Progress Report

3 views
Skip to first unread message

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

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 10:13:03 PM1/2/05
to
I sorta finished my Shakespeare Authorship Question book today. I say,
"sorta," because I now have to go through it from page one to the end
to work the probable kinks out of it. Then I have to figure out how to
make it print-ready using Pagemaker. It shouldn't be too hard but I've
never done it before, so who knows how it will go.

It now has fifteen chapters plus an appendix that has the equivalent of
five or six more chapters. I hope to be able to take care of one
chapter a day, but suspect I'll be lucky to get one a week taken care
of.

Its title is back to Shakespeare and the Rigidniks. And, Art, I
noticed that you did get into it, after all. I use you as my authority
of the dire effect of a man's having illiterate parent and children. I
think I may use you as my Oxford as Shakespeare as Cervantes, too, but
I'm not sure.

--Bob G.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 10:24:31 PM1/2/05
to
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

> Its title is back to Shakespeare and the Rigidniks. And, Art, I
> noticed that you did get into it, after all. I use you as my authority
> of the dire effect of a man's having illiterate parent and children.

You might also mention that one of my grandmothers
graduated from College and passed a Calculus course.

> I think I may use you as my Oxford as Shakespeare
> as Cervantes, too, but I'm not sure.

I'd be honored, as well, but I'm not sure.

Art Neuendorffer


bookburn

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 12:07:15 AM1/3/05
to

<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:1104721983....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Posting your book on h.l.a.s. has some advantages, like you can then
claim it all as "intellectual property," as I understand. On the
other hand, it may be claimed that accepting comments by others is
proof of collaboration, in which case you may have to share windfall
profits with the newsgroup. Of course, h.l.a.s. posters would have
the right to insist you not post parts of your book elsewhere without
Art's permission--you have identified his authority above.

I think there may be advantages to shared-creativity collaboration,
since suits against your book for damages or plagarism,
anti-patriotism, etc., might then go to net-court, where you could
defend your book's complex thesis while you represent yourself, a nice
conceit. Your book could turn out to be an autobiography.

Mindfull of censorship, when you put it up on h.l.a.s., you might
provide a dedication in which your source of inspiration is somewhat
ambiguous as to the source of inspiration, dedicatee, and real author.
To muddy the text and attract attention, you could include some
off-key references, mysterious cyphers, and buzz words that would ring
bells on Patriot Act computers .

Suggest you consider allowing your e-book readers to complete
unfinished parts of your book, thus inviting the muse of computer
inter-face to involve the collective unconsciousness of h.l.a.s
posters. bb


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

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 7:11:12 AM1/3/05
to
I meant to say I might use Art as my Oxford as Shakespeare as Cervantes
AUTHORITY, but wrote too fast. Not sure where BB is going, for my book
will probably not be an e.book Plus, my name will be on its title-page
as its author, so I will not in any way be involved with it.

--Bob G.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 11:41:16 AM1/3/05
to
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote

<<Posting your book on h.l.a.s. has some advantages, like you
can then claim it all as "intellectual property," as I understand.
On the other hand, it may be claimed that accepting comments
by others is proof of collaboration, in which case you may
have to share windfall profits with the newsgroup.>>

The ratio of Bob's "windfall profits"
to Bob's "intellectual property"
requires a careful use of L'Hōpital's rule
(as my grandmother could have told us).
------------------------------------------------------------
The fearless Duck Dodgers' "Bob Grumman" wrote:

> The idea that robots can be as good at gathering data
> and repairing equipment as men is completely absurd.
> [Astronauts] can more things to allow for better pictures.
> They can make much faster decisions than
> robots being commanded from millions of miles away.
> They can fix their cameras if they malfunction.
> Most important, they can take pictures of themselves,
> human beings, on another planet.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/mer.a.logo.jpg
http://images.spaceref.com/news/mer.b.logo.jpg

Marvin The Martian & the fearless Duck Dodgers' Daffy Duck
Official 1st Space Launch Squadron patches
for NASA Mars Exploration Rover Missions.

Happy First Anniversary to SPIRIT, Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 11:46:50 AM1/3/05
to
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

> my name will be on its title-page as its author,
> so I will not in any way be involved with it.

Will it be: "Bob Grum-man"

Grum, a. [Cf. Dan. grum furious, Sw. grym, AS. gram, and E. grim,
and grumble.] 1. Morose; seVERE of countenance; sour; surly; glum;
grim. ``Nick looked sour and grum.'' --Arbuthnof.

2. Low; deep in the throat; guttural; rumbling; as,

Art Neuendorffer


David L. Webb

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 5:07:42 PM1/3/05
to
In article <YbWdncw0NKg...@comcast.com>,
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>

(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:

> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote
>
> > Its title is back to Shakespeare and the Rigidniks. And, Art, I
> > noticed that you did get into it, after all. I use you as my authority
> > of the dire effect of a man's having illiterate parent and children.

> You might also mention that one of my grandmothers
> graduated from College and passed a Calculus course.

One would be tempted to identify you as a classic case of regression
toward the mean, Art, were it not that you actually oVERshot and ended
up seVERal VERy nonstandard deviations below the mean.

[...]

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 7:25:34 PM1/3/05
to
> > <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote
> >
> > > Its title is back to Shakespeare and the Rigidniks. And, Art, I
> > > noticed that you did get into it, after all. I use you as my
authority
> > > of the dire effect of a man's having illiterate parent and children.

> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>

> > You might also mention that one of my grandmothers
> > graduated from College and passed a Calculus course.

"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote

> One would be tempted to identify you as a classic case of regression
> toward the mean, Art, were it not that you actually oVERshot and
> ended up seVERal VERy nonstandard deviations below the mean.

What do you mean?
Art


Peter Farey

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 6:19:43 AM1/4/05
to

Bob, we discussed your 'Marlowe' chapter (in the thread
"Critique of Marlowe as Shakespeare") over three years ago.
It was out of date then, and the remarks I made at the time
may well be equally out of date by now. Have you read my
essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" since then? or the
latest version of a shorter essay on the 'riddle' that was
published in the Marlowe Society Newsletter? The latter
(in rich text format, and updated only today) is at
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/riddle.doc

Incidentally, since you are on record as saying that you
do not consider me what you call a 'rigidnik', and given
the title you intend to give your book, I do hope that you
will make this clear - assuming you still plan to discuss
my work at all. What you seem to mean by the word
does sound a tad defamatory to me.


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

Spam Scone

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 7:04:38 AM1/4/05
to

Peter Farey wrote:
>
> Bob, we discussed your 'Marlowe' chapter (in the thread
> "Critique of Marlowe as Shakespeare") over three years ago.
> It was out of date then, and the remarks I made at the time
> may well be equally out of date by now. Have you read my
> essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" since then? or the
> latest version of a shorter essay on the 'riddle' that was
> published in the Marlowe Society Newsletter? The latter
> (in rich text format, and updated only today) is at
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/riddle.doc
>
> Incidentally, since you are on record as saying that you
> do not consider me what you call a 'rigidnik', and given
> the title you intend to give your book, I do hope that you
> will make this clear - assuming you still plan to discuss
> my work at all. What you seem to mean by the word
> does sound a tad defamatory to me.

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/washington_lawyer/november_2001/spectator.cfm
"Rarely does a good defamation case walk in the door. Here are the
criteria. The defamatory statement must be demonstrably false and made
with the intent to injure. The defamatory statement must have caused a
provable loss of income in addition to claims of injury to reputation.
And finally, the defendant must have lots of money to pay a judgment."

How can one demonstrate the falsity of the description "rigidnik"? How
will you prove it was made with the intent to injure? What loss of
income do you suffer from the description? I trust, Peter, that you
were using the word "defamatory" in some non-legal sense and that you
haven't slipped into legal Innesanity.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 4, 2005, 7:56:09 PM1/4/05
to
Spam Scone wrote:
> http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/washington_lawyer/november_2001/spectator.cfm
> ".... The defamatory statement must have caused a
> provable loss of income in addition to claims of injury to reputation. ..."

That one is contrary to my understanding of the matter, and contrary to
everything I have been able to find on the web in the last 15 minutes. I
know this is from a bar-association website, but there's something very
wrong here.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

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

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 10:21:00 AM1/5/05
to
Peter, I'm sure I'll be sufficiently up-to-date. I'm also sure I'll be
accused of not being up-to-date, and of ignoring very important
anti-Stratfordian arguments. As for the Marlowe chapter, I doubt that
I'll change it much, but I'll try to remember to see what your latest
theories are when I get to it. I'll also try to date any views I
discuss in the book--e.g., identify some postion of yours I treat as
being what you held in the fall of 2002, or whatever. I'm pretty sure
I changed a few things in the Marlowe chapter because of the feedback
it got.

I'm not going to worry about who thinks I'm defaming him. If I
describe someone as a rigidnik who is not, let him refute me. If he
wants to take the moron's way out by going to court, that's okay with
me. I have nothing to lose, and the publicity would probably help.

I'm not sure how I'd finally categorize you. You're close to being a
rigidnik--but so am I. Crowley is my HLAS holotype, if that's the
right word, for rigidnikry. Multhopp, Ogburn, Price, Richard Kennedy
are others who are definite rigidniks. I use the word as a person
trying to classify a philosopher would use words like "idealist" or
"realist." Well, more like such a person would use the word "sophist."

I've gotten to Chapter Five, by the way. No major changes yet.
--Bob G.

lyra

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 5:31:44 PM1/5/05
to
bookburn wrote:

Suggest you consider allowing your e-book readers to complete
unfinished parts of your book, thus inviting the muse of computer
inter-face to involve the collective unconsciousness of h.l.a.s
posters. bb

..................................................................................................

it must have been the word Muse,
that inspired me to anagram

computer inter-face...

:)

as

Circe true map of net.

since Circe is associated with both
webs and masks,
she seems appropriate
for the internet!

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

unread,
Jan 7, 2005, 10:01:14 AM1/7/05
to
I've twice tried to post the final draft of one of my chapters but
gotten an error message. I've posted it at the Fellowship but, not, I
don't think, at a forum open to all. I'll repost it there at a public
forum if I can't get it to show here. It may be too long for HLAS?
--Bob G.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 7, 2005, 5:40:20 PM1/7/05
to
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

Too long for HLAS?

(I'd think I'd know if such a problem exists.)

Art Neuendorffer


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

unread,
Jan 7, 2005, 8:08:31 PM1/7/05
to
It's 8,000 words in length, Art. But I'll try to post it again.

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

unread,
Jan 7, 2005, 8:16:14 PM1/7/05
to
Just tried two more times to post my chapter. Two error messages. So
I'll post it in two consecutive posts>

CHAPTER SIX, part one

The Case Against Shakespeare, Part Two


The Looneations

The anti-Stratfordians' main tactic against Shakespeare is to attack
his known biographical record for not containing the data that the
biography of a person considered The World's Greatest Author, and
recognized as such from the age of eight, would have had to have had.
I call this tactic Looneyism after J. Thomas Looney, the man I consider
its greatest exemplar (though Baconians and others accomplished
prodigious feats of idiocy with it long before he). Primary Looneyism
consists of making up one highly subjective list of the qualities The
True Author would have had to have had, then trying to determine if the
Stratford man had any of them. Using this method, the Looneators-as
we shall see-triumphantly show that such things as the man from
Stratford's lack of lengthy formal education, noble blood and record
of wide travel outside England prove he could not possibly have been
The True Author.

A supporting variation (Secondary Looneyism) consists of compiling a
highly subjective summary of how the True Author would have had to
have been treated by his contemporaries, and then showing how unlike
the way the Stratford man was treated by his contemporaries that was.
By this method, the Looneators triumphantly point out such things as no
one's having published an elegy for Shakespeare of Stratford within a
year of his death (so far as we know), or saved letters from him for
posterity.

The Primary Looneations

I've been able to isolate 13 significant primary looneations (i.e.,
results of primary looneyism) from the anti-Stratfordians' writings.
No doubt I'll be scolded for leaving out some of their favorites.
All I can say is that I only have time and room for the ones that seem
the most important, and that I've sincerely tried to list those
here. They fall into four main categories: (1) looneations of working
life; (2) looneations of private life; (3) looneations of class and (4)
looneations of education.

