any of my
questions or points.
>
> To return to the issue, Derby, being Oxford's son-in-law and one of
> the chief interests behind the stagings of Marlowe and Shakespeare,
> did in fact have very obvious reasons to smoke screen Shakespeare
> being a catholic and as close to the throne as James VI while his
> elder brother was murdered, as later his son.
I understand that English is not your first language, but this
sentence makes no sense. Even so, what connection did Derby have to
the staging of Shakespeare's plays...evidence, if you please.
> Another factor to be
> ever remindful of is the constant persecution of the theatre by the
> puritans, who finally burnt down Derby's castle and library and
> extolled the official murder of Marlowe. All those plots and others
> you can find here in HLAS and works on the Internet. Just google.
What does this "factor to be ever remindful of" have to do with
whether or not the Stratfordian wrote the works?
> C(hris)
>
> snips
Dom
Dominic Hughes
In your opinion, what were the purposes of publication? From what
I've read, there were between 750 and 1000 First Folios printed in
1623, and all of them were sold. It was expensive and the publishers
no doubt reaped the rewards. Folios of the works of Jonson and
Beaumont & Fletcher were also produced in similar numbers with similar
prices -- was there a commercial element to their publications (or
were they also the work of Oxenforde, published for some greater
purpose?)
>Secondly the
> revelation that the author was not a low-
> class actor, but a noble, would have been far
> less popular than it is now.
You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the revelation of the true
author in 1623 would have had any effect on the popularity of the
works or on the intended audience (those with money to spend on a
book). You have argued that the works were not popular with the
middle or lower classes -- that, in fact, they were entertainments for
the royal court -- and that the Folio was too expensive for anyone but
those possessed of wealth to buy, so what would have prevented the
publishers from acknowledging that the author was actually Oxenforde?
Why would such a revelation not be "popular"?
> Imagine it being
> declared around (say) 1900. It would have
> been a most unwelcome scandal at most times
> in the past 400 years.
A scandal? Why -- these are the supreme achievements in the history
of literature. Why would it cause any scandal to learn that they had
actually been written by a noble, not by a low-class actor. Who would
have been scandalized and why?
> Thirdly, it would have
> been misread by the ignorant populace. All
> the bawdy jokes would have been taken as
> serious statements of fact -- much as
> Americans here react to the scatological jokes.)
>
How would the "ignorant populace" care one way or another about the
authorship of works they couldn't even understand? You call them
ignorant but then credit them with the mental ability to connect
characters in a play to real-life events that they would have no
reason to know anything about (the comings and goings of the royal
court). I'm sure that the "ignorant populace" had far greater
concerns that would have occupied their limited capacity to reason --
they wouldn't be sitting down with the Folio, a book they couldn't
read, much less afford, puzzling out that a particular pun referenced
a crapping contest between Oxenforde and the Queen and then reaching
the conclusion that such reference was a serious statement of fact.
How could they be so ignorant and at the same time discover the
"truths" hidden in the works that only a mind as brilliant as yours
has been able to find?
By the way, I haven't seen any Americans here who believe that the
scatalogical jokes that you locate are serious statements of fact.
> > And yet two of the players and a contemporary playwright
> > asserted that the author and the actor were the same man.
>
> Nope, they don't. They may suggest it,
> but they certainly don't assert it.
They most certainly do -- you may attempt to read some ambiguity into
what they said, but the language contained within the four corners of
the document (even disregarding all of the pertinent surrounding
facts, circumstances, and other relevant documents) clearly asserts
that the author and the actor were the same man.
> >> The
> >> "Shakespeare Set-Up" of the First Folio is a construction manufactured
> >> seven years after Stratford Will's death mainly to market the book of
> >> the 36 best Elizabethan plays.
>
> An anti-Strat goes wrong.
> > I have no idea what you mean by the "Shakespeare Set-Up". However, as
> > I pointed out above, if the people involved in the production of the
> > First Folio were truly interested in marketing the works, surely 1623
> > would have been a propitious time to reveal that the works were
> > actually written by Oxenforde.
>
> If 'marketing' had indeed been a concern,
> you might have an argument.
> >> In fact, the references we do have to Stratford Will during his
> >> lifetime do indicate the opposite.
>
> > There are a good number of references to William Shakespeare of
> > Stratford that connect him directly to the plays, the acting company
> > that put on the plays, and the theaters where the plays were
> > performed.
>
> Anyone who can believe that an illiterate
> clown from a remote provincial town
You assume facts that are not in evidence.
In addition, your statement is nonresponsive to the point that was
made (There are a good number of references to William Shakespeare of
Stratford that connect him directly to the plays, the acting company
that put on the plays, and the theaters where the plays were
performed.)
> Anyone who can believe that an illiterate
> clown from a remote provincial town (with
> illiterate parents, illiterate siblings, an
> illiterate wife, and illiterate daughters) is
> a complete and total idiot, capable of
> believing in almost anything.
I could be persuaded that an illiterate clown from a remote provincial
town is a complete and total idiot, capable of believing in almost
anything. For instance, I don't know anything about your background
but you certainly fit the bill.
> > No -- Stratfordians make no allowances for speculation and conjecture
> > that has no factual, evidentuiary basis. What are the "so obvious
> > problems" that are worth considering. Just list your top five such
> > problems and provide the factual basis for each.
>
> Hey -- (1) his illiterate parents, (2) illiterate
> siblings, (3) illiterate wife, (4) illiterate
> daughters, and (5) his illiterate 'signature'.
I notice you failed to supply any evidentiary basis for your claims.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that numbers (1) through (4) are
factually correct, these facts would still not qualify as evidence
that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the works
attributed to him. Illiteracy is not congenital nor is it spread by
contagion. As to number (5), the signatures are not evidentiary proof
of illiteracy. If those are your top five "obvious problems" you are
the one with obvious problems.
> >> If Will Shakspere stole from Glenville, he most
> >> certainly also stole from Marlowe and Oxford, and the general picture
> >> of him of his own time (especially as depicted by Jonson in "Every Man
> >> out of his Humour", which has been argumented about here but silenced
> >> down by the usual Stratfordian bulldozerism scornfully stamping it
> >> like all other non-Stratfordian arguments as 'hilarious absurdities',)
> >> is of an opportunist mainly interested in business, with no indication
> >> of any theatrical, dramatic, poetic talent or interest in literature
> >> at all.
>
> Christian has not begun to appreciate the
> 'stooge' nature of the Stratman, and the
> fact that he had one single 'possession'
> he could 'lease' -- his name. This bore a
> resemblance to an established pseudonym
> of the poet -- a glorious Elizabethan pun,
> as is apparent to anyone who knows the
> least thing about Elizabethan literature.
We've had this discussion before. There is no evidence that the name
"Will Shakespeare" was ever used by anyone with reference to the works
(although "will" is found in the Sonnets). In addition, you've never
been able to show how a pun of a military nature is apropriate to the
author of the works. If I remember correctly, your last pronouncement
on this subject was that "spear" is a punning reference to a "pen".
When I asked you for examples to support such a claim you fled the
battle.
> Of course, the fact that he was an illiterate
> stooge did not necessarily mean that he was
> fully under the control of his bosses. Some
> of the deals he executed in London, and
> some of his other 'quasi-theatrical' activities,
> may not have had their full sanction or
> approval.
A new attempt to explain away the documents linking the Stratfordian
to the plays, the acting company and the theater. You have no
evidence that the documentary record is forged so you now come up with
a new rationale (also without any evidence to back it up). The
illiterate bumpkin stooge from the provincial backwater outwitted his
noble handlers -- brilliant.
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dom
John W. Kennedy
And a ridiculous claim about Dante, too, who has no known ancestor
earlier than a great-great-grandfather.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
Christian Lanciai
Since you are stuck in the Stratford myth, you simply are not
interested in investigating any other relating facts, like I have no
interest in repeating what has already been written nor time for it,
since I have more important things to do.
C.
Dominic Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
MINSTREL: Bravely bold Sir Robin, rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O Brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!
His head smashed in and his heart cut out,
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged,
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off,
And his pen...(Robin interrupts the song)
"Eh, that's enough music for now lads.
Look's like there's dirty work afoot.
The most fierest creature for Yards around.
Why she had a mean streak a mile wide!
For second after second Robin held his own,
but the onslaught proved too much for the brave Knight.
Scarcely was his armor damp when Robin suddenly,
dramatically changed his tactic....
"He's buggered off!!!"..."So he has, he's scarpered!"
MINSTREL: Brave Sir Robin ran away
ROBIN: No!
MINSTREL (singing): Bravely ran away away
ROBIN: I didn't!
MINSTREL (singing): When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
ROBIN: No!
MINSTREL (singing): Yes Brave Sir Robin turned about
ROBIN: I didn't!
MINSTREL (singing): And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to
his feet
ROBIN: I never did!
MINSTREL (singing): He beat a very brave retreat
ROBIN: Oh, lie!
MINSTREL (singing): Bravest of the brave Sir Robin
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge
Paul Crowley
>> Firstly, the publication of the First Folio
>> was NEVER a commercial enterprise. It was
>> not done for profit -- far too few in the nation
>> being able to afford its price.
>
> In your opinion, what were the purposes of publication?
You will find the idea hard to grasp, but
some people at the time could, in fact,
appreciate the works as literature, and
thought that they were worth preserving
-- which meant putting them into print in
a fair number of copies.
> From what
> I've read, there were between 750 and 1000 First Folios printed in
> 1623, and all of them were sold.
Much guesswork is involved in that estimate.
No one knows how many were sold.
> Folios of the works of Jonson and
> Beaumont & Fletcher were also produced in similar numbers with similar
> prices
Much smaller in size.
> -- was there a commercial element to their publications (or
> were they also the work of Oxenforde, published for some greater
> purpose?)
Much of "Beaumont & Fletcher" is very
likely Oxford's work (i.e. early stuff).
>> Secondly the
>> revelation that the author was not a low-
>> class actor, but a noble, would have been far
>> less popular than it is now.
>
> You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the revelation of the true
> author in 1623 would have had any effect on the popularity of the
> works or on the intended audience (those with money to spend on a
> book).
That's to be expected, since I have not
put forward any such proposition.
> You have argued that the works were not popular with the
> middle or lower classes
No. I have argued that knowledge of them
among the middle and lower classes was
minimal to non-existent.
> -- that, in fact, they were entertainments for
> the royal court -- and that the Folio was too expensive for anyone but
> those possessed of wealth to buy, so what would have prevented the
> publishers from acknowledging that the author was actually Oxenforde?
> Why would such a revelation not be "popular"?
I have explained this several times to you.
There are multifold reasons. One is that
people do not like being lied to. Nor do they
like being treated like fools -- especially when
that's what they are.
People would have realised that Oxford's
addressee in the Sonnets was Queen Elizabeth.
She would also have been seen (correctly) as
Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress
Olivia. But, given the weakness of the newly-
literate imagination, and the tendency to take
everything literally -- still manifest among
academics and Americans -- all manner of
nonsense would have been read in. It may well
have been comparable with the worst excesses
of the "Prince Tudor" Oxfordian theorists.
Of course, no one knew exactly what might
happen, but those making the decisions
(essentially the monarch at the time) preferred
not to take the risk.
[..]
>> Thirdly, it would have
>> been misread by the ignorant populace. All
>> the bawdy jokes would have been taken as
>> serious statements of fact -- much as
>> Americans here react to the scatological jokes.)
>
> How would the "ignorant populace" care one way or another about the
> authorship of works they couldn't even understand? You call them
> ignorant but then credit them with the mental ability to connect
> characters in a play to real-life events that they would have no
> reason to know anything about (the comings and goings of the royal
> court).
There was nothing secret about the 'comings
and goings'. They were the stuff of ordinary
everyday conversation among a high
proportion of Londoners.
> I'm sure that the "ignorant populace" had far greater
> concerns that would have occupied their limited capacity to reason --
> they wouldn't be sitting down with the Folio, a book they couldn't
> read, much less afford, puzzling out that a particular pun referenced
> a crapping contest between Oxenforde and the Queen and then reaching
> the conclusion that such reference was a serious statement of fact.
There would have been a few dedicated
souls among them who would have put
in the effort, and spread the word -- e.g.
anti-royalists.
> How could they be so ignorant and at the same time discover the
> "truths" hidden in the works that only a mind as brilliant as yours
> has been able to find?
Because they were a multitude -- and while
largely as ignorant as modern academics, a
few would have had much better information
than we do, would have put in the time and
effort, and reached (mostly false) conclusions.
> By the way, I haven't seen any Americans here who believe that the
> scatalogical jokes that you locate are serious statements of fact.
Having a horror of 'bathroom issues', lacking all
sense of humour, and being Yanks and literalists,
they fail to see the joke. So almost necessarily
they regard any allusion or reference to this
topic as being an assertion of fact.
>>> And yet two of the players and a contemporary playwright
>>> asserted that the author and the actor were the same man.
>>
>> Nope, they don't. They may suggest it,
>> but they certainly don't assert it.
>
> They most certainly do -- you may attempt to read some ambiguity into
> what they said, but the language contained within the four corners of
> the document (even disregarding all of the pertinent surrounding
> facts, circumstances, and other relevant documents) clearly asserts
> that the author and the actor were the same man.
And that's why you don't quote the
words you think relevant.
>>> There are a good number of references to William Shakespeare of
>>> Stratford that connect him directly to the plays, the acting company
>>> that put on the plays, and the theaters where the plays were
>>> performed.
>>
>> Anyone who can believe that an illiterate
>> clown from a remote provincial town
>
> You assume facts that are not in evidence.
> In addition, your statement is nonresponsive to the point that was
> made
If you want to raise particular 'references'
don't hold back.
>>> No -- Stratfordians make no allowances for speculation and conjecture
>>> that has no factual, evidentuiary basis. What are the "so obvious
>>> problems" that are worth considering. Just list your top five such
>>> problems and provide the factual basis for each.
>>
>> Hey -- (1) his illiterate parents, (2) illiterate
>> siblings, (3) illiterate wife, (4) illiterate
>> daughters, and (5) his illiterate 'signature'.
>
> I notice you failed to supply any evidentiary basis for your claims.
> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that numbers (1) through (4) are
> factually correct, these facts would still not qualify as evidence
> that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the works
> attributed to him. Illiteracy is not congenital nor is it spread by
> contagion.
As a matter of observable fact, (il)literacy
is -- in effect -- hereditary, more so than
most genetic traits. When you meet an
illiterate person, you know, almost without
any doubt, that his parents were illiterate.
And similarly for literate people.
> As to number (5), the signatures are not evidentiary proof
> of illiteracy.
Are you really claiming they are the
signatures of a person who had written
hundreds of thousands of words?
Stratfordian credulousness knows no
limits.
> If those are your top five "obvious problems" you are
> the one with obvious problems.
Your tactic of asking for 'top five' or 'top
ten' issues sounds reasonable, but, in
fact, it's not. This is not a simple problem,
and we are not working within an agreed
framework. Imagine a Creationist asking
you for your top five proofs of Evolution,
OR a pre-Copernican astronomer asking
you for your top five proofs of modern
cosmology, OR some twerp asking you
for your top five proofs that Switzerland
doesn't have an annual harvest from its
spaghetti trees.
In each case, you would not know where to
start. You have an almost infinite number
of reasons. The question itself shows that
the person posing it does not understand
the nature of the issue.
>> Christian has not begun to appreciate the
>> 'stooge' nature of the Stratman, and the
>> fact that he had one single 'possession'
>> he could 'lease' -- his name. This bore a
>> resemblance to an established pseudonym
>> of the poet -- a glorious Elizabethan pun,
>> as is apparent to anyone who knows the
>> least thing about Elizabethan literature.
>
> We've had this discussion before. There is no evidence that the name
> "Will Shakespeare" was ever used by anyone with reference to the works
> (although "will" is found in the Sonnets).
'Will' is more than 'found' in the Sonnets.
It is printed with a capital and in italics nine
times, and occurs in those sonnets another
ten times, with complex puns involved in
most of them. People do not pun on their
own given names. They are bored stiff with
such attempts before they leave infant
school. Peter Farey here recently expressed
this common attitude to someone who
'cleverly' punned on 'fairy'.
> In addition, you've never
> been able to show how a pun of a military nature is apropriate to the
> author of the works.
It is amazing that you can see only the
military sense in this phrase. If you try
very hard you should be able to work
out two or three more -- from the few
hundred intended by the poet.
> If I remember correctly, your last pronouncement
> on this subject was that "spear" is a punning reference to a "pen".
> When I asked you for examples to support such a claim you fled the
> battle.
Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
= 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
>> Of course, the fact that he was an illiterate
>> stooge did not necessarily mean that he was
>> fully under the control of his bosses. Some
>> of the deals he executed in London, and
>> some of his other 'quasi-theatrical' activities,
>> may not have had their full sanction or
>> approval.
>
> A new attempt to explain away the documents linking the Stratfordian
> to the plays, the acting company and the theater.
Not at all. The notion that an illiterate
Stratman could have anything significant
to do with the theatre is so far-fetched an
idea as to be quite laughable. However,
the Stratman does seem to have hung
around. It's possible that he developed
a kind of 'Walter Mitty' complex, and quite
fancied the idea of fame -- even if there was
no hope that he could ever have carried it
off.
> You have no evidence that the documentary record is forged
What 'evidence' would you expect?
A claim that an illiterate was the Great
Bard? The use of a quite absurd name?
And to which 'documents' are you
referring?
> so you now come up with
> a new rationale (also without any evidence to back it up). The
> illiterate bumpkin stooge from the provincial backwater outwitted his
> noble handlers -- brilliant.
You have obviously never dealt with
illiterates. They would run rings around
you. This illiterate had his noble handlers
over something of a barrel. What could
they do? Pay him more money? Threaten
violence or death? It may well have come
to all of those things, but we can be sure
that he exploited the situation to the
maximum.
Paul.
Christian Lanciai
Your snobbist attitude and scorning arrogance won't help you.
C.
Dominic Hughes
Since when is Monty Python "snobbist"?
Dom
nordicskiv2
<03f9a738-8029-4c3a...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Christian Lanciai <clan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You miss the point, just as David does as he gets too mixed up in
> ornitology. Every single bird that he mentions, taking for granted I
> never heard them, sounds better than the Mute Swan,
How on earth could you possibly know this if by your own admission
you have never heard them?!
In fact, your assertion is farcically false -- the whole point of
my post was that American Bittern does NOT sound better than the Mute
Swan -- certainly not from the standpoint of musicality! Rather, the
vocalization of the American Bittern sounds like a piece of heavy
hydraulic machinery, or like a pile driver -- indeed, non-birders
fortunate enough to hear it in the field are incredulous when told
that what they have just heard is a bird song. The same remark
pertains to the sound made by the Ruffed Grouse to establish its
breeding territory and to attract a potential mate -- it sounds like a
distant outboard motor being started. One could continue at
considerable length in the same vein: the Barn Owl's vocalization
sounds like a hoarse scream from a horror film soundtrack. The
"bugling" vocalization of the Mute Swan is decidedly more musical than
any of these bizarre, raucous noises.
In fact, this whole post showcases starkly the cavalier
indifference to fact of so many anti-Stratfordians. This is not mere
ignorance -- sadly, it is ineducable ignorance.
[...]
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" <mah...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ba3f8e25-e6f9-4931...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Firstly, the publication of the First Folio
> >> was NEVER a commercial enterprise. It was
> >> not done for profit -- far too few in the nation
> >> being able to afford its price.
>
> > In your opinion, what were the purposes of publication?
>
> You will find the idea hard to grasp, but
> some people at the time could, in fact,
> appreciate the works as literature, and
> thought that they were worth preserving
> -- which meant putting them into print in
> a fair number of copies.
No, you're quite wrong as usual. I can easily appreciate that there
were individuals involved in publishing the First Folio who recognized
the literary worth of the plays and desired to see them preserved. In
fact, Heminge and Condell, William Shakespeare's fellow actors in the
Chamberlain's Men (King's Men) stated as much in the Preface to the
First Folio, writing that it was their wish to compile Shakespeare's
work "without ambition either of self-profit or fame, only to keep the
memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare".
Of course, that intention could easily have been accomplished without
printing up 750-1,000 copies for sale to the general public (a copy
was placed with the Bodleian Library, in Oxford, in early 1624). What
you fail to grasp is that a desire to see the plays preserved does not
necessarily rule out an additional mercantile interest/purpose behind
the publication of the plays.