(1) Looneations of Working Life

There are four instances of Shakespeare of Stratford's not acting as
he would have in his working life had he been the poet Shakespeare:

(a) He did not write certain poems: we have no love poems to his wife
from him, according to the anti-Stratfordians, nor any poems to Queen
Elizabeth, even so much as an elegy when she died, "such as," in
the words of Neo-Ogburnian Paul Crowley, "poured from the pens of his
fellow poets."

To this, as to so many of the looneations, I have to say, "So
what?" So what if he didn't write poems to his wife? Assuming he
didn't, and many believe that Sonnet 145, which puns on "hate
away" for "Hathaway" (which was commonly pronounced Hat uh way)
and "and" for "Ann" was indeed written for his wife-not to
mention the more than small possibility that any poems he wrote to Ann
have been lost by now. Or maybe she wasn't big on poetry. Maybe he
was too drained by writing verse calculated to win a patron or
entertain theatre-goers to write many, or any, household poems. Maybe
he fell out of love with her (though his returning to spend his last
years with her suggests otherwise). Maybe he didn't feel he could do
her justice in poetry, or wanted to wait until he was truly inspired.

The great problem for anti-Stratfordians is that they have trouble
understanding that life is variable and complex, and no individual life
follows any set rules however carefully worked out by some theorist,
even one without the ax to grind that they have.

The same kind of reasoning can be used to show why, "So what?" is a
proper response to our not having any poems from Shakespeare to or
about the queen (although she is eulogized in Henry VIII, and one
sonnet may refer to her.)

(b) He did not mention Stratford, or its surroundings or inhabitants,
or his day-to-day life experiences there, in the plays he supposedly
wrote.

To this my retort is again, so what? Shakespeare was writing about
long-ago history, or stories taking place in faraway lands, and he was
writing for a London, not a Stratford-upon-Avon, audience. But the
Induction to the Taming of the Shrew does mention several towns and
real people from the area right around Stratford in Warwickshire: Scene
I, line 18 says, "...I, Christopher Sly, old Sly's son of
Burton-Heath" (Barton-on-the-Heath-for which "Burton-Heath" is
a perfectly acceptable variant-is a village sixteen miles from
Stratford); and in lines 21-22, we have, "Ask Marian Hacket, the fat
ale-wife of Wincot..." (Wilmncote-or "Wincot," in one
16th-century spelling-is a village four miles from Stratford where
Hackets are known to have lived in the 1590's).

(c) He did not capture a patron the way so many writers of his time
did-according to the anti-Stratfordians.

This is a vexed question. In the first place, there is strong evidence
that Shakespeare did win patronage from Southampton. We know for a
fact that he fished for such patronage with the dedication to Venus and
Adonis, which I will give again:

To the Right Honourable Henry Wriosthley, Earl of Southampton, and
Baron of Titchfield. Right Honourable, I know not how I shall offend in
dedicating my unpolished lines to your lordship, not how the world will
censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burthen:
only if your honour seem but pleased, I account myself highly praised,
and vow to take advantage of all idle hours till I have honoured you
with some graver labour. But if the first heir of my invention prove
deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never after
ear so barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest. I
leave it to your honourable survey, and your honour to your heart's
content; which I wish may always answer your own wish, and the
world's hopeful expectation. Your Honour's in all duty, William
Shakespeare.

In his dedication to The Rape of Lucrece a year later, he says:

To the Right Honourable Henry Wriosthley, Earl of Southampton, and
Baron of Titchfield. The love I dedicate to your Lordship is without
end; whereof this pamphlet, without beginning, is but a superfluous
moiety. The warrant I have of your honourable disposition, not the
worth of my untutored lines, makes it assured of acceptance. What I
have done is yours, what I have to do is yours; being part in all I
have, devoted yours. Were my worth greater my duty would show greater:
meantime, as it is, it is bound to your Lordship, to whom I wish long
life, still lengthened with all happiness, Your Lordship's in all
duty, William Shakespeare."

For me, what we learn from the second dedication is that Shakespeare
believed he had 'the warrant' of Southampton's 'honorable
disposition'-he knows Southampton is honorable and therefore will
accept Shakespeare's "pamphlet." One way he could know is that
Southampton accepted his previous poem. We can be fairly sure this was
the case because now Shakespeare is writing a second poem for him,
which he said he would not if the first had not gotten a good
reception. That Southampton accepted the first but did not reward
Shakespeare in money for it is possible but not likely because (1)
again, why would Shakespeare waste a second poem on him had he gotten
nothing for the first (and accompanied that second poem with a
dedication so extremely adoring)? (2) why would Southampton, a patron
of poetry, not have patronized the writer of such a good one as Venus
and Adonis? and (3) Shakespeare has the warrant of Southampton's
honorable disposition, and honorableness more fits rewarding a man for
a good work than being able to appreciate poetry (Does "he is
honorable, therefore he will like my pamphlet" make sense? Compare
that to, "he is honorable, therefore he will accept my
pamphlet-which is what the dedication literally says-as an
application for patronage-as it implicitly says, like just about all
poems' dedications to wealthy poetry patrons.)

Moreover, the second dedication's words and tone strongly suggest a
change in the relationship between poet and dedicatee. Whereas in the
Venus and Adonis dedication Shakespeare spent most of his text
apologizing for his poem, obviously unsure how it would go over with
Southampton, in his second dedication, a year later, he hardly mentions
the poem it precedes but is all wishes for the happiness of
Southampton-from the very start, since it jumps right into the
poet's love for Southampton, without the "Right Honourable" the
other dedication had, which is surely a lessening of distance between
the poet and the aristocrat, however subtle. In any case, we go in one
dedication to the next from a focus on Shakespeare's poem to a focus
on Southampton's person. This, to me, suggests increasing
friendship, which supports my reading that the first poem was taken
well by Southampton.

Certainly, it is possible that Shakespeare may only have been told by
one of Southampton's men that the earl liked the poem without the
poet's meeting the earl, a go-between passing on the earl's
warrant, that is. But Southampton was said to have liked poetry. I
don't know if he knew any poets personally but one would think he
would have, and that one of them would have been so good a poet as
Shakespeare, who had actually dedicated a poem to him that he seems to
have enjoyed.

Nor can it be said that this view is entirely unsupported since there
is the anecdotal evidence from Aubrey that Will got two thousand pounds
from Southampton. There is also the coincidence that it was within two
or three years of the two narrative poems that Shakespeare began to
seem affluent, helping his father get a coat of arms and buying the
second most expensive house in his hometown.

At the same time, there is very little hard evidence that any other
specific writer of the time won patronage for a literary work, though
we know many must have. Diana Price, researching 25 literary figures
of the time, found only one piece of evidence that explicitly indicated
any of them got money from a patron for a literary work. She did find
evidence that 16 of them won patronage, but almost all of it could be
rendered as problematical as Shakespeare's dedications for showing
that by anyone using her variety of anti-Stratfordian ambiguation. The
record Price uses to claim that Spenser had a patron, for instance, is
a dedication of Spenser's in which he only speaks of the "infinite
debt" he owes Sir Walter Raleigh for "singular favours and sundry
good turns." If the "warrant of an honourable disposition" that
makes Shakespeare say Southampton's acceptance of his poem is
"assured" doesn't make Southampton a patron of Shakespeare's,
how can favours and good turns but no specific amount of money,
particularly money for literary work (Raleigh could have given him
gifts of money just because they were friends), be considered an
indication of patronage? Another Pricean piece of evidence for a
writer's having a patron is just a letter by Gabriel Harvey asking
for help in getting an academic position from Burghley.

In the second place, it is foolish to compare Shakespeare's writing
career to others of his time. Why? Because of the direct evidence
previously discussed that Shakespeare the writer was the same man as
Shakespeare the actor. This evidence is also both contemporaneous and
personal, a fact I add for the benefit of those like Diana Price who do
not recognize posthumous evidence and/or the testimony of those who did
not know the person they were testifying about as valid. That
Shakespeare was both actor in and writer for an acting company, a very
successful acting company, in which he was a partner, made his
situation as a writer unique in his time. For one thing, it gave him
greater security than almost all other writers. That meant he did not
need a patron after the early nineties. So even if it could be shown
that neither Southampton nor anyone else became Shakespeare's patron,
it could cause only a fanatic predisposed to do so to doubt he was a
writer.

(d) He did not protest the piracy of his plays

Of course, we don't know which, if any, of Shakespeare's plays were
actually pirated. Even if we assume at least a few were (and I do),
let's turn to Irvin Matus, discussing Sir George Greenwood's view
that Shakespeare, had he been our litigious bumpkin from Stratford,
would have tried to obtain justice had a play of his been
pirated-although Greenwood had conceded earlier in his book that
there was no record of any author's ever having successfully stopped
something he had written from being pirated (but shrugs off because
most of the pertinent official documents were lost; in that case,
though, how can he be sure Shakespeare did not go to court?) But
here's Matus on the stationers' company, which had total control
over the (legal) publication of books: "there is no evidence there
was in Shakespeare's lifetime any concept of author's rights. How
a stationer came by the work he was entering, whether or not his copy
was corrupt, whether or not the author wished it to be published, had
been compensated for it, or could in any way be damaged by its
publication, were not questions asked by the wardens of the company
when licensing a work. What Greenwood found impossible to
believe-"that a publisher might, without let or hindrance, publish
a stolen manuscript if only he had obtained the license of the
Stationers Company for such publication"-turns out to be precisely
the case, as we hear from the poet and pamphleteer George Wither, in
his Schollers Purgatory (1624):

Yea, by the laws and orders of their corporation, they can and do
settle upon the particular members thereof a perpetual interest in such
books as are registered by them at their Hall, in their [the printers
and booksellers] several names: and are secured in taking the full
benefit of those books, better than any author can be by virtue of the
King's grant, notwith-standing their first copies were purloined from
the true owner, or imprinted without his leave.

Matus follows this with several pages of supporting evidence and
commentary thereon, including a quotation from the preface Thomas
Heywood wrote to a play he had published long after it had been
pirated. In it, he declared that he was now presenting the play as it
was meant to be read, not in the mangled form that the pirates had
published it in-indicating the he, like Shakespeare, was powerless to
do anything about the earlier piracy. In any case, it is absurd to
believe that Shakespeare necessarily would have lept to the law against
piracy. Maybe he didn't have time to. More likely, it would have
been up his company, which would have owned his plays.

A question now occurs to me. If, as the anti-Stratfordians contend,
Shakespeare's plays were pirated because The True Author, not wanting
anyone to know he'd written them, couldn't prevent it (through some
behind-the-scenes pressure, or even violence, and it is a matter of
record that Oxford, for one, had street-fighting ruffians in his
employ), why weren't more of "his plays" pirated? Why wasn't
Twelfth Night pirated, for instance? Or the unpublished Comedy of
Errors? Or Macbeth? Surely they would have been popular.

Be that as it may, a portion of Shakespeare's plays were printed, and
some were probably pirated editions (as Heminges and Condell suggest
in one of their two prefaces to The First Folio). Other plays, such as
As You Like It, were merely registered for publication but never
printed. This was a way of keeping others from printing unauthorized
editions of a book. After James I assumed the throne, and the Lord
Chamberlain's Men became the King's Men, few of the Shakespeare
plays were published. Sane scholars assume that this was because the
players now had the clout generally to prevent such publication.
Furthermore, they probably didn't need the money they could have
gotten from having them printed with their permission. Oxfordians
believe, however, that the death of Oxford, a year or so before
Elizabeth died, was the reason the plays stopped being published. But
plays of Shakespeare's not known to have been published kept being
performed, which would have made them available to pirates, so I
don't really see why Oxford's death would have made a difference,
assuming he had written them.

(2) Looneations of Private Life

The previous looneations are concerned with what was absent in
Shakespeare of Stratford's alleged writing career, according to the
anti-Stratfordians; the next three primary looneations have to do with
what was inexplicably missing from his day-to-day life that couldn't
have been missing had he been the World's Greatest Writer, and
recognized as such from the age of eight. Hence, we have no record of:

(e) personal effects of the kind proper to a writer, such as
manuscripts, letters and books.