>
> > From what
> > I've read, there were between 750 and 1000 First Folios printed in
> > 1623, and all of them were sold.
>
> Much guesswork is involved in that estimate.
> No one knows how many were sold.
I see -- you have nothing of substance to contradict the numbers or
the sales history compiled by the scholars who have actually studied
the same. Off the top of my head, I believe a second edition was
published in 1632, which would be a factor tending to indicate that
the previous edition had sold out.
> > Folios of the works of Jonson and
> > Beaumont & Fletcher were also produced in similar numbers with similar
> > prices
>
> Much smaller in size.
What does the size of those publications have to do with the fact that
they were sold for profit?
Ben Jonson's Workes, published in 1616, only included nine plays, but
that does nothing to contradict that one purpose for compiling the
plays was to make money.
> > -- was there a commercial element to their publications (or
> > were they also the work of Oxenforde, published for some greater
> > purpose?)
>
> Much of "Beaumont & Fletcher" is very
> likely Oxford's work (i.e. early stuff).
Right -- more people to add to the conspiracy.
> >> Secondly the
> >> revelation that the author was not a low-
> >> class actor, but a noble, would have been far
> >> less popular than it is now.
>
> > You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the revelation of the true
> > author in 1623 would have had any effect on the popularity of the
> > works or on the intended audience (those with money to spend on a
> > book).
>
> That's to be expected, since I have not
> put forward any such proposition.
Then what did you mean when you stated that " the revelation that the
author was not a low-class actor, but a noble, would have been far
less popular than it is now." Are you saying that there was some
class-consciousness at work in 1623, and that people were somehow
invested in the low-class actor as author because of his status on the
social ladder?
> > You have argued that the works were not popular with the
> > middle or lower classes
>
> No. I have argued that knowledge of them
> among the middle and lower classes was
> minimal to non-existent.
Even better. According to your inane theory, the middle and lower
classes in 1623 (Oxenforde having died in 1604, and Shakespeare having
died in 1616), with "minimal to non-existent knowledge" of the works,
would have taken the revelation that Oxenforde was the true author and
made the connections that the plays contained hidden commentary on
court activities, and would then have used such information to attack
the aristocracy. Since you've also claimed that the works were too
expensive to be purchased by just anyone ("far too few in the nation
being able to afford its price") how on earth would these ignorant
middle and lower class individuals even be able to peruse the works to
ferret out the connections you propound? Finally, you've already
claimed that the lower class was largely illiterate -- now you're
claiming that they could discern hidden references in stage plays of
which they had no knowledge.
> > -- that, in fact, they were entertainments for
> > the royal court -- and that the Folio was too expensive for anyone but
> > those possessed of wealth to buy, so what would have prevented the
> > publishers from acknowledging that the author was actually Oxenforde?
> > Why would such a revelation not be "popular"?
>
> I have explained this several times to you.
> There are multifold reasons. One is that
> people do not like being lied to. Nor do they
> like being treated like fools -- especially when
> that's what they are.
As a matter of fact, people love a mystery, and much popular
entertainment has been derived through the years in trying to discover
the true identities of authors who have written under pen names.
> People would have realised that Oxford's
> addressee in the Sonnets was Queen Elizabeth.
Even better. According to your inane theory, the middle and lower
classes in 1623 (Oxenforde having died in 1604, and Shakespeare having
died in 1616), with "minimal to non-existent knowledge" of the works,
would have gone back to scrape up a copy and review the Sonnets
(published in 1609) to find the hidden connections therein, revealing
that the Fair Youth was actually the Queen..
> She would also have been seen (correctly) as
> Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress
> Olivia. But, given the weakness of the newly-
> literate imagination, and the tendency to take
> everything literally -- still manifest among
> academics and Americans -- all manner of
> nonsense would have been read in. It may well
> have been comparable with the worst excesses
> of the "Prince Tudor" Oxfordian theorists.
Your theory is that the ignorant middle and lower classes, with
minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works, could make the mental
calculations, and somehow possess the knowledge of the works, to make
connections that you claim have been hidden from scholars who have
studied the works for centuries (and have only been uncovered by you),
but they would then conclude that the "crapping contests" were factual
events. While finding such a contest in the sonnet does qualify as
reading in nonsense, there is no chance that the ignorant populace
would make the connections that you say they 'would" or that they had
any"tendency to tak everything literally", thereby causing them to
puzzle out such excesses as the "Prince Tudor" theory.
> Of course, no one knew exactly what might
> happen,
Nothing would have happened.
> but those making the decisions
> (essentially the monarch at the time) preferred
> not to take the risk.
> [..]
>
So it was King James who decided not to reveal the author's true
identity. Any evidence for this assertion?
You snipped this:
[[[[> Imagine it being
> declared around (say) 1900. It would have
> been a most unwelcome scandal at most times
> in the past 400 years.
A scandal? Why -- these are the supreme achievements in the history
of literature. Why would it cause any scandal to learn that they had
actually been written by a noble, not by a low-class actor. Who
would
have been scandalized and why?]]]]
> >> Thirdly, it would have
> >> been misread by the ignorant populace. All
> >> the bawdy jokes would have been taken as
> >> serious statements of fact -- much as
> >> Americans here react to the scatological jokes.)
>
> > How would the "ignorant populace" care one way or another about the
> > authorship of works they couldn't even understand? You call them
> > ignorant but then credit them with the mental ability to connect
> > characters in a play to real-life events that they would have no
> > reason to know anything about (the comings and goings of the royal
> > court).
>
> There was nothing secret about the 'comings
> and goings'. They were the stuff of ordinary
> everyday conversation among a high
> proportion of Londoners.
Great. William Shakespeare of Stratford, or any other playwright of
the time, would have possessed the information/common knowledge
enabling him to write about the comings and goings of the court. You
still have not explained why the "ignorant populace" that existed in
1623 would care one way or another about the authorship of works they
couldn't even understand (or had non-existent knowledge of) or how
they could be so ignorant but then also have the mental ability to
connect characters in a play to real-life events that occurred back in
the 1570's - 1590's.
> > I'm sure that the "ignorant populace" had far greater
> > concerns that would have occupied their limited capacity to reason --
> > they wouldn't be sitting down with the Folio, a book they couldn't
> > read, much less afford, puzzling out that a particular pun referenced
> > a crapping contest between Oxenforde and the Queen and then reaching
> > the conclusion that such reference was a serious statement of fact.
>
> There would have been a few dedicated
> souls among them who would have put
> in the effort, and spread the word -- e.g.
> anti-royalists.
"There would have been" -- not necessarily, and not even likely. You
actually believe that anti-royalists in 1623 would attempt to stir up
the populace against King James by spreading the word that Oxenforde
was writing plays and poems about the royal court back in the 1570's,
1580's and 1590's, and was telling gassers about crapping contests
with Good Queen Bess. What a riot -- not.
> > How could they be so ignorant and at the same time discover the
> > "truths" hidden in the works that only a mind as brilliant as yours
> > has been able to find?
>
> Because they were a multitude --
Okay, put your heads together..klunk.
> and while
> largely as ignorant as modern academics, a
> few would have had much better information
> than we do, would have put in the time and
> effort, and reached (mostly false) conclusions.
Wait a minute there, hoss. You have already siad that they would have
reached many accurate conclusions.
The ignorant populace "would have realised that Oxford's addressee in
the Sonnets was Queen Elizabeth. She would also have been seen
(correctly) as Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress Olivia.
" Your theory is that a select group of anti-royalists would seize
upon the revelation that some earl back in the late 1500's wrote the
plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare. They would then spend the
time and effort to go back through the plays and poems to comb them
for hidden meanings and puns about crapping contests that they could
use to rile up the ignorant populace that had little to no knowledge
of those works. Your theory is consistently inane.
> > By the way, I haven't seen any Americans here who believe that the
> > scatalogical jokes that you locate are serious statements of fact.
>
> Having a horror of 'bathroom issues', lacking all
> sense of humour, and being Yanks and literalists,
> they fail to see the joke. So almost necessarily
> they regard any allusion or reference to this
> topic as being an assertion of fact.
>
You need to watch some American television some time if you think
there is a horror of "bathroom issues" -- the crap and the crapper are
everywhere on American teevee (in fact, one recent hit had scenes set
in a men's room on each and every episode -- and there are many more
examples that contradict your assertion).
> >>> And yet two of the players and a contemporary playwright
> >>> asserted that the author and the actor were the same man.
>
> >> Nope, they don't. They may suggest it,
> >> but they certainly don't assert it.
>
> > They most certainly do -- you may attempt to read some ambiguity into
> > what they said, but the language contained within the four corners of
> > the document (even disregarding all of the pertinent surrounding
> > facts, circumstances, and other relevant documents) clearly asserts
> > that the author and the actor were the same man.
>
> And that's why you don't quote the
> words you think relevant.
If you want to have that discussion, I am certainly open to it. I've
already produced some of the language from Heminge and Condell where
they identify Shakespeare as their friend and fellow -- do you believe
they were talking about Oxenforde?
> >>> There are a good number of references to William Shakespeare of
> >>> Stratford that connect him directly to the plays, the acting company
> >>> that put on the plays, and the theaters where the plays were
> >>> performed.
>
> >> Anyone who can believe that an illiterate
> >> clown from a remote provincial town
>
> > You assume facts that are not in evidence.
> > In addition, your statement is nonresponsive to the point that was
> > made
>
> If you want to raise particular 'references'
> don't hold back.
I have in the past but you have never really addressed them (such as
the deeds of trust from Nicholas Brend -- if I recall correctly, you
merely suggested that such documents could be forgeries).
> >>> No -- Stratfordians make no allowances for speculation and conjecture
> >>> that has no factual, evidentuiary basis. What are the "so obvious
> >>> problems" that are worth considering. Just list your top five such
> >>> problems and provide the factual basis for each.
>
> >> Hey -- (1) his illiterate parents, (2) illiterate
> >> siblings, (3) illiterate wife, (4) illiterate
> >> daughters, and (5) his illiterate 'signature'.
>
> > I notice you failed to supply any evidentiary basis for your claims.
> > Assuming, for the sake of argument, that numbers (1) through (4) are
> > factually correct, these facts would still not qualify as evidence
> > that Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the works
> > attributed to him. Illiteracy is not congenital nor is it spread by
> > contagion.
>
> As a matter of observable fact, (il)literacy
> is -- in effect -- hereditary, more so than
> most genetic traits. When you meet an
> illiterate person, you know, almost without
> any doubt, that his parents were illiterate.
> And similarly for literate people.
This is factually incorrect. In the United States, the children of
literate parents were found to suffer from problems with illiteracy
(of which there are varying degrees) when the teaching of reading
switched methods in reading instruction. In addition, I am glad to
see that you recognize the possibility ("a;most without any doubt")
that one member of a family may be literate when the others in his
family are not (especially when that child has an opportunity to
attend school). In the 1980's I knew a family where both of the
parents were functionally illiterate (I don't believe the Father was
even able to read, much less write). Their eight-year old daughter
delighted in reading to us whenever we visited their home.
> > As to number (5), the signatures are not evidentiary proof
> > of illiteracy.
>
> Are you really claiming they are the
> signatures of a person who had written
> hundreds of thousands of words?
Sure -- his hands were tired from writing all those words (or maybe he
had carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, etc.). Your evidence, if it
can even be called that, is decidedly weak.
> Stratfordian credulousness knows no
> limits.
Oxenfordian fantasy knows no limits.
> > If those are your top five "obvious problems" you are
> > the one with obvious problems.
>
> Your tactic of asking for 'top five' or 'top
> ten' issues sounds reasonable, but, in
> fact, it's not.
It most certainly is reasonable as an opening to discussion of the
subject. Why not give it a try.
> This is not a simple problem,
> and we are not working within an agreed
> framework.
We are working with a finite number of documents, and a finite number
of known facts.
> Imagine a Creationist asking
> you for your top five proofs of Evolution,
> OR a pre-Copernican astronomer asking
> you for your top five proofs of modern
> cosmology, OR some twerp asking you
> for your top five proofs that Switzerland
> doesn't have an annual harvest from its
> spaghetti trees.
So the case for Oxenforde is no better than the case for spaghetti
trees.
These analogies are not even close. The situation more closely
resembles a legal action, in which the evidence consists of a finite
number of known facts, known documents, and contemporary testimony.
Put your best case forward.
> In each case, you would not know where to
> start.
I would start like any lawyer organizing my case. I would make my
opening statement in which I would provide the general theory of the
case. Then I would marshall the known facts, documents, etc. that
tend to prove my theory of the case. In addition, I would provide the
evidentiary foundation required to challenge the case and theory of my
opponent. Finally, I would tie all of the facts together, with their
logical inferences, and show how the pieces of the puzzle prove my
overall theory of the case. Or at least I think that's what lawyers
are supposed to do. One of the things I've heard lawyers say when
defending a client in a criminal case is that they have two general
lines of attack: (1) my guy didn't do it, and/or (2) the other guy did
it. That seems perfectly applicable in the present instance. Offer
your evidence as to why W.S. of Stratford didn't do it, and provide
legitimate evidence attacking the facts that tend to show he did. At
the same time, provide the facts that form the evidentiary basis for
why it is the "other guy" who did.
> You have an almost infinite number
> of reasons. The question itself shows that
> the person posing it does not understand
> the nature of the issue.
>
> >> Christian has not begun to appreciate the
> >> 'stooge' nature of the Stratman, and the
> >> fact that he had one single 'possession'
> >> he could 'lease' -- his name. This bore a
> >> resemblance to an established pseudonym
> >> of the poet -- a glorious Elizabethan pun,
> >> as is apparent to anyone who knows the
> >> least thing about Elizabethan literature.
>
> > We've had this discussion before. There is no evidence that the name
> > "Will Shakespeare" was ever used by anyone with reference to the works
> > (although "will" is found in the Sonnets).
>
> 'Will' is more than 'found' in the Sonnets.
> It is printed with a capital and in italics nine
> times, and occurs in those sonnets another
> ten times, with complex puns involved in
> most of them.
As I said, Will Shakespeare is never used.
> People do not pun on their
> own given names.
Your tendency to write absolute rules is not conducive to open-minded
study.
> They are bored stiff with
> such attempts before they leave infant
> school. Peter Farey here recently expressed
> this common attitude to someone who
> 'cleverly' punned on 'fairy'.
> > In addition, you've never
> > been able to show how a pun of a military nature is apropriate to the
> > author of the works.
>
> It is amazing that you can see only the
> military sense in this phrase. If you try
> very hard you should be able to work
> out two or three more -- from the few
> hundred intended by the poet.
That's funny coming from you. Aren't you the guy who had never
conceived that Will could have been playing with himself.
> > If I remember correctly, your last pronouncement
> > on this subject was that "spear" is a punning reference to a "pen".
> > When I asked you for examples to support such a claim you fled the
> > battle.
>
> Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
> = 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
> you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
> equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
> occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
> for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
> with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
I'll be waiting on your examples, but I won't be holding my breath.
"Will Shakespeare" does not have a punning connotation to "will write
plays" no mateer how hard you twist it.
> >> Of course, the fact that he was an illiterate
> >> stooge did not necessarily mean that he was
> >> fully under the control of his bosses. Some
> >> of the deals he executed in London, and
> >> some of his other 'quasi-theatrical' activities,
> >> may not have had their full sanction or
> >> approval.
>
> > A new attempt to explain away the documents linking the Stratfordian
> > to the plays, the acting company and the theater.
>
> Not at all. The notion that an illiterate
> Stratman could have anything significant
> to do with the theatre is so far-fetched an
> idea as to be quite laughable.
Okay, now's your chance. Go to the Kathman-Reedy website and take
each of the documents listed there that connect W.S. of Stratford to
the theatre (sharing in the profits therefrom), and explain why those
documents are "laughable". If you want, I can provide them for you
one by one.
> However,
> the Stratman does seem to have hung
> around.
Yup -- that's why he had a share in the ownership. The other
shareholders wanted to reward him for just hanging around.
> It's possible that he developed
> a kind of 'Walter Mitty' complex, and quite
> fancied the idea of fame -- even if there was
> no hope that he could ever have carried it
> off.
>
> > You have no evidence that the documentary record is forged
>
> What 'evidence' would you expect?
> A claim that an illiterate was the Great
> Bard? The use of a quite absurd name?
> And to which 'documents' are you
> referring?
You misunderstand my point. There are numerous contemporary
references connecting W.S. of Stratford to the acting company and the
theatre -- you have previously opined that such documents may, in
fact, be forgeries concocted by the individuals who were protecting
Oxenforde's role. Obviously you had no evidence to substantiate that
opinion.
By the way, are you seriously stating that you don't know what
documents I'm referring to here. Have you never even looked at the
documents that connect Shakespeare to the acting company and the
theatre?
> > so you now come up with
> > a new rationale (also without any evidence to back it up). The
> > illiterate bumpkin stooge from the provincial backwater outwitted his
> > noble handlers -- brilliant.
>
> You have obviously never dealt with
> illiterates. They would run rings around
> you. This illiterate had his noble handlers
> over something of a barrel. What could
> they do? Pay him more money? Threaten
> violence or death? It may well have come
> to all of those things, but we can be sure
> that he exploited the situation to the
> maximum.
As a matter of fact, I have dealt with illiterates, and they have
always had to pay me. I am sorry that your experience seems to have
been to the contrary. I hope it was only money that the yokels took
from you.
As for Shakespeare and his "noble handlers" -- there is no reason that
he couldn't have been bought off with more money or even killed for
that matter. By the way, how did the illiterate manage to fool all of
the people at the theatre? Or were they also bilking the "noble
handlers"?
> Paul.
Dom
Algernon H.Nuttsakk
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are certainly 'indications' that he
> was the poet -- but they are exceptionally
> weak and peculiar. They are curiously
> restricted to documents which were public,
> or liable to become public as the result of
> litigation. None are casual, 'natural', or to
> be found in conditions where the originators
> would not have expected them to be
> disclosed. All of the records where we would
> expect to see real information -- such as on
> tombstones (of his own, his daughter, her
> husband, and so on) or in casual remarks,
> such as that by the maid of the house where
> he lodged, reveal the opposite of what we
> would expect (only "the lodger upstairs" and
> not "the famous actor and play-writer").
Indeed, as a recent study which has appeared in
the latest issue of "Shakespeare News & Views"
has found, Shaksper of Stratford was not only
an illiterate clown from a provincial backwater,
he was also ignorant, indigent, illicit, infirm
and incontinent. His shit-besmeared trousers not
only fouled the local church with his ass-cheese
drippings, but a hoard, yes a HOARD, of farthings
was found (or believed to be found) underneath
his Stratford shack! Yes, *money*! How could any
sensitive, erudite Shakespearean that the creator
of our gentle Marina could have been obsessed with
the collection of filthy copper coins, stained
with the sweat of *peasants*? How, in short,
COULD THAT BLASPHEMOUS HEMORRHOIDAL LOO-LICKER
POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN OUR GLORIOUS AUTHOR??
AHN
Christian Lanciai
You misunderstand me as usual. YOU took for granted I never heard
them. The most impressive sound made by a Mute Swan is when it lifts,
flapping its wings. When you see Mute Swans together with other birds
of the swimming or wading kind, the air is filled with their communal
prattle, while only the Mute Swan is completely silent. I have
remarked this a number of times. The Mute Swan (the common swan of
England) is simply not called Mute for nothing.
I repeat, that this whole thing is beside the point, which is the
ineptness of Jonson's poem, written for suspect reasons.
C.
Christian Lanciai
Not Monty Python, - you. Excuse me, Dominic, but when Sir Fulke
Greville turned up again in this discussion (as he always does now and
then here in HLAS as "The Master of Shakespeare"), instead of
repeating earlier discussions about him, I recommended you to look him
up, since he even had a thread of his own as recently as last month.
Since he has been discussed here so many other times before, I thought
you would get your fill of him but just bothering to look him up, but
you just wouldn't. Instead, you told me to humour you by expounding
him. I had no obligation to do so, since so much had been written
about him here that it was perfectly superfluous of me to add to it.
Then you mocked me for throwing in the sponge. I call that arrogant
and a typical symptom of the general Stratfordian snobbist attitude
here. No offence, just logic.
C.
Dominic Hughes
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Christian:
I did not ask you for any of the discussions about Fulke-Greville. I
merely asked you what "remarkable wordings" of Fulke-Greville you were
referring to (among some other questions about other matters which you
also ignored). I did not ask you to "expound" on the issue, just to
provide the specific statements that Fulke-Greville made. See the
difference.
You have complained repeatedly that nobody is willing to debate these
issues with you, that you are simply "bulldozed". When I attempted to
engage you in such a debate you refused (for whatever reason). I'm
sorry my attempt at humor got under your skin, but it appears that
your previous forays here at hlas have left you with a very think
skin.
Dom
Paul Crowley
> No, you're quite wrong as usual. I can easily appreciate that there
> were individuals involved in publishing the First Folio who recognized
> the literary worth of the plays and desired to see them preserved. In
> fact, Heminge and Condell, William Shakespeare's fellow actors in the
> Chamberlain's Men (King's Men) stated as much in the Preface to the
> First Folio, writing that it was their wish to compile Shakespeare's
> work "without ambition either of self-profit or fame, only to keep the
> memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare".
>
> Of course, that intention could easily have been accomplished without
> printing up 750-1,000 copies for sale to the general public (a copy
> was placed with the Bodleian Library, in Oxford, in early 1624).
So you think that -- provided they were
placed in good libraries -- printing (say)
ten copies would have been sufficient?
No one would have thought it strange?
> What
> you fail to grasp is that a desire to see the plays preserved does not
> necessarily rule out an additional mercantile interest/purpose behind
> the publication of the plays.
What you fail to grasp is the basic economics.
There was not a large market for such an
expensive volume of highly literary plays.
> Off the top of my head, I believe a second edition was
> published in 1632, which would be a factor tending to indicate that
> the previous edition had sold out.
Sure -- it apparently sold out over 9 years.
But would you have risked your own
money on such a venture (as a purely
commercial decision) ?
>>> Folios of the works of Jonson and
>>> Beaumont & Fletcher were also produced in similar numbers with similar
>>> prices
>>
>> Much smaller in size.
>
> What does the size of those publications have to do with the fact that
> they were sold for profit?
The larger the work, the more the cost, the
higher the price at which it has to be sold,
and the smaller the market. You must have
slept through Economics 101. Nor have
ever been involved in business.
>> Much of "Beaumont & Fletcher" is very
>> likely Oxford's work (i.e. early stuff).
>
> Right -- more people to add to the conspiracy.
No. It is an explanation of some very puzzling
facts. The real Shake-speare obviously wrote
much more than we see in the canon. Those
plays were waiting to be published, and some
associates of the De Vere family obliged. As
the DNB article on Beaumont states:
" . . It is puzzling that very little is known aside from his publications
about the life of someone as important socially and artistically as
Beaumont. What G. E. Bentley says about Fletcher is true of both of
them:
Considering his social position and his flourishing reputation
from about 1620 to the end of the century, the paucity of
information about the career of John Fletcher is very curious,
much more unaccountable than the obscurity of Shakespeare
which the anti-Stratfordians find so satisfactorily mystifying.
(G. E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 7 vols., 1941-68, 3.306)"
> Then what did you mean when you stated that " the revelation that the
> author was not a low-class actor, but a noble, would have been far
> less popular than it is now."
The assertion that "the author was not a low-
class actor, but a noble" has not gone down
well in universities and elsewhere over the
past 100 years or more. Radical theories are
always rejected at first: the Copernican,
Continental Drift, the existence of Ice Ages,
Evolution, etc., etc. Our more God-fearing
ancestors were generally more trusting and
would have been more shocked than us
at the idea that they had been taken for a
ride.
> Are you saying that there was some class-consciousness at work in 1623,
Is that a serious question? Do you think
such social phenomena only came into
existence shortly before you were born?
> and that people were somehow invested in the low-class actor as
> author because of his status on the social ladder?
Light dawns. This is obviously the first time
this thought has occurred to you. For some
reason, you have always thought that the
native English welcomed their Norman-French
oppressors, and that class only recently
became an issue in England.
>>> You have argued that the works were not popular with the
>>> middle or lower classes
>>
>> No. I have argued that knowledge of them
>> among the middle and lower classes was
>> minimal to non-existent.
>
> Even better. According to your inane theory, the middle and lower
> classes in 1623 (Oxenforde having died in 1604, and Shakespeare having
> died in 1616), with "minimal to non-existent knowledge" of the works,
> would have taken the revelation that Oxenforde was the true author and
> made the connections that the plays contained hidden commentary on
> court activities, and would then have used such information to attack
> the aristocracy. Since you've also claimed that the works were too
> expensive to be purchased by just anyone ("far too few in the nation
> being able to afford its price") how on earth would these ignorant
> middle and lower class individuals even be able to peruse the works to
> ferret out the connections you propound?
The middle and lower-classes in England
around 1620 were not some vast lumpen-
proletariat, entirely incapable of thought
and quite unable to read or communicate.
> Finally, you've already
> claimed that the lower class was largely illiterate -- now you're
> claiming that they could discern hidden references in stage plays of
> which they had no knowledge.
Let me put it in terms you might grasp --
using great oversimplifications that I would
never seek to justify to an intelligent adult.
A small number of the educated aristocrats
could be traitors to their own class. THEY
would get the books, do the work, spill the
beans, and stir up the proletariat with stories
-- whether true, false or exaggerated.
> As a matter of fact, people love a mystery,
That must be why witches were routinely
murdered, and persecutions like the
Inquisition were so common.
>> She would also have been seen (correctly) as
>> Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress
>> Olivia. But, given the weakness of the newly-
>> literate imagination, and the tendency to take
>> everything literally -- still manifest among
>> academics and Americans -- all manner of
>> nonsense would have been read in. It may well
>> have been comparable with the worst excesses
>> of the "Prince Tudor" Oxfordian theorists.
>
> Your theory is that the ignorant middle and lower classes, with
> minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works, could make the mental
> calculations, and somehow possess the knowledge of the works, to make
> connections
I'll modify the story so that you
can cope with it. Allow for a few
aristocratic traitors-to-their-class
-- who would lead them.
> that you claim have been hidden from scholars who have
> studied the works for centuries
Our respective evaluations of these
'scholars' differ to some slight extent.
> You snipped this:
> [[[[> Imagine it being
>> declared around (say) 1900. It would have
>> been a most unwelcome scandal at most times
>> in the past 400 years.
> A scandal? Why -- these are the supreme achievements in the history
> of literature. Why would it cause any scandal to learn that they had
> actually been written by a noble, not by a low-class actor. Who
> would
> have been scandalized and why?]]]]
I snipped it because I had already
answered it.
>> There was nothing secret about the 'comings
>> and goings'. They were the stuff of ordinary
>> everyday conversation among a high
>> proportion of Londoners.
>
> Great. William Shakespeare of Stratford, or any other playwright of
> the time, would have possessed the information/common knowledge
> enabling him to write about the comings and goings of the court.
Writing well and plausibly about what goes
on IN COURT is very different from being
able to speculate (accurately or otherwise)
on the relationships between very well-
known courtiers and characters in an extant
play (or other work) and .
> You
> still have not explained why the "ignorant populace" that existed in
> 1623 would care one way or another about the authorship of works they
> couldn't even understand (or had non-existent knowledge of) or how
> they could be so ignorant but then also have the mental ability to
> connect characters in a play to real-life events that occurred back in
> the 1570's - 1590's.
I'm telling you (as a simpleton) that they
would have been mislead by educated
traitors-to-their class aristocrats.
> "There would have been" -- not necessarily, and not even likely. You
> actually believe that anti-royalists in 1623 would attempt to stir up
> the populace against King James by spreading the word that Oxenforde
> was writing plays and poems about the royal court back in the 1570's,
> 1580's and 1590's, and was telling gassers about crapping contests
> with Good Queen Bess. What a riot -- not.
Well I wasn't there, and I'm not sure exactly
what you are proposing. That James would
have told the full story in 1623? By that time,
the 'Stratman-as-poet' fable would have been
well established, and James would have had
to admit that he (and his courtiers) had been
lying to the public about the whole thing for
the previous twenty or more years.
Not an easy story to sell.
>> and while
>> largely as ignorant as modern academics, a
>> few would have had much better information
>> than we do, would have put in the time and
>> effort, and reached (mostly false) conclusions.
>
> Wait a minute there, hoss. You have already siad that they would have
> reached many accurate conclusions.
Many accurate ones, and many false ones.
> The ignorant populace "would have realised that Oxford's addressee in
> the Sonnets was Queen Elizabeth. She would also have been seen
> (correctly) as Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress Olivia.
> " Your theory is that a select group of anti-royalists would seize
> upon the revelation that some earl back in the late 1500's wrote the
> plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare. They would then spend the
> time and effort to go back through the plays and poems to comb them
> for hidden meanings and puns about crapping contests that they could
> use to rile up the ignorant populace that had little to no knowledge
> of those works. Your theory is consistently inane.
Your capacity to understand history
would disgrace a small child.
> You need to watch some American television some time if you think
> there is a horror of "bathroom issues"
The name itself should be informative.
Even 'bathroom' is now out. 'Restroom'
is, I gather, the preferred term. No doubt
that won't last long either. Or maybe it
has already gone. It's hard to keep up.
>>> They most certainly do -- you may attempt to read some ambiguity into
>>> what they said, but the language contained within the four corners of
>>> the document (even disregarding all of the pertinent surrounding
>>> facts, circumstances, and other relevant documents) clearly asserts
>>> that the author and the actor were the same man.
>>
>> And that's why you don't quote the
>> words you think relevant.
>
> If you want to have that discussion, I am certainly open to it. I've
> already produced some of the language from Heminge and Condell where
> they identify Shakespeare as their friend and fellow -- do you believe
> they were talking about Oxenforde?
The notion that it was even their words
is absurd. Do you think Heminge and
Condell were the editors?
>> If you want to raise particular 'references'
>> don't hold back.
>
> I have in the past but you have never really addressed them (such as
> the deeds of trust from Nicholas Brend -- if I recall correctly, you
> merely suggested that such documents could be forgeries).
There is, of course, no such document. The
'information' (on which you base your speculation
about its existence) comes AFAIR from a court
case in 1619, some twenty years after the event.
THIS is the kind of 'documentation' on which
Strats are obliged to rely. What else would
we expect Hemings and Condell to say around
1619?
>> Are you really claiming they are the
>> signatures of a person who had written
>> hundreds of thousands of words?
>
> Sure -- his hands were tired from writing all those words (or maybe he
> had carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, etc.). Your evidence, if it
> can even be called that, is decidedly weak.
We have six 'signatures' from this man,
most made a different times. To claim that
he suffered from arthritis (or whatever) over
the whole period, when he was in his early
forties AFAIR, and that THIS is the whole
story is fanciful in the highest degree. If
you had six signatures from anyone else,
we'd never hear such a story.
> We are working with a finite number of documents
Your 'documents' are mostly figments of
your own imagination
> , and a finite number of known facts.
What you count as a 'fact' boggles
the imagination. A literary genius
emerging from a background of near-
total illiteracy!
>> Imagine a Creationist asking
>> you for your top five proofs of Evolution,
>> OR a pre-Copernican astronomer asking
>> you for your top five proofs of modern
>> cosmology, OR some twerp asking you
>> for your top five proofs that Switzerland
>> doesn't have an annual harvest from its
>> spaghetti trees.
>
> So the case for Oxenforde is no better than the case for spaghetti
> trees.
The Stratfordian theory is very similar to
the spaghetti trees. Your leg has been
pulled. You are not the victims of a lie,
but of a practical joke -- one so daft that
only a near-total fool would believe it.
> These analogies are not even close. The situation more closely
> resembles a legal action, in which the evidence consists of a finite
> number of known facts, known documents, and contemporary testimony.
Quite wrong. Litigants rarely regard their
opponents as insane, whereas that is the
norm in paradigm shifts, such as this. In
fact, most Strats are not insane, they are just
appallingly weak-minded credulous fools,
capable of believing in almost any kind of
insanity -- such Spaghetti trees -- so long
as they are told to by their superiors.
> I would start like any lawyer organizing my case. I would make my
> opening statement in which I would provide the general theory of the
> case. Then I would marshall the known facts, documents, etc. that
> tend to prove my theory of the case.
First, you should make sure that your case
is possible in the real world. How many
other authors can you name who were
brought up in an illiterate household?
What other great art in history was
financed from the pockets of the common
people?
[..]
>> People do not pun on their own given names.
>
> Your tendency to write absolute rules is not conducive to open-minded
> study.
If it's false, you can show that in an instant.
Many many people have 'interesting' and
punnable names. Name a few who punned
on their own given ones.
>> It is amazing that you can see only the
>> military sense in this phrase. If you try
>> very hard you should be able to work
>> out two or three more -- from the few
>> hundred intended by the poet.
>
> That's funny coming from you. Aren't you the guy who had never
> conceived that Will could have been playing with himself.
I probably missed it because it was not
one that would have been intended by
the poet.
>>> If I remember correctly, your last pronouncement
>>> on this subject was that "spear" is a punning reference to a "pen".
>>> When I asked you for examples to support such a claim you fled the
>>> battle.
>>
>> Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
>> = 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
>> you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
>> equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
>> occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
>> for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
>> with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
>
> I'll be waiting on your examples, but I won't be holding my breath.
> "Will Shakespeare" does not have a punning connotation to "will write
> plays" no mateer how hard you twist it.
Was Queen Elizabeth sometimes portrayed
as Pallas Athena? Were the two (a) guardians
of their cities? (b) lovers of men? (c) but who
never allowed them to touch? (d) passionately
virginal? (e) all-seeing? (f) wise? (g) patrons
of the fine and practical arts? (g) beautiful?
(h) forever young?
Was the emblem of Pallas Athena a spear?
How could a young poet promise his Queen
that he would wield it on her behalf?
>> Not at all. The notion that an illiterate
>> Stratman could have anything significant
>> to do with the theatre is so far-fetched an
>> idea as to be quite laughable.
>
> Okay, now's your chance. Go to the Kathman-Reedy website and take
> each of the documents listed there that connect W.S. of Stratford to
> the theatre (sharing in the profits therefrom), and explain why those
> documents are "laughable". If you want, I can provide them for you
> one by one.
You are remarkably vague about which
'documents' you consider crucial to your
case. Is this because you've looked at
them closely, and seen their value?
>> However,
>> the Stratman does seem to have hung
>> around.
>
> Yup -- that's why he had a share in the ownership. The other
> shareholders wanted to reward him for just hanging around.
Somehow those 'shares' disappeared at
some point before he died. Or maybe
he just forgot them in his will.
>>> You have no evidence that the documentary record is forged
>>
>> What 'evidence' would you expect?
>> A claim that an illiterate was the Great
>> Bard? The use of a quite absurd name?
>> And to which 'documents' are you
>> referring?
>
> You misunderstand my point. There are numerous contemporary
> references connecting W.S. of Stratford to the acting company and the
> theatre
Why are you so reluctant to mention
any in particular?
> By the way, are you seriously stating that you don't know what
> documents I'm referring to here.
There are a few WEAK 'documents'.
Their weakness seems to be why you
are so reluctant to refer to any in
particular.
>> You have obviously never dealt with
>> illiterates. They would run rings around
>> you. This illiterate had his noble handlers
>> over something of a barrel. What could
>> they do? Pay him more money? Threaten
>> violence or death? It may well have come
>> to all of those things, but we can be sure
>> that he exploited the situation to the
>> maximum.
>
> As a matter of fact, I have dealt with illiterates, and they have
> always had to pay me. I am sorry that your experience seems to have
> been to the contrary. I hope it was only money that the yokels took
> from you.
There are different sorts of illiterates.
It seems that you've only dealt with
the mental defectives.
> As for Shakespeare and his "noble handlers" -- there is no reason that
> he couldn't have been bought off with more money or even killed for
> that matter.
The rule of law was generally well
observed by English government
officials. The Queen could not get
Mary QS killed off, no matter how
often she tried.
> By the way, how did the illiterate manage to fool all of
> the people at the theatre? Or were they also bilking the "noble
> handlers"?
What 'people at the theatre'? Inevitably,
Strats have built up an entirely false
picture of what was going on.
Paul.
Algernon
That should have read
Indeed, as a recent study which has appeared in
the latest issue of "Shakespeare News & Views"
has found, Shaksper of Stratford was not only
an illiterate clown from a provincial backwater,
he was also ignorant, indigent, illicit, infirm
and incontinent. His shit-besmeared trousers not
only fouled the local church with his ass-cheese
drippings, but a hoard, yes a HOARD, of farthings
was found (or believed to be found) underneath
his Stratford shack! Yes, *money*! How could any
sensitive, erudite Shakespearean believe that the creator
Alan Jones
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:f9moj.24369$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
[...]
> Was the emblem of Pallas Athena a spear?
It's true that Athene is often depicted in armour, holding (not shaking) a
spear and with her helmet raised as a sign of peace. But what is your source
for implying that the spear is her emblem? As regards classical art, the owl
has a better claim, surely, or the shield bearing the head of Medusa.
Perhaps you know of some Renaissance reference or depiction?
Alan Jones
lackpurity
MM:
I watched an interesting TV show last night. It was "UFO Truth," or
something close to that. It was on "History Channel." It had some
parallels to Anti-Strat thinking, which I couldn't help but notice.
The show as about a Lieut.-Col. Philip Corso who admitted that there
was a massive cover-up of the UFO issue. At the end of the show,
someone asked him why he blew the whistle on UFOs. He said he
probably wouldn't live much longer, and he wanted his son and others
to know the truth before he died. He died in 1998.
Philip Corso claimed that he headed a reverse-engineering dept. of the
Gov't. He claimed that the Roswell Crash of a UFO was reverse-
engineered, and that many products, microchips, lasers, fiber-optics,
and bullet-proof vests came as a result of his work. Of course, many
claim he was a liar. Corso also claimed that he saw the alien bodies,
and his story matches that of other Roswell witnesses.
Anyway, all that is a bit off topic, but that fact is that SOMEONE
blew the whistle on an alleged Giant Cover Up. It would seem very
likely, that in the case of the Anti-Strat alleged Massive Cover Up,
that someone on his deathbed, as Corso was, would blow the whistle,
and say that someone else wrote Shakespeare other than the Stratford
Bard, himself. Nobody did. I leave it to the sagacity of the
readers.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
It was probably one of the greatest poems ever written. It was
heartfelt, estremely honest, and a very worthy tribute to William
Shakespeare. Why would you suspect such famous poet? He was Poet
Laureate wasn't he? Can you Anti-Strats ever deal with the truth?
The spinning, skating, and dodging, is getting very old.
What is really suspect, is that you Anti-Strats can't explain why
nobody ever blew the whistle on your alleged Massive Cover Up, as I
explained in another message. Not even on their deathbeds, not for
their own family members to know the truth, etc., nobody ever
supported the Absurd Anti-Strat Massive Cover-Up. I'll leave it to
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" <mah...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4d3b8be3-bad9-429b...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No, you're quite wrong as usual. I can easily appreciate that there
> > were individuals involved in publishing the First Folio who recognized
> > the literary worth of the plays and desired to see them preserved. In
> > fact, Heminge and Condell, William Shakespeare's fellow actors in the
> > Chamberlain's Men (King's Men) stated as much in the Preface to the
> > First Folio, writing that it was their wish to compile Shakespeare's
> > work "without ambition either of self-profit or fame, only to keep the
> > memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare".
>
> > Of course, that intention could easily have been accomplished without
> > printing up 750-1,000 copies for sale to the general public (a copy
> > was placed with the Bodleian Library, in Oxford, in early 1624).
>
> So you think that -- provided they were
> placed in good libraries -- printing (say)
> ten copies would have been sufficient?
> No one would have thought it strange?
Sure, why not.
Thought what strange?
> > What
> > you fail to grasp is that a desire to see the plays preserved does not
> > necessarily rule out an additional mercantile interest/purpose behind
> > the publication of the plays.
>
> What you fail to grasp is the basic economics.
> There was not a large market for such an
> expensive volume of highly literary plays.
Sure -- the printers who put out Jonson's works (in 1616?) and the
plays of Beaumont & Fletcher, lesser lights than Shakespeare, were
less aware of the market than you.
> > Off the top of my head, I believe a second edition was
> > published in 1632, which would be a factor tending to indicate that
> > the previous edition had sold out.
>
> Sure -- it apparently sold out over 9 years.
> But would you have risked your own
> money on such a venture (as a purely
> commercial decision) ?
>
I never said that it was a purely commercial decision.