The absence of manuscripts might be mildly odd if it weren't that
almost no writer of the time left behind any manuscripts. According to
the very biased Diana Price, surveying her group of twenty-five men,
including Shakespeare, we have no manuscript from Jonson but a masque;
we have just a Latin verse written while in Cambridge from Nashe; from
Massinger we have an autograph copy of one play; Gabriel Harvey left
some verses; Daniel left portions of a poem; Peele left one manuscript
of a poem; William Drummond left behind one sonnet; Anthony Mundy
contributed to Sir Thomas More; Middleton left behind one play
manuscript as did Heywood; from Greene, Lodge, Dekker, Lyly, even
Spenser, Drayton, Chapman, Marston, Watson, Marlowe, Beaumont,
Fletcher, Kyd, Webster: no manuscripts of any kind. In short,
considerably less than half of these men, by Price's reckoning, left
behind any kind of literary manuscript, and only one left behind more
than one literary manuscript! And from all the dramatists of the time,
we seem to have only three or four play manuscripts. How, then, can
any sane person think it at all notable that we have none from
Shakespeare?

And many scholars think we do have one from him: a portion of Sir
Thomas More. Charles Boyce, in Shakespeare A to Z, reflects the
scholarly consensus about this work: "Play attributed in part to
Shakespeare. Sir Thomas More presents episodes from the life of Thomas
More, a Catholic martyr who was executed by King Henry VIII for his
refusal to accept the English Reformation. It was probably written
around 1593 or 1600 (scholarly opinions differ) for the Admiral's
Men. The manuscript of Sir Thomas More, which was assembled around
1595 (or 1603), is mostly in the handwriting of Anthony Munday, but
with additions in five different hands, one of which-known as 'Hand
D'-is generally accepted as Shakespeare's. If so, this is the
only surviving sample of the playwright's handwriting aside from six
signatures on legal documents. For Sir Thomas More, he wrote three
pages of script comprising one scene of 147 lines, in which More
subdues a riot with a moving oration.

"That this is Shakespeare's compostion is demonstrated through
several lines of evidence. First, the handwriting is very like that of
the playwright's six known signatures. Further, peculiar
spellings-such as "scilens" for "silence"-occur both in
Hand D's pages and in editions of Shakespeare's plays that are
known to derive from the author's foul papers (manuscripts in his
hand). Perhaps most tellingly, the imagery used in Hand D's text
resembles Shakespeare's, especially in lines that are very similar to
passages in both Coriolanus and Troilus and Cressida. Lastly, the
political ideas expressed in Hand D's scene agree with what we know
of Shakespeare's thinking, for they demonstrate a respect for social
hierarchy combined with sympathy for the common people and stress the
malleability of the commoners through oratory.

"The odd manuscript of Sir Thomas More was the result of government
censorship; apparently, the play was orignally submitted to Edmund
Tilney, the Master of the Revels, who refused to permit its performance
without major revisions. Accordingly, several pages were torn from the
original manuscript and replaced with others."

Again, though, even if Shakespeare had nothing to do with the Hand D
(and no one has found another writer whose handwriting matches it as
well as Shakespeare's--although some feebly argue that it was some
scribe's, a scribe who made a number of unscribelike cross-outs and
revisions in what he wrote), and we have absolutely no manuscripts from
him, why should anyone be shocked? Anyone, that is, who knows, for
instance, how neglected so many of Johann Sebastian Bach's
manuscripts were after his death, despite his having zillions of sons
who, as composers themselves, should have had some interest in
preserving their father's work.

As for letters by the writers of the time, they are less rare than play
manuscripts-still, even Diana Price found that just fourteen of her
sample of 24 writers and Shakespeare left posterity any letters, and
most of them left only one or two. So what, then, if Shakespeare was
one of the eleven who left behind none?
Nor, really, would it have been any big deal had he written no letters
(as opposed to leaving behind some). Some people hate writing letters,
especially some who have to write for a living.

Then there is the matter of his books. His will mentions none, but
Francis Bacon's will, among the wills of more than a few other
writers of the time, mentions none, either. Shakespeare's will does
mention "household goods," which could have included books,
however, and a lost inventory was originally attached to his will which
would probably have mentioned his books, had he had any.

A final missing personal effect ought to be mentioned in this section,
too, although it is quite minor. It is Shakespeare's not leaving
behind any record of the shares in the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres
that Shakespeare the actor was known to have owned. Those shares also
fail to turn up in the records of any of his heirs. If this were the
case with anyone other than Shakespeare, and being considered by anyone
other than a crank, the conclusion would be that he sold these shares
before he died. Just what the anti-Stratfordians make of it, I don't
really know-except that they consider it suspicious.

--Bob Grumman

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

unread,
Jan 7, 2005, 8:18:03 PM1/7/05
to
It will need three posts, I guess. Here's PART TWO:

(f) We have no record of Shakespeare's insuring that his children
could read, or of his horror that his daughter Judith (apparently)
could only sign her name with a mark. Anti-Stratfordians simply
can't believe a Great Writer could allow any of his children to grow
up illiterate--or, for that matter, put up with an illiterate wife, as
his may have been. The main problem with this is the obvious fact that
a person's ability to write poetry and plays is dependent only on his
own literacy, not that of anyone else.

A second problem with it is, of course, is that it takes all kinds,
something beyond the comprehension of anti-Stratfordians. Given that
Shakespeare was a world-class writer, it does not automatically follow
that he thought literacy the most important quality possible. In my
time, the world-class basketball player, Bill Russell, referred to his
profession as "grown-ups playing a child's game in their
underwear." Shakespeare may even have abominated writing, but done
it anyway.

Absurd? Maybe. But not impossible. There are numerous better
possible explanations: (1) his girls were resistant to formal education
(as he probably was); (2) he didn't believe in the education of
females; (3) his wife preferred that her daughters stay in the house
helping her than go to school; (4) his daughters lacked academic
ability; (5) Shakespeare hated school so much that he kept his
daughters from repeating his bad experiences; (6) his father or mother
or wife saw how badly Shakespeare turned out due to formal education
(he became a disreputable actor) and did all they could to prevent the
same kind of thing from happening to his daughters; (7) the preliminary
dame schools where writing was taught would not admit the girls because
of their father's profession; (8) Shakespeare had a weird idea of
proper education, thinking he could do better with his girls than a
school could by simply reading the Bible to them, and he was wrong; (9)
the girls loved school but misbehaved so much at home that Anne kept
them away from school as punishment; (10) the girls feared that if they
learned to read and write, boys would be afraid of them, so they
didn't.

How plausible are any of these excuses? That's immaterial so long as
any of them is possible. Once it is established, as it has been, that
all the direct evidence indicates that Shakespeare and only Shakespeare
wrote the works of Shakespeare, then the only way a
Shakespeare-rejector can overturn the case for Shakespeare is to show
how some lack of his would have made it impossible for him to have
written the plays attributed to him. That's what looneations are all
about. The weakness with them is that to refute them one need not
disprove the existence of any lack, only show that there is at least
one possible way he could have become a writer in spite of it.

Ironically, in this case, and in many others, one can, if not disprove
the lack alleged, but give strong evidence that it is imaginary, for we
have documentary evidence that Shakespeare's daughter that Susannah
could sign her name, so very probably was literate. Particularly, as
she managed to entice a widely-respected doctor, some of whose
case-studies were posthumously published, to marry her, and was said on
her gravestone to be especially wise. Shakespeare's other daughter
signed one document with a mark, but many women (and men) of the time
who could read and write sometimes signed with marks, so this is not
conclusive evidence that she was illiterate.

(g) The item missing from Shakespeare's life that I think
anti-Stratfordians are silliest about is
Properly-Extended-Commitment-to-His-Art. They know this is missing
from his life because he retired from his career and London around
1611--when he was only 47 and at the height of his career!
Furthermore, what in Stratford-upon-Avon cou1d possibly have drawn
such a man back from the splendors of London?! If he was really
Shakespeare the poet, he could never have done that!

First off, I wouldn't say Shakespeare was "at the height of his
career" in 1611; I'd say the height was a few years earlier. As to
why Shakespeare retired (if he entirely did), why not? He may have
been getting tired of the grind of acting and writing, and had enough
money to retire to Stratford, so he did-although he continued to keep
his hand in, collaborating on at least two plays with his replacement
in the King's Men, John Fletcher. Several of Shakespeare's
contemporary playwrights really did retire at the heights of their
careers. John Marston did it in 1608, at the age of 32, when he was
one of the most popular playwrights in England, to become a preacher in
the country. Francis Beaumont also retired at the height of his
popularity, at the age of 29 or 30, in order to marry an heiress. In
other times, Rimbaud stopped writing in his early twenties, Rossini
stopped composing for decades while still young although the leading
composer of opera in Italy at the time, other artists have left their
art for temporarily or permanently (J.D. Salinger, author of The
Catcher in the Rye, is-so far as we know-another instance, and
Joseph Heller, author of Catch Twenty-Two, was dry for many years).
As for retiring to the country, what's odd about that? Particularly

considering the town he retired to might have had a nostalgic value for
him, and was where his wife and many long-time friends lived.

(3) Looneations of Class

Of much more importance to the anti-Stratfordians than the previous two
kinds of looneations are the looneations of class. The rejectors
simply can't marry the Bard's middle-class origins, which they
frequently term "lower-class," with his having become a world-class
writer. They find three principal looneations of class in his
biography:

(h) Shakespeare's coming from the wrong kind of people and the wrong
place, being the son of middle-class illiterate parents born ninety
miles from the big city. Such a person not only could not have written
sophisticated poems and plays, he
couldn't even have made it as an actor because of Warwickshire accent
and dialect!
As though no one can overcome a manner of speech he was born to,
particularly a man who became an actor. Regarding the sophisticated
literary output, surely the
poetry of Keats, to take just one example, shows that it is possible
for a commoner to write elegant poetry. Indeed, almost all of the
English-speaking world's best literature was written by comoners,
many of them not originally from big cities.

(i) Shakespeare's being neither an aristocrat nor an intimate of
aristocrats.

According to J. Thomas Looney, Shakespeare did not have, nor could he
have made, the "exalted social and cultural connections" that the
narrative poems' publication indicated their author had to have had.
But all those poems show is that by his late twenties Shakespeare was
capable of writing two fairly standard, if well-done, long poems, and
getting them published, apparently with the financial help of one very
young nobleman, whom he buttered up in one introduction, and spoke with
friendliness of in a second. All this implies is that somehow he made
the acquaintance of Southampton. This is no big thing. When the mere
actor Richard Burbage died, the Earl of Pembroke was said to have been
too disconsolate for a period to attend any plays. Friendships could
develop then between talented commoners and the nobility. In
Shakespeare's case, all that need have happened would have been for
someone to mention to Southampton that Will wrote well, and
Southampton's asking for a sample.

That we have no evidence indicating that Shakespeare knew an aristocrat
similarly means nothing to me. Perhaps he felt uncomfortable with
aristocrats, and avoided them as much as possible once he was
established. Particularly once Southampton got in trouble. But
that's mere surmise and doesn't prove anything. The bottom line is
that we can't assume anything about Shakespeare's circle of
acquaintances, for there's little evidence as to whom he knew and
didn't know. Nor should there be.

Part of this looneation is Shakespeare's lack of the knowledge of
aristocrats he had to have had to have written the Ouevre. Few if any
reputable scholars believe Shakespeare knew a lot about how aristocrats
acted, as aristocrats. Most of what his plays indicate of their
behavior could have been lifted from Holinshed and other books. But,
most obviously, there was a tradition already in force in the theatre
for how nobles should be depicted, and Shakespeare clearly followed it.
His nobles are no more "real" than any other characters of
playwrights who created stylized plays like his-unless you think
aristocrats spoke in blank verse and customarily made long, often
brilliant speechs with no ums and other pauses much less any errors, to
each other. How, I might add, did actors know how to portray
aristocrats if they were not themselves aristocrats? A final note: the
authority for much of what we know about Elizabethan and Jacobean
aristocrats, perhaps the very best, was a commoner named John
Chamberlain whose letters from 1597 to 1627 have been a treasure trove
as to what was going on at court then. He went to Cambridge but got no
degree. At some point, he pops up with friendships in court circles.
But his main source of information seems to have been St. Paul's
Cathedral where he went almost daily to get the latest news, and fresh
books. Why could Shakespeare not have been similar?

Assuming his plays reflect a great deal of court knowledge, I several
times requested examples of data in the plays the only an aristocrat
could have known about from the anti-Stratfordians I argue with at
HLAS. Only one item was ever produced. A completely silly reference
to an eccentric who was made fun of at court in the eighties named
Monarcho. The anti-Stratfordians' reasons for believing Shakespeare
could not have heard about this fellow unless he'd been an insider at
court during those years are so ridiculous, I will be discussing them
in some detail later on as an example of rigidnikal
Shakespeare-Rejection at its most insane. All I will say about them
here, is that they did not seem very persuasive.