> >>> Folios of the works of Jonson and
> >>> Beaumont & Fletcher were also produced in similar numbers with similar
> >>> prices
>
> >> Much smaller in size.
>
> > What does the size of those publications have to do with the fact that
> > they were sold for profit?
>
> The larger the work, the more the cost, the
> higher the price at which it has to be sold,
> and the smaller the market. You must have
> slept through Economics 101. Nor have
> ever been involved in business.
>
You're wrong, as usual.
The research I've reviewed said the books sold for similar prices (as
I previously stated). You must have sleep-walked through your
response (in fact, that would explain a lot).
> >> Much of "Beaumont & Fletcher" is very
> >> likely Oxford's work (i.e. early stuff).
>
> > Right -- more people to add to the conspiracy.
>
> No. It is an explanation of some very puzzling
> facts. The real Shake-speare obviously wrote
> much more than we see in the canon. Those
> plays were waiting to be published, and some
> associates of the De Vere family obliged. As
> the DNB article on Beaumont states:
It is not an explanation that is based on any evidence. It is merely
your speculation devoid of any factual basis.
> " . . It is puzzling that very little is known aside from his publications
> about the life of someone as important socially and artistically as
> Beaumont. What G. E. Bentley says about Fletcher is true of both of
> them:
> Considering his social position and his flourishing reputation
> from about 1620 to the end of the century, the paucity of
> information about the career of John Fletcher is very curious,
> much more unaccountable than the obscurity of Shakespeare
> which the anti-Stratfordians find so satisfactorily mystifying.
> (G. E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 7 vols., 1941-68, 3.306)"
>
The quotation you have cited does not support your conjectures that
"the real Shake-speare obviously wrote
much more than we see in the canon," that "those plays were waiting to
be published," and that "some
associates of the De Vere family obliged." The fact that you think
you have provided relevant evidence for your assertions reveals that
you have absolutely no understanding as to the nature of evidence.
> > Then what did you mean when you stated that " the revelation that the
> > author was not a low-class actor, but a noble, would have been far
> > less popular than it is now."
>
> The assertion that "the author was not a low-
> class actor, but a noble" has not gone down
> well in universities and elsewhere over the
> past 100 years or more.
So it's your belief that the ignorant populace of 1623 would have
reacted the same way that university professors have reacted for the
past 100 years. They would have ridiculed the Oxenforde adherents --
that surely would have toppled the monarchy.
> Radical theories are
> always rejected at first: the Copernican,
> Continental Drift, the existence of Ice Ages,
> Evolution, etc., etc. Our more God-fearing
> ancestors were generally more trusting and
> would have been more shocked than us
> at the idea that they had been taken for a
> ride.
>
Except for the fact that you've already stated as fact that the
ignorant populace, with minimal to non-existent knowledge of the
works, would have been riled up that they had been fooled about the
authorship of works which they didn't know about in the first place.
> > Are you saying that there was some class-consciousness at work in 1623,
>
> Is that a serious question? Do you think
> such social phenomena only came into
> existence shortly before you were born?
You've taken this bit out of context. See the rest of the question.
> > and that people were somehow invested in the low-class actor as
> > author because of his status on the social ladder?
>
> Light dawns. This is obviously the first time
> this thought has occurred to you. For some
> reason, you have always thought that the
> native English welcomed their Norman-French
> oppressors, and that class only recently
> became an issue in England.
>
You're wrong again, or you're purposefully twisting what I've said.
My question goes to your belief that the middle and lower classes
would have been riled up to learn that the true author of the works
was not the low-class actor because they somehow identified with him
as a member of their own social class. First, I'm positive that you
can produce absolutely no support for this assertion. Second, your
own theory, that the middle and lower classes had minimal to non-
existent knowledge of the works, directly contradicts your theory that
the middle and lower classes would be upset (because of class-
identification with the actor) by the revelation that the works were
actually written by an earl.
> >>> You have argued that the works were not popular with the
> >>> middle or lower classes
>
> >> No. I have argued that knowledge of them
> >> among the middle and lower classes was
> >> minimal to non-existent.
> > Even better. According to your inane theory, the middle and lower
> > classes in 1623 (Oxenforde having died in 1604, and Shakespeare having
> > died in 1616), with "minimal to non-existent knowledge" of the works,
> > would have taken the revelation that Oxenforde was the true author and
> > made the connections that the plays contained hidden commentary on
> > court activities, and would then have used such information to attack
> > the aristocracy. Since you've also claimed that the works were too
> > expensive to be purchased by just anyone ("far too few in the nation
> > being able to afford its price") how on earth would these ignorant
> > middle and lower class individuals even be able to peruse the works to
> > ferret out the connections you propound?
>
> The middle and lower-classes in England
> around 1620 were not some vast lumpen-
> proletariat, entirely incapable of thought
> and quite unable to read or communicate.
But they had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works of
Shakespeare. And you've dodged the question, again. You've stated
that the Folio was too expensive for the middle and lower class to buy
-- so how did they, not "entirely incapable of thought and quite
unable to read or communicate," come to read the works? You've also
claimed that the Folio was published in fewer numbers than are usually
cited, since there was no profit motivation and it was only intended
for a smaller market. Now you're claiming that the middle and lower
classes of 1623 could have been able to read a collection of plays of
which they had previously had minimal to non-existent knowledge.
> > Finally, you've already
> > claimed that the lower class was largely illiterate -- now you're
> > claiming that they could discern hidden references in stage plays of
> > which they had no knowledge.
>
> Let me put it in terms you might grasp --
> using great oversimplifications that I would
> never seek to justify to an intelligent adult.
> A small number of the educated aristocrats
> could be traitors to their own class. THEY
> would get the books, do the work, spill the
> beans, and stir up the proletariat with stories
> -- whether true, false or exaggerated.
First, you are unable to justify your theories to any intelligent
adults, as is demonstrated by the fact that your contributions here
are viewed (universally) as the delusional rantings of an idiot
(although some unintended humor is occasionally discerned therein).
Second, when your inane theory is challenged, you come up with some
new speculation that is equally as dumb ("A small number of the
educated aristocrats COULD be traitors to their own class."). The
fact that you don't realize that your eVER changing story is just
plain stupid.
> > As a matter of fact, people love a mystery,
>
> That must be why witches were routinely
> murdered, and persecutions like the
> Inquisition were so common.
What an incredible non sequitur -- witches were not a mystery, nor
were the victims of the inquisition. You are truly deranged.
> >> She would also have been seen (correctly) as
> >> Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress
> >> Olivia. But, given the weakness of the newly-
> >> literate imagination, and the tendency to take
> >> everything literally -- still manifest among
> >> academics and Americans -- all manner of
> >> nonsense would have been read in. It may well
> >> have been comparable with the worst excesses
> >> of the "Prince Tudor" Oxfordian theorists.
>
> > Your theory is that the ignorant middle and lower classes, with
> > minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works, could make the mental
> > calculations, and somehow possess the knowledge of the works, to make
> > connections
>
> I'll modify the story so that you
> can cope with it. Allow for a few
> aristocratic traitors-to-their-class
> -- who would lead them.
>
You admit modifying your STORY, but the reason you cite for doing so
is fallacious. You only change it now because you realize that, in
its previous incarnation, it was irrational. Maybe there is some hope
that you have some semblance of reasoning ability left intact. Even
you, in your pugnacious ignorance, were able to realize that your
STORY made no sense.
> > that you claim have been hidden from scholars who have
> > studied the works for centuries
>
> Our respective evaluations of these
> 'scholars' differ to some slight extent.
>
> > You snipped this:
> > [[[[> Imagine it being
> >> declared around (say) 1900. It would have
> >> been a most unwelcome scandal at most times
> >> in the past 400 years.
> > A scandal? Why -- these are the supreme achievements in the history
> > of literature. Why would it cause any scandal to learn that they had
> > actually been written by a noble, not by a low-class actor. Who
> > would
> > have been scandalized and why?]]]]
>
> I snipped it because I had already
> answered it.
You don't know the meaning of the word "scandal" if you think that an
Oxenfordian revelation in 1623 would have resulted in a scandal.
> >> There was nothing secret about the 'comings
> >> and goings'. They were the stuff of ordinary
> >> everyday conversation among a high
> >> proportion of Londoners.
>
> > Great. William Shakespeare of Stratford, or any other playwright of
> > the time, would have possessed the information/common knowledge
> > enabling him to write about the comings and goings of the court.
>
> Writing well and plausibly about what goes
> on IN COURT is very different from being
> able to speculate (accurately or otherwise)
> on the relationships between very well-
> known courtiers and characters in an extant
> play (or other work) and .
> > You
> > still have not explained why the "ignorant populace" that existed in
> > 1623 would care one way or another about the authorship of works they
> > couldn't even understand (or had non-existent knowledge of) or how
> > they could be so ignorant but then also have the mental ability to
> > connect characters in a play to real-life events that occurred back in
> > the 1570's - 1590's.
>
> I'm telling you (as a simpleton) that they
> would have been mislead by educated
> traitors-to-their class aristocrats.
I am glad that you have finally admitted to being a simpleton, as your
STORY most definitevely shows.
> > "There would have been" -- not necessarily, and not even likely. You
> > actually believe that anti-royalists in 1623 would attempt to stir up
> > the populace against King James by spreading the word that Oxenforde
> > was writing plays and poems about the royal court back in the 1570's,
> > 1580's and 1590's, and was telling gassers about crapping contests
> > with Good Queen Bess. What a riot -- not.
>
> Well I wasn't there, and I'm not sure exactly
> what you are proposing. That James would
> have told the full story in 1623? By that time,
> the 'Stratman-as-poet' fable would have been
> well established, and James would have had
> to admit that he (and his courtiers) had been
> lying to the public about the whole thing for
> the previous twenty or more years.
A public that had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the
works...yawn.
Of course James, being the King, could have made up a story to cover
his tracks -- for instance, he could have said that the secret had
just come to light, that he was as hoodwinked as all the people who
had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works. He had been
fooled by the yokel actor who was always hanging around the whenever
the King's Men were performing at court. Greta PR -- your King is one
of you.
> Not an easy story to sell.
No, really, it is a lot easier story to sell than your idiotic STORY.
> >> and while
> >> largely as ignorant as modern academics, a
> >> few would have had much better information
> >> than we do, would have put in the time and
> >> effort, and reached (mostly false) conclusions.
>
> > Wait a minute there, hoss. You have already siad that they would have
> > reached many accurate conclusions.
>
> Many accurate ones, and many false ones.
>
> > The ignorant populace "would have realised that Oxford's addressee in
> > the Sonnets was Queen Elizabeth. She would also have been seen
> > (correctly) as Cleopatra, Gertrude, Lady Portia and Mistress Olivia.
> > " Your theory is that a select group of anti-royalists would seize
> > upon the revelation that some earl back in the late 1500's wrote the
> > plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare. They would then spend the
> > time and effort to go back through the plays and poems to comb them
> > for hidden meanings and puns about crapping contests that they could
> > use to rile up the ignorant populace that had little to no knowledge
> > of those works. Your theory is consistently inane.
>
> Your capacity to understand history
> would disgrace a small child.
What a pitiful dodge -- you haven't related any history at all. You
have only indulged in yourSTORY, one that even a small child would
view as disgracefully irrational.
> > You need to watch some American television some time if you think
> > there is a horror of "bathroom issues"
>
> The name itself should be informative.
> Even 'bathroom' is now out. 'Restroom'
> is, I gather, the preferred term. No doubt
> that won't last long either. Or maybe it
> has already gone. It's hard to keep up.
You're assuming facts not in evidence, again. The word "bathroom" is
still in use. In addition, your answer (incorrect as it is) is non-
responsive to the point I made. The fart joke (not the Oxenfordian
one) is ubiquitous in America, and scatalogical humor runs rampant
through American entertainment. Do try to keep up.
> >>> They most certainly do -- you may attempt to read some ambiguity into
> >>> what they said, but the language contained within the four corners of
> >>> the document (even disregarding all of the pertinent surrounding
> >>> facts, circumstances, and other relevant documents) clearly asserts
> >>> that the author and the actor were the same man.
>
> >> And that's why you don't quote the
> >> words you think relevant.
>
> > If you want to have that discussion, I am certainly open to it. I've
> > already produced some of the language from Heminge and Condell where
> > they identify Shakespeare as their friend and fellow -- do you believe
> > they were talking about Oxenforde?
>
> The notion that it was even their words
> is absurd. Do you think Heminge and
> Condell were the editors?
Nice attempt at changing the subject.
> >> If you want to raise particular 'references'
> >> don't hold back.
>
> > I have in the past but you have never really addressed them (such as
> > the deeds of trust from Nicholas Brend -- if I recall correctly, you
> > merely suggested that such documents could be forgeries).
>
> There is, of course, no such document. The
> 'information' (on which you base your speculation
> about its existence) comes AFAIR from a court
> case in 1619, some twenty years after the event.
Even so, it is better evidence than anything you have.
> THIS is the kind of 'documentation' on which
> Strats are obliged to rely. What else would
> we expect Hemings and Condell to say around
> 1619?
Whatever was true...
> >> Are you really claiming they are the
> >> signatures of a person who had written
> >> hundreds of thousands of words?
>
> > Sure -- his hands were tired from writing all those words (or maybe he
> > had carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, etc.). Your evidence, if it
> > can even be called that, is decidedly weak.
>
> We have six 'signatures' from this man,
> most made a different times. To claim that
> he suffered from arthritis (or whatever) over
> the whole period, when he was in his early
> forties AFAIR, and that THIS is the whole
> story is fanciful in the highest degree. If
> you had six signatures from anyone else,
> we'd never hear such a story.
You don't know anything about arthritis or carpal tunnel syndrome
either. I would say that it is yourSTory that is fanciful, in this
case meaning "delusional".
> > We are working with a finite number of documents
>
> Your 'documents' are mostly figments of
> your own imagination
This is projection on your part. Maybe you're making some progress.
> > , and a finite number of known facts.
>
> What you count as a 'fact' boggles
> the imagination. A literary genius
> emerging from a background of near-
> total illiteracy!
>
As opposed to your STORY which is entirely devoid of any facts and is
merely the delusional crap that you pull from your backside.
> >> Imagine a Creationist asking
> >> you for your top five proofs of Evolution,
> >> OR a pre-Copernican astronomer asking
> >> you for your top five proofs of modern
> >> cosmology, OR some twerp asking you
> >> for your top five proofs that Switzerland
> >> doesn't have an annual harvest from its
> >> spaghetti trees.
>
> > So the case for Oxenforde is no better than the case for spaghetti
> > trees.
>
> The Stratfordian theory is very similar to
> the spaghetti trees. Your leg has been
> pulled. You are not the victims of a lie,
> but of a practical joke -- one so daft that
> only a near-total fool would believe it.
That obviously isn't the case since a complete and total fool (you)
don't believe the theory.
> > These analogies are not even close. The situation more closely
> > resembles a legal action, in which the evidence consists of a finite
> > number of known facts, known documents, and contemporary testimony.
>
> Quite wrong. Litigants rarely regard their
> opponents as insane,
You don't know anything about the legal world either.
> whereas that is the
> norm in paradigm shifts, such as this. In
> fact, most Strats are not insane, they are just
> appallingly weak-minded credulous fools,
> capable of believing in almost any kind of
> insanity -- such Spaghetti trees [sic] -- so long
> as they are told to by their superiors.
More delusional crap from you. I don't know of any Strats who believe
what "they are told to by their superiors." Maybe you think this is
so because of the fact that you follow what the superior voices in
your head tell you to believe. Or is Sam the dog barking at the
neighbor's house?
> > I would start like any lawyer organizing my case. I would make my
> > opening statement in which I would provide the general theory of the
> > case. Then I would marshall the known facts, documents, etc. that
> > tend to prove my theory of the case.
>
> First, you should make sure that your case
> is possible in the real world. How many
> other authors can you name who were
> brought up in an illiterate household?
You obviously don't know how the legal system works...the facts of a
particular case are not affected by other cases. Such information is
generally considered not relevant to a consideration of the facts and
circumstances of that particular case. If it can be proved that W.S.
of Stratford came from an illiterate household that might qualify as
one piece of the ultimate puzzle but it would not be dispositive of
the case.
> What other great art in history was
> financed from the pockets of the common
> people?
>
This statement is even less relevant to the question of authorship of
the works.
> [..]
>
> >> People do not pun on their own given names.
>
> > Your tendency to write absolute rules is not conducive to open-minded
> > study.
>
> If it's false, you can show that in an instant.
> Many many people have 'interesting' and
> punnable names. Name a few who punned
> on their own given ones.
To the best of my reccollection, I've never known any individual who
had a punnable name. I once looked through a directory of medical
specialists in which we discovered a surprisingly large number of
names of doctors whose names qualified as puns involving their areas
of practice (a urologist named Peer, for example). We must have been
an exceptional group of Americans since we got the jokes. I have seen
many instances in which business people have made punning references
to their names in the names of their businesses, but I can't recall
any specific ones at the moment.
When the name William Shakespeare (or Shake-speare) appeared on the
title pages of the works, there is no contemporary reference to it's
having been a punning reference to anything whatsoever. It is only by
speculation, and somewhat strained speculation at that, that you can
make it into a punning reference to writing.
> >> It is amazing that you can see only the
> >> military sense in this phrase. If you try
> >> very hard you should be able to work
> >> out two or three more -- from the few
> >> hundred intended by the poet.
>
> > That's funny coming from you. Aren't you the guy who had never
> > conceived that Will could have been playing with himself.
>
> I probably missed it because it was not
> one that would have been intended by
> the poet.
This statement is very instructive. You have substituted your
thinking for that of the poet, and thereby shown just how delusional
yourSTORY is. According to your theory, the pun depends on spear =
penis = pen, so, even while the poet intended to reference the penis
(and possibly a pun about using his penis during sex) Paul Crowley
KNOWS that the poet wouldn't have intended any connotation as to
masturbation. You state as fact what the poet intended or didn't
intend, and that you missed the potential wanking pun becuase you
simply KNOW the poet wouldn't have intended it.
> >>> If I remember correctly, your last pronouncement
> >>> on this subject was that "spear" is a punning reference to a "pen".
> >>> When I asked you for examples to support such a claim you fled the
> >>> battle.
>
> >> Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
> >> = 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
> >> you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
> >> equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
> >> occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
> >> for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
> >> with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
>
> > I'll be waiting on your examples, but I won't be holding my breath.
> > "Will Shakespeare" does not have a punning connotation to "will write
> > plays" no mateer how hard you twist it.
>
> Was Queen Elizabeth sometimes portrayed
> as Pallas Athena? Were the two (a) guardians
> of their cities? (b) lovers of men? (c) but who
> never allowed them to touch? (d) passionately
> virginal? (e) all-seeing? (f) wise? (g) patrons
> of the fine and practical arts? (g) beautiful?
> (h) forever young?
>
> Was the emblem of Pallas Athena a spear?
> How could a young poet promise his Queen
> that he would wield it on her behalf?
>
I see that others have already addressed this, but let me take a stab
at another angle. This is how your pun theory works:
Pallas Athena holds a spear = Queen Elizabeth was sometimes portrayed
as Pallas Athena = Will Shake Spear = Poet will wield the Queen's
spear for her, where spear = penis = pen. If this is not a fair
approximation of your understanding (and I use that term very loosely)
provide your own diagram.
That may be the worst pun in history. We've already debated the fact
that you can't identify a single pun in all of the literature that can
only be understood by some reference to a hidden key (the Queen =
Pallas Athena) so I won't bother with that here.
> >> Not at all. The notion that an illiterate
> >> Stratman could have anything significant
> >> to do with the theatre is so far-fetched an
> >> idea as to be quite laughable.
>
> > Okay, now's your chance. Go to the Kathman-Reedy website and take
> > each of the documents listed there that connect W.S. of Stratford to
> > the theatre (sharing in the profits therefrom), and explain why those
> > documents are "laughable". If you want, I can provide them for you
> > one by one.
>
> You are remarkably vague about which
> 'documents' you consider crucial to your
> case. Is this because you've looked at
> them closely, and seen their value?
There is nothing vague about what I said at all -- go to the website
and look at all the references there. Or, if you'd like (and as I've
offered) I'll put them up one by one.
> >> However,
> >> the Stratman does seem to have hung
> >> around.
>
> > Yup -- that's why he had a share in the ownership. The other
> > shareholders wanted to reward him for just hanging around.