(j) Closely related to the previous looneation is the belief of the
anti-Stratfordians that Shakespeare's being of the middle class would
bar him from having the aristocratic point-of-view manifest in the
plays.

This is the most favorite "argument" of several Oxfordians, which
is why I give it its own section. It's pretty obvious why it is
popular with those who believe an aristocrat had to have written The
Oeuvre: it is so stupidly fuzzy that it is extremely hard to argue
against in few words, and who wants to spend an entire book trying to
refute it? I'll do my best to quickly take care of it, but will not
spend many words on it.

First of all, who knows exactly what an aristocratic point of view is?
Even if it could be stated in such a way as to get just about
everyone's agreement on what it was, who is to say the plays express
it? You can get one authority, and probably many more than one, to
argue for the plays' expressing any Outlook X or not-X that you want.
Some say they were Catholic, some Church of England, some some other
strand of Christianity, one of two even think they read Judaism in
them, and there are more than a few who think the religious view
expressed agnostic.

Ditto their political outlook, though most would agree that they seem
to back the status quo-strong central monarchy, etc. But even if
they did, how do we know that was their authors' point of view,
politically, not that of individual characters, or of a given play? It
is the only view that would have pretty much assured popularity and
minimal interference from the authorities, so why wouldn't a
playwright whose main interest was art, not politics, not have gone
along with it, even for a whole play or series of plays, in spite of
its not being his outlook? What seems most certain to me is that
Shakespeare expresses many different points of view on every sort of
topic; that is a main reason he gotten and remained as popular as he
has.

Where, to make one last point, is it written that aristocrats all have
some unified, agreed-upon point of view, commoners another-and the
middle classes perhaps a third? Where did comoners like Nietzsche,
Hitler, Mencken, even Shaw, and many others come up with their
decidedly elitist contempt for the herd? And how was it that Lafayette
fought on the side of commoners for America? How, finally, can we
possibly know what Shakespeare's private views on politics, religion
or anything else really were? Sure, it would appear, from his life in
Stratford, that he was no radical, but how do we know that he was not
really a wild radical but practical enough to behave sensibly and go
along with a world he knew he couldn't change?

(4) Looneations of Education

Of all the looneations, the anti-Stratfordians seem most upset by the
following three looneations of education:

--Bob Grumman

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

unread,
Jan 7, 2005, 8:19:06 PM1/7/05
to
Chapter Six, Part Three

Looneations of formal education

(k) The first has to do with the paucity of his formal education. The
anti-Stratfordians are close to unanimous in believing that no writer
of Shakespeare's brilliance could have reached the level he did
without a university education. And it is a fact that we have no
record of his attending a grammar school, a University or the Inns of
Court, or even of his having been a page or the like in the household
of a great family where he could have received an education, as Michael
Drayton did.
On the other hand, it is near-definite that Shakespeare got a good
grammar school education, for there was a grammar school in his
hometown a block or so from his home that he could have attended for
free, and there is little reason to believe he didn't.
Unfortunately, all its attendance records have been lost (as have all
those of almost every other such school of the times). That his
Stratford friends were all literate, that he could sign his name, and
became an actor, and such evidence as his monument's speaking of
"all he hath writt" puts his literacy beyond reasonable doubt, and
makes it hard to claim he had no formal education, at all-though
that, too, is possible.

But, argue the anti-Stratfordians, a mere grammar school education
would not have been enough. Notwithstanding the example of Ben Jonson
showing how erudite and learned a collegeless playwright could be back
then, and the examples of less erudite but certainly effective
playwrights of the time as Kyd, Dekker, Drayton, Chapman, Mundy,
Chettle, Webster, Heywood, Fletcher . . . In recent times, Tom
Stoppard became a world-class playwright without more than high school
as did Bernard Shaw before him. Other world-class writers in English
who had little or no formal education include Thomas Hardy, Charles
Dickens, Mark Twain, H.L. Menken, Hemingway, Blake, Burns, Dylan Thomas
. . . Leonardo had no college, either, nor did Edison, Faraday,
Herbert Spencer . . .

What about the necessary literary apprenticeship, the
anti-Stratfordians continue. Even a genius has to acquire knowledge
and skills, yet there is no evidence of any literary
"apprenticeship"-no early, immature works such as we find for
example with Mozart. Even the early plays, supposedly written in the
late 1580s, show a maturity which one would not expect to find in
someone only in his middle twenties.

Also, there is no way he would have had time to learn play-making, they
say. Simply looking at the practicalities make it very unlikely that
Shakespeare was the author. If, as the scholars purport, he left
Stratford around 1587 at the age of 22 to go to London to become an
actor, he would have had very little time for anything else while he
was making his living as an actor and learning the trade of acting; yet
at the same time he would have had to educate himself in the various
subjects referred to in the "Shakespeare" plays as well as keeping
an eye on his grain business in Stratford, a four-day journey away.

All this is absurd. Early Shakespearean plays like Titus Andronicus
and the ones in the Henry VI cycle show no particular maturity. And he
would have had plenty of time as an actor to learn a great deal about
plays. If he could read, and it is to be assumed that he could, he
would have had books to learn from, as well. The matter is subjective,
of course, but I think many would agree that no training could have
better fit Shakespeare to become a playwright than the on-the-job
training he got in his early years as an actor. (The documentary
evidence that he was an actor by 1592 strongly suggests he must have
been one for a few years or more by then. We can't be absolutely sure
when he became an actor, for we have almost no records on him from his
twenties. Jonson's case is similar, so this is nothing to wonder
about; why should a beginner in any field leave behind many records of
his apprenticeship, anyway--especially one of Shakespeare's time?)

Shakespeare would certainly have had time to learn to write while being
an actor, acting not being a full-time profession. Obviously, once he
showed any talent for it-by writing a scene, or even a few lines of
dialogue, it follows that his company would have found time for him to
write. In any case, any biography of a world-class writer will tell
you that writers somehow always find enough time to write. The baloney
about his need to run his grain business, by the way, is without
foundation. His household in Stratford stored grain like the majority
of households in the town, and there's no reason his father
couldn't have looked after it for him, or a brother, or his wife. It
would have been the equivalent of a four-times-a-year garage sale. As
for his need to educate himself, since he would have needed no more
knowledge to have written the plays than the kind anyone not a
rigidnik, as we shall later see, absorbs automatically through simple
life experience, talking to others, and haphazard reading, he would not
have needed extra time to do this. Nor is there any reason to believe
he would have made many trips back to Stratford while acting. Even if
he had, he could have used the travel time to think out his plots,
etc., as many writers have been known to do.

(l) Shakespeare's lack of specialized knowledge, already touched on,
is another of the looneations that the anti-Stratfordians never tire of
bringing up. According to them, the Stratford man didn't have the
knowledge of the law and other fields that he would have had to have
had to have written the Ouevre. They can even get various experts to
back them up. They have two problems, though. First of all, for every
expert asserting Shakespeare's expertise in field X, our side can
find more than one to assert his lack of expertise in that field.
Second, the experts arguing for his specialized knowledge tend to
refute each other. As the inimitable nut, John Michell tells us,
various "experts" have written books affirming that Shakespeare was
world-class in (1) the law, (2) sports of all kinds, especially of the
nobility, (3) Philosophy, classical and esoteric, (4) statecraft and
statesmanship, (5) Biblical scholarship, (6) English and European
History, (7) Classical literature and languages, (8) French, Italian
and Spanish languages, (9) Italian geography, (10) France and the court
of Navarre, (11) Danish terms and customs, (12) Horticulture and garden
design, (13) Wales and the Welsh, (14) Music and musical terms, (15)
painting and sculpture, (16) Mathematics (!), (17) Astronomy and
Astrology, (18) Natural history, (19) fishing, (20) Medicine and
physiology, (21) the military, (22) Heraldry, (23) Exploration and the
New World, (24) Navigation and seamanship, (25) printing, (26)
Folklore, (27) the theatre profession, (28) Cambridge University
hjargon, (29) Freemasonry, and (30) cryptography and spying. Simple
question in response: how could he have become an authority in all of
these subjects? The very fact that one goof is sure that he is an
expert in, say, medicine (on the basis of a passage listing a bunch of
diseases in Troilus and Cressida that he could have copied from a book
or gotten from his son-in-law) while another is just as sure that he
was a brilliant lawyer (based on his use of legal terms several authors
have shown playwrights of the time to have been widley familiar with)
tends strongly to suggest all were untrustworthy, each out to make his
hero a member of his own specialty.

I haven't space or time to say much on this topic except to point out
that anti-Stratfordians have a good deal of trouble citing passages in
Shakespeare's plays that indicate knowledge someone of
Shakespeare's background could not have picked up. They also have
trouble understanding how creative writers absorb knowledge, and can
artfully make small knowledge to seem great knowledge by picking where
in a story to insert it (and by being able to use it out of
context-for instance, if I want a character in a play of mine to seem
an expert in geology, I need not master geology, only read up on one
small aspect of it and arrange a scene in which my character deals with
that aspect of it; the probability will be that I don't even have to
read up on geology but will have picked up a few facts that I can find
places in my play to insert to make it seem like my character is a
genuine geologist).

I frankly do not remember anything in Shakespeare that could be used to
further a student's knowledge of any particular subject, except the
history he got from others. I wonder, too, that he says just about
nothing about the nitty-grit of writing. Does that mean the author of
the Oeuvre was not a writer?

Here's a quick example of specialized knowledge Shakespeare is seen
to have by bardolators which is actually no big deal. I believe all
other examples of his specialized knowledge can be dismissed similarly.

It is said that he had a great knowledge of falconry-more than a
commoner could have. But, Gerald Lascelles, an expert on the history
of falconry, has said that the technical terms of falconry were
household words in Shakespeare's day. The timeline at the PBS
website (http://www.pbs.org/falconer/man) verifies this indirectly:
"1600 Falconry reaches its highest level in England and is governed
by strict rules- a king could fly a gyrfalcon; an earl would fly a
peregrine; a yeoman could have a goshawk; the sparrowhawk was reserved
for priests; and servants would have a kestrel," which indicates that
anyone could have been a falconer
and picked up as much information about the sport as Shakespeare's
plays evince.

(m) The last of the primary looneations has to do with Shakespeare's
geographical knowledge. The Stratford man could not have been the
Author because it is widely accepted that whoever wrote the plays had a
detailed and first-hand knowledge of Italy whereas we have no record
that the Stratford man ever went abroad. Of course, "no record"
does not mean "no travel." And again, we have plenty of experts
sure he traveled against others sure he didn't. Aside from that,
anti-Stratfordians are, as usual, hard put to cite evidence to support
their claim, in this case of Shakespeare's, wide travel. Much of
what he says about Italy, for instance, is flat out wrong, and the rest
things he could have picked up from his reading or heard from others.
It cannot be stated too often, that the theatre was, and still is, the
most collaborative of all the arts. Shakespeare was always surrounded
by actors and related professionals quite capable of giving him tips on
other lands, languages, professions.

With that, I am finished with the Primary Looneations the
anti-Stratfordians have used (until chapters where I will use them in
discussing the properties of anti-Strafordian mentalities), but there
are still the Secondary Looneations, some of them as important to the
anti-Stratfordians as any Primary Looneation. It will take, I fear, a
whole nother chapter to do justice to them.

--Bob Grumman

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 1:50:39 PM1/8/05
to
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bob: (l) Shakespeare's lack of specialized knowledge, already touched on, is


another of the looneations that the anti-Stratfordians never tire of
bringing up. According to them, the Stratford man didn't have the knowledge
of the law and other fields that he would have had to have had to have
written the Ouevre. They can even get various experts to back them up. They
have two problems, though. First of all, for every expert asserting
Shakespeare's expertise in field X, our side can find more than one to
assert his lack of expertise in that field. Second, the experts arguing for
his specialized knowledge tend to refute each other. As the inimitable nut,
John Michell tells us, various "experts" have written books affirming that
Shakespeare was world-class in

.

.


Simple question in response: how could he have become an authority in all of
these subjects?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


<<Born in Edmonds, Washington, Ken Jennings grew up in Seoul, South Korea
(1981-1992) and Singapore (1992-1996), where his father worked for an
international law firm and then as Asia Pacific Division Counsel of Oracle
Corporation. He watched Jeopardy! on Armed Forces Television while growing
up. Jennings graduated in Computer Science and English at Brigham Young
University where he played on the school's quizbowl team for three years. He
completed an International Baccalaureate diploma at Seoul Foreign School,
and achieved "honors" at both the University of Washington and BYU. A member
of The [Mormon] Church, Jennings served a two year LDS mission in Madrid,
Spain from 1993 to 1995. Now residing in Murray, Utah (a suburb of Salt Lake
City), Jennings identifies himself as an avid comic book and movie buff with
a web site listing his top 2000 favorite movies. He also writes questions
and edits the literature and mythology categories for NAQT, a quizbowl
organization. He is a software engineer for CHG, a healthcare-placement
firm.>>

--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 1:52:33 PM1/8/05
to
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bob: (i) Shakespeare's being neither an aristocrat nor an intimate of


aristocrats. According to J. Thomas Looney, Shakespeare did not have,
nor could he have made, the 'exalted social and cultural connections'
that the narrative poems' publication indicated their author had to have
had.
.
But all those poems show is that by his late twenties Shakespeare was
capable of writing two fairly standard, if well-done, long poems, and
getting them published, apparently with the financial help of one very
young nobleman, whom he buttered up in one introduction, and spoke with
friendliness of in a second. All this implies is that somehow he made
the acquaintance of Southampton. This is no big thing. When the mere
actor Richard Burbage died, the Earl of Pembroke was said to have
been too disconsolate for a period to attend any plays. Friendships
could develop then between talented commoners and the nobility.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bur-bage = Boar Badge (i.e., Boar Crest).

RICHARD BURBAGE & his father James were both from Stratford;
where are their birthplaces, marriage certificates, etc.?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"JAMES BURBAGE." 1911 Online Encyclopedia.
http://97.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BU/BURBAGE_JAMES.htm

BURBAGE, JAMES (d. 1597), English actor, is said to have been born at
Stratford-on-Avon. He was a member of the earl of Leicesters players,
before he is first mentioned (1574) as being at the head of the company.
In 1576, having secured the lease of land at Shoreditch, Burbage erected
there the successful house which was known for twenty years as The
Theatre. He seems also to have been concerned in the erection of a
theatre in the same locality, the Curtain; later, he started the
Blackfriars theatre, built in 1596 near the old Dominican friary.

His son RICHARD BURBAGE (c. 1567-1619), more celebrated than his father,
was the Garrick of the Elizabethan stage, and acted all the great
dramatic parts in Shakespeares plays. He, too, is said to have been born
at Stratford-on-Avon. He had established a reputation by the time he was
twenty, and in the next dozen years [became] the Roscius of his day.
At the time of his fathers death, a lawsuit was in progress against the
lessor from whom James Burbage held the land on which The Theatre stood.
This suit was continued by Richard and his brother Cuthbert, and in 1569
they pulled down the Shoreditch house and used the materials to erect
the Globe theatre. They occupied it as a summer playhouse, retaining
the Blackfriars, which was roofed in, for winter performances. In this
venture Richard Burbage had Shakespeare and others as his partners,
and it was in one or the other of these houses that he gained his
greatest triumphs. He was specially famous for his Richard III.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuthbert Bur-bage(/Boar Crest).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Halliwell or Regius MS
http://tracingboard.com/Halliwell_MS.htm

<<The existence of this MS. has been known for a long time, but its
contents were mistaken until Mr. Halliwell-Phillips drew attention
to it in a paper "On the introduction of Freemasonry into England,".>>

But MASONS should never one another call,
Within the CRAFT amongst them all,
Neither subject nor servant, my dear brother,
Though he be not so perfect as is another;
Each shall call other fellows by *CUTHE*, (friendship)
Because they come of ladies' *BIRTH*.

--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 1:53:42 PM1/8/05
to
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bob: (3) Looneations of Class

(h) Shakespeare's coming from the wrong kind of people and the wrong
place, being the son of middle-class illiterate parents born ninety
miles from the big city. Such a person not only could not have written
sophisticated poems and plays, he couldn't even have made it as
an actor because of Warwickshire accent and dialect!

.


As though no one can overcome a manner of speech he was born to,
particularly a man who became an actor. Regarding the sophisticated
literary output, surely the poetry of Keats, to take just one example,
shows that it is possible for a commoner to write elegant poetry.
Indeed, almost all of the English-speaking world's best literature
was written by comoners, many of them not originally from big cities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Birds Do It. Bees Do It. Even Educated Fleas Do It.
Let's do it, let's write sophisticated courtier plays.

--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 1:55:37 PM1/8/05
to
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob: (2) Looneations of Private Life (f) We have no record of Shakespeare's

insuring that his children could
read, or of his horror that his daughter Judith (apparently) could only
sign her name with a mark. Anti-Stratfordians simply can't believe a
Great Writer could allow any of his children to grow up illiterate--or,
for that matter, put up with an illiterate wife, as his may have been.
.

The main problem with this is the obvious fact that a person's ability
to write poetry and plays is dependent only on his own literacy,
not that of anyone else.
.
A second problem with it is, of course, is that it takes all kinds,
something beyond the comprehension of anti-Stratfordians. Given that
Shakespeare was a world-class writer, it does not automatically follow
that he thought literacy the most important quality possible. In my
time, the world-class basketball player, Bill Russell, referred to his
profession as 'grown-ups playing a child's game in their underwear.'
.

Shakespeare may even have abominated writing, but done it anyway.
.
Absurd? Maybe. But not impossible. There are numerous better possible
explanations: (1) his girls were resistant to formal education (as he
probably was); (2) he didn't believe in the education of females; (3)
his wife preferred that her daughters stay in the house helping her than
go to school; (4) his daughters lacked academic ability; (5) Shakespeare
hated school so much that he kept his daughters from repeating his bad
experiences; (6) his father or mother or wife saw how badly Shakespeare
turned out due to formal education (he became a disreputable actor) and
did all they could to prevent the same kind of thing from happening to
his daughters; (7) the preliminary dame schools where writing was taught
would not admit the girls because of their father's profession; (8)
Shakespeare had a weird idea of proper education, thinking he could do
better with his girls than a school could by simply reading the Bible
to them, and he was wrong; (9) the girls loved school but misbehaved so
much at home that Anne kept them away from school as punishment; (10)
the girls feared that if they learned to read and write, boys would
be afraid of them, so they didn't.
.
How plausible are any of these excuses? That's immaterial so long as any
of them is possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

How many anti-Stratfordians think that Bob wrote the above
while sitting in his underwear?

--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 1:56:08 PM1/8/05
to

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bob: (2) Looneations of Private Life (e) personal effects of the kind proper
to a writer, such as manuscripts, letters and books..


.
The absence of manuscripts might be mildly odd if it weren't that almost
no writer of the time left behind any manuscripts. According to the very
biased Diana Price, surveying her group of twenty-five men, including
Shakespeare, we have no manuscript from Jonson but a masque; we have
just a Latin verse written while in Cambridge from Nashe; from Massinger
we have an autograph copy of one play; Gabriel Harvey left some verses;
Daniel left portions of a poem; Peele left one manuscript of a poem;
William Drummond left behind one sonnet; Anthony Mundy contributed to
Sir Thomas More; Middleton left behind one play manuscript as did
Heywood; from Greene, Lodge, Dekker, Lyly, even Spenser, Drayton,
Chapman, Marston, Watson, Marlowe, Beaumont, Fletcher, Kyd, Webster: no
manuscripts of any kind. In short, considerably less than half of these
men, by Price's reckoning, left behind any kind of literary manuscript,
and only one left behind more than one literary manuscript! And from all
the dramatists of the time, we seem to have only three or four play
manuscripts.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


I sorta agree with you on this one, Bob. After all tens of thousands of
Elizabethan Londoners saw performances every week at the Globe, Rose,
Theatre, Curtain, Swan, or Fortune and not one letter (in English)
survives talking about attending a public performance.

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/playhouses.html

<<The Theatre was built in 1576 in Shoreditch. The Curtain was built just
south of the Theatre in 1577, and was similar in construction. The Rose
was built by Philip Henslowe in 1587, south of the River Thames on
Bankside. It was an open-air amphitheatre, with three tiers of galleries
but smaller than either the Swan or the Globe. Henslowe increased the
size of the Rose in 1592 and may, at the same time, have had the stage
covered. Its audience capacity was about 2,000. The Rose was demolished
by 1606. The Swan was built in 1595 on Bankside, and was intended as a
competitor to Henslowe's Rose. It was an open-air amphitheatre, with
three tiers of galleries and a covered stage. It was the largest of
London's playhouses.

The Globe was built in 1599, from the reused timbers of the Theatre. It
was located on Bankside, near to the Rose. It was an open-air
amphitheatre, with three tiers of galleries, a covered stage and a
thatched roof. It could accommodate an audience of 3,000. The Fortune
was built by Philip Henslowe in 1600, to rival the Globe. It was an
open-air amphitheatre, with three tiers of galleries, and a covered stage.
>>

--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 4:08:55 PM1/8/05
to
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bob: (d) He did not protest the piracy of his plays.
.

Of course, we don't know which, if any, of Shakespeare's plays were
actually pirated. Even if we assume at least a few were (and I do),
let's turn to Irvin Matus, discussing Sir George Greenwood's view that
Shakespeare, had he been our litigious bumpkin from Stratford, would
have tried to obtain justice had a play of his been pirated? although

Greenwood had conceded earlier in his book that there was no record of
any author's ever having successfully stopped something he had written
from being pirated (but shrugs off because most of the pertinent
official documents were lost; in that case, though, how can he be sure
Shakespeare did not go to court?) But here's Matus on the stationers?

company, which had total control over the (legal) publication of books:
'there is no evidence there was in Shakespeare's lifetime any concept
of author's rights. How a stationer came by the work he was entering,
whether or not his copy was corrupt, whether or not the author wished
it to be published, had been compensated for it, or could in any way
be damaged by its publication, were not questions asked by
the wardens of the company when licensing a work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Isn't it strange that our litigious Stratford bumpkin expended
so much effort writing plays for which he earned so little money
(especially when he had already proved that he could earn a lot
of money selling poetry & speculating on land).

It just doesn't seem Wright, somehow!
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wright/about.html

<<The Wrights' work had inspired other plane developers--particularly
the French. The brothers had applied for a patent in 1902, but were
turned down. Fearful of being copied, they stubbornly refused to fly
their machine--even when they were finally awarded a patent--until they
received a contract for the purchase of a flying machine. Finally, in
1908, the Wrights' claim reached President Theodore Roosevelt, and the
brothers signed a deal for $25,000 to build and fly one of their
machines for the US Army Signal Corps. A French deal soon followed.
Once the Wrights had successfully marketed their invention, they
returned to Ohio to manufacture airplanes. Orville managed the
business while Wilbur took numerous patent infringers to court.>>
--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 4:10:42 PM1/8/05
to
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bob: (1) Looneations of Working Life

(b) He did not mention Stratford, or its surroundings or inhabitants,
or his day-to-day life experiences there, in the plays he supposedly wrote.
.
To this my retort is again, so what? Shakespeare was writing about long-ago
history, or stories taking place in faraway lands, and he was writing for a
London, not a Stratford-upon-Avon, audience. But the Induction to the Taming
of the Shrew does mention several towns and real people from the area right
around Stratford in Warwickshire: Scene I, line 18 says, "...I, Christopher
Sly, old Sly's son of Burton-Heath" (Barton-on-the-Heath-for which
"Burton-Heath" is a perfectly acceptable variant-is a village sixteen miles
from Stratford);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[S] LYE <=> [Latin] laVERE to wash
------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to _Taming of the ShREW_:

Let one attend [SLY] with a silVER BASIN
Full of rose-water and bestrew'd with flowers,
Another bear the EWER, the third a diaper,
And say 'Will't please your lordship cool your hands?'