>
> Somehow those 'shares' disappeared at
> some point before he died. Or maybe
> he just forgot them in his will.
Do you really think that this is a relevant answer to my statement?
You are simple-minded.
> >>> You have no evidence that the documentary record is forged
>
> >> What 'evidence' would you expect?
> >> A claim that an illiterate was the Great
> >> Bard? The use of a quite absurd name?
The name was absurd?
> >> And to which 'documents' are you
> >> referring?
>
> > You misunderstand my point. There are numerous contemporary
> > references connecting W.S. of Stratford to the acting company and the
> > theatre
>
> Why are you so reluctant to mention
> any in particular?
I'm not reluctant at all -- I've made an offer and you ignored it.
(See above: "If you want, I can provide them for you
one by one.") Why are you so reluctant to accept the offer? Is it
because you realize that your candidate has no comparable references
that have any evidentiary value whatsoever?
> > By the way, are you seriously stating that you don't know what
> > documents I'm referring to here.
>
> There are a few WEAK 'documents'.
> Their weakness seems to be why you
> are so reluctant to refer to any in
> particular.
Once again, you ignore my offer -- your realization that you have no
documents of comparable evidentiary worth must be why you are so
reluctant to accept the offer.
> >> You have obviously never dealt with
> >> illiterates. They would run rings around
> >> you. This illiterate had his noble handlers
> >> over something of a barrel. What could
> >> they do? Pay him more money? Threaten
> >> violence or death? It may well have come
> >> to all of those things, but we can be sure
> >> that he exploited the situation to the
> >> maximum.
>
> > As a matter of fact, I have dealt with illiterates, and they have
> > always had to pay me. I am sorry that your experience seems to have
> > been to the contrary. I hope it was only money that the yokels took
> > from you.
>
> There are different sorts of illiterates.
> It seems that you've only dealt with
> the mental defectives.
You're wrong again -- the only mental defective I've dealt with is
you.
I ntoice that you failed to refute that the yokels had taken you for a
ride and failed to identify just what they took. I'd guess it was
your marbles.
> > As for Shakespeare and his "noble handlers" -- there is no reason that
> > he couldn't have been bought off with more money or even killed for
> > that matter.
>
> The rule of law was generally well
> observed by English government
> officials. The Queen could not get
> Mary QS killed off, no matter how
> often she tried.
But W.S. of Stratford was just an illiterate country bumpkin, not a
Queen. He could have been killed at any time in the stews or in some
back alley and nobody would have eVER even noticed. His body could
have been dumped in the Thames. YourSTORY is irrational.
> > By the way, how did the illiterate manage to fool all of
> > the people at the theatre? Or were they also bilking the "noble
> > handlers"?
>
> What 'people at the theatre'? Inevitably,
> Strats have built up an entirely false
> picture of what was going on.
Let's start with the other shareholders and the actors in the company
-- were they in on the conspiracy?
> Paul.
Dom
David Kathman
> >> don't hold back.
>
> > I have in the past but you have never really addressed them (such as
> > the deeds of trust from Nicholas Brend -- if I recall correctly, you
> > merely suggested that such documents could be forgeries).
>
> There is, of course, no such document. The
> 'information' (on which you base your speculation
> about its existence) comes AFAIR from a court
> case in 1619, some twenty years after the event.
>
> THIS is the kind of 'documentation' on which
> Strats are obliged to rely. What else would
> we expect Hemings and Condell to say around
> 1619?
I think Crowley must be referring here to the 1619 Court of Requests
lawsuit Witter v. Heminges and Condell, which discusses the history of
the shares in the Globe and Blackfriars playhouses. Actually, the
1615 lawsuit Ostler v. Heminges (in which "Heminges" is John Heminges
and "Ostler" is his daughter Thomasina, the widow of William Ostler)
discusses the history of the Globe and Blackfriars shares in much more
detail, and it's all in Latin in the middle of a huge roll of
parchment sheets stitched together, so it would have been very
difficult to forge.
But those two lawsuits are not by any means the only documents that
mention William Shakespeare as Nicholas Brend's tenant at the Globe,
and I'm pretty sure that they're not what Dominic was referring to.
There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas Brend, dated May 21, 1599,
which lists among Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata... in
occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum" ("a house newly built...
occupied by William Shakespeare and others"). Thomas Brend's son
Nicholas inherited his property, and on October 7, 1601, Nicholas
Brend signed the deed of trust to which Dominic is presumably
referring; it lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied by
"Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent.". Three days later,
another document similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the tenants
of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died on October 12, and the
properties including the Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with
John Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne controlling them in
trust. A deed of 1608, by which John Collet sold John Bodley his
interest in the trust, lists property including a "playhouse" with
tenants "Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later
documents of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in the original
1601 deed of trust, as was customarily done in legal documents.
All these documents are described in my and Tom Reedy's "How We Know
That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare", at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html,
and discussed in more detail in my article "Six Biographical Records
'Re-Discovered': Some Neglected Contemporary Reference to
Shakespeare", in the Winter 1995 *Shakespeare Newsletter*.
> > Okay, now's your chance. Go to the Kathman-Reedy website and take
> > each of the documents listed there that connect W.S. of Stratford to
> > the theatre (sharing in the profits therefrom), and explain why those
> > documents are "laughable". If you want, I can provide them for you
> > one by one.
>
> You are remarkably vague about which
> 'documents' you consider crucial to your
> case. Is this because you've looked at
> them closely, and seen their value?
It's amusing how easily Crowley is capable of ignoring a direct
request like this and attacking his interlocutor instead.
> > You misunderstand my point. There are numerous contemporary
> > references connecting W.S. of Stratford to the acting company and the
> > theatre
>
> Why are you so reluctant to mention
> any in particular?
>
> > By the way, are you seriously stating that you don't know what
> > documents I'm referring to here.
>
> There are a few WEAK 'documents'.
> Their weakness seems to be why you
> are so reluctant to refer to any in
> particular.
The documents Dominic is referring to are discussed in "How We Know
That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare", linked to above.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Ignoto
Actually Beaumont and Fletcher weren't really considered 'lesser lights'
until Romanticism took hold. They were once esteemed "the most
successful playwrights of their age" (A Companion to Shakespeare's Works
By Richard Dutton at 150). [I don't have the source to hand but, AFAIR
productions of BF well outsripped productions of WS in the years
following the death of FB and WS]
See also: The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English By Dominic Head:
"The popularity of the Beaumont and Fletcher plays tempted contemporary
publicists and publishers to ascribe to the partnership more work than
belonged to it.. Of the 50 or more 'Beaumont and Fletcher' plays only
seven or eight can be confidently attributed, in any significant part,
to Beaumont" (at 82)
Dryden’s Essay of Dramatick Poetry (1668):
"Beaumont and Fletcher of whom I am next to speak, had with the
advantage of Shakespeare's wit, which was their precedent, great natural
gifts, improv'd by study. Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge
of Playes, that Ben. Johnson while he liv'd, submitted all his Writings
to his Censure, and 'tis thought, us'd his judgement in correcting, if
not contriving all his Plots. What value he had for him, appears by the
Verses he writ to him; and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The
first Play which brought Fletcher and him in esteem was their Philaster:
for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully: as
the like is reported of Ben. Johnson, before he writ Every Man in his
Humour. Their Plots were generally more regular then Shakespeare's,
especially those which were made before Beaumont's death; and they
understood and imitated the conversation of Gentlemen much better; whose
wilde debaucheries, and quickness of wit in reparties, no Poet can ever
paint as they have done. This Humour of which Ben. Johnson deriv'd from
particular persons, they made it not their business to describe: they
represented all the passions very lively, but above all, Love. I am apt
to believe the English Language in them arriv'd to its highest
perfection; what words have since been taken in, are rather superfluous
then necessary. Their Playes are now the most pleasant and frequent
entertainments of the Stage; two of theirs being acted through the year
for one of Shakespeare's or Johnsons: the reason is, because there is a
certain gayety in their Comedies, and Pathos in their more serious
Playes, which suits generally with all mens humours. Shakespeares
language is likewise a little obsolete, and Ben. Johnson's wit comes
short of theirs."
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/drampoet-abridged.html
>
>>> Off the top of my head, I believe a second edition was
>>> published in 1632, which would be a factor tending to indicate that
>>> the previous edition had sold out.
>> Sure -- it apparently sold out over 9 years.
>> But would you have risked your own
>> money on such a venture (as a purely
>> commercial decision) ?
>>
>
[snip]
>>>> It is amazing that you can see only the
>>>> military sense in this phrase. If you try
>>>> very hard you should be able to work
>>>> out two or three more -- from the few
>>>> hundred intended by the poet.
>>> That's funny coming from you. Aren't you the guy who had never
>>> conceived that Will could have been playing with himself.
>> I probably missed it because it was not
>> one that would have been intended by
>> the poet.
>
> This statement is very instructive.
AFAIR Duncan-Jones ("Ungentle Shakespeare") picks up the sexual puns, so
"Touchstone" ("one who handles a testicle") mimicks "Shakespeare" ("one
who flashes a phallus").
> You have substituted your
> thinking for that of the poet, and thereby shown just how delusional
> yourSTORY is. According to your theory, the pun depends on spear =
> penis = pen, so, even while the poet intended to reference the penis
> (and possibly a pun about using his penis during sex) Paul Crowley
> KNOWS that the poet wouldn't have intended any connotation as to
> masturbation. You state as fact what the poet intended or didn't
> intend, and that you missed the potential wanking pun becuase you
> simply KNOW the poet wouldn't have intended it.
>
[snip]
Dominic Hughes
I believe the inventory and the deed of trust are the documents which
had previously been discussed. If I recall correctly, Crowley
suggested that they could easily have been forgeries. I never could
get him to offer any plausible reason why the conspirators would forge
such documents or who the intended targets of the forgeries might
possibly be.
> Three days later,
> another document similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the tenants
> of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died on October 12, and the
> properties including the Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with
> John Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne controlling them in
> trust. A deed of 1608, by which John Collet sold John Bodley his
> interest in the trust, lists property including a "playhouse" with
> tenants "Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later
> documents of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in the original
> 1601 deed of trust, as was customarily done in legal documents.
>
> All these documents are described in my and Tom Reedy's "How We Know
> That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare", athttp://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html,
> and discussed in more detail in my article "Six Biographical Records
> 'Re-Discovered': Some Neglected Contemporary Reference to
> Shakespeare", in the Winter 1995 *Shakespeare Newsletter*.
I will look for that article at my local library.
> d...@ix.netcom.com- Hide quoted text -
nordicskiv2
<013e186e-0c46-4644...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Christian Lanciai <clan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You wrote "taking for granted I never heard them."
> The most impressive sound made by a Mute Swan is when it lifts,
> flapping its wings. When you see Mute Swans together with other birds
> of the swimming or wading kind, the air is filled with their communal
> prattle, while only the Mute Swan is completely silent.
Plainly, you have not spent time in the field observing birds. The
above assertion is nonsense, as any experienced birder can tell you.
As I mentioned, David Sibley, one of the most erudite experts in North
American field ornithology, describes several of the Mute Swan's
characteristic vocalizations, as do other authorities (who emphasize
that the Mute Swan is not mute), but even inexpert but experienced
birders can only laugh at the risible ignorance displayed in your
pronouncement that "only the Mute Swan is completely silent."
> I have
> remarked this a number of times.
More than David Sibley?! I gravely doubt it.
> The Mute Swan (the common swan of
> England) is simply not called Mute for nothing.
This assertion displays, if possible, even more stunning ignorance
than your previous pronouncements (about the supposed silence of the
Mute Swan, the highly aristocratic pedigree of Dante, etc.),
improbable though that feat might seem. In fact, many bird species'
common names are stark misnomers. For example, the Common Nighthawk
is not a hawk and does not remotely resemble one. Nor does it
necessarily appear at night, being often observed foraging in broad
daylight. Moreover, the bird's Order and Family are respectively
Caprimulgiformes and Caprimulgidae -- "goatsuckers" -- from the
ludicrous belief that they suck goat's milk. There are many, many
species of birds and other animals whose common names are complete
misnomers, and there are many ludicrous folk beliefs about such
animals, mostly perpetuated by ignorance; the Mute Swan is one such.
> I repeat, that this whole thing is beside the point, which is the
> ineptness of Jonson's poem, written for suspect reasons.
There is no reason whatever to impute "suspect reasons" to Jonson.
> C.
Christian Lanciai
Obviously you don't know anything about nobility, especially not
Italian nobility, probably because you never had any nobility over
there in America. You were left about seven hundred years behind from
the beginning.
C.
Paul Crowley
news:243635f0-037a-434e...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas Brend, dated May 21, 1599,
> which lists among Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata... in
> occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum" ("a house newly built...
> occupied by William Shakespeare and others"). Thomas Brend's son
> Nicholas inherited his property, and on October 7, 1601, Nicholas
> Brend signed the deed of trust to which Dominic is presumably
> referring; it lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied by
> "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent.".
There WAS a Shake-speare cover-up. Most
of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
and trivial, with the most significant being the
payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
1597, enabling him to buy New Place. This
seems to have marked the beginning of a small
'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
over the next three or four years. One of these
would have been the entry in the will of
Augustine Phillips. The Stratman's nominal
'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
have been another, presumably recorded in
various legal documents, most of which are
now lost.
When someone in a discussion in a place
like this, asks you to comment upon a large
number of vaguely indicated items, perhaps
'in the archives' or a book or on a website,
you KNOW that he is bullshitting. It is an
ancient device, often used by academics.
But I am not surprised that it fools Kathman.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> Of course, that intention could easily have been accomplished without
>>> printing up 750-1,000 copies for sale to the general public (a copy
>>> was placed with the Bodleian Library, in Oxford, in early 1624).
>>
>> So you think that -- provided they were
>> placed in good libraries -- printing (say)
>> ten copies would have been sufficient?
>> No one would have thought it strange?
>
> Sure, why not. Thought what strange?
That someone (who could it be?) should
spend all that money merely to preserve
the output of a common playmaker.
>>> What
>>> you fail to grasp is that a desire to see the plays preserved does not
>>> necessarily rule out an additional mercantile interest/purpose behind
>>> the publication of the plays.
>>
>> What you fail to grasp is the basic economics.
>> There was not a large market for such an
>> expensive volume of highly literary plays.
>
> Sure -- the printers who put out Jonson's works (in 1616?) and the
> plays of Beaumont & Fletcher, lesser lights than Shakespeare, were
> less aware of the market than you.
Their products were much smaller and
could be sold for much less to a much
larger market. Economics 101 again.
>>> Off the top of my head, I believe a second edition was
>>> published in 1632, which would be a factor tending to indicate that
>>> the previous edition had sold out.
>>
>> Sure -- it apparently sold out over 9 years.
>> But would you have risked your own
>> money on such a venture (as a purely
>> commercial decision) ?
>
> I never said that it was a purely commercial decision.
If it was MORE than a purely commercial
decision, who put up the extra money?
Why did they not brag about that fact?
[..]
>> " . . It is puzzling that very little is known aside from his publications
>> about the life of someone as important socially and artistically as
>> Beaumont. What G. E. Bentley says about Fletcher is true of both of
>> them:
>> Considering his social position and his flourishing reputation
>> from about 1620 to the end of the century, the paucity of
>> information about the career of John Fletcher is very curious,
>> much more unaccountable than the obscurity of Shakespeare
>> which the anti-Stratfordians find so satisfactorily mystifying.
>> (G. E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 7 vols., 1941-68, 3.306)"
>
> The quotation you have cited does not support your conjectures that
> "the real Shake-speare obviously wrote
> much more than we see in the canon,"
And you feel that such a conjecture needs
support? A master-craftsman can emerge
without any kind of an apprenticeship?
This is yet another crazy Stratfordian doctrine
-- forced upon them by their ludicrous scenario.
How dopey can you get?
> that "those plays were waiting to
> be published," and that "some
> associates of the De Vere family obliged." The fact that you think
> you have provided relevant evidence for your assertions reveals that
> you have absolutely no understanding as to the nature of evidence.
Common sense tells us that a great playwright
does not write great plays from the first
moment he puts pen to paper. Yet that is
what Strats have to believe. You are happy
(indeed required) to forget common sense.
>> The assertion that "the author was not a low-
>> class actor, but a noble" has not gone down
>> well in universities and elsewhere over the
>> past 100 years or more.
>
> So it's your belief that the ignorant populace of 1623 would have
> reacted the same way that university professors have reacted for the
> past 100 years.
Of course not. In 1623 plenty of people
would have known which actors had been
on stage in recent decades, and which plays
had been performed in public. They would
not have been able to indulge in huge
fantasies of modern professors. But they
would also know that "W. Shake-speare"
was supposedly a poet and playwright.
A few would understand that he was a
private citizen who lived in the country.
The revelation that he was a noble and an
intimate of the monarch, and that the plays
and poems were all centred on the court, its
monarch and its courtiers, would have
intrigued and astonished them.
>>> "There would have been" -- not necessarily, and not even likely. You
>>> actually believe that anti-royalists in 1623 would attempt to stir up
>>> the populace against King James by spreading the word that Oxenforde
>>> was writing plays and poems about the royal court back in the 1570's,
>>> 1580's and 1590's, and was telling gassers about crapping contests
>>> with Good Queen Bess. What a riot -- not.
>>
>> Well I wasn't there, and I'm not sure exactly
>> what you are proposing. That James would
>> have told the full story in 1623? By that time,
>> the 'Stratman-as-poet' fable would have been
>> well established, and James would have had
>> to admit that he (and his courtiers) had been
>> lying to the public about the whole thing for
>> the previous twenty or more years.
>
> A public that had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the
> works...yawn.
The world is a much more complicated place
than you imagine. Many of the public knew
the basic story -- at about the level of (say)
an average modern 12-year-old: i.e. that a
commoner playwright had written great plays
and invented wonderful characters (like
Falstaff). Only a tiny number would have
seen, read, or played in, any plays. But
SOME would.
> Of course James, being the King, could have made up a story to cover
> his tracks -- for instance, he could have said that the secret had
> just come to light, that he was as hoodwinked as all the people who
> had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works.
Why should he do any of this? It is bad
policy for a monarch to admit he has been
hoodwinked. And why is he not going to
find and punish those who did it?
> He had been
> fooled by the yokel actor who was always hanging around the whenever
> the King's Men were performing at court. Greta PR -- your King is one
> of you.
Far better to say nothing. No one was
asking. The barely literate fools who
thought (hilariously) "Will Shake-speare"
was a real name, would never make sense
of anything -- let alone the literary texts.
Leave them be. Let them wallow in their
pigsties of ignorance.
> You're assuming facts not in evidence, again. The word "bathroom" is
> still in use.
Are there ever any baths in the bathroom?
>>> If you want to have that discussion, I am certainly open to it. I've
>>> already produced some of the language from Heminge and Condell where
>>> they identify Shakespeare as their friend and fellow -- do you believe
>>> they were talking about Oxenforde?
>>
>> The notion that it was even their words
>> is absurd. Do you think Heminge and
>> Condell were the editors?
>
> Nice attempt at changing the subject.
Try to focus. If Heminge and Condell
didn't write the words, how could they be
talking about anyone?
>>> These analogies are not even close. The situation more closely
>>> resembles a legal action, in which the evidence consists of a finite
>>> number of known facts, known documents, and contemporary testimony.
>>
>> Quite wrong. Litigants rarely regard their
>> opponents as insane,
>
> You don't know anything about the legal world either.
In fact, I do. Too much. Pick up any
common law textbook and you will see
hundreds (or thousands) of cases
mentioned. Simply from the issues
discussed, you can see that the parties
may well have thought their opponents
greedy and unreasonable, but rarely
insane. Or read any of the millions of
available law reports.
>> whereas that is the
>> norm in paradigm shifts, such as this. In
>> fact, most Strats are not insane, they are just
>> appallingly weak-minded credulous fools,
>> capable of believing in almost any kind of
>> insanity -- such Spaghetti trees [sic] -- so long
>> as they are told to by their superiors.
>
> More delusional crap from you. I don't know of any Strats who believe
> what "they are told to by their superiors."
We were all Strats once, and we know
exactly where we acquired the belief.
We were told by our parents or teachers
at school, i.e. our superiors.
>> First, you should make sure that your case
>> is possible in the real world. How many
>> other authors can you name who were
>> brought up in an illiterate household?
>
> You obviously don't know how the legal system works...the facts of a
> particular case are not affected by other cases.
Incredible. Totally wrong. I would have
thought you'd have picked up some basic
knowledge from watching TV. A recent
case here -- about the Omagh bombing --
has cast doubt on 'Low-copy DNA' raising
the hopes of thousands who have been
convicted with it, including Murdoch, the
Australian convicted of murder in the
'back-packer case'.
If you can't find another author raised in
an illiterate household, then you don't
have a case for 'the greatest of all time'.
> Such information is
> generally considered not relevant to a consideration of the facts and
> circumstances of that particular case. If it can be proved that W.S.
> of Stratford came from an illiterate household that might qualify as
> one piece of the ultimate puzzle but it would not be dispositive of
> the case.
In the minds of the sane it would.
>> What other great art in history was
>> financed from the pockets of the common
>> people?
>
> This statement is even less relevant to the question of authorship of
> the works.
Why pay any attention to the real world?
You know what you want to believe, and
you will not allow facts to get in the way.
>>>> People do not pun on their own given names.
>>
>>> Your tendency to write absolute rules is not conducive to open-minded
>>> study.
>>
>> If it's false, you can show that in an instant.
>> Many many people have 'interesting' and
>> punnable names. Name a few who punned
>> on their own given ones.
>
> To the best of my reccollection, I've never known any individual who
> had a punnable name.
Nonsense. The utter silliness of that
answer shows that you don't live in a
world where punning is common. Quote
Peter Farey punning his surname on 'fairy'.
Quote someone with the surname 'Bates'
punning on 'Master Bates'.
> To the best of my reccollection, I've never known any individual who
> had a punnable name.
The other aspect of that answer is
to highlight the rarity of names like
"Will Shake-speare".
> When the name William Shakespeare (or Shake-speare) appeared on the
> title pages of the works, there is no contemporary reference to it's
> having been a punning reference to anything whatsoever.
Yeah. The authorities would have had
no objections to anyone pointing it out
-- for the benefits of those who were
too blind to see it for themselves.
>>> That's funny coming from you. Aren't you the guy who had never
>>> conceived that Will could have been playing with himself.
>>
>> I probably missed it because it was not
>> one that would have been intended by
>> the poet.
>
> This statement is very instructive. You have substituted your
> thinking for that of the poet, and thereby shown just how delusional
> yourSTORY is. According to your theory, the pun depends on spear =
> penis = pen, so, even while the poet intended to reference the penis
> (and possibly a pun about using his penis during sex)
He intended very much else, as well.
> Paul Crowley
> KNOWS that the poet wouldn't have intended any connotation as to
> masturbation.
Not 'knows' -- It did not occur to
me. Possibly you could say that
I unconsciously assumed it.
>>>> Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
>>>> = 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
>>>> you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
>>>> equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
>>>> occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
>>>> for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
>>>> with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
>>
>>> I'll be waiting on your examples, but I won't be holding my breath.
Today on re-reading Adam Nicholson's
'Power and Glory' (about the writing of the
KJV Bible) I came across this (on page 183)
about the publication by James I of his
Collected Works in 1616:
"In earlier times, his loyal editor, James Mountagu
wrote, a king might have been more at home with
a pike. This one wielded a pen, just as Moses,
David and Solomon had done. . . "
OK, it's a pike and not a spear. But
there's not a lot of difference, and
the underlying idea is commonplace.
>>> "Will Shakespeare" does not have a punning connotation to "will write
>>> plays" no mateer how hard you twist it.
>>
>> Was Queen Elizabeth sometimes portrayed
>> as Pallas Athena? Were the two (a) guardians
>> of their cities? (b) lovers of men? (c) but who
>> never allowed them to touch? (d) passionately
>> virginal? (e) all-seeing? (f) wise? (g) patrons
>> of the fine and practical arts? (g) beautiful?
>> (h) forever young?
>>
>> Was the emblem of Pallas Athena a spear?
>> How could a young poet promise his Queen
>> that he would wield it on her behalf?
>>
>
> I see that others have already addressed this, but let me take a stab
> at another angle. This is how your pun theory works:
Recently, I asked American posters to
this NG to tune into a Stephen Fry BBC
programme on 'Current Puns' -- to see
how much they followed or liked them.
There was a nil reaction -- presumably
since it was as I expected -- universally
negative. As an alternative you could
try the links on this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/clue/
You either find puns amusing, or you don't.
Elizabethans, and especially Shake-speare,
did. Americans rarely do. Facts of life.
That does mean, unfortunately, that you
will fail to grasp much of what he is talking
about -- in the same way as you won't
understand those BBC radio programmes.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in me
trying to explain what is amusing about my
'pun theory'. It's even worse than trying to
explain a joke ordinarily. It's like explaining
one involving colour perception to a blind
person.
> Pallas Athena holds a spear = Queen Elizabeth was sometimes portrayed
> as Pallas Athena = Will Shake Spear = Poet will wield the Queen's
> spear for her, where spear = penis = pen. If this is not a fair
> approximation of your understanding (and I use that term very loosely)
> provide your own diagram.
>
> That may be the worst pun in history.
You could take ANY of the puns from Fry's
'Current Puns' or from ISIHAC and -- with
the same blank stare of utter puzzlement --
pose similar 'problems'. I'm sorry, but I can't
help you. It's a foreign language that you
needed to learn when young.
>>> As for Shakespeare and his "noble handlers" -- there is no reason that
>>> he couldn't have been bought off with more money or even killed for
>>> that matter.
>>
>> The rule of law was generally well
>> observed by English government
>> officials. The Queen could not get
>> Mary QS killed off, no matter how
>> often she tried.
>
> But W.S. of Stratford was just an illiterate country bumpkin, not a
> Queen. He could have been killed at any time in the stews or in some
> back alley and nobody would have eVER even noticed. His body could
> have been dumped in the Thames. YourSTORY is irrational.
You've got it wrong (as usual). Queen
Liz wanted Mary QS to have 'an accident'
(perhaps a fall from her horse) for some
very good reasons -- including peace
with Spain. Yet she could not get it done.
No servant would do something illegal.
Getting an awkward Stratman out of the
way (for no good reason) would have
been far more difficult.
>>> By the way, how did the illiterate manage to fool all of
>>> the people at the theatre? Or were they also bilking the "noble
>>> handlers"?
>>
>> What 'people at the theatre'? Inevitably,
>> Strats have built up an entirely false
>> picture of what was going on.
>
> Let's start with the other shareholders and the actors in the company
> -- were they in on the conspiracy?
The actors in the company would never
have met the Stratman -- nor probably the
real author. Try to remember that the plays
were written some 20 or 30 years earlier
than you think.
As for the 'shareholders', who knows?
The financial prospects of the company
were so bound up with performances for
court and other aristocratic audiences,
that almost any arrangement could have
been made -- e.g. with hidden or nominee
shareholders. It's barely not worth
thinking about, let alone 'investigating'.
Paul.
Christian Lanciai
against the common Stratfordian habit of just "bulldozing" all
alternatives to orthodox one-sided fundamentalist stratfordianism.
Since there so obviously are so much dubiousness in Ben Jonson's
wordings in his commentaries to the 'Shakespeare' case and
personality, so rich possibilities of double meanings and innuendoes,
so different interpretations of what he actually wrote about Will
Shakspere, pro et contra, - wouldn't it be a shame to just blot out
the double meanings in favour of one-sided unilateral fundamentalist
stratfordianism? Since there are grounds for different
interpretations, both of his 'Shakespeare' verses and the most
debatable monument inscription (by most ascribed to him,) why not
grant him the talent of having given his verses and expressions double
meanings, that so obviuously actually could have meant the opposite of
what he seemingly wrote?
best regards,
C(hris)
PS. I still think you should look up the Fulke Grenville part of the
debate. I simply don't have time to refer it all.
On 29 Jan, 20:33, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:32 am, christian.lanc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > snips
>
> You're here whining about how your arguments are "bulldozed" by the
> fascist Stratfordians, and yet when I attempt to engage you in a
> debate regarding your position, you either snip what I've said or
> dodge the question.
>
> > > > > The remarkable wordings of Sir
> > > > Fulke Glenville would definitely indicate that some of the
> > > > "Shakespeare" material was stolen from him. If he was stolen from,
> > > > other earls might have been stolen from as well, especially Oxford,
> > > > whose carelessness was notorious.
>
> > > What "remarkable wordings" are you referring to here, wherein, you
> > > claim, Sir Fulke Greville was indicating that Shakespeare material was
> > > stolen from him?
>
> > It's not long ago that case was up again. Try googling on "Fulke
> > Greville".
>
> Try providing the specific "remarkable wordings" to which you were
> referring. Is that all that difficult for you to do?
>
> > You must be new here. All these things have been discussed over and
> > over again here ever since I joined more than 6 years ago. Just look
> > them up in the dictionary. The whole Internet and HLAS is open to
> > you.
>
> So much for your interest in debating the issues...
>
> > You claim we have no evidence while you have no watertight evidence
> > either.
>
> The evidence for the Stratfordian position may not rise to the level
> of metaphysical certainty (what does), but I have yet to see where any
> reasonable doubt has been raised as to that evidence.
>
> > So we have to investigate the circumstantial evidence.
>
> What is the "circumstantial evidence" that you are referring to here?
> Just list your top 5 pieces of evidence...
>
> >There
> > you have some and we also. The rub is, that "Shakespeare" was one of
> > the most aristocratic writers in history (style, content, mentality,
> > outlook,) although he wrote for the common stage and included common
> > people among the actors, but he is still even more aristocratic than
> > even Dante, who came directly from the highest aristocracy class,
David Kathman
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:243635f0-037a-434e...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas Brend, dated May 21, 1599,
> > which lists among Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata... in
> > occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum" ("a house newly built...
> > occupied by William Shakespeare and others"). Thomas Brend's son
> > Nicholas inherited his property, and on October 7, 1601, Nicholas
> > Brend signed the deed of trust to which Dominic is presumably
> > referring; it lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied by
> > "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent.".
>
> There WAS a Shake-speare cover-up. Most
> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
> and trivial, with the most significant being the
> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place. This
> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
> over the next three or four years. One of these
> would have been the entry in the will of
> Augustine Phillips. The Stratman's nominal
> 'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
> have been another, presumably recorded in
> various legal documents, most of which are
> now lost.
Thanks for the insight into how your mind works. Just as I suspected,
any evidence, no matter how relevant, detailed, or difficult to forge,
is dismissed out of hand as being part of the alleged coverup.
> > Three days later,
> > another document similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the tenants
> > of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died on October 12, and the
> > properties including the Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with
> > John Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne controlling them in
> > trust. A deed of 1608, by which John Collet sold John Bodley his
> > interest in the trust, lists property including a "playhouse" with
> > tenants "Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later
> > documents of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in the original
> > 1601 deed of trust, as was customarily done in legal documents.
>
> > All these documents are described in my and Tom Reedy's "How We Know
> > That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare", athttp://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html,
> > and discussed in more detail in my article "Six Biographical Records
> > 'Re-Discovered': Some Neglected Contemporary Reference to
> > Shakespeare", in the Winter 1995 *Shakespeare Newsletter*.
>
> >> > Okay, now's your chance. Go to the Kathman-Reedy website and take
> >> > each of the documents listed there that connect W.S. of Stratford to
> >> > the theatre (sharing in the profits therefrom), and explain why those
> >> > documents are "laughable". If you want, I can provide them for you
> >> > one by one.
>
> >> You are remarkably vague about which
> >> 'documents' you consider crucial to your
> >> case. Is this because you've looked at
> >> them closely, and seen their value?
>
> > It's amusing how easily Crowley is capable of ignoring a direct
> > request like this and attacking his interlocutor instead.
>
> When someone in a discussion in a place
> like this, asks you to comment upon a large
> number of vaguely indicated items, perhaps
> 'in the archives' or a book or on a website,
> you KNOW that he is bullshitting. It is an
> ancient device, often used by academics.
> But I am not surprised that it fools Kathman.
How did this "device" fool me? As I mentioned in a part of my post
that you snipped, the article by Tom Reedy and me that I linked to
above lists all the relevant documents. All you have to do is click
on the link, or at most paste the URL into your browser window, and
address what we say there. Yet, as per usual, you choose instead to
throw up a smokescreen by accusing me of "bullshitting". Once again,
thank you for the insight into how your mind works.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" <mah...@aol.com> wrote in message news:8d57231d-cd26-4e6d-b027-
> >>> Of course, that intention could easily have been accomplished without
> >>> printing up 750-1,000 copies for sale to the general public (a copy
> >>> was placed with the Bodleian Library, in Oxford, in early 1624).
>
> >> So you think that -- provided they were
> >> placed in good libraries -- printing (say)
> >> ten copies would have been sufficient?
> >> No one would have thought it strange?
>
> > Sure, why not. Thought what strange?
>
> That someone (who could it be?) should
> spend all that money merely to preserve
> the output of a common playmaker.
As had been done previously with Jonson. Why would anyone think it
was strange -- it would merely be a vanity project by certain people
who enjoyed Shakespeare's plays. In addition, if only ten copies
qwere produced, none would have thought it strange because noone
whould have known of it. It was only because 750-1000 were produced
that the public knew about it. "All that money" -- producing ten
copies as opposed to producing 750 - 1000 copies.
> >>> What
> >>> you fail to grasp is that a desire to see the plays preserved does not
> >>> necessarily rule out an additional mercantile interest/purpose behind
> >>> the publication of the plays.
>
> >> What you fail to grasp is the basic economics.
> >> There was not a large market for such an
> >> expensive volume of highly literary plays.
There was enough of a market for them to produce 750 - 1000 copies and
sell them. Basic economics.
> > Sure -- the printers who put out Jonson's works (in 1616?) and the
> > plays of Beaumont & Fletcher, lesser lights than Shakespeare, were
> > less aware of the market than you.
>
> Their products were much smaller and
> could be sold for much less to a much
> larger market. Economics 101 again.
If you are correct why then did they produce 750 - 1000 copies for
sale? And it appears that they all sold. It appears the publishers
made their money back and more. The fact that so many were produced
shows that the publishers thought there was a market for the works --
Economics 101.
> >>> Off the top of my head, I believe a second edition was
> >>> published in 1632, which would be a factor tending to indicate that
> >>> the previous edition had sold out.
>
> >> Sure -- it apparently sold out over 9 years.
> >> But would you have risked your own
> >> money on such a venture (as a purely
> >> commercial decision) ?
>
> > I never said that it was a purely commercial decision.
>
> If it was MORE than a purely commercial
> decision, who put up the extra money?
> Why did they not brag about that fact?
Who put up what extra money? You have no evidence that any "extra
money" was put up? You only have your fantasies. The fact that
people associated with Shakespeare had mor than one motivation for
publishing the Folio (profit, a desire to preserved the works, etc.)
does nothing to support your Oxenfordian theory. Your apparent belief
that the people behind the production of the Folio decided to make so
many copies (750 - 1000) so that some copies would survive into the
future, and that these books were then sold to a general public where
their survival could not be guaranteed, is further evidence of the
ridiculoous lengths you go to in your attempts to ascribe the works to
Oxenforde.
>
>
> >> " . . It is puzzling that very little is known aside from his publications
> >> about the life of someone as important socially and artistically as
> >> Beaumont. What G. E. Bentley says about Fletcher is true of both of
> >> them:
> >> Considering his social position and his flourishing reputation
> >> from about 1620 to the end of the century, the paucity of
> >> information about the career of John Fletcher is very curious,
> >> much more unaccountable than the obscurity of Shakespeare
> >> which the anti-Stratfordians find so satisfactorily mystifying.
> >> (G. E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 7 vols., 1941-68, 3.306)"
>
> > The quotation you have cited does not support your conjectures that
> > "the real Shake-speare obviously wrote
> > much more than we see in the canon,"
>
> And you feel that such a conjecture needs
> support? A master-craftsman can emerge
> without any kind of an apprenticeship?
No -- I believe that your conjecture about the plays of Beaumont and
Fletcher being early works from Oxenforde's hand is more evidence, if
any were needed, that unadulterated speculation is all you ever bring
to this argument, completely unsupported by any factual evidence
whatsoever.
> This is yet another crazy Stratfordian doctrine
> -- forced upon them by their ludicrous scenario.
>
> How dopey can you get?
You continue to plumb new depths of dopey every day. Maybe one day
we'll see the ultimate level of dopiness you can achieve.
> > that "those plays were waiting to
> > be published," and that "some
> > associates of the De Vere family obliged." The fact that you think
> > you have provided relevant evidence for your assertions reveals that
> > you have absolutely no understanding as to the nature of evidence.
>
> Common sense tells us that a great playwright
> does not write great plays from the first
> moment he puts pen to paper. Yet that is
> what Strats have to believe. You are happy
> (indeed required) to forget common sense.
All of which has no relevance to your assertion that the plays of
Beaumont and Fletcher were actually early works by Oxenforde "waiting
to be published" and that "some associates of the De Vere family
obliged." You reaffirm here that you have absolutely no understanding
as to the nature of evidence.
> >> The assertion that "the author was not a low-
> >> class actor, but a noble" has not gone down
> >> well in universities and elsewhere over the
> >> past 100 years or more.
>
> > So it's your belief that the ignorant populace of 1623 would have
> > reacted the same way that university professors have reacted for the
> > past 100 years.
>
> Of course not. In 1623 plenty of people
> would have known which actors had been
> on stage in recent decades, and which plays
> had been performed in public. They would
> not have been able to indulge in huge
> fantasies of modern professors. But they
> would also know that "W. Shake-speare"
> was supposedly a poet and playwright.
> A few would understand that he was a
> private citizen who lived in the country.
> The revelation that he was a noble and an
> intimate of the monarch, and that the plays
> and poems were all centred on the court, its
> monarch and its courtiers, would have
> intrigued and astonished them.
Everyone loves a mystery -- what a great selling point for the Folio.
Right.
A public that was not the target audience of the publication of tghe
Folio.
Your arguments cause you to spin so much that you must be screwed into
the ground a couple of feet by this point.
> Only a tiny number would have
> seen, read, or played in, any plays. But
> SOME would.
> > Of course James, being the King, could have made up a story to cover
> > his tracks -- for instance, he could have said that the secret had
> > just come to light, that he was as hoodwinked as all the people who
> > had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works.
>
> Why should he do any of this? It is bad
> policy for a monarch to admit he has been
> hoodwinked. And why is he not going to
> find and punish those who did it?
He wouldn't be doing it -- he'd be allowing the publishers of the
Folio to let the cat out of the bag. No reflection on him
whatsoever. As far as punishing Oxenforde -- he was already dead.
Beside that, the King didn't need to do any of this since he a;ready
knew that the author of the plays was a member of the King's Men.
> > He had been
> > fooled by the yokel actor who was always hanging around the whenever
> > the King's Men were performing at court. Greta PR -- your King is one
> > of you.
>
> Far better to say nothing. No one was
> asking. The barely literate fools who
> thought (hilariously) "Will Shake-speare"
> was a real name, would never make sense
> of anything -- let alone the literary texts.
> Leave them be. Let them wallow in their
> pigsties of ignorance.
William Shakespeaqre was a real name -- you are the one who has been
fooled into believing that it was not a real name.
"Barely literate fools...who would never makes sense of anything --
let alone the literary texts" -- and yet these people comprise the
ignorant populace you calim are going to be incited to revvolution by
the anti-royalists when they discover that the literary texts are
about a previous royal court. You just screwed yourself into the
floor a few more inches.
> > You're assuming facts not in evidence, again. The word "bathroom" is
> > still in use.
>
> Are there ever any baths in the bathroom?
Certainly.
> >>> If you want to have that discussion, I am certainly open to it. I've
> >>> already produced some of the language from Heminge and Condell where
> >>> they identify Shakespeare as their friend and fellow -- do you believe
> >>> they were talking about Oxenforde?
>
> >> The notion that it was even their words
> >> is absurd. Do you think Heminge and
> >> Condell were the editors?
>
> > Nice attempt at changing the subject.
>
> Try to focus. If Heminge and Condell
> didn't write the words, how could they be
> talking about anyone?
They could have dictated them to the person who wrote them down. Or
they could have voiced the sentiment and the author could have used
his own words to prettify their thoughts. Why did there need to be
any reference to Heminge and Condell in the Folio if they had no role
in its production? I'm sure you'll spin it as part of the
conspirator's coverr-up.