[Enter aloft SLY, with Attendants; some with apparel,
others with basin and EWER and appurtenances; and Lord]
-----------------------------------------------------
EWER = ['e]vier = E. Vere - courtier in charge
of royal handwashing ceremony (Miller).
--------------------
Art Neuendorffer


Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 4:17:43 PM1/8/05
to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob:<< (1) Looneations of Working Life
(a) He did not write certain poems: we have no love poems to his wife from him, according to the anti-Stratfordians, nor any poems to Queen Elizabeth, even so much as an elegy when she died, “such as,” in the words of Neo-Ogburnian Paul Crowley, “poured from the pens of his fellow poets.”
.
To this, as to so many of the looneations, I have to say, “So what?” So what if he didn’t write poems to his wife? Assuming he didn’t, and many believe that Sonnet 145, which puns on “hate away” for “Hathaway” (which was commonly pronounced Hat uh way) and “and” for “Ann” was indeed written for his wife—not to mention the more than small possibility that any poems he wrote to Ann have been lost by now. >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Sonnet 145
 
'I HATE' from HATE away SHE threw,
And sav'd my life, saying 'not you'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps Shaksper wrote Oxford poems as well
(Oxford was married to an Anne born in 1556):
 
"That I do WASTE with OTHERS' LOVE,
that HATH myself in HATE," - E.O.
 
http://www3.telus.net/oxford/oxfordspoems.html#toppoems
-------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 9
 
Looke what an vnthrift in the world doth spend
Shifts but his place,for still the world inioyes it
But beauties WASTE HATH in the world an end,
And kept vnvsde the vser so destroyes it:
No LOUE toward OTHERS in that bosome sits
That on himselfe such murdrous shame commits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<There are no puns in the poems you quote, Art.>>-Bob G.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Puns? You mean like:

Why write I still all one, EVER the same,
And keep invention in a NOTed weed,
That EVERy word doth almost tell my name,
 
That kind of thing?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob: <<No, Art, I mean words that sound the same or nearly the same as other words and are therefore used intentionally to mean two things at once for humorous and/or poetic effect. "Write" in the above is not a pun--although it sounds the same as "rite," "right" and "wright." >>
-------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know "Write" is not a pun here?
--------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Chess One

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 4:58:17 PM1/8/05
to

he collaborated

not that i think that he was at all expert in these things - the normal
claims are for law and latin, yet he produced no more than clever latin
tags, nothing extensive, and what there was, wooden compared to the supple
quality of the surrounding text; and what law you could learn in 30 minutes
from any old scrivening thief-catcher

my grammar school covered about 18 of those 30 topics, and I would have
known them at age 17. but that was when i started to read a few hundred
books a year of my own choice, certainly my library now has a dozen tomes on
each topic

if our Author was able to write to these subjects beyond any ordinary
expectancy of a young person's knowledge, let us assume that he had
sufficient entries in them to consult and make cogent reports from real
experts

what is so strange about this?

the only thing defeated is the 'lone genius' idea - of someone with enough
money to buy expensive texts and rutters, and avoid work while studying them

it is a romantic notion to credit *anyone* with the nous to sufficiently
report all these subjects, and no fling at billy-boy or anyone else in
particular

yet what we have here is a species of argument which circumvents actual
investigation of the nature of the Author's possible intellectual lights and
personality, in favour of pre-supposing that such an investigation is not
necessary at all, since the great-list is made into an impossible feat of
learning, and those who collectively propose such a paragon are thereby
unrealistic by any measure

the particular difficulty for anyone choosing to establish or entrench their
understanding by these means, is found out by asking what precedent there is
in english literature for such a protean mind to have developed otherwise?
there is no answer to this question except to aver what is knowable,
collaboration

the list also fails to mention two principle gifts which the author
possessed and which are not easily transferred or borrowed - the [highly
unusual] psychological insight into human behavior [then, as now!], both of
individuals and of people in groups [of roles], and also of his command of
words

and this later element is the command of a poet for prose, and is not at all
straightforward. i mean this in a poetic sense, the language revolves, it
surrounds its subject to evoke as much as exclaim the matter of it

this was the singular gift of our bard beyond question, and this is nothing
that can be taught nor learned nor can its quality be incremented by any
quantity of contribution by other writers

phil innes

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

unread,
Jan 8, 2005, 10:12:19 PM1/8/05
to

My answer, of course, is that he did not become an authority in all of
these things--or, really, in any of them. As you seem to go on to
suggest.

Exactly.

> the particular difficulty for anyone choosing to establish or
entrench their
> understanding by these means, is found out by asking what precedent
there is
> in english literature for such a protean mind to have developed
otherwise?
> there is no answer to this question except to aver what is knowable,
> collaboration

I here or in another part of my book suggest that Shakespeare
informally collaborated with his fellow actors. But I'm arguing
against those who contend Shakespeare had expert knowledge of all the
fields indicated, not that he couldn't appear to have such knowledge to
the ignorant through normal authorial tricks and by having a good mind
and curiosity and a little knowledge of everything such as would be
picked up by any intelligent creative person.

> the list also fails to mention two principle gifts which the author
> possessed and which are not easily transferred or borrowed - the
[highly
> unusual] psychological insight into human behavior [then, as now!],
both of
> individuals and of people in groups [of roles], and also of his
command of
> words

I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who doesn't
know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc. His command of
words was due, in my view, to his innate verbal gifts. In any case,
it's not something that one can learn in any school.

> and this later element is the command of a poet for prose, and is not
at all
> straightforward. i mean this in a poetic sense, the language
revolves, it
> surrounds its subject to evoke as much as exclaim the matter of it
>
> this was the singular gift of our bard beyond question, and this is
nothing
> that can be taught nor learned nor can its quality be incremented by
any
> quantity of contribution by other writers

I'm not sure about all that, but it isn't the concern of my book, which
is my concern at the moment.

--Bob G.

Art Neuendorffer

unread,
Jan 9, 2005, 1:02:54 PM1/9/05
to


> I here or in another part of my book suggest that
> Shakespeare informally collaborated with his fellow actors.
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Oh, goody! And we even know who his fellow actors were!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes.
  (a) Richard Burbadge
  (b) J[O]hn Hemmings
  (c) Augustine Phillips
  (d) William Ke[M]pt
  (e) Thomas Poope
  (f) George Bryan
  (g) Henry Condell
  (h)  [W]illiam Slye
  (i) Richard Cowly
  (j) John Lowine
  (k) Samu[e]ll Crosse
  (l) Alexander Cooke
  (m) Samuel Gilburne
  (n) [R] obert Armin
  (o) William Ostler
  (p) Nathan Field
  (q) Jo[h]n Underwood
  (r) Nicholas Tooley
  (s) William Eccle[s]tone
  (t) Joseph Taylor
  (u) Robert Benfield
  (v) Robert [G]oughe
  (w) Richard Robinson
  (x) John Shancke
  (y) John R[i]ce
-------------------------------------------------
  So...match up Shakespeare's fellow actors
        with their knowledge expertise:
---------------------------------------------------
(28) Cambridge University jargon,

(29) Freemasonry, and
(30) cryptography and spying.
-----------------------------------------------------------
   The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes.

_________            333 Letters [= 9 x 37 (plays)]

____--          WilliamShakespeareRichardBurbadgeJ [O] hn
_____----       HemmingsAugustinePhillipsWilliamKe [M] pt

-               ThomasPoopeGeorgeBryanHenryCondell [W] il
___---          liamSlyeRichardCowlyJohnLowineSamu [e] ll
___---          CrosseAlexanderCookeSamuelGilburne [R] ob
________        ertArminWilliamOstlerNathanFieldJo [h] nU
______-----     nderwoodNicholasTooleyWilliamEccle [s] to

___------------ neJosephTaylorRobertBenfieldRobert [G] ou
-----------     gheRichardRobinsonJohnShanckeJohnR [i] ce
_________________________________________________________

   probability of "shReW" in 9 x 37 array ~ 1 / 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Chess One

unread,
Jan 9, 2005, 8:09:31 PM1/9/05
to
>> > Simple question in response: how could he have become an authority
> in all
>> > of
>> > these subjects?
>>
>> he collaborated
>
> My answer, of course, is that he did not become an authority in all of
> these things--or, really, in any of them. As you seem to go on to
> suggest.

I did not. Bob. I suggested he was not an expert particularly... see the
very next line

>> not that i think that he was at all expert in these things

there it is right away. My sense lies elsewhere ;)

> - the
> normal
>> claims are for law and latin, yet he produced no more than clever
> latin
>> tags, nothing extensive, and what there was, wooden compared to the
> supple

<ye snippage>

>> yet what we have here is a species of argument which circumvents
> actual
>> investigation of the nature of the Author's possible intellectual
> lights and
>> personality, in favour of pre-supposing that such an investigation is
> not
>> necessary at all, since the great-list is made into an impossible
> feat of
>> learning, and those who collectively propose such a paragon are
> thereby
>> unrealistic by any measure
>
> Exactly.

Yes, objectively and as impartially as can be said, yes.

>> the particular difficulty for anyone choosing to establish or
> entrench their
>> understanding by these means, is found out by asking what precedent
> there is
>> in english literature for such a protean mind to have developed
> otherwise?
>> there is no answer to this question except to aver what is knowable,
>> collaboration
>
> I here or in another part of my book suggest that Shakespeare
> informally collaborated with his fellow actors. But I'm arguing
> against those who contend Shakespeare had expert knowledge of all the
> fields indicated, not that he couldn't appear to have such knowledge to
> the ignorant through normal authorial tricks and by having a good mind
> and curiosity and a little knowledge of everything such as would be
> picked up by any intelligent creative person.

I follow. Rowse indicated much the same.

>> the list also fails to mention two principle gifts which the author
>> possessed and which are not easily transferred or borrowed - the
> [highly
>> unusual] psychological insight into human behavior [then, as now!],
> both of
>> individuals and of people in groups [of roles], and also of his
> command of
>> words
>
> I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who doesn't
> know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc.

No etc, Bob, can you coin on it convincingly for a thousand lines?

I am glad to find a difference with you here since it opens a subject of
real interest to me.

And in making this difference I do not as much challenge your ability to
address any instance of what people for 400 years have found compelling -
nor to address it from any sociological or any perspective drawn from
anthropology, or even 'social psychology' - but as a poet yourself. How...

...are you aware of your own insight in the process by which you develop
your words?

Need it be particularly conscious, to feel profoundly right? To take the
risks - The risks of it all are immense!

And to claim it at this level, it is not sufficient to state that jealosy is
a disruptive force to the psyche and to society, nor to declaim how it
deploys itself in details, in thousands of lines of detailed prose which we
sensibly acknoweldge are winning and true not from an intellectual basis,
but from our feeling sensibility - it 'rings true'.

This is what I meant. One's creative imagination and feeling nature meets
that of the author, or it fails at the task and is non-plussed, confused,
and as likely to then treat the text as subject to a species of cute
intellectual interogation, rather than compelling humanitarian association
with what lives in all of us, and can be joined.

Cordially, Phil

Peter Farey

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 2:36:38 AM1/10/05
to
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter, I'm sure I'll be sufficiently up-to-date. I'm
> also sure I'll be accused of not being up-to-date, and
> of ignoring very important anti-Stratfordian arguments.
> As for the Marlowe chapter, I doubt that I'll change it
> much, but I'll try to remember to see what your latest
> theories are when I get to it. I'll also try to date
> any views I discuss in the book--e.g., identify some
> postion of yours I treat as being what you held in the
> fall of 2002, or whatever. I'm pretty sure I changed
> a few things in the Marlowe chapter because of the
> feedback it got.

Would you like to post it again? I'll be happy to comment.
Two years is quite a long time in this business.

> I'm not going to worry about who thinks I'm defaming him.
> If I describe someone as a rigidnik who is not, let him
> refute me. If he wants to take the moron's way out by
> going to court, that's okay with me. I have nothing to
> lose, and the publicity would probably help.

I'm English. Although we don't even have a First Amendment,
an immediate assumption that the only response to defamation
is to seek legal remedy is something that is, thank God, as
yet relatively unfamiliar to people on our side of the pond.
The word to 'defame' has a perfectly ordinary meaning, and
is something which those of us with a reasonably easy-going
disposition try to avoid doing to others, whether they might
actually win a legal action against us or not. You might
mention this to Neil as well?

> I'm not sure how I'd finally categorize you. You're close
> to being a rigidnik--but so am I.

The major problem I have with the book as you have revealed
it to us, is that you seem to have no clear idea what it is
to be *about*. If it is about your psychological theory,
then tell us all about that, and illustrate it as far as you can
with examples taken from all of the contributors you have
experienced here, no matter which authorship theory they
happen to buy into. If, on the other hand, it is about the
wrong-headed thinking of anti-Stratfordians, as you see it,
then show (to a reasonably significant level) how they
differ in their personality type from those with whom you
agree. Otherwise I suggest that you just stick to the
arguments for or against the various candidates, and stop
trying to jazz them up with neologisms of which you alone
seem to know the True Definition.