> >>> These analogies are not even close. The situation more closely
> >>> resembles a legal action, in which the evidence consists of a finite
> >>> number of known facts, known documents, and contemporary testimony.
>
> >> Quite wrong. Litigants rarely regard their
> >> opponents as insane,
>
> > You don't know anything about the legal world either.
>
> In fact, I do. Too much. Pick up any
> common law textbook and you will see
> hundreds (or thousands) of cases
> mentioned. Simply from the issues
> discussed, you can see that the parties
> may well have thought their opponents
> greedy and unreasonable, but rarely
> insane. Or read any of the millions of
> available law reports.
>
Wrong again...the testbooks and law reports do not reflect the
thoughts of the litigants. Most litigants believe that they alone are
on the side of truth, justice and righteousness in the lawsuit, and
they can't understand how the other side could be so irrational
(insane, even) as to not see that "fact".
> >> whereas that is the
> >> norm in paradigm shifts, such as this. In
> >> fact, most Strats are not insane, they are just
> >> appallingly weak-minded credulous fools,
> >> capable of believing in almost any kind of
> >> insanity -- such Spaghetti trees [sic] -- so long
> >> as they are told to by their superiors.
>
> > More delusional crap from you. I don't know of any Strats who believe
> > what "they are told to by their superiors."
>
> We were all Strats once, and we know
> exactly where we acquired the belief.
> We were told by our parents or teachers
> at school, i.e. our superiors.
It's a vast conspiracy to deny Oxenforde the credit.
> >> First, you should make sure that your case
> >> is possible in the real world. How many
> >> other authors can you name who were
> >> brought up in an illiterate household?
>
> > You obviously don't know how the legal system works...the facts of a
> > particular case are not affected by other cases.
>
> Incredible. Totally wrong. I would have
> thought you'd have picked up some basic
> knowledge from watching TV. A recent
> case here -- about the Omagh bombing --
> has cast doubt on 'Low-copy DNA' raising
> the hopes of thousands who have been
> convicted with it, including Murdoch, the
> Australian convicted of murder in the
> 'back-packer case'.
You simply don't know what you're talking aout. Scientific tests on
evidence (such as DNA testing) are not the same thing as the evidence,
the facts, and the circumstances of a particular case. A change in
scientific understanding of evidence is not the same thing as evidence
(although it may be used to change the outcome of a case) This is
more proof, if any were needed, that you have absolutely no clue as to
what qualifies as evidence. The prior criminal acts of a defendant in
a criminal case can generally not be used in evidence against him to
prove that he is guilty of an offense in a subsequent prosecution.
The prior careless driving of an individual can generally not be used
against a defendant in a civil action to prove that his careless
driving was the cause of a collision in the case before the court.
The facts of a particular case can generally not be used in a
different case, even against the same individual.
You have no scientific tests to rely on in your attempt to make
Oxenforde the author of the canon. Whether or not any other authors
have ever emerged from their family's illiteracy to publish their
works (and without reading 1000's of biographies I'm not sure how this
point could be adjudicated) is not proof that Shakespeare did not do
so. It is certainly far from dispositive of the issue as you
delusionally maintain.
>
> If you can't find another author raised in
> an illiterate household, then you don't
> have a case for 'the greatest of all time'.
If James Murray hadn't emerged from an illiterate household we might
not have the OED.
Illiterate parents may be highly intelligent, although circumstances
have prevented them from learning to write and/or read. Their
children, exposed to instruction and education, are not necessarily
limited by their parent's illiteracy.
> > Such information is
> > generally considered not relevant to a consideration of the facts and
> > circumstances of that particular case. If it can be proved that W.S.
> > of Stratford came from an illiterate household that might qualify as
> > one piece of the ultimate puzzle but it would not be dispositive of
> > the case.
>
> In the minds of the sane it would.
No -- the sane refview all relevant facts and circumstances and weigh
their evidentairy value. They would not conclude that because
Shakespeare's mother and father were illiterate that he necessarily
had to be illiterate as well. He had a brother who became an actor in
London -- do you have any evidence that he was illiterate? Another
brother was a successful tradesman, probably operating in London as a
haberdasher -- was he illiterate?
> >> What other great art in history was
> >> financed from the pockets of the common
> >> people?
>
> > This statement is even less relevant to the question of authorship of
> > the works.
>
> Why pay any attention to the real world?
> You know what you want to believe, and
> you will not allow facts to get in the way.
Nice didge. If you're going to try to use "public financing" as a
fact tending to show that W.S. of Startford did not write the works
(and your candidate did), then you need to demonstrate how it is
relevant to the discussion. If you simply can't do that small bit of
advocacy, your great paradigm shift will never take place.
> >>>> People do not pun on their own given names.
>
> >>> Your tendency to write absolute rules is not conducive to open-minded
> >>> study.
>
> >> If it's false, you can show that in an instant.
> >> Many many people have 'interesting' and
> >> punnable names. Name a few who punned
> >> on their own given ones.
>
> > To the best of my reccollection, I've never known any individual who
> > had a punnable name.
>
> Nonsense. The utter silliness of that
> answer shows that you don't live in a
> world where punning is common. Quote
> Peter Farey punning his surname on 'fairy'.
> Quote someone with the surname 'Bates'
> punning on 'Master Bates'.
Talk about silly...I've never known anybody named Master Bates
(although one big pun in high school involved the debate team being
"master debaters"). Your example as to Peter Farey is also
inapplicable as to the name William Shakespeare...Master Farey's
concern isn't a pun on his complete name, just a one-word substitution
and not a part of a phrase from which it derives its punny effect.
A pun (or paronomasia) is a phrase that deliberately exploits
confusion between similar-sounding words for humorous or rhetorical
effect. A pun may also exploit confusion between two senses of the
same written or spoken word, due to homophony, homography, homonymy,
polysemy, or metaphorical usage. Walter Redfern has said: "To pun is
to treat homonyms as synonyms"[1]. For example, in the phrase, "There
is nothing punny about bad puns", the pun takes place in the
deliberate confusion of the implied word "funny" by the substitution
of the word "punny", a heterophone of "funny".
> > To the best of my reccollection, I've never known any individual who
> > had a punnable name.
>
> The other aspect of that answer is
> to highlight the rarity of names like
> "Will Shake-speare".
Except that as a matter of historical fact there were individuals
named William Shakespeare.
> > When the name William Shakespeare (or Shake-speare) appeared on the
> > title pages of the works, there is no contemporary reference to it's
> > having been a punning reference to anything whatsoever.
>
> Yeah. The authorities would have had
> no objections to anyone pointing it out
> -- for the benefits of those who were
> too blind to see it for themselves.
The authorities would have cared if someone had pointed out that "will
shakespeare" can be consodered a pun? Right. Becasue then those
ignorant people would have worked out the fact that the name could
mean "someone who will shake a spear. From that they would have
jumped to Pallas Athena - hey, she held a spear. Wow, you know
sometimes Queen Elazabeth is compared to Athena. Illogical leap to
damn, Oxenforde wrote the works, and they are all thinly disguised
commentaries on what's going on at court. There are even jokes about
crapping contests with the Queen,
Your scenario is miles away from the minds of the sane.
What was the audience that the authorities were worried might have the
pun pointed out to them, and why would they be worried -- the ignorant
populace that had minimal to non-existent knowledge of the works and
couldn't make sense of anything? You have yet to provide any rational
explanation as to how such a revelation could have had any effect,
much less foment a rebellion against the crown.
> >>> That's funny coming from you. Aren't you the guy who had never
> >>> conceived that Will could have been playing with himself.
>
> >> I probably missed it because it was not
> >> one that would have been intended by
> >> the poet.
>
> > This statement is very instructive. You have substituted your
> > thinking for that of the poet, and thereby shown just how delusional
> > yourSTORY is. According to your theory, the pun depends on spear =
> > penis = pen, so, even while the poet intended to reference the penis
> > (and possibly a pun about using his penis during sex)
>
> He intended very much else, as well.
Are you channelling Lord Oxenforde? Do you believe that he speaks
through you, like some mystic medium communicating with the dead?
Those are just voices in your head and can probably be eradicated with
proper treatment.
> > Paul Crowley
> > KNOWS that the poet wouldn't have intended any connotation as to
> > masturbation.
>
> Not 'knows' -- It did not occur to
> me. Possibly you could say that
> I unconsciously assumed it.
All of what you do here is mental masturbation -- I'm surprised that
meaqning didn't occur to you.
> >>>> Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
> >>>> = 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
> >>>> you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
> >>>> equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
> >>>> occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
> >>>> for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
> >>>> with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
>
> >>> I'll be waiting on your examples, but I won't be holding my breath.
>
> Today on re-reading Adam Nicholson's
> 'Power and Glory' (about the writing of the
> KJV Bible) I came across this (on page 183)
> about the publication by James I of his
> Collected Works in 1616:
> "In earlier times, his loyal editor, James Mountagu
> wrote, a king might have been more at home with
> a pike. This one wielded a pen, just as Moses,
> David and Solomon had done. . . "
There is no pun there -- just a simple statement that this King (or
the kingship itself) was different from Kings in older times. He
didn't need physical prowess or miltarism to rule his subjects, but
was a lawgiver similar to Moses, David and the wise Solomon. As a
matter of fact, your example actually supports a distinction between
the militarism of the pike and the literary/judicial use of the pen,
more evidence that any punning understanding of "will shakespeare"
would be a martial one. .
Good puns are amusing. Your attempt to twist "will shakespeare" into
a pun supporting the candidacy of Oxenforde is laughable.
> There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in me
> trying to explain what is amusing about my
> 'pun theory'. It's even worse than trying to
> explain a joke ordinarily. It's like explaining
> one involving colour perception to a blind
> person.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in you truing to explain your pun theory
because it is simply unexplainable. Puns are not irrational -- your
pun theory is irrational.
> > Pallas Athena holds a spear = Queen Elizabeth was sometimes portrayed
> > as Pallas Athena = Will Shake Spear = Poet will wield the Queen's
> > spear for her, where spear = penis = pen. If this is not a fair
> > approximation of your understanding (and I use that term very loosely)
> > provide your own diagram.
>
> > That may be the worst pun in history.
>
> You could take ANY of the puns from Fry's
> 'Current Puns' or from ISIHAC and -- with
> the same blank stare of utter puzzlement --
> pose similar 'problems'. I'm sorry, but I can't
> help you. It's a foreign language that you
> needed to learn when young.
You can't even address my paraphrased explication of your pun theory
to attempt to show how it is wrong.
Your pun theory is in a language known only to you and the voices in
your head. Do you think that the performers on ISIHAC would make any
sense of your pun theory (by the way, there is a similar program
broadcast on American NPR, which indulges in amusing word play -- the
finale involves one of the performers using a suggested phrase to
concoct a long story which ends in a punning play on the suggested
phrase).
> >>> As for Shakespeare and his "noble handlers" -- there is no reason that
> >>> he couldn't have been bought off with more money or even killed for
> >>> that matter.
>
> >> The rule of law was generally well
> >> observed by English government
> >> officials. The Queen could not get
> >> Mary QS killed off, no matter how
> >> often she tried.
>
> > But W.S. of Stratford was just an illiterate country bumpkin, not a
> > Queen. He could have been killed at any time in the stews or in some
> > back alley and nobody would have eVER even noticed. His body could
> > have been dumped in the Thames. YourSTORY is irrational.
>
> You've got it wrong (as usual). Queen
> Liz wanted Mary QS to have 'an accident'
> (perhaps a fall from her horse) for some
> very good reasons -- including peace
> with Spain. Yet she could not get it done.
> No servant would do something illegal.
You seriously believe that no servant of the Queen (or Waslsingham,
etc.) would do something illegal?
> Getting an awkward Stratman out of the
> way (for no good reason) would have
> been far more difficult.
Why...he was a nobody according to you. He could easily have been
bumped off at any time.
Who would have even noticed his disappearance? Your theory is inane.
> >>> By the way, how did the illiterate manage to fool all of
> >>> the people at the theatre? Or were they also bilking the "noble
> >>> handlers"?
>
> >> What 'people at the theatre'? Inevitably,
> >> Strats have built up an entirely false
> >> picture of what was going on.
>
> > Let's start with the other shareholders and the actors in the company
> > -- were they in on the conspiracy?
>
> The actors in the company would never
> have met the Stratman -- nor probably the
> real author. Try to remember that the plays
> were written some 20 or 30 years earlier
> than you think.
Why pay any attention to the real world? You know what you want to
believe, and you will not allow facts to get in the way.
> As for the 'shareholders', who knows?
> The financial prospects of the company
> were so bound up with performances for
> court and other aristocratic audiences,
> that almost any arrangement could have
> been made -- e.g. with hidden or nominee
> shareholders. It's barely not worth
> thinking about, let alone 'investigating'.
Why pay any attention to the real world? You know what you want to
believe, and you will not allow facts to get in the way.
> Paul.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:243635f0-037a-434e...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There's the inventory post mortem of Thomas Brend, dated May 21, 1599,
> > which lists among Brend's property "vna Domo de novo edificata... in
> > occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum" ("a house newly built...
> > occupied by William Shakespeare and others"). Thomas Brend's son
> > Nicholas inherited his property, and on October 7, 1601, Nicholas
> > Brend signed the deed of trust to which Dominic is presumably
> > referring; it lists among his properties a "playhowse" occupied by
> > "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent.".
>
> There WAS a Shake-speare cover-up.
All you ever do is spout unsupported speculation and it to be fact,
like some despotic lunatic.
I'll be waiting for your evidence for the cover-up, but, as usual, I
know that none will be forthcoming. You believe in the certainty of
your speculations (or the voices in your head), and are not even
interested in addressing any actual documentary evidence. According to
you, alone in your lonely and arrogant usurpation of the author's
mind, such evidence is "barely not worth thinking about, let alone
'investigating'."
> Most
> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
> and trivial, with the most significant being the
> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place.
Who made that payment? Do you have any record of the payment?
Can you provide any support for this assertion?
> This
> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
> over the next three or four years. One of these
> would have been the entry in the will of
> Augustine Phillips.
Did someone pay Phillips to put the entry in his will? When was his
will written and how did the conspirators manage to insert the entry
(what three or four yeaqrs are you talking about? 1597 - 1601)? Who
were the conspirators involved in this snow-job? When the conspirators
were devising this "small 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few
places" who was the intended target of their forgeries -- who were
they intending to fool by placing these trivial clues in such obscure
documents? Now is your opportunity to provide the evidentiary support
for your asseretions.
> The Stratman's nominal
> 'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
> have been another, presumably recorded in
> various legal documents, most of which are
> now lost.
>
So Burbage would have known that W.S. of Stratford was not the author
of the plays, and that he was not a shareholder in the theatre, right,
as would Heminge and Condell?
>
>
>
> > Three days later,
> > another document similar lists Burbage and Shakespeare as the tenants
> > of the "playhowse". Nicholas Brend died on October 12, and the
> > properties including the Globe passed to his infant son Matthew, with
> > John Bodley, John Collet, and Sir Matthew Browne controlling them in
> > trust. A deed of 1608, by which John Collet sold John Bodley his
> > interest in the trust, lists property including a "playhouse" with
> > tenants "Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare, gentlemen". Later
> > documents of 1622, 1624, and 1633 copy the description in the original
> > 1601 deed of trust, as was customarily done in legal documents.
>
> > All these documents are described in my and Tom Reedy's "How We Know
> > That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare", athttp://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html,
> > and discussed in more detail in my article "Six Biographical Records
> > 'Re-Discovered': Some Neglected Contemporary Reference to
> > Shakespeare", in the Winter 1995 *Shakespeare Newsletter*.
>
> >> > Okay, now's your chance. Go to the Kathman-Reedy website and take
> >> > each of the documents listed there that connect W.S. of Stratford to
> >> > the theatre (sharing in the profits therefrom), and explain why those
> >> > documents are "laughable". If you want, I can provide them for you
> >> > one by one.
>
> >> You are remarkably vague about which
> >> 'documents' you consider crucial to your
> >> case. Is this because you've looked at
> >> them closely, and seen their value?
>
> > It's amusing how easily Crowley is capable of ignoring a direct
> > request like this and attacking his interlocutor instead.
>
> When someone in a discussion in a place
> like this, asks you to comment upon a large
> number of vaguely indicated items, perhaps
> 'in the archives' or a book or on a website,
> you KNOW that he is bullshitting. It is an
> ancient device, often used by academics.
> But I am not surprised that it fools Kathman.
You are either a liar or you are truly demented. I offered to supply
one reference/document at a time and there was nothing at all vague
about the offer to discuss each one separately. You completely
ignored that offer, revealing that you are the one who is full of
bullshit. You're so full of it that it constantly spills onto the
page whenever you pontificate. When confronted with a specific
challenge you hid behind some pontifacting bluster -- an ancient
device that has long been used by authors to show that a particular
character is a pompous windbag and an arrogant fool.
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dom
Larry Welk
of Shakespeare's works by the loons on this newsgroup,
William Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate
supported by the historical evidence.
see also
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Since there are grounds for different
> interpretations, both of his 'Shakespeare' verses and the most
> debatable monument inscription (by most ascribed to him,) why not
> grant him the talent of having given his verses and expressions double
> meanings, that so obviuously actually could have meant the opposite of
> what he seemingly wrote?
>
> best regards,
>
> C(hris)
Let's start with "To the memory of my beloued/ The Avthor/ Mr. William
Shakespeare/ And/ what he hath left us." Just what grounds are there
for interpreting that to mean anything other than what it clearly
says, Chris?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> I'll be waiting for your evidence for the cover-up,
And the only evidence you'd accept would
be a public statement by a member of the
government.
>> Most
>> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
>> and trivial, with the most significant being the
>> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
>> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place.
>
> Who made that payment? Do you have any record of the payment?
> Can you provide any support for this assertion?
Where did he get all that money? Remember
that the theatres had recently been through
long periods of closure on account of plague.
>> This
>> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
>> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
>> over the next three or four years. One of these
>> would have been the entry in the will of
>> Augustine Phillips.
>
> Did someone pay Phillips to put the entry in his will?
He was paid directly or indirectly in all
manner of ways. He was let off in 1601
for putting on Richard 2.
> When was his
> will written and how did the conspirators manage to insert the entry
> (what three or four yeaqrs are you talking about? 1597 - 1601)? Who
> were the conspirators involved in this snow-job? When the conspirators
> were devising this "small 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few
> places" who was the intended target of their forgeries -- who were
> they intending to fool by placing these trivial clues in such obscure
> documents? Now is your opportunity to provide the evidentiary support
> for your asseretions.
You'd want written documents, of course,
and preferably signed affidavits? How else
could we ever know that there had been a
pretty successful government cover-up?
>> The Stratman's nominal
>> 'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
>> have been another, presumably recorded in
>> various legal documents, most of which are
>> now lost.
>
> So Burbage would have known that W.S. of Stratford was not the author
> of the plays, and that he was not a shareholder in the theatre, right,
> as would Heminge and Condell?
Well, I wasn't there, nor was I a party to
the discussions. Oxford seems to have
gone to a fair amount of trouble to keep
his authorship quiet, and it's possible that
Burbage did not know who had written
the plays. He probably never met the
Stratman but, in any case, he would never
have conceived that such an ignorant low-
class provicial could have been the author
of anything.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> There WAS a Shake-speare cover-up. Most
>> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
>> and trivial, with the most significant being the
>> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
>> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place. This
>> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
>> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
>> over the next three or four years. One of these
>> would have been the entry in the will of
>> Augustine Phillips. The Stratman's nominal
>> 'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
>> have been another, presumably recorded in
>> various legal documents, most of which are
>> now lost.
>
> Thanks for the insight into how your mind works. Just as I suspected,
> any evidence, no matter how relevant, detailed, or difficult to forge,
> is dismissed out of hand as being part of the alleged coverup.
It is not 'dismissed'. Someone soon all
this will be the subject of much study
and debate -- to establish, as far as
possible, the manner in which the cover-
up was initiated and progressed. (As
such, it probably began after the use of
the name 'W. Shake-spear' on V&A and
the location of the Stratman.)
However the reaction of Kathman and other
Strats is an interesting example of the standard
response of the 'wrong side' in paradigm debates.
They cry 'foul' asserting that the whole line of
argument is improper and illegitimate. Those
who opposed Copernicus and Galileo protested
about their lack of respect for the genuine
authorities, such as Scripture. That alone was
enough to condemn them. Likewise for Darwin.
The inability to quote Paracelcus in their
support was the fatal weakness of those who
proposed the Germ theory of disease. Those
who claimed that dinosaurs had been wiped
out by an extra-terrestrial crash were not paying
sufficient attention to the detailed fossil record
. . . . and so on and on.
What would be the rational response of Strats
here? They could claim that government cover-
ups never occurred. Or that even if there was
a cover-up, it would not have sought to mess
with legal records. Or that a government cover-
up was unlikely -- assuming that Elizabeth was
the addressee in the Sonnets and featured
prominently (with many other courtiers) in the
plays.
But there is no hope of rationality from Strats.
Paul.
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Dominic Hughes" <mah...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:035315e9-19f3-46f3...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'll be waiting for your evidence for the cover-up,
>
> And the only evidence you'd accept would
> be a public statement by a member of the
> government.
My point was that you have zero ev idence to support your theory.
According to your theory, it appears that the absence of evidence of
the cover-up is evidence that there was a cover-up. Good luck with
that.
> >> Most
> >> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
> >> and trivial, with the most significant being the
> >> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
> >> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place.
>
> > Who made that payment? Do you have any record of the payment?
> > Can you provide any support for this assertion?
>
> Where did he get all that money? Remember
> that the theatres had recently been through
> long periods of closure on account of plague.
You don't know who made a payment (or even if a payment was made). As
usuals you have no evidence -- all you have is speculation as to how
W.S.. of Stratford had the money to buy New Place. Have you ever
heard any other explanation for how he came by that money? Can you
disprove that explanation.
> >> This
> >> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
> >> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
> >> over the next three or four years. One of these
> >> would have been the entry in the will of
> >> Augustine Phillips.
>
> > Did someone pay Phillips to put the entry in his will?
>
> He was paid directly or indirectly in all
> manner of ways. He was let off in 1601
> for putting on Richard 2.
The whole acting company, including William Shakespeare, was "let off
in 16-1," not just Phillips.
> > When was his
> > will written and how did the conspirators manage to insert the entry
> > (what three or four yeaqrs are you talking about? 1597 - 1601)? Who
> > were the conspirators involved in this snow-job? When the conspirators
> > were devising this "small 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few
> > places" who was the intended target of their forgeries -- who were
> > they intending to fool by placing these trivial clues in such obscure
> > documents? Now is your opportunity to provide the evidentiary support
> > for your asseretions.
>
> You'd want written documents, of course,
Well, yes, since you were discussing Phillip's last will, that would
be a document.
> and preferably signed affidavits? How else
> could we ever know that there had been a
> pretty successful government cover-up?
All of your meaningless bluster illustrates once again that you have
no evidence for what you absolutely KNOW with such certainty (which
was my point in the first place). All you have is speculation and an
absence of evidence.
> >> The Stratman's nominal
> >> 'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
> >> have been another, presumably recorded in
> >> various legal documents, most of which are
> >> now lost.
>
> > So Burbage would have known that W.S. of Stratford was not the author
> > of the plays, and that he was not a shareholder in the theatre, right,
> > as would Heminge and Condell?
>
> Well, I wasn't there, nor was I a party to
> the discussions.
Then why are you always insisting that you, and you alone, knoiw what
the author intended. Your narcissism in this regard is pathological.
> Oxford seems to have
> gone to a fair amount of trouble to keep
> his authorship quiet,
Are you ever going to supply any evidence in support of the assertion
that Oxford took steps to keep his authorship quiet?
> and it's possible that
> Burbage did not know who had written
> the plays. He probably never met the
> Stratman but, in any case, he would never
> have conceived that such an ignorant low-
> class provicial could have been the author
> of anything.
>
> Paul.
Once again, you won't let the facts stand in the way of your factually-
bereft beliefs. You are the same as the creationists and the anti-
evolutionists in your deluded approach to what qualifies as evidence
and proof. You also snip those points that you simply can't address.
If you are the advocate for the Oxenfordian paradigm shift, the
Stratfordians can rest easy.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:299b2857-8d64-4a5c...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >> There WAS a Shake-speare cover-up. Most
> >> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
> >> and trivial, with the most significant being the
> >> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
> >> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place. This
> >> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
> >> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
> >> over the next three or four years. One of these
> >> would have been the entry in the will of
> >> Augustine Phillips. The Stratman's nominal
> >> 'occupation' of the theatre with Burbage would
> >> have been another, presumably recorded in
> >> various legal documents, most of which are
> >> now lost.
>
> > Thanks for the insight into how your mind works. Just as I suspected,
> > any evidence, no matter how relevant, detailed, or difficult to forge,
> > is dismissed out of hand as being part of the alleged coverup.
>
> this will be the subject of much study
> and debate -- to establish, as far as
> possible, the manner in which the cover-
> up was initiated and progressed.
What's holding you back? Get to it. Are you now saying that records
will be discovered to show that the documents connecting W.S. of
Stratford to the plays, acting company, theatre, royal court, etc.
are, in fact, forgeries. What records or proof do you expect to find
-- surely not signed affidvits.
> (As
> such, it probably began after the use of
> the name 'W. Shake-spear' on V&A and
> the location of the Stratman.)
Do you know of any other authors of the time who used pseudonyms and
then went out and found someone who actually had the pen name to be a
patsy front for the cover-up -- and then they didn't even bother to
use the poor fellow (as you maintain, he never even met Burbage, was
not a shareholder in the theatre, etc.). Your theory is insipid.
> However the reaction of Kathman and other
> Strats is an interesting example of the standard
> response of the 'wrong side' in paradigm debates.
Ah, the great paradigm shift again -- any ide when that might be
happening?
> They cry 'foul' asserting that the whole line of
> argument is improper and illegitimate.
That is not at all what Mr. Kathman or I have been doing. We are
merely asking you to provide a scintilla of evidence in support of
your theory, and requesting you to show how the evidence in favor of
W.S. of Startford is invalid, irrelevant, forged, etc., as your theory
maintains. The fact of the matter is that you are completely unable
to provide any evidentiary support for your theory or to make any
rational argument against the evidence for the Stratforian. The
really pitiful thing is that you are unable to recognize the
evidentiary hole that is your theory.
>Those
> who opposed Copernicus and Galileo protested
> about their lack of respect for the genuine
> authorities, such as Scripture. That alone was
> enough to condemn them. Likewise for Darwin.
You and your insipid theory are not comparable to Copernicus, Galileo,
or Darwin. They were men of science who relied on evidence to prove
their theories. You, on the other hand, rely on your theory as
evidence for your theory. One big circle as you spin yourself into
the ground.
> The inability to quote Paracelcus in their
> support was the fatal weakness of those who
> proposed the Germ theory of disease. Those
> who claimed that dinosaurs had been wiped
> out by an extra-terrestrial crash were not paying
> sufficient attention to the detailed fossil record
> . . . . and so on and on.
What detailed record do you have to support your theory?
> What would be the rational response of Strats
> here?
To say that you are not rational, as is recognized even by your fellow
Oxenfordians (just as the Stratfordians consider lackpurity to be
irrational -- you two are more alike than you realize).
> They could claim that government cover-
> ups never occurred.
I doubt they would claim that government cover-ups never occurred --
nor would they claim that Queen Elizabeth's servants would decline to
carry out her order to commit an act if they considered it to be
"illegal" (as you incredibly assert).
>Or that even if there was
> a cover-up, it would not have sought to mess
> with legal records.
Only someone as irrational as you could believe that the conspirators
would use obscure legal records (documents that were not discovered
for hundreds of years) in order to plant bogus references connecting
W.S. of Stratford to the theatre and the acting company. In addition,
these clues make no mention of Oxenforde, so what is the point of the
conspirators in inserting them into trivial legal documents? Finally,
I've asked you this on a number of occasions and hau have always
failed to answer: who was the intended audience for these "clues"
hidden away in obscure court records? What did the conspirators
possibly hope to accomplish?
> Or that a government cover-
> up was unlikely -- assuming that Elizabeth was
> the addressee in the Sonnets and featured
> prominently (with many other courtiers) in the
> plays.
That is an assumption for which there is no proof -- only your
speculation. Even assuming that you are correct, your theory is
irrational when trying to come up with a reason why the secret
couldn't be revealed in 1623 -- or 1632 for that matter.
> But there is no hope of rationality from Strats.
This may qualify as the most ironic statement of this young year.
Your theory is not based on rationality -- it is based on belief and
nothing more. Good luck with that.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Hilariously idiotic statements like this are the reason I treasure
Paul Crowley. I pun on my own given name all the time, Paul--as I bob
along in my inimatable fashion. While I can see that someone named
Farey might not pun all that much on his own name, that would not be
the case for those with innocuous names. One friend of mine, for
instance, is a poet named Ed Conti. My micro-press has published two
of his books, with titles he supplied:
"Eddies" and "The Ed C. Scrolls."
Okay, time for you to ignore this post, or find some way to claim I
misquoted you, am lying or that Conti didn't use puns on his name in
his titles. Don't acknowledge that you
are completely wrong.
> Since both (a) 'spear' = 'penis' and (b) 'penis'
> = 'pen' are common bawdy puns, I thought
> you had accepted that 'spear' could readily
> equal 'pen'. I am sure that the direct pun does
> occur, and I'll try to remember to keep looking
> for it. The underlying concept is commonplace,
> with plenty of parallels, as in 'sword' = 'words'.
Hey, Paul, I thought you were an expert in puns. "Spear" is not a pun
for "penis" or "pen."
--Bob G.
Peter Farey
David Webb wrote:
>
> Christian Lanciai wrote:
> >
> > David Webb wrote:
> > >
> > > Christian Lanciai wrote:
> > >
> > > > You miss the point, just as David does as he gets too
> > > > mentions, taking for granted I never heard them,
> > > > sounds better than the Mute Swan,
> > >
> > > How on earth could you possibly know this if by your
> > > own admission you have never heard them?!
Christian admitted no such thing David. Read it again.
<snip>
> > The Mute Swan (the common swan of
> > England) is simply not called Mute for nothing.
>
> This assertion displays, if possible, even more stunning
> ignorance than your previous pronouncements (about the
> supposed silence of the Mute Swan, the highly aristocratic
> pedigree of Dante, etc.), improbable though that feat might
> seem.
It is you, I fear, who is displaying ignorance in this. The
following appears in the OED, for example: "1785 Pennant Arct.
Zool. II. ...542 note, We change the name of the Tame Swan
into Mute, as...this species emits no sound." Whether or not
those who named it thus had failed to consult their copy of
David Sibley's handbook has nothing to do with it.
> In fact, many bird species' common names are stark
> misnomers. For example, the Common Nighthawk is not a hawk
> and does not remotely resemble one. Nor does it necessarily
> appear at night, being often observed foraging in broad
> daylight. Moreover, the bird's Order and Family are respec-
> tively Caprimulgiformes and Caprimulgidae -- "goatsuckers"
> -- from the ludicrous belief that they suck goat's milk.
> There are many, many species of birds and other animals
> whose common names are complete misnomers, and there are
> many ludicrous folk beliefs about such animals, mostly per-
> petuated by ignorance; the Mute Swan is one such.
Indeed it is, and I speak as one who has only a couple
of hundred yards from his home an artificial lake upon
which some 40 to 50 mute swans permanently reside,
with whom I daily pass the time whilst taking our dogs
for their walk.
But so what? Equally mythical is the idea that the swan
sings just before its death, but this did not prevent
Shakespeare from using that myth on several occasions:
I am the cygnet to this pale faint swan,
Who chants a doleful hymn to his own death,
(KJ 5.7.21-2)
And now this pale swan in her wat'ry nest
Begins the sad dirge of her certain ending.
(RoL 1611-2)
Hark, canst thou hear me? I will play the swan,
And die in music.
(Oth 5.2.254-5)
Why then should we refuse Ben Jonson the right to do like-
wise with the myth you point out above? As we have seen, it
was certainly a belief that clung on long after Jonson's
time.
<snip>
> There is no reason whatever to impute "suspect reasons"
> to Jonson.
Not for you, naturally, but for those who do believe they
have such a reason, the suggestion that Jonson also had the
swan's apparent muteness in mind is far from impossible.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Paul Crowley
news:KQooj.45646$Kt4....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Was the emblem of Pallas Athena a spear?
> [...]
>
> It's true that Athene is often depicted in armour, holding (not shaking) a spear
Her poet claimed that he would shake
her spear.
> and with her helmet raised as a sign of peace. But what is your source for implying that the
> spear is her emblem? As regards classical art, the owl has a better claim, surely, or the
> shield bearing the head of Medusa. Perhaps you know of some Renaissance reference or
> depiction?
I was using 'emblem' in a more general sense
than your quasi-legalistic one. OED Sense 3
rather than Sense 4.
'Emblem' (OED)
3. a. A picture of an object (or the object itself) serving as a symbolical
representation of an abstract quality, an action, state of things, class of persons,
etc.
b. In wider sense: A symbol, typical representation. Sometimes applied to a
person: The 'type', personification (of some virtue or quality).
4. A figured object used with symbolic meaning, as the distinctive badge of a person,
family, nation, etc. Chiefly of heraldic devices, and of the symbolic objects
accompanying the images of saints.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
"Dominic Hughes" <mah...@aol.com> wrote in message news:c6d8f743-8dc7-4857-a581-
aa83d2...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>> I'll be waiting for your evidence for the cover-up,
>>
>> And the only evidence you'd accept would
>> be a public statement by a member of the
>> government.
>
> My point was that you have zero ev idence to support your theory.
And my point was that the evidence that
supports it is of a TOTALLY different nature
from what you would count as 'evidence'.
(As is always the case in paradigm shifts.
You're looking for the equivalent of Biblical
proofs of Helio-centrism or of Evolution.)
Anti-Strat theories obviously dispute the
shallow and superficial Stratfordian readings
of various (ambiguous) statements in legal
documents. They rely much more on the
absence of anything clear or definitive -- and
on the entire nature of the ALL the 'documents'
as well on the whole historical and cultural
background.
> According to your theory, it appears that the absence of evidence of
> the cover-up is evidence that there was a cover-up. Good luck with
> that.
The starting-point of Anti-Strat evidence
(that there was a cover-up) comes from the
absurdity of the Stratfordian theory -- and
their reliance on an illiterate provincial clown
as their Great Bard.
>>>> Most
>>>> of the 'actions' taken in its course were minor
>>>> and trivial, with the most significant being the
>>>> payment of a huge sum to the Stratman in early
>>>> 1597, enabling him to buy New Place.
>>
>>> Who made that payment? Do you have any record of the payment?
>>> Can you provide any support for this assertion?
>>
>> Where did he get all that money? Remember
>> that the theatres had recently been through
>> long periods of closure on account of plague.
>
> You don't know who made a payment (or even if a payment was made). As
> usuals you have no evidence -- all you have is speculation as to how
> W.S.. of Stratford had the money to buy New Place. Have you ever
> heard any other explanation for how he came by that money?
No, I have never seen one -- or not one
that survives two seconds consideration.
Clearly neither have you -- since you are
so coy.
>>>> This
>>>> seems to have marked the beginning of a small
>>>> 'flurry' of trivial 'clues' dropped in a few places
>>>> over the next three or four years. One of these
>>>> would have been the entry in the will of
>>>> Augustine Phillips.
>>
>>> Did someone pay Phillips to put the entry in his will?
>>
>> He was paid directly or indirectly in all
>> manner of ways. He was let off in 1601
>> for putting on Richard 2.
>
> The whole acting company, including William Shakespeare, was "let off
> in 16-1," not just Phillips.
Phillips seems to have 'carried the can'
since he was the only one questioned
on the matter. It seems he was responsible
-- on the theatre side -- for putting it on.
Of course, under the Stratfordian scenario,
the playwright would have been jailed and
been very lucky to get away with his life.
But they always go silent on this matter.
>> and preferably signed affidavits? How else
>> could we ever know that there had been a
>> pretty successful government cover-up?
>
> All of your meaningless bluster illustrates once again that you have
> no evidence for what you absolutely KNOW with such certainty (which
> was my point in the first place). All you have is speculation and an
> absence of evidence.
Anti-Strats possess a capacity to reason
-- unlike Strats. They don't like the blind
subjection to unthinking superstitions.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
news:17fcbbc3-ec0d-4807...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> People do not pun on their
>> own given names.--Paul Crowley
>
> Hilariously idiotic statements like this are the reason I treasure
> Paul Crowley. I pun on my own given name all the time, Paul--as I bob
> along in my inimatable fashion. While I can see that someone named
> Farey might not pun all that much on his own name, that would not be
> the case for those with innocuous names. One friend of mine, for
> instance, is a poet named Ed Conti. My micro-press has published two
> of his books, with titles he supplied:
> "Eddies" and "The Ed C. Scrolls."
Bob, you are such a dope. This is
just the kind of case that provides an
excellent illustration of the general
validity of my rule. When people are
_obliged_ to invent a name that they
would like to reflect aspects of the
their own identity they commonly
pun on their own real names.
It was routine for English aristocrats
from ~1100 to ~1700 to pun on their
names in their mottoes and escutcheons.
Books, and the like, have to be named,
or bear titles. Often that name is semi-
flippant self-referential, ironic or joking
If Peter Farey were to write a book of
(say) comic verse, he might well title it
'Fairy Dust'. Stephen Fry could title one
of his books as 'Frying tonight'. It would
be easy to find thousands of examples.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
Yeah, yeah, Paul--but you SAID: "People do not pun on their own given
names." That was a misstatement, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I
also pointed out that "spear" is not a pun for either "penis" or
"pen." You said it was. Instead of acknowledging that you don't know
what puns are in spite of your boastfulness about knowing vastly more
about them than any American could, you simply disregard my exposure
of your ignorance.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
the Stratfordians posting here. I have spent the las eight days and
nights researching the ornithological literature concerning swans and
paper after paper concluded with near-complete certainty that they are
illiterate. Ergo, when Jonson compared Shakespeare of Stratford to a
swan, he was telling the world that he was an illiterate imposter. I,
for one, admit defeat. I don't now know who wrote the works of
Shakespeare, only that he could not have.
--Bob G.
laraine
wrote:
>
> [...] I speak as one who has only a couple
> of hundred yards from his home an artificial lake upon
> which some 40 to 50 mute swans permanently reside,
> with whom I daily pass the time whilst taking our dogs
> for their walk.
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
But don't swans have a trumpet sound at times?
(Children's book --The Trumpet of the Swan
by E.B. White)
"All of the cygnets chirp at Sam in greeting"
(from wikipedia article of the book)
C.
Tom Reedy
Yes, if only he had compared him to the tic-tac-toe playing chicken,
or the horse that adds and subtracts, then the Stratford man would
have a chance. As it is, I sadly fear you are correct in that a
comparison to an illiterate swan spells the end of Stratfordism.
TR
Tom Reedy
It is amazing how antiStratfordians take comfort and imagine support
from the most far-fetched, strained "suggestions," while blithely
ignoring the vast amount of real, on-the-ground evidence.
TR
laraine
Ah, I see--there are Trumpeter swans, and there
are Mute swans, and other kinds as well...
maybe Peter Farey walks by Mute swans.
From wikipedia (Mute Swan)
The Mute Swan is less vocal than the noisy
Whooper and Bewick's Swans; the most familiar
sound associated with Mute Swan is the whooshing
of the wings in flight once this bird has laboriously
taken off from the water. The phrase swan song refers
to this swan and to the legend that it is utterly silent
until the last moment of its life, and then sings one
achingly beautiful song just before dying; in reality,
the Mute Swan is not completely silent, but has a
kind of guttural warning call it will give when approached.
Unlike Black Swans, Mute Swans are strongly territorial."
... which means that they could be hard to approach, so
it's possible that one might not hear them often at close
range.
C.
Greg Reynolds
> It is amazing how antiStratfordians take comfort and imagine support
> from the most far-fetched, strained "suggestions," while blithely
> ignoring the vast amount of real, on-the-ground evidence.
>
> TR
Oxford was fluent in Latin, which eliminates him
from being Shakespeare, according to Shakespeare's
contemporary/eyewitness/friend/rival/promoter.
It is disgusting, cruel, immoral, slimy, and churlish
to call Jonson a liar.
But Oxfordians have no choice, being a bunch of
Karl Rovish character-assassins.
Imagine waking up every day and thinking of new ways
to defame an author now deceased 392 years.
What a life!
If I had such evil motives and dispicable intents, I don't
think I'd want to broadcast it.
Greg Reynolds
NY 31
NE 29