> Crowley is my HLAS holotype, if that's the right word,
> for rigidnikry. Multhopp, Ogburn, Price, Richard Kennedy
> are others who are definite rigidniks. I use the word as
> a person trying to classify a philosopher would use words
> like "idealist" or "realist." Well, more like such a
> person would use the word "sophist."

The point is that whereas the words "idealist" and "realist"
are in fact value-free (although those of the opposite type
might not think so), "sophist" really is not, any more than
your "rigidnik" is. From your point of view it is clearly
*wrong* to be a rigidnik. And this assumed 'wrongness' is a
quality which I have never found so obviously present in any
other theory of personality type.

> I've gotten to Chapter Five, by the way. No major changes
> yet.

No, I guess not.

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

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 11:28:32 AM1/12/05
to

> > My answer, of course, is that he did not become an authority in all
of
> > these things--or, really, in any of them. As you seem to go on to
> > suggest.
>
> I did not. Bob. I suggested he was not an expert particularly... see
the
> very next line

Right, but you elsewhere seemed to me to imply the opposite, but if you
say you didn't mean to, I'll accept that, as I'm not up to trying to
show why I thought something you said did such and such.

> > I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who
doesn't
> > know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc.
>
> No etc, Bob, can you coin on it convincingly for a thousand lines?

Who knows. But that would be due to his verbal gift, not his knowledge
of psychology.


> I am glad to find a difference with you here since it opens a subject
of
> real interest to me.
>
> And in making this difference I do not as much challenge your ability
to
> address any instance of what people for 400 years have found
compelling -
> nor to address it from any sociological or any perspective drawn from

> anthropology, or even 'social psychology' - but as a poet yourself.
How...
>
> ...are you aware of your own insight in the process by which you
develop
> your words?

After the fact, I often analyze what I did, sometimes with insane
thoroughness. I also write about what I was up to. So, in that sence,
I'm a very conscious writer (except while in the act of writing), if
that's what you're asking about.

> Need it be particularly conscious, to feel profoundly right? To take
the
> risks - The risks of it all are immense!

I want my important work to feel right to me. If it doesn't, I don't
care how cleverly I may be able to explain its value, I will not like
it, and will rework it till it feels right. Or toss it. On the other
hand, I also have a problem with texts of mine that feel right but
which won't yield to my "intellectual interrogation." The feel may be
delusion. Not that I believe I need explain in detail all my words,
but at least find some plausible fraction of coherence for them. For
instance, in one of my poems I multiply Diana by the formula for the
effect of gravity on the Earth and get moon. The fraction of coherence
is that the goddess of the moon times the Physical Law of Gravity
yields our moon. Crazy/sensible. I hope.

> And to claim it at this level, it is not sufficient to state that
jealosy is
> a disruptive force to the psyche and to society, nor to declaim how
it
> deploys itself in details, in thousands of lines of detailed prose
which we
> sensibly acknoweldge are winning and true not from an intellectual
basis,
> but from our feeling sensibility - it 'rings true'.

> This is what I meant. One's creative imagination and feeling nature
meets
> that of the author, or it fails at the task and is non-plussed,
confused,
> and as likely to then treat the text as subject to a species of cute
> intellectual interogation, rather than compelling humanitarian
association
> with what lives in all of us, and can be joined.
> Cordially, Phil

Sounds right, Phil.

--Bob

Chess One

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 12:54:07 PM1/12/05
to
>> > I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who
> doesn't
>> > know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc.
>>
>> No etc, Bob, can you coin on it convincingly for a thousand lines?
>
> Who knows. But that would be due to his verbal gift, not his knowledge
> of psychology.

An interesting point. What do people think about this?

------------

> How...
>>
>> ...are you aware of your own insight in the process by which you
> develop
>> your words?
>
> After the fact, I often analyze what I did, sometimes with insane
> thoroughness. I also write about what I was up to. So, in that sence,
> I'm a very conscious writer (except while in the act of writing), if
> that's what you're asking about.

Yes, that's exactly it - rather the first part, before the fact. There is a
corollary to other creative arts - in chess for example, top players will
tell you in great detail about how they analyse material to decide how to
play - but they will also admit a distinction, that this is not the means by
which they choose /what/ to play. Arriving at a consensus on this /what/ is
surprisingly difficult.

Put another way, of some 15,000 possibilities available to you over the next
half dozen moves, /what/ do you analyse? Obviously some selection process is
deployed, based on insights into dynamic patterns in the game, which when
identified as being interesting can then be switched to the left-brain and
analysed and so properly sequenced - but the basis of the original insight
after which all follows is avowed by all to be the fons et origo, even if it
cannot be much appreciated, verbalised and so communicated.

>> Need it be particularly conscious, to feel profoundly right? To take
> the
>> risks - The risks of it all are immense!
>
> I want my important work to feel right to me. If it doesn't, I don't
> care how cleverly I may be able to explain its value, I will not like
> it, and will rework it till it feels right. Or toss it. On the other
> hand, I also have a problem with texts of mine that feel right but
> which won't yield to my "intellectual interrogation." The feel may be
> delusion. Not that I believe I need explain in detail all my words,
> but at least find some plausible fraction of coherence for them. For
> instance, in one of my poems I multiply Diana by the formula for the
> effect of gravity on the Earth and get moon. The fraction of coherence
> is that the goddess of the moon times the Physical Law of Gravity
> yields our moon. Crazy/sensible. I hope.

I wonder if you saw a remarkably good program [I watched a DVD] on Sam
Shepard preparing a film about his father. The cast included Nick Nolte and
Sean Penn among others. It is the best thing I ever watched on the
development of a stage production. You watch a scene being played out and it
is quite interesting, then Sam walks on and says something isn't really
working [or one of the actor's volunteers this] and then they try to
identify what rings true to them in character [leaving aside any ideas of
drama for the moment], and so finding their way through this complexity into
something new, which /does/ seem better! And even though you watched the
entire process it seems better termed alchemy than science or any known art.


--------

>> This is what I meant. One's creative imagination and feeling nature
> meets
>> that of the author, or it fails at the task and is non-plussed,
> confused,
>> and as likely to then treat the text as subject to a species of cute
>> intellectual interogation, rather than compelling humanitarian
> association
>> with what lives in all of us, and can be joined.
>> Cordially, Phil
>
> Sounds right, Phil.

Best think I ever read in John Fowles was about this interface between
author and reader. Fowles said he deliberately maintained a lack of focus -
he deliberately allowed for the reader to insert his own imagination drawn
from the readers own experience. This was the central tenet of humanism for
his writing. He contrasted this act of reading with watching a movie, where
he says this deliberate space is occupied by the director's imagination, and
even though that imagination may be formidable, it creates just one view,
and does not engage the reader/viewer in the same way.

O for writers and for poets!

For hete her clothes down sche dede
Almest to her gerdyl stede,
Than lay sche uncovert:
Sche was as whyt as lylye yn May,
Or snow that sneweth yn wynterys day,
He seygh never non so pert.

For who else, Bob,
Built the stubborn structure of language
And rose against a Silent Melancholy
And a dumb despair?

Cordially, Phil

> --Bob
>


bookburn

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 3:09:39 PM1/12/05
to

"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3vdFd.7811$gb.1346@trndny03...

| >> > I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who
| > doesn't
| >> > know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc.
| >>
| >> No etc, Bob, can you coin on it convincingly for a thousand
lines?
| >
| > Who knows. But that would be due to his verbal gift, not his
knowledge
| > of psychology.
|
| An interesting point. What do people think about this?

When he has Othello speaks of "jealousy" as the green eyed monster
that mocks the meat it feeds on, we see one level of Shakespeare's
verbal interest in psychology; when we look at his study of the man
and Iago's antagonism, his analysis is compelling, IMO. In general, I
think Shakespeare is credited with endowing his central characters
with psychological depth in a modern way, as is done through stream of
consciousness, interior dialogue, soliloquy, etc.. Shows us the
conflicted individual with warts, not reduced to just the type as
drama tends to do? bookburn

Peter Groves

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 3:21:32 PM1/12/05
to
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3vdFd.7811$gb.1346@trndny03...
> >> > I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who
> > doesn't
> >> > know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc.
> >>
> >> No etc, Bob, can you coin on it convincingly for a thousand lines?
> >
> > Who knows. But that would be due to his verbal gift, not his knowledge
> > of psychology.
>
> An interesting point. What do people think about this?
>

I would say (not, perhaps, very controversially) that Shakespeare shows a
degree of intuitive psychological insight that goes well beyond "verbal
gift" (i.e. -- in this context -- the art of bullshitting or creating the
illusion of expertise) and which owes relatively little to contemporary
explicit theoretical "knowledge of psychology" such as humours theory (which
is why on the whole we're all the better for his *not* having gone to
university).

Peter G.


Chess One

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 3:25:00 PM1/12/05
to
O - a good post.

"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10ub141...@corp.supernews.com...


>
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3vdFd.7811$gb.1346@trndny03...
> | >> > I don't consider him the master psychologist others do. Who
> | > doesn't
> | >> > know that jealousy, for intance, can mess you up? Etc.
> | >>
> | >> No etc, Bob, can you coin on it convincingly for a thousand
> lines?
> | >
> | > Who knows. But that would be due to his verbal gift, not his
> knowledge
> | > of psychology.
> |
> | An interesting point. What do people think about this?
>
> When he has Othello speaks of "jealousy" as the green eyed monster
> that mocks the meat it feeds on, we see one level of Shakespeare's
> verbal interest in psychology; when we look at his study of the man
> and Iago's antagonism, his analysis is compelling, IMO. In general, I
> think Shakespeare is credited with endowing his central characters
> with psychological depth in a modern way, as is done through stream of
> consciousness, interior dialogue, soliloquy, etc.. Shows us the
> conflicted individual with warts, not reduced to just the type as
> drama tends to do? bookburn


It is perhaps legend that such character treatment lay dormant for 300
years, until picked up, resurrected somehow, by George Eliot [maybe a nod a
little earlier to Walter Scott] and then by Dickens, and better by Lawrence,
even to our current epoch by Byatt.

Phil


Chess One

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 3:32:02 PM1/12/05
to

"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:gFfFd.116238$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I admit, Peter, I vie with you, and not with Bob.

It is not psychological 'knowledge' is it, as if this were something
obtainable from the outside, by study; but by psychological perception, for
which no degree of training will provide, this, - THIS - level of insight,
of completely compelling [dare I say 'campel'] interrogation of what moves
us most profoundly, and for 400 years, even to today, more on every page
than entire tomes within any 'discipline'.

Cordially, Phil innes


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

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 7:52:11 PM1/12/05
to
I think Shakespeare had a standard sensitive person's intuitive
understanding of how people think and behave, but that it was his
verbal gift that made him a great dramatist. To clarify my position.

I feel most of us, in fact, understand pretty well how human beings
think and behave (as is biologically necessary, I should think); I just
can't see where Shakespeare goes beyond us in psychological insight.
He or his sources are clever about plotting in such a way as to reveal
his insights, which we are moved by because we immediately recognize
their validity (because they're our insights, too). He's not always on
the mark. Or so my impression is; I can't remember where he isn't, but
do remember finding him wrong in spots--usually to make the plot work.
--Bob G.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 7:59:11 PM1/12/05
to
Peter Groves wrote:
> I would say (not, perhaps, very controversially) that Shakespeare shows a
> degree of intuitive psychological insight that goes well beyond "verbal
> gift" (i.e. -- in this context -- the art of bullshitting or creating the
> illusion of expertise) and which owes relatively little to contemporary
> explicit theoretical "knowledge of psychology" such as humours theory (which
> is why on the whole we're all the better for his *not* having gone to
> university).

Is psychological insight the same as psychological theory? I would argue
that it is not; all the great English pioneers were uneducated --
Shakespeare, Richardson, Austen....

And I would go further, and say that all of them are most distinguished
not by their psychology, but by their successful psychological
presentation. Hamlet defies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to "pluck out
the heart of [his] mystery", but Lewis wrote, "I would not cross the
room to meet Hamlet. It would never be necessary. He is always where I am."

--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"

bookburn

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 8:45:35 PM1/12/05
to

"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wIfFd.10725$eb.8291@trndny01...

The difference is that novels are great for complex character
development, but drama has limitations--and advantages; e.g.,
everyone complains Hamlet is too long but will read a novel for a
couple of days. bb
|


Chess One

unread,
Jan 13, 2005, 7:24:47 AM1/13/05
to

"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SSjFd.1256$k82...@fe12.lga...

> Peter Groves wrote:
>> I would say (not, perhaps, very controversially) that Shakespeare shows a
>> degree of intuitive psychological insight that goes well beyond "verbal
>> gift" (i.e. -- in this context -- the art of bullshitting or creating the
>> illusion of expertise) and which owes relatively little to contemporary
>> explicit theoretical "knowledge of psychology" such as humours theory
>> (which
>> is why on the whole we're all the better for his *not* having gone to
>> university).
>
> Is psychological insight the same as psychological theory? I would argue
> that it is not; all the great English pioneers were uneducated --
> Shakespeare, Richardson, Austen....

Do you know the pre-Freud English researcher into psychology, a writer on
sex, Havelock Ellis - his biographer was John Stuart Collis. Ellis lived
near St. Ives in Cornwall. He was able to successfully engage this question
of psychological insight before it became so ossified [or overly formalised
qua school-of-Freud]

> And I would go further, and say that all of them are most distinguished
> not by their psychology, but by their successful psychological
> presentation. Hamlet defies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to "pluck out the
> heart of [his] mystery", but Lewis wrote, "I would not cross the room to
> meet Hamlet. It would never be necessary. He is always where I am."

Interesting. I am much enjoying all replies to this thread.

I would like to add one point, that The Author seemed to find
'psychological' themes which stimulated a level of response in people which
they had not previously identified - ie, that it was not something floating
on the surface of their conscious minds, but an unformatted awareness of
what lurks beneath the surface.

In fact the word 'psychological' does not seem quite adequate to describe
this process, and perhaps a term invoking a 'mythic' awareness is a
necessary or superior term?

Of Jung's /non-clinical/ work [the majority of his work] I find an
appreciation of this mythology sense, & especially since Jung was an
anglophile and liked Dickens particularly, as well as The Works of The
Author.

Cordially, Phil

Mark Cipra

unread,
Jan 13, 2005, 7:54:57 AM1/13/05
to
It's probably worth observing that the reason the more psychologically
thoughtful of us have these insights is partly because Shakespeare shaped
our civilization through *his* insights.

For my part, as one of the less psychologically thoughtful (just ask my
ex-girlfriends), when I see a good production of Shakespeare, or read a
great novel, in addition to experiencing familiar insights, I frequently
experience a moment of recognition when a character acts in a way I would
*not* have predicted. I recognize the psychological truth of the moment as
something that seems always to have been true about people, but realize
later that it was not an insight I'd had before.

It's also true that Shakespeare, on the page, is full of "false"
psychological insight -who in God's name would murder his wife because she
lost her handkerchief? These moments often misfire onstage (I've yet to see
a wholly believable ending to All's Well, and the final scene in Twelfth
Night is frequently unsatisfactory), which is partly due to the fact that
societal norms have changed, I guess.

But they frequently work. We can credit some of this to the force of the
language, I think. But I also think this is because there is a level of
insight which is more "mythological" if I may misuse the term. "No, from
what we have seen of Othello to this point, he would not behave that way,
but this still reveals a deep kernal of insecurity (translated as jealousy)
in all of us."


<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:1105577531.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Paul Crowley

unread,
Jan 13, 2005, 8:25:22 AM1/13/05
to
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:gFfFd.116238$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> I would say (not, perhaps, very controversially) that Shakespeare


> shows a degree of intuitive psychological insight that goes well
> beyond "verbal gift" (i.e. -- in this context -- the art of bullshitting
> or creating the illusion of expertise) and which owes relatively
> little to contemporary explicit theoretical "knowledge of
> psychology"such as humours theory

There cannot be the slightest doubt that
he was fully aware of all such theories.
He just didn't think much of them.

> (which is why on the whole
> we're all the better for his *not* having gone to university).

Nonsense. It's those who have not gone
to university who are most liable to think
that there IS something in current 'explicit
theoretical "knowledge of psychology" '.
They have no good grounds for believing
that it is other than soundly based. They
do not have the mental equipment to reject
it. They are not aware of shallowness of
those who originated it and of those who
now peddle it.

It's the same _sort_ of thing as the neo-
Aristotelianism that swept (away?) the
rest of the theatrical world at the time.
Shakespeare knew exactly what it was,
but he consciously rejected it for the
worthless rubbish that it was. People like
Ben Jonson (whether with or without a
university degree) had , in reality, little
choice except to go along with it. They
lacked the education and the mental
equipment to question it. They had lost
their bearings and could do nothing except
allow themselves to be borne along in the
huge tide of mediocrity -- under the vague
impression that the vast herd of which
they were part had at least some of its
feet on the ground.

IF someone of the stature (and of the
independence of mind) of Jonson could
not resist such a tide, what hope would
there have been for a provincial of the
Stratman's class? How could such an
uneducated person have resisted the
message of Sidney's 'Defence of Poesie'
or of the works of Gabriel Harvey?

Shakespeare had a source of knowledge
and awareness that was far above and
well beyond that of the universities of
his day. It is quite obvious what it was.


Paul.

Mark Cipra

unread,
Jan 13, 2005, 8:35:54 AM1/13/05
to
I see that my reply arrived on the server about a half hour after yours,
which tells you how slowly I write. I find it *deeply* disturbing to find
us in agreement :) even to the extent of using similar terms. We must have
unconsciously picked them up from the same places.

"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:jMtFd.4283$4b.3153@trndny08...

Chess One

unread,
Jan 13, 2005, 9:12:35 AM1/13/05
to

"Mark Cipra" <ci...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:10ucua0...@corp.supernews.com...

>I see that my reply arrived on the server about a half hour after yours,
> which tells you how slowly I write. I find it *deeply* disturbing to find
> us in agreement :) even to the extent of using similar terms. We must
> have
> unconsciously picked them up from the same places.

:)

Ted Hughes?

Do you know the particular mythos he choose to trace through some 20 of The
Works?

I am unsure if I can make a proper synopsis of a 400 page work here on
usenet, but could indicate key bits of it if you are interested, from
"Shakespeare and The Goddess..."

Phil

Tom Reedy

unread,
Jan 13, 2005, 2:24:55 PM1/13/05
to

"Mark Cipra" <ci...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:10ucrt7...@corp.supernews.com...

> It's probably worth observing that the reason the more psychologically
> thoughtful of us have these insights is partly because Shakespeare shaped
> our civilization through *his* insights.
>
> For my part, as one of the less psychologically thoughtful (just ask my
> ex-girlfriends), when I see a good production of Shakespeare, or read a
> great novel, in addition to experiencing familiar insights, I frequently
> experience a moment of recognition when a character acts in a way I would
> *not* have predicted. I recognize the psychological truth of the moment
as
> something that seems always to have been true about people, but realize
> later that it was not an insight I'd had before.
>
> It's also true that Shakespeare, on the page, is full of "false"
> psychological insight -who in God's name would murder his wife because she
> lost her handkerchief? These moments often misfire onstage (I've yet to
see
> a wholly believable ending to All's Well, and the final scene in Twelfth
> Night is frequently unsatisfactory), which is partly due to the fact that
> societal norms have changed, I guess.
>
> But they frequently work. We can credit some of this to the force of the
> language, I think. But I also think this is because there is a level of
> insight which is more "mythological" if I may misuse the term.

I agree with you, Mark. Shakespeare is way beyond the "standard sensitive
person's intuitive understanding of how people think and behave." I don't
think there's anything standard about it at all. The degree of insight he
has, along with his verbal ability and dramatic sense, is literally
breathtaking sometimes.

TR

Mark Cipra

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 6:32:46 AM1/14/05
to
Never read Hughes (on this topic), but I'll look up "Goddess". Important to
know who's infiltrating my subconscious.

By all means, if you want to post a summary, do so. But not if it's too
much trouble ... I dig it up.

"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:nlvFd.1$cx2.0@trndny03...

Chess One

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 6:52:59 AM1/14/05
to
The Preface notes a progression from All's Well... to The Tempest, and cites
original stimulation on the subject in London and Paris by Peter Brook, and
an outline as then developed in correspondence with Donya Feuer.

Hughes add particular thanks in the development of his thesis [which I will
allow you to discover, the title BTW covers some 500 pages, not 400 as I
previously mis-wrote] to the Revd. Moelwyn Merchant, and Keith Sagar
[devil's advocate!], and to Ann Pasternak Slater and her husband Craig Raine
[ed. at Faber]. To Richard Proudfoot, Roy Davids, and to

"The Greeks, a certain scholar has told me, considered that myths are
the
activities of the Daimons, and that the Daimons shape our characters
and our lives. I have often had the fancy that there is some one myth
for
every man, which, if we but knew it, would make us understand all he
did and thought."
/W. B. Yeats,
'At Stratford-on-Avon: Ideas of Good and Evil'

One of these men is Genius to the other;
And so of these: which is the natural man,
And which the spirit?
/Comedy of Erros, v. i. 334-6

That nature, which contemns its origin,
Cannot be border'd certain in itself;
[He] that [him]self will sliver and disbranch
From [his] material sap, perforce must wither
And come to deadly use.
/King Lear, IV. ii 32-6

Cordially, Phil Innes

"Mark Cipra" <ci...@apk.net> wrote in message

news:10ufbf5...@corp.supernews.com...

Peter Groves

unread,
Jan 14, 2005, 7:02:07 AM1/14/05
to
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:voOFd.644$rs2.392@trndny07...

> The Preface notes a progression from All's Well... to The Tempest, and
cites
> original stimulation on the subject in London and Paris by Peter Brook,
and
> an outline as then developed in correspondence with Donya Feuer.
>
> Hughes add particular thanks in the development of his thesis [which I
will
> allow you to discover, the title BTW covers some 500 pages, not 400 as I
> previously mis-wrote] to the Revd. Moelwyn Merchant,

Professor the Revd. Moelwyn Merchant, author of <Shakespeare and the
Artist>, my old Head of Department from Exeter University (now gone to that
great Senate Committee in the sky), who retired in the mid 70s to a rural
parish in Wales. Let me just say that his presence on this list does not
greatly surprise me.

Peter G..

Chess One

unread,
Jan 16, 2005, 6:54:36 AM1/16/05
to

"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3xOFd.118245$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> Professor the Revd. Moelwyn Merchant, author of <Shakespeare and the
> Artist>, my old Head of Department from Exeter University (now gone to
> that
> great Senate Committee in the sky), who retired in the mid 70s to a rural
> parish in Wales. Let me just say that his presence on this list does not
> greatly surprise me.
>
> Peter G..

Good Grief! You write in to volunteer your slighting opinion about your own
senior colleague, who cannot now reply; and to also, by association, slight
other proponents of Hughes' material, not excepting Peter Brook!

I suppose this is /a/ way of establishing one's understanding of a subject -
the conscious exclusion of reading widely in it, even to the extent of
passing up the opportunity to read the magnum opus of the poet laureate - a
fulsome sort of fellow.

I have no idea if Dr. Merchant was off his rocker, or simply misplaced in a
university of incurious souls. I do have an idea of another Exeter fellow,
Dr. Knight, who, like you, would not be surprised at what could be
appreciated about literary genius in a university.

Did you read Birthday Letters? One of them escaped early, and wound up in a
Hughes anthology - he noted an academic vehemence attending the work of
Plath, and 'powdered glass' correspondence.

Phil Innes

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

unread,
Jan 17, 2005, 9:20:55 AM1/17/05
to
I think my attitude toward Shakespeare's knowledge of people is based
on my belief (sure, maybe it's a Crowleyan belief) that I (and many
others) know as much about them as he but that I have failed as a
playwright because, in my plays, I don't care as much about people as
he and (maybe for that reason) am not as able as him to capture them in
words. I think Shakespeare was a highly skilled craftsman as a
playwright, and both knowledgeable and intelligent about a great many
fields, but a genius in nothing (some "nothing") but the use of
words--albeit a Major Genius in that. Well, perhaps he was a genius in
honest ordinariness, too--that is, the span and realism of his
knowledge of the world, while not superior in any specific area,
was--taken as a whole--beyond that of just about anyone else.

--Bob G.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages